The interview below was lifted from the transcript of George Bush on Meet The Press, February 8, 2004
My comments are [in brackets in blue.]
Transcript for Feb. 8th
Guest: President George W. Bush
NBC News
Updated: 9:15 a.m. ET Feb. 08, 2004
Copyright© 2004, National Broadcasting
Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
“MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERT”
INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
THE OVAL OFFICE, FEBRUARY 7, 2004
BROADCAST ON NBC’S “MEET THE PRESS”
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2004
PLEASE CREDIT ANY EXCERPTS TO NBC’S “MEET THE PRESS”
Tim Russert: And we are in the Oval Office this morning with the President of
the United States. Mr. President, welcome back to Meet The Press.
President George W. Bush: Thank you, sir.
Russert: On Friday, you announced a committee, commission to look into
intelligence failures regarding the Iraq war and our entire intelligence
community. You have been reluctant to do that for some time. Why?
President Bush: Well, first let me kind of step back and talk about intelligence
in general, if I might. Intelligence is a vital part of fighting and winning the
war against the terrorists. It is because the war against terrorists is a war
against individuals who hide in caves in remote parts of the world, individuals
who have these kind of shadowy networks, individuals who deal with rogue
nations. So, we need a good intelligence system. We need really good
intelligence.
[So where are we going with this? You're doing this
interview to say that your intelligence wasn't "really good"]
So, the commission I set up is to obviously analyze what went right or what went
wrong with the Iraqi intelligence. It was kind of lessons learned. But it's
really set up to make sure the intelligence services provide as good a product
as possible for future presidents as well. This is just a part of analyzing
where we are on the war against terror.
There is a lot of investigations going on about the intelligence service,
particularly in the Congress, and that's good as well. The Congress has got the
capacity to look at the intelligence gathering without giving away state
secrets, and I look forward to all the investigations and looks.
Again, I repeat to you, the capacity to have good intelligence means that a
president can make good calls about fighting this war on terror.
Russert: Prime Minister Blair has set up a similar commission in Great Britain.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: His is going to report back in July. Ours is not going to be until
March of 2005, five months after the presidential election.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: Shouldn't the American people have the benefit of the commission before
the election?
President Bush: Well, the reason why we gave it time is because we didn't want
it to be hurried. [unlike our war] This is a strategic look, kind of a big picture look about the
intelligence gathering capacities of the United States of America, whether it be
the capacity to gather intelligence in North Korea or how we've used our
intelligence to, for example, learn more information about AQ Kahn. And it's
important that this investigation take its time. [We
didn't ask for a full review of the entire intelligence gathering process, we
want to know what happened with the Iraq situation.]
Now, look, we are in a political season. I fully understand people He's trying
to avoid responsibility. There is going to be ample time for the American people
to assess whether or not I made a good calls, whether or not I used good
judgment, whether or not I made the right decision in removing Saddam Hussein
from power, and I look forward to that debate, and I look forward to talking to
the American people about why I made the decisions I made.
The commission I set up, Tim, is one that will help future presidents understand
how best to fight the war on terror, and it's an important part of the kind of
lessons learned in Iraq and lessons learned in Afghanistan prior to us going in,
lessons learned that we can apply to both Iran and North Korea because we still
have a dangerous world. And that's very important for, I think, the people to
understand where I'm coming from to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish
it wasn't.
I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy
matters with war on my mind. [But we elected a president
that stumped about making international peace, not a warmonger.]Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And
the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way
it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with
them.
Russert: Will you testify before the commission?
President Bush: This commission? You know, I don't testify? I will be glad to
visit with them. I will be glad to share with them knowledge. I will be glad to
make recommendations, if they ask for some.
I'm interested in getting I'm interested in making sure the intelligence
gathering works well.
Listen, we got some five let me let me, again, just give you a sense of where I
am on the intelligence systems of America. First of all, I strongly believe the
CIA is ably led by George Tenet. He comes and briefs me on a regular basis about
what he and his analysts see in the world. [So that's a
"no" to the question?]
Russert: His job is not in jeopardy?
President Bush: No, not at all, not at all. We've got people working hard in
intelligence gathering around the world to get as good an information as
possible.
Intelligence requires, you know, all kinds of assets to bring information to the
President, and I want that intelligence service to be strong, viable, competent,
confident, and provide good product to the President so I can make judgment
calls.
Russert: There is another commission right now looking into September 11th.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: Will you testify before that commission?
President Bush: We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and
Hamilton. As you know, we made an agreement on what's called "Presidential Daily
Briefs," and they could see the information the CIA provided me that is unique,
by the way, to have provided what's called the PDB, because
Russert: Presidential Daily Brief?
President Bush: Right.
And see, the danger of allowing for information that I get briefed on out in the
public arena is that it could mean that the product I receive or future
presidents receive is somewhat guarded for fear of for fear of it being
revealed, and for fear of people saying, Well, you know, we’re going to second
guess that which you told the President.
I need good, honest information, but we have shared this information with both
those gentlemen, gentlemen I trust, so they could get a better picture of what
took place prior to September the 11th.
And again, we want I want the truth to be known. I want there to be a full
analysis done so that we can better prepare the homeland, for example, against
what might occur.
And this is all in the context of war, and the more we learn about, you know,
what took place in the past, the more we are going to be able to better prepare
for future attacks.
Russert: Would you submit for questioning, though, to the 9/11 Commission?
President Bush: Perhaps, perhaps. [Perhaps?!]
Russert: Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican
President Bush: Yes.
Russert: said he is absolutely convinced we will capture Osama bin Laden before
the election.
President Bush: Well, I appreciate his optimism. I have no idea whether we will
capture or bring him to justice, may be the best way to put it. I know we are on
the hunt, and Osama bin Laden is a cold blooded killer, and he represents the
nature of the enemy that we face.
These are these are people that will kill on a moment's notice, and they will
kill innocent women and children. And he's hiding, and we're trying to find him.
There's a I know there is a lot of focus on Iraq, and there should be, but we’ve
got thousands of troops, agents, allies on the hunt, and we are doing a pretty
good job of dismantling al Qaeda better than a pretty good job, a very good job.
I keep saying in my speeches, two thirds of known al Qaeda leaders have been
captured or killed, and that's the truth.
Russert: Do you have a pretty good idea where Osama is?
President Bush: You know, I'm not going to comment on that.
["No".]
Russert: Let me turn to Iraq. And this is the whole idea of what you based your
decision to go to war on.
President Bush: Sure, sure.
Russert: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the
Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons
ever devised."
President Bush: Right.
Russert: That apparently is not the case.
President Bush: Correct.
Russert: How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to
war under false pretenses?
President Bush: The … first of all, I expected to find the weapons. Sitting
behind this desk making a very difficult decision of war and peace, and I based
my decision on the best intelligence possible, intelligence that had been
gathered over the years, intelligence that not only our analysts thought was
valid but analysts from other countries thought were valid.
And I made a decision based upon that intelligence in the context of the war
against terror. In other words, we were attacked, and therefore every threat had
to be reanalyzed. Every threat had to be looked at. Every potential harm to
America had to be judged in the context of this war on terror.
And I made the decision, obviously, to take our case to the international
community in the hopes that we could do this achieve a disarmament of Saddam
Hussein peacefully. In other words, we looked at the intelligence. And we
remembered the fact that he had used weapons, which meant he had weapons. We
knew the fact that he was paying for suicide bombers. We knew the fact he was
funding terrorist groups. In other words, he was a dangerous man. And that was
the intelligence I was using prior to the run up to this war.
[To paraphrase, and correct me if I'm wrong but your
intelligence did NOT say "...that the Iraq regime continues to possess and
conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."]
Now, let me which is—this is a vital question
Russert: Nothing more important.
President Bush: Vital question.
And so we – I expected there to be stockpiles of weapons.
[But just a minute ago you said that your intelligence didn't indicate
stockpiles of weapons. So why did you expect them?] But David Kay has
found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we
haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went.
They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could
have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could
have been transported to another country, and we’ll find out. That's what the
Iraqi survey group let me let me finish here. [Or maybe
the years of inspections, interviews, tens of thousands of found documents
found, and intelligence was right. Maybe there were not stockpiles.]
But David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to
make weapons. [I have the capacity to make weapons. Are
you going to invade me next?] Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was
dangerous with the ability to make weapons. He was a dangerous man in the
dangerous part of the world. [As he needed to be. If he
were a sheep in "a dangerous part of the world", he'd be mutton in 15 minutes]
And I made the decision to go to the United Nations.
By the way, quoting a lot of their data in other words, this is unaccounted for
stockpiles that you thought he had because I don't think America can stand by
and hope for the best from a madman [Madman? Ruthless,
cruel, heavy handed, maybe even brutal. But I haven't seen "mad"], and I believe it is essential I believe it
is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they
become imminent. [Wuw. It is the demonstrated will of the
US people that we not engage in pre-emptive strikes.] It's too late if they become imminent. It's too late in this
new kind of war, and so that's why I made the decision I made.
[But Iraq wasn't our enemy until we bombed them. Now there's 10 times as many
groups that want to drop a smallpox bomb in Times Square. Terrorism is a tool.
It is a means to an end. It is rarely used when there is no goal. Bush is
painting a big bulls eye target on our heads.]
Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had
qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no
doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no
doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know
where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique
urgency.” “Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as
possible."
You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt
with.
President Bush: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a
grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests.
[IE. "I lied."] But what
I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in
my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America. [CROSSTALK]
Russert: In what way?
President Bush: Well, because he had the capacity to have a weapon, make a
weapon. [I have fertilizer in the garage and ammonia in
the cupboard. Am I a threat to be eliminated?] We thought he had weapons.
[No you didn't. You said that you knew he had the capacity
to make weapons. There is (hopefully) a difference.] The international community thought he had
weapons. [No they didn't. Remember that whole hubub about
the UN wanting to wait?] But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall
into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network. [OOO The
boogeyman! Good spin.]
It's important for people to understand the context in which I made a decision
here in the Oval Office. I'm dealing with a world in which we have gotten struck
by terrorists with airplanes, and we get intelligence saying that there is, you
know, we want to harm America. And the worst nightmare scenario for any
president is to realize that these kind of terrorist networks had the capacity
to arm up with some of these deadly weapons, and then strike us.
["Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little
security deserve neither security nor liberty." - Benjamin Franklin]
And the President of the United States’ most solemn responsibility is to keep
this country secure. And the man was a threat, and we dealt with him, and we
dealt with him because we cannot hope for the best. We can't say, Let's don't
deal with Saddam Hussein. Let's hope he changes his stripes, or let's trust in
the goodwill of Saddam Hussein. Let's let us, kind of, try to contain him.
Containment doesn't work with a man who is a madman.
And remember, Tim, he had used weapons against his own people.
Russert: But can you launch a preemptive war without iron clad, absolute
intelligence that he had weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush: Let me take a step back for a second and there is no such thing
necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron clad absolutely solid evidence. The
evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon.
Russert: But it may have been wrong.
President Bush: Well, but what wasn't wrong was the fact that he had the ability
to make a weapon. That wasn't right.
Russert: This is an important point because when you say that he has biological
and chemical weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles
President Bush: Which he had. [And so does the US.]
Russert: and they could come and attack the United States, you are saying to the
American people: we have to deal now with a man who has these things.
President Bush: That's exactly what I said.
Russert: And if that's not the case, do you believe if you had gone to the
Congress and said he should be removed because he's a threat to his people but
I'm not sure he has weapons of mass destruction, Congress would authorize war?
President Bush: I went to Congress with the same intelligence Congress saw the
same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they
made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same
information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made
this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.
You mentioned "preemption." If I might, I went to the United Nations and said,
Here is what we know, you know, at this moment, and you need to act. After all,
you are the body that issued resolution after resolution after resolution, and
he ignored those resolutions.
So, in other words, when you say "preemption," it almost sounds like, Well, Mr.
President, you decided to move. What I decided to do was to go to the
international community and see if we could not disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully
through international pressure.
You remember U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly stated show us your
arms and destroy them, or your programs and destroy them. And we said, there are
serious consequences if you don't. That was a unanimous verdict. In other words,
the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we're unanimous and you're a
danger. So, it wasn't just me and the United States. The world thought he was
dangerous and needed to be disarmed.
And, of course, he defied the world once again.
In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences,
and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences. People
look at us and say, they don't mean what they say, they are not willing to
follow through.
And by the way, by clearly stating policy, whether it be in Afghanistan or
stating the policy that we expect you, Mr. Saddam Hussein, to disarm, your
choice to disarm, but if you don't, there will be serious consequences in
following through, it has had positive effects in the world. Libya, for example,
there was an positive effect in Libya where Moammar Khaddafy voluntarily
disclosed his weapons programs and agreed to dismantle dismantle them, and the
world is a better place as a result of that. And the world is a safer and better
place as a result of Saddam Hussein not being in power.
Russert: There is a sense in the country that the intelligence that was given
was ambiguous, and that you took it and molded it and shaped it your opponents
have said "hyped" it and rushed to war.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: And now, in the world, if you, in the future, say we must go into North
Korea or we must go into Iran because they have nuclear capability, either this
country or the world will say, ‘Excuse you, Mr. President, we want it now in
hard, cold facts.’
President Bush: Well, Tim, I and my team took the intelligence that was
available to us and we analyzed it, and it clearly said Saddam Hussein was a
threat to America.
Now, I know I'm getting repetitive, but I'm just trying to make sure you
understand the context in which I was making decisions.
He had used weapons. He had manufactured weapons. [like
every other country] He had funded suicide bombers
into Israel. [And we had funded Israeli sponsored
killers... why are we taking sides with Israel v. Palestine? Those Palestinian
suicide bombers is the best army Palestine can muster.] He had terrorist connections. In other words, all of those
ingredients said to me: Threat. [threat against who?
Israel maybe... but not the US]
The fundamental question is: Do you deal with the threat once you see it? What
in the war on terror, how do you deal with threats? I dealt with the threat by
taking the case to the world and said, Let's deal with this. We must deal with
it now.
I repeat to you what I strongly believe that inaction in Iraq would have
emboldened Saddam Hussein. He could have developed a nuclear weapon over time
I'm not saying immediately, [I could develop a nuclear
weapon over time in my basement] but over time which would then have put us in what
position? We would have been in a position of blackmail.
In other words, you can't rely upon a madman, and he was a madman. You can't
rely upon him making rational decisions when it comes to war and peace, and it's
too late, in my judgment, when a madman who has got terrorist connections is
able to act.
Russert: But there are lots of madmen in the world, Fidel Castro …[Let's
not get too loose with this "madman" term. If you're going to call Castro a
madman, you should probably include every government head in the world that
doesn't advocate a capitalistic democratic republic. But we digress]]
President Bush: True.
MR. Russert: … in Iran, in North Korea, in Burma, and yet we don't go in and
take down those governments.
President Bush: Correct, and I could that's a legitimate question as to why we
like felt we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea. And the reason
why I felt like we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea, because
we had run the diplomatic string in Iraq. As a matter of fact, failed diplomacy
could embolden Saddam Hussein in the face of this war we were in. In Iraq I
mean, in North Korea, excuse me, the diplomacy is just beginning. We are making
good progress in North Korea. ["...because the North
Korean's have few natural resources to fund their economy and ideals in the
absence of our cooperation. Our siege on that country will be over soon."]
As I've said in my speeches, every situation requires a different response and a
different analysis, and so in Iran there is no question they're in danger, but
the international community is now trying to convince Iran to get rid of its
nuclear weapons program. And on the Korean peninsula, now the United States and
China, along with South Korea and Japan and Russia, are sending a clear message
to Kim Jung Il, if you are interested in a different relationship, disclose and
destroy your program in a transparent way.
In other words, the policy of this administration is to be is to be clear and
straightforward and to be realistic about the different threats that we face.
Russert: On Iraq, the vice president said, “we would be greeted as liberators.”
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: It's now nearly a year, and we are in a very difficult situation. Did
we miscalculate how we would be treated and received in Iraq?
President Bush: Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq. I'm not exactly sure,
given the tone of your questions, we're not. We are welcomed in Iraq.
Russert: Are you surprised by the level and intensity of resistance?
President Bush: No, I'm not. And the reason I'm not surprised is because there
are people in that part of the world who recognize what a free Iraq will mean in
the war on terror. In other words, there are people who desperately want to stop
the advance of freedom and democracy because freedom and democracy will be a
powerful long term deterrent to terrorist activities.
[Good spin. But again you forget that terrorism is a tool, not an end.]
See, free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass terror and
don't blackmail the world. [Hahahahah! So that big country
just north of Mexico.... they've got weapons.. and isn't blackmailing their
first line of defense?]
If I could share some stories with you about some of the people I have seen from
Iraq, the leaders from Iraq, there is no question in my mind that people that I
have seen at least are thrilled with the activities we've taken. There is a
nervousness about their future, however.
Russert: If the Iraqi people choose
President Bush: Well, let me finish on the nervousness. I don't want to leave it
on that note.
There's nervousness because they're not exactly sure what their form of
government will look like, and there is you can understand why. In nine months'
time, there’s – we’re now saying, democracy must flourish. And as I recall from
my history, it took us quite a while here in the United States, but nevertheless
we are making progress.
And so, when you see the debate and the discussion about freedom, those are
welcoming signs as far as I'm concerned. People are saying how best to develop
this system so that we are free and minority rights are protected.
Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you
accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?
President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that
is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're
["we're"] writing. They're not going
to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al Hakim, people from different parts of the country
that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually
written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.
I remember speaking to Mr. al Hakim here, who is a fellow who has lost 63 family
members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one of the people that was
assassinated early on in this past year. I expected to see a very bitter person.
If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you would be
a little bitter. He obviously was concerned, but he I said, you know, I'm a
Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision? And
he said, it's going to be a free society where you can worship freely. This is a Shiia fellow.
And my only point to you is these people are committed to a pluralistic society.
And it's not going to be easy. The road to democracy is bumpy. It's bumpy
particularly because these are folks that have been terrorized, tortured,
brutalized by Saddam Hussein.
Russert: You do seem to have changed your mind from the 2000 campaign. In a
debate, you said, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called
'nation-building.'"
President Bush: Yes.
Russert: We clearly are involved in nation building.
President Bush: Right. And I also said let me put it in context. I'm not
suggesting you're pulling one of these Washington tricks where you leave half
the equation out.
But I did say also that our troops must be trained and prepared to fight and win
war and, therefore, make peace more possible. And our troops were trained to
fight and win war, and we did, and a second phase of the war is now going on.
The first phase, of course, was the Tommy Franks troop movement.
Russert: But this is nation building.
President Bush: Well, it is. That's right, but we're also fighting a war so that
they can build a nation. And [crosstalk] the war is against terrorists and
disgruntled Baathists who are saying we had it good in the past, and therefore
we don't want this new society to spring up because they have no faith in
democracy, and the terrorists who want to stop the advance of freedom.
And if I might, people say to me, ‘Okay, you made a judgment as to how to secure
America for the short term with the Taliban and with Saddam Hussein, and we are
staying on the hunt for al Qaeda, but what about the long term?’ Which is a
legitimate question. And the best way to secure America for the long term is to
promote freedom and a free society and to encourage democracy.["So,
to answer your question concisely. That part about the troops and the
nation-building... I lied."]
And we are doing so in a part of the world where people say it can't happen, but
the long term vision and the long term hope is -- and I believe it's going to
happen -- is that a free Iraq will help change the Middle East. You may have
heard me say we have a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. It's
because I believe so strongly that freedom is etched in everybody's heart I
believe that and I believe this country must continue to lead.
Russert: Are you now willing to allow the United Nations to play a central role
in the reconstruction?
President Bush: In the recon in spending our money, no. They don't want to spend
our money, the money that was appropriated by the United States Congress I think
you're talking about, but they will play a vital role in helping the Iraqis
determine the proper course to democracy.
Russert: In transferring power, the U.N. will play a central role?
President Bush: Yeah. I call it a vital role because there is a lot of roles
being played by different players, but the U.N. will play and this role is a
very important role. It says to the Iraqi citizens who again are trying to
figure out the right balance as they head toward this new democracy after years
of after years of being enslaved by a tyrant -- how best to do this, and I think
it's very helpful to have the stamp of the international community be placed
upon the political process.
In terms of reconstruction, of course we want the international community to
participate, and they are. There is a lot of participation by the international
community in restoring this infrastructure of the country of Iraq that Saddam
Hussein had just totally I shouldn't say "totally," but destroyed a lot of.
Russert: Before we take a break, now that we have determined there are probably
not these stockpiles of weapons that we had thought, and the primary rationale
for the war had been to disarm Saddam Hussein, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy
Defense Secretary, said that you had settled on weapons of mass destruction as
an issue we could agree on, but there were three. “One was the weapons of mass
destruction, the second is the support for terrorism, and third is Saddam's
criminal treatment of his Iraqi people.”
He said the “third one by itself is a reason to help Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did.”
President Bush: Um hmm.
Russert: Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American
lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even
though there were no weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush: Every life is precious. Every person that is willing to
sacrifice for this country deserves our praise, and yes.
Russert: But
President Bush: Let me finish.
Russert: Please.
President Bush: It's essential that I explain this properly to the parents of
those who lost their lives.
Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I’m not gonna leave him in power and trust a
madman. He's a dangerous man. He had the ability to make weapons at the very
minimum.
For the parents of the soldiers who have fallen who are listening, David Kay,
the weapons inspector, came back and said, “In many ways Iraq was more dangerous
than we thought.” It's we are in a war against these terrorists who will bring
great harm to America, and I've asked these young ones to sacrifice for that.
A free Iraq will change the world. It's historic times. A free Iraq will make it
easier for other children in our own country to grow up in a safer world because
in the Middle East is where you find the hatred and violence that enables the
enemy to recruit its killers.["If you've read Orwell's
'1984', you'll know what I mean."]
And, Tim, as you can tell, I've got a foreign policy that is one that believes
America has a responsibility in this world to lead, a responsibility to lead in
the war against terror, a responsibility to speak clearly about the threats that
we all face, a responsibility to promote freedom, ["to
police the world, even when we're not needed or wanted,"] to free people from the
clutches of barbaric people such as Saddam Hussein who tortured, mutilated
[. Remember the American Indians? Barbarians. Manuel
Noriega? A good friend of the family but a barbarian. The Filipino people? They
were barbarians but now they're good consumers.] there
were mass graves that we have found a responsibility to fight AIDS, the pandemic
of AIDS, and to feed the hungry. [Good spin] We have a responsibility. To me that is
history's call to America. I accept the call and will continue to lead in that
direction.
Russert: In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe
the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?
President Bush: I think that's an interesting question. Please elaborate on that
a little bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It's a war of necessity.
We-- in my judgment, we had no choice when we look at the intelligence I looked
at that says the man was a threat. And you know, we will find out about the
weapons of mass destruction that we all thought were there. That's part of the
Iraqi survey group and the group I put together to look at.
But again, I repeat to you, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but
David Kay, who is the man who led the Iraqi survey group, who has now returned
with an interim report, clearly said that the place was a dangerous place. When
asked if President Bush had done had made the right decision, he said yes. In
other words, the evidence we have uncovered thus far says we had no choice.
Russert: We are going to take a quick break.
President Bush: Thank you.
Russert: We are going to come back and talk to the President a lot more about
our world and our economy here at home and the presidential election of 2004. We
are in the Oval Office with President George W. Bush.
(Commercial)
Russert: And we are back in the Oval Office talking to the President of the
United States.
Mr. President, this campaign is fully engaged. The chairman of the Democratic
National Committee, Terence McAuliffe, said this last week: "I look forward to
that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing
next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard. He didn't
show up when he should have showed up."
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: How do you respond?
President Bush: Political season is here. I was I served in the National Guard.
I flew F 102 aircraft. I got an honorable discharge. I've heard this I've heard
this ever since I started running for office. I I put in my time, proudly so.
I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard. It's fine to go after me, which I
expect the other side will do. I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard,
though, and the reason I wouldn't, is because there are a lot of really fine
people who served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National
Guard today in Iraq.
Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of
their records and said there’s no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama
during the summer and fall of 1972.
President Bush: Yeah, they re they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but
I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. In other
words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification.
Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up
in Alabama.
Russert: You did were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired.
Was there a reason?
President Bush: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked
it out with the military.
Russert: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their
military records, they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?
President Bush: Yeah. Listen, these files I mean, people have been looking for
these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994
campaign for governor. And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking
for those files as well. Probably you were. And absolutely. I mean, I
Russert: But would you allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you
were serving during that period?
President Bush: Yeah. If we still have them, but I you know, the records are
kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records.
And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know, to kind of
ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I'm used
to it. What I don't like is when people say serving in the Guard is is may not
be a true service.
Russert: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?
President Bush: Yes, absolutely.
We did so in 2000, by the way.
Russert: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?
President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my
unit been called up, by the way.
Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.
President Bush: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and
enjoyed it, and we provided a service to our country. In those days we had what
was called "Air Defense Command," and it was part of the air defense command
system.
The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me as I look back was it was a
political war. We had politicians making military decisions, and it is lessons
that any president must learn, and that is to the set the goal and the objective
and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective. And
those are essential lessons to be learned from the Vietnam War.
Russert: Let me turn to the economy.
President Bush: Yes.
Russert: And this is one of my charts that I would like to show you.
President Bush: I was hoping to see one of them.
Russert: The Bush Cheney first three years, the unemployment rate has gone up 33
percent, there has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We've gone from a $281
billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt has gone from 5.7 trillion,
to $7 trillion up 23 percent.
Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?
President Bush: Sure, because I have been the President during a time of
tremendous stress on our economy and made the decisions necessary to lead that
would enhance recovery. We’ll review the bidding here. The stock market started
to decline in March of 2000. That was the first sign that things were troubled.
The recession started upon my arrival. It could have been some say February,
some say March, some speculate maybe earlier it started, but nevertheless it
happened as we showed up here.
The attacks on our country affected our economy. Corporate scandals affected the
confidence of people and therefore affected the economy. My decision on Iraq,
this kind of march to war, affected the economy, but we have been through a lot.
And what those numbers show is the fact we have been through a lot.
But what the people must understand is that instead of wondering what to do, I
acted, and I acted by cutting the taxes on individuals and small businesses,
primarily. And that, itself, has led to this recovery.
So, you show that the numbers kind of I'm not suggesting the chart only shows
the bad numbers, but how about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the
fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? There was a winter recession
and unemployment went up, and now it's heading in the right direction.
The economic stimulus plan that I passed, or I asked the Congress to pass, and I
worked with Congress to pass, is making a big difference.
Russert: But when you proposed your first tax cut in 2001, you said this was
going to generate 800,000 new jobs. Your tax cut of 2003, create a million new
jobs. That has not happened.
President Bush: Well, it's happening. It's happening. And there is good momentum
when it comes to the creation of new jobs.
Again, we have been through a lot. This economy has been through a lot, which is
why I'm so optimistic about the future because I know what we have been through.
And I look forward to debate on the economy because I think one of those things
that's very important is that the entrepreneurial spirit of this country be
strong and the small business sector be strong. And the policies I have laid out
enhance entrepreneurship, they encourage small business creation, and I think
this economy is coming around just right, frankly.
Russert: The General Accounting Office, which are the nation's auditors
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: have done a study of our finances.
President Bush: Um hmm.
Russert: And this is what your legacy will be to the next generation. It says
that our “current fiscal policy is unsustainable.” They did a computer
simulation that shows that balancing the budget in 2040 could require either
cutting total Federal spending in half or doubling Federal taxes.
President Bush: Um hmm.
Russert: How why, as a fiscal conservative as you like to call yourself, would
you allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?
President Bush: Sure. The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the
deficit in half in five years. [Note, he said he was
cutting the deficit in half, not the debt. That's just silly.]
Now, I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report, but I do know that
if Congress is wise with the people's money, we can cut the deficit in half. And
at that point in time, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit will be relatively
low.
I agree with the assessment that we've got some long term financial issues we
must look at, and that's one reason I asked Congress to deal with Medicare. I
strongly felt that if we didn't have an element of competition, that if we
weren't modern with the Medicare program, if we didn't incorporate what's called
"health savings accounts" to encourage Americans to take more control over their
healthcare decisions, we would have even a worse financial picture in the long
run.
I believe Medicare is going to not only make the system work better for seniors
but is going to help the fiscal situation of our long term projection.
We got to deal with Social Security as well. As you know, these entitlement
programs need to be dealt with.
We are dealing with some entitlement programs right now in the Congress. The
highway bill. It's going to be an interesting test of fiscal discipline on both
sides of the aisle. The Senate's is about $370, as I understand, $370 billion;
the House is at less than that but over $300 billion. And as you know, the
budget I propose is about $256 billion.
Russert: But your base conservatives and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage
Foundation, CATO Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in
American history.
President Bush: Well, they're wrong. ["Well, not
wrong in the sense that I've cut taxes and raised spending such that we have the
largest deficit in history but wrong in a different sense."
Russert: Mr. President
President Bush: If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under
my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up
15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.
And the other thing that I think it's important for people who watch the
expenditures side of the equation is to understand we are at war, Tim, and any
time you commit your troops into harm's way, they must have the best equipment,
the best training, and the best possible pay. That's where we owe it to their
loved ones.
Russert: That's a very important point. Every president since the Civil War who
has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes any more until
we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so precious and delicate
because of the war, why do you keep cutting taxes and draining money from the
treasury?
President Bush: Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic
growth is to let people keep more of their own money.
["Remember that thing where I mailed every taxpayer a check for $300? That was
my idea."] And I believe that if you
raise taxes as the economy is beginning to recover from really tough times, you
will slow down economic growth. You will make it harder.
See, I'm more worried about the fellow looking for the job. That's what I'm
worried about. I want people working. I want people to find work. And so, when
we stimulate the economy, it's more likely that person is going to find work.
And the best way to stimulate the economy is not to raise taxes but to hold the
low taxes down.
Russert: How about no more tax cuts until the budget is balanced?
President Bush: Well, that's a hypothetical question which I can't answer to you
because I don't know how strong the economy is going to be.
I mean, the President must keep all options on the table, but I do know that
raising the child lowering the child credit thereby raising taxes on working
families does not make sense when the economy is recovering, and that's exactly
what some of them are calling for up on Capitol Hill. They want to raise taxes
of the families with children, they want to increase the marriage penalty. They
want to get rid of those taxes on small businesses that are encouraging the
stimulation of new job creation, and I'm not going to have any of it.
Russert: We are going to take another quick break. We will be right back with
more of our conversation with the President in the Oval Office, right after
this.
(Commercial)
Russert: And we are back.
Mr. President, last time you were on the show you said that you wanted to change
the tone in the nation.
President Bush: Yes.
Russert: This is Time magazine: "Love Him or Hate Him: Why George Bush arouses
such passion and what it means for the country."
President Bush: Yes.
Russert: Tom Daschle, the Democratic Leader in the Senate, said that you've
changed the tone for the worse; that it's more acrimonious, more confrontations,
that you are the most partisan political president he's ever worked with.
Our exit polls of primary voters, not just Democrats but Independents in South
Carolina and New Hampshire, more than 70 percent of them said they are angry or
dissatisfied with you, and they point to this whole idea of being a uniter as
opposed to a divider.
Why do you think you are perceived as such a divider?
President Bush: Gosh, I don't know, because I'm working hard to unite the
country. As a matter of fact, it's the hardest part of being the president. I
was successful as the Governor of Texas for bringing people together for the
common good, and I must tell you it's tough here in Washington, and frankly it's
the biggest disappointment that I've had so far of coming to Washington.
I'm not blaming anybody. It's just the environment here is such that it is
difficult to find common ground. I‘ll give you a classic case: the Medicare
bill. The Medicare bill was a tough vote, but the Medicare bill is a bill that a
lot of people could have signed on to and had it not been for kind of the sense
of, well, ‘Bush might win, we might lose,’ you know, or ‘Bush might lose, we
might win’ kind of attitude.
And… but I will continue to work hard to unite the country. I don't speak ill of
anybody in the process here. I think if you went back and looked at my comments,
you will see I don't attack. I don't hold up people. I talk about what I believe
in, and I lead, and maybe perhaps I believe so strongly in what we are doing
around the world or doing here at home.
Russert: But around the world, in Europe, favorable ratings unfavorable ratings,
70 in Germany, 67 in France.
President Bush: But you know, Tim, that
Russert: Why do people hold you with such contempt
President Bush: Heck, I don't know, Ronald Reagan was unpopular in Europe when
he was President, according to Jose Maria Aznar. And I said, ‘You know
something? ‘
He said to me, he said, ‘You're nearly as unpopular as Ronald Reagan was.’ I
said, ‘so, first of all, I'm keeping pretty good company.’
I think that people when you do hard things, when you ask hard things of people,
it can create tensions. And I heck, I don't know why people do it. I'll tell
you, though, I'm not going to change, see? I'm not trying to accommodate I won't
change my philosophy or my point of view. I believe I owe it to the American
people to say what I'm going to do and do it, and to speak as clearly as I can,
try to articulate as best I can why I make decisions I make, but I'm not going
to change because of polls. That's just not my nature.
Russert: Two polls out this weekend show you --
President Bush: See there, you're quoting polls.
Russert: you're trailing John Kerry in both U.S.A. Today and Newsweek polls by
seven and five points.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: This is what John Kerry had to say last year. He said that his
colleagues are appalled at the quote "President's lack of knowledge. They've
managed him the same way they've managed Ronald Reagan. They send him out to the
press for one event a day. They put him in a brown jacket and jeans and get him
to move some hay or move a truck, and all of a sudden he's the Marlboro Man. I
know this guy. He was two years behind me at Yale. I knew him, and he's still
the same guy.”
Did you know him at Yale?
President Bush: No.
Russert: How do you respond to that?
President Bush: Politics. I mean, this is—you know, if you close your eyes and
listen carefully to what you just said, it sounds like the year 2000 all over
again.
Russert: You were both in Skull and Bones, the secret society.
President Bush: It's so secret we can't talk about it.
Russert: What does that mean for America? The conspiracy theorists are going to
go wild.
President Bush: I'm sure they are. I don’t know. I haven't seen the (unintel)
yet. (Laughs)
Russert: Number 322.
President Bush: First of all, he's not the nominee, and I look forward
Russert: Are you prepared to lose?
President Bush: No, I'm not going to lose.
Russert: If you did, what would you do?
President Bush: Well, I don't plan on losing. I have got a vision for what I
want to do for the country. See, I know exactly where I want to lead. I want to
lead us I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom. I want to lead
this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways,
particularly as we fight the war on terror, and we got changing times here in
America, too.
Russert: Biggest issues in the upcoming campaign?
President Bush: Who can properly use American power in a way to make the world a
better place, and who understands that the true strength of this country is the
hearts and souls of the American citizens, who understands times are changing
and how best to have policy reflect those times.
And I look forward to a good campaign. I know exactly where I want to lead the
country. I have shown the American people I can lead. I have shown the American
people I can sit here in the Oval Office when times are tough and be steady and
make good decisions, and I look forward to articulating what I want to do the
next four years if I'm fortunate enough to be their president.
Russert: Mr. President, we thank you for sharing your views, and I hope we could
come back and talk about issues during the course of the campaign.
President Bush: Thank you, Tim.
Russert: That's all for today. We will be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's
Meet The Press.
© 2004 MSNBC Interactive