Straight Talk Express

Leading up to the 2000 appointment, rather election, many GOPers complained about how President Clinton would not talk straight about issues. He “waffled” on issues and quibbled over the definition of “is.” These qualities, according to GOPers, made him someone not to trust or worthy of leadership. These same people claimed that George Bush would be the anti-Clinton in that he was too stupid to mince words. It was claimed that he was a straight talker and would not mince words in explaining federal issues. Nonetheless, this so called straight talker ineptly tries to mince words and qualifies his actions with his mediocre word play.

During an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press the following exchange was had

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. 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. No doubt. (Emphasis added)

More recently, in an “impromptu” question and answer session Bush was asked the following:

Q: Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today you mentioned that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by the events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred three years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken. Before we went to war in Iraq we said there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other administrations. We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America. (Emphasis added).

These are just two examples of the numerous examples that exist of this President quibbling over definitions and exact phraseology regarding what was said and when. There is no difference between “grave and gathering” threats and Bush’s statements that there was “no doubt” that Iraq had WMDs. Nor is there any doubt that Bush and his administration made direct connections between Iraq and Al Quaeda. These representations were made in the State of the Union speeches, to the United Nation, in various speeches during the 2004 campaign and in numerous other speeches.

For people to continue to say that Bush talks straight are merely fooling themselves. He has consistently lied to the country about what he has said and it is time that his supporters and his opponents force him to talk straight about what he says and what he means on all issues.