Rather than read the selective quotes, see the full speech at
http://www.tufts.edu/communications/stories/030303BushSpeech.htm

Bush says explicitly that he won't comment on the current Iraq situation, and his comments basically just defend what he did in '91. This hardly amounts to Bush vs. Bush.

Did you read the q&a? He did comment on the Iraq situation, directly:

"PRESIDENT BUSH: I agree with the President, it would be much better to act with as much international support as possible. The difference between '91 and today is that the objective was clearer, in a way, back when I was President. You could see the occupying forces. You could get the reports of the brutality of the Iraqi soldiers to the Kuwaiti women, and to the torture of the young men. You could see that the forces, in my view, were determined to go even further south to try to take over -- that was my view -- to take over Saudi Arabia. Today it's less clear.

The violations of the U.N. resolutions by Saddam Hussein are clear. But, the question is how much does he have in a way of weapons of mass destruction? That could be debated. But, I think, most people conclude that he has not done what he was called on to do, to fully disarm. So, it's a little fuzzier today."

How much does he have in a way of weapons of mass destructions? Fuzzier? Do you think they're still on the same page?

Gabriel,

Please dismiss the baseless rants stated here as just that: Baseless rants.

Obviously, this blog serves as an outlet for the injured ego of a close relative of Al Gore. Therefore we must consider the source.

That being said, let us not deter from enjoying this blog as what it truly is: A source of entertainment and nothing more.

-Colfax

Yeah, nevermind the direct quotes and everything. It's all bullshit, right? You know the truth! Just like George!

If you really want to, you can read Bush's assertion that Saddam's violations of UN resolutions today are "a little fuzzier" than in 1991 as arguing against war, but don't count me in that camp.

The important question is, regardless what Bush Sr. thinks in his heart of hearts, does he feel strongly enough that war is a bad idea to issue an unambiguous public statement opposing it, which might sway public opinion enough to stop the war. The answer is clearly no.

"Yeah, nevermind the direct quotes and everything. It's all bullshit, right? You know the truth! Just like George!"

Really man. Get a clue, and a life for that matter.

If I could wave a magic wand and in doing such move all of those opposed to going after Iraq to a sacred island, while striking a deal with Suddam that if a weapon of death emerges from his lair it shall be cast upon the island of that the anti-war advocates protest against, then I would.

The problem is that I can't.

9/11 made it perfectly clear how vulnerable the USA is. Iraq is a staunchy pit of hell that anyone with a rational mind should not underestimate.

Lets forget everything else and focus simply on the enormous testimonies of the people from that country.

As a result, one thing is perfectly clear: Iraq is far better off without the Saddam regime.

I support Bush 100%. I am behind Bush 100%. So do my family, friends, and (most) associates.

Be very careful with your insults young man.

Thanks! I knew that soon one of you would descend to "Love it or leave it" rhetoric.

And thanks for stopping by to be violated!

Kick back, relax, and chow down on some Freedom Fries.