....LMB: "Bush on the Economy"....

September 04, 2003

Just caught the "NBC exclusive interview" with President Bush, and it really is astounding to hear the man speak.

Q: How come the economic stimulus is not translating into job creation?

I actually think it will translate into job creation. Look, my attitude is that so long as somebody wants to work and can't find a job, that means we got a problem. Rather than quantifying the numbers, all I want to do is create the conditions necessary so that all eligible people can find work. And I'm optimistic that that'll happen. I'm much more optimistic today than I was a year ago.

Okay. When asked why Bush's economic plans aren't creating jobs, Bush tells us that he thinks they will. When? Why? How? Nope, we don't get any of that. This answer is worse than useless to the public, and doesn't even answer the question.

Q: Is it entirely Congress' fault that the deficits are so big?

It's nobody's fault, in the sense that half the deficit was caused by a recession. When you have a recession, there's less revenues coming in the treasury, you know that. And about half of the projected deficits were caused by the recession. A quarter of the deficit was caused by the fact that I requested, and Congress spent, enough money to win the war on terror. And my attitude is that if we're gonna put people in harm's way, we need to spend the money necessary for them to succeed.

"It's nobody's fault"? That's a funny answer for a conservative. I thought they were the party of "personal responsibility."

And although I know it's probably just Bush's poor verbal skills, but he announces here that he and Congress have appropriated enough money to "win the war on terror." You heard it here first, the latest U.S. budget will fully fund the elimination of international terrorism. Or not...

Q: Will it really cost $50-80 billion for U.S. operations in Iraq?

I have not yet decided on a number. The way I do business, or the way I run the administration, is I say to those who are responsible for the actions in the field, what does it take to get the job done? How money will it require? We're at war. We're at war against some pretty tough characters who hate America. And therefore we need to put the money up in order to win this war. I wanna make sure that America is more secure. I will not forget the lessons of September the eleventh, 2001. And the lesson of September the eleventh is that an enemy does exist, and this great country will never cower in the face of terrorists. And that we have an obligation in this administration to do everything in our power to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Well historically speaking, the way Bush does business is to run the company into the ground, and then wait for his daddy's friends to bail it out (but maybe that's just me being bitter and cynical and accurate).

We are indeed in a war in Iraq (kinda). And in Afghanistan (kinda). But as always the "war on terror(ism)" is bullshit. Terrorism is a tactic, and declaring war on it is like declaring war on gunfire. Even if we interpret it to mean what we know Bush wants it to mean--fundamentalist Islamic organizations that plot acts of violence against American targets--declaring war on them doesn't make sense either. I've said all along that the the anti-terror effort should be waged as a campaign against a particular form of organized crime, not like a battle against the Redcoats in the Revolutionary War.

Let's also note that Bush manages to complete evade the question, not mentioning how much money he thinks it will cost to succeed in Iraq.

So in the eyes of George W. Bush, the lessons of 9/11 are:

- we have enemies
- America will never "cower in the face of terrorists"
- the Bush administration has an obligation to stop thousands of Americans from being killed by terrorists (again)

I would think that 1 and 3 would be obvious, and I'm not even sure what the hell 2 means.

Who the hell listens to this simian?