The First Chimp is scheduled to appear on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday morning at 11 a.m. ET. I'll give The PAC about 15 seconds before he starts biting his lip and doing those moronic facial expressions. I hope Tim Russert has a bag on Monkey Chow on hand -- he might need it to get some of the answers.

I will be boycotting this broadcast myself. I hope Shrub has been rehearsing, bucasue Mr. Russert can be brutal. I am sure Shrub will be a stuttering and a stammering, and-a so-a but-a.!!!

So we can then expect you to be the first one here criticizing what Bush said in the interview, right? Just checking.

Let's hope Russert doesn't repeat his awful performance from 2000...

Sounds like they taped it tonight at the WH. I just saw a snippet of the tape with dubs saying "Dr. Kay came back from Iraq and said in many ways it's more dangerous than before". I hope that was bad editing because I don't feel any better about our current regime's decisions.

CRAP! It's not a live interview after all. It was taped on Saturday. I bet this was a stipulation to getting the interview...well other than having the interview questions beforehand. I'm still going to miss church on Sunday to watch this, though. Bring on the Monkey Chow and hip-boots!

NBC has just released the transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

It has not aired here yet, but in the transcript Bush comes across as out of touch with reality. No surprise here.

MIb, I hate to disappoint you, but I am sure I won't be the first one here criticizing Shrub.

W's stuttering and stammering (not to mention total dead air silence at one point) is driving me up the wall! First question went totally unanswered. Russert dropped the ball there big time. Okay, commercial break over...

If Bill Clinton's mot terrible was the word "is" then George Bush's should be the word "fun" - as in what he was having flying jets while his comrades in arms were sloshing through mine-laden swamps in Vietnam.

Though I didn't find Tim Russert's questioning either too aggressive or too tame, I do believe he missed completely a prime opportunity to contrast the Bush administrations attitude toward the real weapons proliferation threat from Pakistan and the imagined WMD threat in from Iraq.

Bobby, I am watching the man right now, and I just can't see why ANYONE would trust this man with anything other than perhaps making drinks or jokes at the family picnic!

He stammers, he stumbles, he's talking AT Tim Russert like the host is a little kid, he repeats the same inane nostrums, he isn't answering questions...it's just pathetic. Russert is trying to restrain himself...I'm not surprised that this is taped; W wouldn't hold up under a live, unrestrained session. How on earth is Rove going to prep him for Edwards, Clark, Kerry or Dean? Even Sharpton would have a field day with him.

"They wanna get ridda those taxes on small businesses..." Uh, W, you meant to say they want to RAISE those taxes...oh, why even bother? He's a total cretin. If this is the best we, as a nation of 290 million people can put in office, we get whatever we deserve.

When it comes to Iraq and the lack of WMD, Bush was just repeating talking points over and over, turning him into, as Bush himself said, "a broken record". Russert at least did pick up on it and put in a follow-up question asking why we aren't going after Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Burma, etc. using Bush's reasoning. This was obviously not on the list of questions the White House got ahead of time, given the poor way George stumbled through the answer.

"I'm not going to lose!" This is going to make his concession speech even better! I don't see how Russert was able to sit there with a straight face a lot of times. Especially when he was lying about his service record and insinuating the Guard does not keep accurate records. BTW, I think the Chimp's handlers didn't think he did so well with this interview because if they thought he did, don't you think they would have been hyping this to all the media outlets?

[ February 08, 2004, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

I thought President Bush gave an excellent interview. You have to keep in mind that he cannot answer EVERYTHING without jeopardizing national security. ("Do you know where Bin Laden is?" was a dumb question to even ask). I was particularly impressed with his explanation of why we went to war with Iraq, and why in contrast we are utilizing diplomcay with North Korea. Bush realizes that no matter what policies he adopts the Democrats are going to bash him because they simply want the power of the Presidency for themselves. And this National Guard thing is VERY OLD news. The issue has been resolved many times before by prior mud slingers. If the Democrats want to dig up dirt you'd think they would be classy enough to at least come up with something original.

Timber, you fail to recall, that the Repuglicans are great teachers when it comes to as you say "digging up dirt". Can you say Willie Horton when Dukakis was running back in the late 80's?? The Republicans were again first to go negative against the Democrats late last year by making Democrats appear supposedly not patriotic by questioning the reasons we went to war and Shrubs policies. My how quickly you forget.

Yeah, there is more dirt on W than his AWOL from the Guard...there is also the Pickering issue of a self-confessed cross burner who is now a Bush-appointed judge. Plus, we really don't need dirt when we have the busted economy, misleading lies, and an exploded budget deficit that can be traced in large part to tax cuts on the ultra wealthy. Didn't you think it was clever how he, once again, affirmed his Christianty? It's sort of like these atletes and movie stars who pound their chests and announce their heterosexuality. It has more to do with actions than words, fellas.

Having seen the entire interview now, I'm fairly confident John Kerry would wipe the floor with GWB in a fair debate. Despite having plenty of time to rehearse the questions and answers, Bush was still easy tripped up by moderately tough questions, squirming, stammering and mumbling through a number of them. In the 2000 debates, he could get away with being the plain-talking, non-insider from Texas, especially going up against a monotone, robot/cardboard cut-out, career politician. Now he is the partisan insider, people are actually skeptical of what he has to say, and going up against a very eloquent war hero.

Yeah, there is more dirt on W than his AWOL from the Guard...there is also the Pickering issue of a self-confessed cross burner who is now a Bush-appointed judge. Plus, we really don't need dirt when we have the busted economy, misleading lies, and an exploded budget deficit that can be traced in large part to tax cuts on the ultra wealthy. Didn't you think it was clever how he, once again, affirmed his Christianty? It's sort of like these atletes and movie stars who pound their chests and announce their heterosexuality. It has more to do with actions than words, fellas.

From a dedicated Republican who will definitely be voting for Dubya in November, I have to agree his performance today was dismal. Even if he hadn't been given the specific questions in advance, they were all the sorts of things he & his handlers must have anticipated, and I'm pretty shocked he didn't capitalize more effectively on this unique exposure.

The pre-war intelligence was wrong; the blame for that lies at the CIA not the Oval Office; but why is it Bush isn't more outraged at the repeated failures of the intelligence community?

But the campaign is only beginning.

What really struck me was a little later, on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, how effective and presidential Howard Dean came across. I don't think I agreed with a single word Dean had to say, but he was energized, articulate, and made the most of the opportunity.

Uh-oh...here is an obvious sign the interview may not have gone over with the Amherikan public as well as expected...Faux News is NOT talking about the interview right now--they are STILL discussing Janet Jackson's boob. This must be part of Operation Divert Attention.

Come on, Janet Jackson's boob is SO much more entertaning than politics.

Yes, President Bush could have done better in his interview with TRussert, but no, the 290 million American people could not have done better when they elected him to the Oval Office. Consider the alternative and the events since that election if you have any doubts.

"Didn't you think it was clever how he, once again, affirmed his Christianty? It's sort of like these atletes and movie stars who pound their chests and announce their heterosexuality. It has more to do with actions than words, fellas."

Yes, it's disappointing whenever anyone trots out his religion to make a political point. But the better analogy for me is to leftist activists and their sycophants who repetitively trumpet their "tolerance," while acting out their intolerance of any ideas contrary to their own in ways that the most fundamentalist of preachers would envy and only the simplest of minds would employ.

Are you saying it's okay to be tolerant of homophobia, racism, greed, and hate? I totally agree that it's okay to be intolerant of intolerance and ideas that encourage intolerance. Would you PLEASE give an example where "leftists" have been intolerant of a positive, progressive idea?

I did not see the interview this morning, but I did see a tape of Russert asking Dubya whether the ouster of Sadaam was worth the lives of over 500 Americans. His answer was rambling and incoherant. If ther rest of the interview went like that, it's scary to think he could be President for five more years.

Haven't seen it yet - 9 a.m. on the West Coast, on a Sunday, is just too early to get up to watch forrest gump try to run.

Hopefully will catch the replay later on one of NBC's cable outlets.

Under: forest gump, thats perfect! wink

Is this gonna be shown again? Normally I can't stand the sight or sound of W, but I wouldn't mind watching him stumble over himself.

Caught the 2 p.m. Pacific Time replay on MSNBC. Gumpy started with "Let me step back and talk about intelligence in general...." My first impression was if Mush is going to explain "intelligence" to the country then this interview needed to be on Comedy Central rather than NBC's flagship political program.

War, War, War. I think he said this word a dozen times, and is clearly more comfortable saying it rather than "jobs" or "peace." He self-identified as a War President - "I'm a War President..." When I think of Wartime President's, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR come to mind not Dumahu. Clearly Mush's reelection strategy will be to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11 and instill even more fear into the American people.

I also thought he was defensively well rehearsed - he must have said, "If I might..." and "Let's step back..." a number of times. Because he's the Prez, Russert let him filibuster quite abit - especially about the War - and his attempts to blame intelligence failures for his changing justification for it. To Russert's credit he didn't waste time on the issues the Repuliscan's want us to be distracted about - Gay Marriage in particular. Russert spent 30 mins on the War, then the next 20 on the economy (great chart - which really said it all about how Mush has driven it into the gutter), and the election.

If this interview had been conducted by Fox Spews we'd have had 10 mins on Gay Marriage, five on activist Liberal Judges, 5 on Janet Jackson's Boob, 10 on why all the mess we're in is really Bill Clinton's fault, 5 on Ronald Reagan's Birthday, 5 on why the rich need more tax cuts and that deficits really don't matter, 5 on how good the economy "really" is, 5 on why the "good" parts of the Iraq war story aren't being covered by the "liberal" media and then wrap on how well Mrs. Mush has settled into being a traditional First Lady.

[ February 08, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Undercenter ]

I really believe the answer to that is that the Administration was told what they wanted to be told. Without external pressure, the CIA might very well have interpreted their intelligence differently.

When Chimpboy was talking about the possibility of testifying in front of the 9/11 committee or the Iraq committee, he said, "I will be glad to share with them knowledge....". For heaven's sake, he just as well not go if he is going to share what he calls knowledge! I suggest that they ask an oak tree or a squirrel, instead. BTW, a friend of mine said it was obvious when he had been prepared for some of the questions because he'd smile when he said some big word or preconceived phrase.

[ February 09, 2004, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

This morning on the national news I caught an excerpt of the speech, and NO MIB, I did not watch the interview!!, but Shrub was talking about Saddam Hussein, and he made the statement, " I can't leave a madman in power," well then I have to ask what is this administrations reasoning for not going after North Korea's Kim jong-Il???? Certainly he is also a madman, right? Why aren't we invading North Korea?? The question begs to be asked.

The Flea-Eater said the reason we are not going after North Korea is because "In Iraq I mean, in North Korea, excuse me, the diplomacy is just beginning." When did this "diplomacy" begin? After the Korean War? I'd hardly say it is "just beginning". Also, isn't North Korea the country that has been testing missels by firing them into the ocean? Just checking. I think it's because he knows that North Korea will definitely be a bigger problem than Iraq ever was. See, it's easier to bully around some people than it is other people. BRING IT ON!

The thing that struck me as most disturbing was "How best to use America's power to achieve my vision for the world).


Shudder

As I watched that broadcast, after my jaw dropped to the floor, all I could manage to sputter was
punk. ass. chimp. :mad:

THANK YOU, GJ!!!

Back atcha, bobby. See yr PM. :cool:

I'm glad I could give you a good laugh.

Maybe Rove is making his first big mistake encouraging W to repeat the "I'm a war president" mantra. This plays right into the hands of John Kerry who is a legitimate war hero with 3 purple hearts.

I also thought Bush looked awful. He is smug, arrogant, out of touch and...hopefully, on his way out.

Didn't see the interview (will MSNBC re-air it?), but I listened to Imus talk with Russert this morning. Russert, naturally, won't say how well or how poorly he thinks Bush did, but Imus was almost speechless (and that says A LOT!) about how poorly Bush handled himself. Imus also indicated that most Bush apologists (Peggy Noonan, Sean Hannity, etc.) are pretty disappointed with their man.

I watched a good portion of MTP on satellite up here, and I have a question.

So far, the only discussion board member who has said that he will vote for Bush is Hulaboy. My question to him, and the other Republicans are.

You have a President who has gone to war, cost American lives, Over 100 Billion dollars based on a lie.

You have a President who has passed legislation restricting Medicare from negotiating price reductions with the drug companies. My understanding of the new drug legislation is that there are NO price restrictions. This will enrich companies almost exponentially, without using a basic tenet of business, I.E. economies of scale in pricing.

You have a President who is committed to eliminating the separation between church and state, even though your constitution forbids it.

You have a President who has turned back the clock on the acheivments of the past 60 years, in helping the less fortunate, in order to enrich large corporations and the already wealthy.

You have a President who is committed to, for the first time in your country's history, taking away rights for a specific group of the American people, as his religious beleifs, which according to your laws should have NO input on policy, declares us less worthy of the equality that your country was founded on.

What my question is, is How can you, as Gay men, and Americans, support this President in 2004?

I watched him on MTP, and he came across as incompetant, and not very intelligent. I WILL give him the benefit of the doubt on those, as some people just don't present well, but I do find fault with some of his answers. Karl Rove should have prepared him better.

There is no need to give him the benefit of the doubt...he's a dumbass.

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread why did Bush go after North Korea instead of Iraq where we had more information about nuclear weapons being present. Bush does not and did not dare to go after North Korea because of China. Bush started a fight he could win just because he did not like the leader of the country. you think things are bad in Iraq now with all the soldiers dying? It would have been much worse if he had gone against North Korea

puckman.. I just wanted to let you know you were right about North Korea.

I'm reminded of what David Brooks wrote in The Atlantic Monthly in the fall: "The segmentation of society means that often we don't even have arguments across the political divide. Within their little validating communities, liberals and conservatives circulate half-truths about the supposed awfulness of the other side. These distortions are believed because it feels good to believe them."

I believe few people sincerely want to know why someone votes differently from themselves. They want only to explain to that person how wrong they are.

So Clinton, Albright, the UN, Powell, Cohen, et. al. are all liars, too? Jeez, even I have more faith in our government officials than you do.

They didn't go to war. They didn't get American lives killed.

And most of them wanted the United States to go in as part of a UN coalition.

Big difference.

And why should I have confidence in your government.

Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, when 4 Canadian troops were killed by an American pilot, had the reaction "at least it wasn't Americans". ANd the pilot admitted to disobeying orders.

Oh, and his nickname from other pilots? Psycho!

And I should have confidence WHY????

OK, I'll offer a few comments in response to the Lksimcoe post earlier today:

It wasn't based on a lie, it was based on bad intelligence. I fault the CIA for that, and its head, George Tenet, is a Clinton appointee. But whether the intelligence was right or wrong, my view is that going to war in Iraq was the right decision, to let countries like Libya, Iran, Syria, and even North Korea know that they may be next. When Al Qaeda bombed the US Embassies in Kenya & Tanzania in 1998, Clinton launched a few missiles, missed Bin Laden, and basically gave up. If he had invaded Afghanistan then and ousted the Taliban regime, 9/11 might very well have never happened. I'd rather have a President who ousts evil regimes first and asks questions later.


First off, I personally disagree with that aspect of the medicare bill. But I think the point is, there was never any prescription drug coverage under medicare before, and on balance this bill will do a lot of good in helping seniors get the medications they need. It's a lot better than the Democratic alternative -- to do nothing until after the election.


He hasn't declared us less worthy. In fact, he has appointed many gay men & lesbians to prominent positions, to cite one example, the US Ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, who is openly gay and whose partner was recognized by Colin Powell at his swearing in. Bush's words in the State of the Union and in related remarks since then were very carefully measured. He said if the people decide they want to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, there is a process available for the people to do so. (Just as the people of Massachusetts, a heavily Democratic state, are now in the process of considering amending their own state constitution to prohibit gay marriage.) He didn't say he's going to support that, he didn't say he's going to make it an issue in the campaign, and he certainly never said gay people are less worthy of equality.

So that's why I'm voting for Bush.

290 million Americans did NOT elect him. Even if you believe he was legally elected and not installed by the Supreme Court (and we need not rehash that again), he still didn't even win the popular vote. A large majority either voted against him or didn't vote at all.

His flunkies do all of that for him. Since he doesn't disagree with them, it makes no difference if he doesn't actually say the words.

So much for being "compassionate."

If Ronald Reagan and George HR Bush had not supported Osama bin Laden (during the Afghan/Russian war) and Saddam Hussein (during the Iran/Iraq war) we wouldn't be in these messes right now! It all goes back to Reagan and Bush! And, oh, yeah...the Saudi family's (VERY close friends with W) connections to the hijackers.

[ February 09, 2004, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]