« NRCC Launches Ad Campaign Targeting "Moderate" Dems | Main | The quality of mercy »

Presidential News Conference at 11:00 a.m. EDT

Topics expected to be addressed include Iraq and the immigration bill. The cable news channels are covering live.

Update: The networks are covering live, too. I guess this was a pretty smart time spot to choose. Anyone tuning in to see The View, following yesterday's fireworks, will see President Bush. Ha.

11:18 -- Bush says talk that there is no war on terror is naive. He talks bluntly about what the threat is, even using the word "caliphate." He should do this much more often.

11:30 -- Bush responds to David Gregory question about whether or not he is credible on terror threat since he cited two year old intelligence by saying he wanted to be sure intel was credible and that if he was interested in politicizing it he would have cited that intel prior to the 2006 election. He says some don't want to believe we are still facing the threat of terrorism at home and that is a comfortable position, but it is not the truth. Points out that we were viciously attacked before we were in Iraq and they have continued to attack. He tells Gregory that "they are a threat to your children, David, and whoever is in that Oval Office better understand it and take measures necessary to protect the American people."

I am going to have to go offline now, but will link to a transcript when one is available.

Update: Here's the transcript

Comments (23)

My nomination for the four ... (Below threshold)

My nomination for the four most important words are: "Like you would like". He was talking about the internal Department of Justice investigation and he said that 'if there were wrongdoing, it would be taken care of like you would like'. I'll bet that sent a shiver through Schumer.

Points out that we were ... (Below threshold)

Points out that we were viciously attacked before we were in Iraq and they have continued to attack.

No duh. The problem is that now we've got millions of Islamic fanatics who want to kill all of us rather than just the thousands we had before Iraq. The threat is now much greater than it otherwise would have been.

Yes, Larkin, because buryin... (Below threshold)

Yes, Larkin, because burying or heads in the sand after previous attacks worked out so well to turn muslim sentiment in our favor. Idiot.

Yes, brainy435 - like attac... (Below threshold)

Yes, brainy435 - like attacking Iraq where there was NO terrorist threat and ignoring the actual leadership of Al Qaeda, which is still going free - is NOT burying our head in the sand.

And since that has gone so well for us, by increasing anti-US sentiment to unheard-of levels, increasing worldwide terrorism, putting us in a two-front war, and running our military into the ground is such a wise, wise plan.

Yeah, jim, we've been ignor... (Below threshold)

Yeah, jim, we've been ignoring the hell out of people like Zarquai.. discounting the multiple warheads we dropped on him of course.

Now, where did we find him again?

And yeah, we've increased anti-Americanism al right. That's exactly why France and Germany canned their anti-american leaders and replaced them with pro-US leaders. Maybe you should stop your democratic brainwashing through the MSM.

As far as this retarded drivel "increasing worldwide terrorism" are you championing a strategy that "reduces" terrorism to a Sept 11 level?

The 9/11 attacks were an "i... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorrry:

The 9/11 attacks were an "intelligence" failure that lead to a mostly successful attack on the U.S. Not wanting to make that mistake again Bush invaded Iraq as a preemptive measure. We found out after invading Iraq that Saddam had successfully bribed French, Russian, and UN officials and would likely have soon been able to have the sanctions lifted. Not knowing that beforehand is another intelligence failure. We now know that Saddam didn't have large stockpiles of WMD, which is another intelligence failure. We know that Saddam was a vengeful person and he suffered a humiliation defeated at the hands of Bush senior. If we hadn't invaded Iraq when we did then Saddam would by now be free to buy weapons with billions of oil dollars and supply them to Al Qaeda and give them safe haven as well. Any honest assessment of the current situation needs to weight it against the probable alternative.

Mac,If you think S... (Below threshold)


If you think Saddam would have eagerly given weapons to Al Qaeda then you just don't know enough about him. Saddam only permitted those who were intensely loyal to himself to have weapons. He certainly would not have supported a bunch of Islamic extremists whose first loyalty is to Mohammed and second to bin Laden. Saddam was an evil dictator but he was also a secularist and exactly the type of regime that bin Laden wants to destroy.

You've also fallen straight... (Below threshold)

You've also fallen straight into the trap of assuming that invading Iraq was our only option. How many times have we effected a regime change in the past without putting US boots on the ground? Dozens of times of course.

The best approach would have been to kill/capture Saddam and his sons, but the keep the Iraqi power structure in place. Then, we could have encouraged a gradual move to a more representative government and power sharing for the Shiites and Kurds.

Instead, we blew the whole place up and now we've got the Iranians, Shiite fundamentalists and Al Qaeda running all over the damn place. It's complete idiocy what we've done and it hasn't made us safer in the war on terror.

Larkin, 70% of the insurgen... (Below threshold)

Larkin, 70% of the insurgents are not Iraqi. That means it is much more then just a simple civil war. Also, I would much rather kill them there then here. I bet you are of the pre-9/11 mindset. ww

<a href="http://www.whiteho... (Below threshold)

Transcript is here.

I was extremely displeased with Bush's critical tone of and about "anyone" who "tried to" criticise "the immigration bill" -- and found his defensiveness about it very odd, as if he assumes he's made a decree and so it shall be.

I voted for him (twice). I'd have never voted for either Gore nor Kerry. However, at this point, I feel great reservations with Bush in the White House. And his Administration who all seem entirely non Republican, as does Bush ever since he won his second term.

About the second term, today Bush "defended" "his" immigration bill (S.B. 1348) by saying that he'd "campaigned upon it" (the notorious "comprehensive immigration reform") and while I acknowledge that he did do that, he also continually declared that he did NOT intend amnesty for illegal aliens (that that was not his goal).

After his second term win, however, it became clear that amnesty WAS his goal but by a different term ("comprehensive immigration reform" according to Bush "does not mean amnesty" yet it means amnesty to everyone who reads what he proposes).

Everyone concerned about this legislation ("Amnesty bill") should read Senator Jeff Sessions article in today's HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE: "The Immigration Bill Is Worse Than You Think".

And it isn't just Sessions -- someone I respect immensely -- who has these opinions, but many others (Gingrich thinks it's offensive to all that defines Conservatives, or something close to that) and many others of us (Conservatives).

Bush made a point of declaring today that he was "at war with ideologues" (or that "we" were, the country) as to Afghanistan and Iraq and generally, "Muslim extremists".

He said this with a great deal of negativity and emphasis.

The same term has been heard recently by the likes of Fred Barnes on FOX and other 'Wall Street' "business lobby" types who allege to be Republicans and who are driving this "Amnesty-bill-that-isn't-called-amnesty" as to the rest of us Conservatives among Republicans: we're being dismissed as being "ideologues" among the Republican Party.

I am concerned (a great deal) about these turn of associations that seems to be pushing anti-amnesty, pro-border security, pro-deportation of illegal aliens into the same category and typing as -- how horrible can this be -- enemies of the country itself (according to Bush, to Barnes and others like them).

I mention this latest aspect to today's Press Conference because Bush declared today that "there are some who think that nothing short of deportation of IMMIGRANTS is acceptable" and he said THAT with a great deal of concern and irritation. THEN he alleged that -- again -- "these people" (illegal aliens, only he does not use THAT term) "are here doing the work Americans aren't doing" and defended those "who have lived among us" (the longest) "for years/decades"...

In fact, his approach toward this concept of National Security is just plain wrong. We cannot have National Security without border security and raids and roundups that have occured recently have been -- in the view of nearly everyone who I've heard from -- "for show" and otherwise, publicity so Bush can say today what he said and that is that he's doing "more" about this problem, as is his Administration.

The vast majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. today have arrived here since Bush took office. Mexico's problem with their poor is largely attributed to -- they allege -- NAFTA and CAFTA. Those things have passed since Bush took office.

Bush is NOT taking steps to hold host nations responsible and is assuming a socially Liberal position in his reprimands (he's blaming Americans) about resistance to the amnesty issue/concept, his annoyance at being questioned about this as also his confounding confusion if not stalwarting border security...he can SAY he's increased Border Patrol agents but everyone should read the real story there, as same with the conditions on our border and as to overall crime statistics in the U.S. that is the responsibility of illegal aliens.

AND as to what illegal aliens cost our nation, annually and have for the past decade. That is going to balloon massively if this S.B.1348 passes (read Jeff Sessions' comments, link above). Not to mention that the basic defense that Bush and the Liberal Senate are using to defend their goals here and that is that "those who have been here the longest (illegal aliens in the U.S.) should be given a path to citizenship."

That population are the last on this Earth who should even be considered for U.S. citizenship. They have proven their bad character by their ability to not only enter our nation illegally but to persist in remaining here covertly and fraudulently throughout the years. And yet Bush speaks about this population as if they are honorable, even moreso than U.S. citizens born in this nation.

Read the transcript of the Press Conference for specific quotes because I've paraphrased here throughout in my comments from what I recall hearing earlier.

But the whole Press Conference left me quite depressed. Perhaps even insulted.

If you think Sadda... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
If you think Saddam would have eagerly given weapons to Al Qaeda then you just don't know enough about him.

Well Saddam eagerly gave weapons to thousands of his countrymen, many of whom have the same loyalties as those who have joined Al Qaeda. Just because Saddam was not particularly religious wouldn't have prevented him from taking advantage of religious zealots in doing his dirty work.

Saddam was an evil dictator but he was also a secularist and exactly the type of regime that bin Laden wants to destroy.

We know that bin Laden can be bought off with money and access to weapons. Saddam would have both to give if Bush had not acted. Given what we know of his vindictive nature, leaving Saddam in control of Iraq post UN sanctions would have been a big mistake.

Yes, given what we now know Iraq could have been handled better, but we have this crazy rule that prevents wise leadership. Just when we get a president with enough experience to handle world problems we force them out and replace them with another novice. Why are we then surprised when they make mistakes?

I watched the entire... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

I watched the entire press conference.

This asshole is totally insane. He must think that the rest of us are fools. If you can watch this hour of television without feeling absolute revulsion you must have been sitting in a room with a bunch of other folks wearing Depends, drooling and eating pudding.

Impeach for gross incompetence.

Would someone call a democr... (Below threshold)

Would someone call a democrat and tell them the Lebanese army is fighting terrorists they are calling AQ. Could this be the same AQ that doesn't exist and part of the WOT that doesn't exist. Actually someone make one call to the Breck Boy, I'm sure he'll pass the information to America, Him being the honest clean cut lawyer and all.
The AQ and other terrorists just aren't any help to the lying democrats at all, are they? Do all of the democrats believe the hype of the truthers? NO terrorists anywhere, we're attacking outselves. The Islamist with the democrat party's assistance are far more dangerous than the Nazi's ever were. Actually the democrats are responsible for the slaughter of 3 to 5 million in Southeast Asia, so they have killed, using a proxy, as many or more than the Nazi's.

Larkin, Wake up, Saddam ord... (Below threshold)

Larkin, Wake up, Saddam ordered attacks on America and American interest around the world in 2001, prior to 9-11. The order was part of the captured documents. Oh, I guess you believe the army private that packed up the documents took a minute or two and produced some forged documents in Arabic of all things. You been bedding with Blather Rather lately? The dumb a**es has rubbed off on you. This is one link to one of the stories on the documents. Other documents are out there. Search before you assist in the murder of your own family.

I wish David Gregory would ... (Below threshold)

I wish David Gregory would come to my neighborhood.
I want to beat the living sh*t out of him like he deserves. His leading questions full of insinuations, half truth and outright idiocy are more than I can handle. (BARF). You are welcome to come along with him Dr. Lava. You sound like you need a sound thrashing as well.

mullah cimoc say now good t... (Below threshold)
mullah cimoc:

mullah cimoc say now good time for ameriki remember who starting this war. who make ameriki for to kill the muslim.

answer: him neocon. him israeli spy operative.

for this so much the torture and the suffering. patriot ameriki needing for escape control of masters in tel aviv. be free amerika.

usa media so control now.

Scrapiron, it's al-Absi and... (Below threshold)

Scrapiron, it's al-Absi and Fatah al-Islam in a Palestinian refugee camp north of Beirut. Could be big stuff.

Khan, douane, Liby, yawn.
Niger bakes gateaux jaune.
Let us pray,
A beast's at bay,
Beside Mediterraune.

This is one link to one ... (Below threshold)

This is one link to one of the stories on the documents. Other documents are out there. Search before you assist in the murder of your own family.

Put out big crock of crap there Scrappy - the link you provided is to a nutcake web site, and if you google this "document" you'll find that it only exists on nutcake web sites, Scrap.

Do you ave a like to something that has a little more credibility... like a screed about Jamil Hussein being a figment of the AP's imagination, perhaps.

Who writes your material? Rick Santorum?

What i heard was...B... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

What i heard was...
Because the most powerful military/seriously sophisticated global interception tech stuff in the world/.......have the nerve to bring up a 2 year old threat from the One Man who directed 9/11...that is still there...
Ah...how can we win the war on terror if after all these years..we cannot bring down either Binnie L...or the domestic anthrax killer..
meanwhile...back at the ranch

Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
5-2007 87 3 2 92 3.83 24
4-2007 104 12 1 117 3.9 30
3-2007 81 1 0 82 2.65 31
2-2007 80 3 1 84 3 28
1-2007 83 3 0 86 2.77 31

The blood of all these troops is on ALL our hands..

87 Kia 2 mia..
This month...How many next month..next year...
How many have to die for "victory"?
..You folks expect our troops to face death every day...yet cower over your fear of Al-Q attacks here?

You say fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here..
Why do you cower if we do have to fight them over here?
Why do you demand that others fight your fight?
...what cowards you are...
All those brave troops who died when we did not...

Just wanted to drop by and ... (Below threshold)

Just wanted to drop by and say "congratulations!" You guys will now get the "long war" you've always wanted.

No sense wasting your breath criticizing the Dems anymore; they're on your side.

nogo postal,I went... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

nogo postal,

I went off to war in my youth as my father did before me. We went to protect our families our friends and our way of life. We went to earn our place among free people who learned long ago that only blood buys freedom. Many more troops died in those past wars. More died in one day on one beach than all who have fallen in this war from it's start. Back then people felt America was worth defending, that our freedom and values made us a great nation. Apparently many of our young men still feel that way in spite of all attempts by leftists to convince them America is bad and needs to be brought low.

I don't for a minute believe you care one bit about those troops who gave their lives in Iraq. You merely use their sacrifice and the pain their families endure to further your own leftist agenda. How disgusting.

PublicusJust w... (Below threshold)


Just wanted to drop by and say "congratulations!" You guys will now get the "long war" you've always wanted.

You didn't need to have bothered, but as long as you did...

Thanks... with luck "we" can stretch it to last into the next century if only to give you something to whine about.


yet cower over your fear of Al-Q attacks here? You say fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.. Why do you cower if we do have to fight them over here?

Well nogo... of you really believe we are "cowering" why do you bother to write? We're "cowering" asshat, we can't see over the keyboard to read your trash.

nogo, you might be interres... (Below threshold)

nogo, you might be interrested to learn that just this month the number of servicemen and women who bravely gave their lives for their country... which you cackle over repeatedly here... finally reached the halfway mark of those killed during Clintons 8 years of cowering before terrorists.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy