Against my better judgment, I’m watching Diane Sawyer’s interview of George W. Bush on ABC right now (hail to the Mother Ship, hail Disney ). It’s actually fascinating to watch Bush absolutely struggle with any explanation of why we went to war. His responses to Diane Sawyer’s repeated hypothetical, “What if they don’t have WMD?” questions are even more telling… He just repeated that he did the right thing for the American people. No explanation. Nothing else. No token, “I’m sure that we’ll find further evidence of WMD programs.” I’ll post excerpts of the transcript as soon as I have a copy.

He also isn’t a better speaker than he was at the start of the Presidency. I have to believe (though don’t know for certain) that he knew what the questions were ahead of time (a pretty standard thing to do). Even with that preparation, he was awkward, simplistic, and, well, un-presidential.

He did say some interesting things about Saddam Hussein’s trial. It seems that they want the new Iraqi government to try Saddam. It was an interesting suggestion. Again, more on this when I get a hold of the transcript (I would prefer not to misquote our august leader).

Update: OK, here’s the passage I’m talking about regarding WMD (full transcript, edited to take out Bush’s trademark pauses/”uh’s”/etc. is on the ABC News site)

DIANE SAWYER:   Again, I’m just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer’s gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.

DIANE SAWYER:   But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still –

PRESIDENT BUSH:   So what’s the difference?

DIANE SAWYER:   Well –

PRESIDENT BUSH:   The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That’s, that’s what I’m trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de — dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man’s a danger. And so we got rid of him and there’s no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.

DIANE SAWYER:   But, but, again, some, some of the critics have said this combined with the failure to establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that there’s just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Yeah. Look — what — what we based our evidence on was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. …

DIANE SAWYER:   Nothing should have been more precise?

PRESIDENT BUSH:   What — I, I — I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power.

DIANE SAWYER:   What would it take to convince you he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction?

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.

DIANE SAWYER:   And if he doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] ?

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Diane, you can keep asking the question. I’m telling you — I made the right decision for America –

DIANE SAWYER:   But-

PRESIDENT BUSH:   — because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. … But the fact that he is not there is, means America’s a more secure country.

Not even a subtle evasion of the question… I would point out that his “So what’s the difference” comment is pretty much the same as Clinton’s hand waving about not having sexual relations with Lewinsky. I sure as hell hope that people that voted against Gore because of Clinton’s comments remember this comment and vote against Bush in 2004. They may also want to remember the push polls, the ongoing investigation in Cheney’s arrogant violation of the law, and Bush’s used-car sales tactics with great sounding legislation that doesn’t work.

This is not a President who “is a uniter, not a divider.” He is not a compassionate anything. He has presided over the most dramatic reduction in civil liberties and due process in the history of the United States (the Miami police responsible for the broad violence against protesters during the FTAA meeting were given funding by a rider attached to the Iraq reconstruction bill). There’s also the massive deficit (which might be smaller had we not gone to war against Iraq alone), made worse by huge tax cuts.

Vote him out in 2004.

Further update: Common Cause has a list of donors and the perks they received from the 2000 campaign. They also highlight how much money Bush has raised even though he has no primary opponent. Finally, the Bush campaign is kind enough to provide a list of donors to the 2004 campaign. The highest individual donor is listed at $10,000. This doesn’t count the Pioneers and Rangers group, of course.