President Bush became infamous for saying these words to a camera.
There appear to be many references on the Internet to the time when Bush
(intentionally, publicly, standing up at a podium, in a speech) said a very similar thing (without
the word 'but') around September 26, 2002, roughly a year AFTER the attacks
of 9/11/01. There was no great significance in saying that AFTER Iraq
had been invaded! But there seem to be NO references or videotapes of
an incident that I (and two friends) happened to personally see
MORE THAN A YEAR EARLIER, on NETWORK TV, and well BEFORE the attacks of 9/11.
Until recently (2007) I was starting to wonder if I (and two friends, who
also saw it) had somehow imagined the whole thing, because it seems so
obvious that such an important statement BEFORE 9/11 seems to imply that Bush
clearly had a "personal grudge" and therefore a "personal
motivation" for WANTING to attack Iraq, as though he already
was then simply HOPING for some excuse for invading Iraq (to kill Hussein)!|
We all SAW Bush lean over to his right to be able to whisper to Göran Persson, while both were sitting, AFTER the official comments regarding the Kyōto Protocol had been completed. Bush was sitting to the right of Persson on the TV screen.
But in 2007, someone sent in an e-mail to me which led to the proof that George W. Bush HAD made that statement three months BEFORE the 9/11/01 attacks, on Thursday, June 14, 2001, and quietly and 'privately' to the Prime Minister of Sweden, Göran Persson. The 'private comment' occurred just AFTER a Press Conference about the Kyōto Protocol had concluded. Bush clearly did NOT realize that TV cameras were then still rolling (worldwide)! Years later, I learned that the events had happened in Gothenburg, Sweden. A local Swedish TV Network, possibly EIN News, ran the cameras that day, which was then also sent to America to be broadcast (LIVE) on National Network TV here.
And then, three months later, the 9/11 attacks became a convenient reason for attacking Iraq and Saddam, even though it was clear from the start that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
The scariest part of that televised quiet comment was the blood-curdling expression on the face of Bush as he said those words. As a result of seeing that expression (on June 14, 2001), I immediately mentioned to my friends that it was obvious that we were going to go to war to attack Saddam and Iraq (so that President Bush could avenge the earlier threat on his father!) But at that moment, the US had no excuse to invade another country! Until three months later, on 9/11/01. That video and Bush's expression made it clear that the most powerful country on Earth was going to invade Iraq, entirely because of a childish grudge of the President! Astounding!
In fact, that PRIOR televised statement of Bush seems to show really strong motivation to lie to the American public regarding many things, such as first claiming that Iraq was involved in 9/11 (not true); that Iraq and Saddam were dear friends with Usama bin Laden (not true, especially since it was well known that BOTH had already tried to murder each other!); fictitious evidence that Iraq had WMDs and also an active program to develop nuclear weapons (all proven not true, even after destroying the career of Colin Powell); the claim that Saddam tried to buy Uranium from the country of Niger (proven not true); and MANY other examples, even continuing more recently, where the US government had Press Conferences in 2006 where they bragged about finding IEDs that were manufactured by Iran for use in Iraq to kill American troops (which were quickly removed from the air after people noticed the really obvious error where the manufacturing dates on the devices were written in the American calendar sequence [month, day, year] rather than in the sequence that most of the world, including Iran, uses [day, month, year] which absolutely proved that the US government had FAKED those devices to try to blame Iran! This very last seems to be an example of the incident that I suspect may have happened in my central premise here, where all evidence of some actual events seems to have vanished from all available sources!
Notice that this was THREE MONTHS BEFORE the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Within a few days of 9/11, Cheney and Bush were already referring to invading Iraq, and reporters would ask, "Did Iraq even have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks?" Of course, they didn't.
Self-Sufficiency - Many Suggestions|
Public Services Home Page
The three of us SAW the end of a News Conference and then Bush and Persson sitting there (quietly) afterward, when Bush leaned over and whispered to Persson about the Daddy comment on June 14, 2001, three months BEFORE the 9/11/01 attacks. We SAW a man, who happened to then be the President of the United States, essentially make a death threat on Saddam Hussein ON NATIONAL TV. (We all know that he later carried out that death threat on Saddam Hussein).
EXCEPT for the fact that news reports of more than a year later (late September, 2002) are the first ones that seem to be findable on the Internet, which refer to a slightly different wording of the "daddy" comment. Bush apparently said that statement (again) (now standing up and during a Press Conference behind a Podium) WELL AFTER the 9/11 attacks.
SO! Did my friends and I see some Kyōto Protocol Press Conference that never actually happened on June 14, 2001? It seems inconceivable that the Internet would not have both a transcript and the actual Network video of something as rare as a televised News Interview of President Bush. And as IMPORTANT as that one was! I don't see how it could have gotten DELETED from all Network records and Archives! One might also conside the importance of Göran Persson, who was then not only the Prime Minister of Sweden, but also the Head of the European Union!
I could easily imagine that the Bush people would have WANTED to get it deleted, but I cannot imagine any of the News Networks agreeing to do that. How could Bush 'delete important history' which was centrally about the important Kyōto Protocol (regarding global warming, which Bush denied was actually occurring), and also an important Kyōto Conference for the legacy of Göran Persson? Is ANYBODY so powerful such that they could 'revise history' just to keep the world from learning about a truly stupid comment he had made on LIVE TV?
It seems fairly certain that the interview we watched was aired, LIVE, in America, on either ABC News, NBC News, CBS News or FOX, as I don't think I watched any other networks at the time. (I later added the BBC News to my interest.) (I admit that someone else might have earlier turned on that TV and it may have been some other network.)
Now, I KNOW that interview occurred, and so do my friends! But IF that interview occurred, how could it be possible that no one else (in the world?) seems to be aware of it? There couldn't have been ten Presidential Interviews in all of 2001! But, IF such an interview had not really ever happened, how could the three of us have discussed it? And how could I/we have already known when the comment was repeated late in 2002?
How could I even know that Bush was to the right on the screen and Prime Minister Persson was to the left of him?
(For the record, around thirty different people have e-mailed to inform me that they also had seen the chilling comment we three had watched in June 2001 on live TV. Several of them have expressed even more impressive reactions than I had upon seeing it, and all added their own comments regarding the terrifying look on Bush's face as he said it.)
In late 2013, I learned that a Reporter for the New York Times, a Frank Bruni, did a newspaper story regarding that event, where he referred to Bush continuing to talk after he thought the cameras were turned off. But Bruni's article does not mention the 'daddy' comment but mentions some other personal comments he made to Persson. Bruni had stayed in New York City in his office, so he did not personally attend that Kyōto event. He also apparently had not watched it on live TV as we had, or he certainly would have also mentioned Bush's 'daddy' comment.
Keep in mind that these two men were the President of the United States and the then President of the European Union, so ANY mutual Press Conference would have to be assumed as noteworthy! EVERY television network, worldwide, would certainly have retained an Archive copy of that video footage, including every network in the US and also every major branch of all those networks in all major American cities, such as Channels 2, 5, 7, and 32 in Chicago.
All networks have herds of Lawyers on board for when any Lawyer tries to sue their network for having aired some statement that was untoward. Such network Lawyers are constantly busy in researching their own Archive files of videos which had been aired live.
So it is extremely bizarre that NO American Networks seem to have ANY Archived copies of that Kyōto Protocol Press Conference of June 14.2001. At least, they deny having such an Archived video or Transcript to me! I wonder what those Network Lawyers would do if someone now filed Suit against their Network regarding some aspect of the Kyōto Protocol! If Bush and his Administration had somehow managed to erase all Archive copies of that video of June 14, 2001, what could the Lawyers then do to defend their Networks? But shouldn't Swedish TV networks have retained THEIR COPY of Archive video and Transcript, of their OWN PRIME MINISTER ON WORLD-WIDE TV, validating the European position on the Kyōto Protocol?
There is a special reason why that scene was so momentous. The expression on Bush's face and the matter-of-factly way he made the statement was bone-chilling! I have only ever once before seen that expression on any person. It was a Syndicate Mobster who had just been caught by the Police. He clearly knew that he was going to soon be released, and was unconcerned. But he made a statement to a Reporter that was virtually identical to Bush's comment. The Mobster very calmly mentioned to that Reporter that a Gangster from a different Family had recently killed his sister. HIS EXPRESSION was like Bush's! In seeing the Mobster make that cold and definitive statement, there was NO doubt that the offending Mobster would very soon be killed, which was in the news a few days later. That was the ONLY time I have ever seen ANY person have that expression that Bush had when he made the (June 14, 2001) Daddy comment. It was almost as though he was stating that he was going to kill Saddam, exactly like the Mobster who made the similar statement. People really need to SEE that videotape!!! And, concurrently, they need to HEAR Bush implicitly make clear that he was going to use the Presidency to murder Saddam Hussein! I realize that you do not believe my impression, and it is CRITICAL that you see and hear it yourself. It wasn't that Bush could have been convicted of murder for that statement, but it sure seemed very close!
I guess I might have also seen Charles Bronson have that expression when delivering similar news about his dead wife or son in some movie, but I cannot say for sure. It is such a definitive expression and way of making a statement, that there is NO possible doubt as to what the speaker means. Does that mean that Bush was already planning pre-meditated murder? I am not sure we could go that far, but when you see that videotape, I assure you that you will certainly consider that thought!
Maybe this is not a world-shaking problem! However, IF that interview actually took place, the implications are incredible. The fact that comment was made BEFORE 9/11 really made extremely clear to me that Bush really was hoping for some excuse to invade Iraq, and 9/11 then just happened to provide it. However, if my memory was totally wrong (which, for a research Nuclear Physicist would be rather unusual!), and the findable references were correct, then Bush (in late 2002) seemed to just be adding to an existing (alleged) WMD issue with his personal feelings a year afterward. That is incredibly different!
So, if there is anyone who can figure out how to find any record of a rather rare Presidential Interview on June 14, 2001 on a major Network, I feel that I can guarantee that that interview contains the exact sentence, rather casually said: "He tried to kill my daddy." I also remember that the other person had a very surprised expression, while Bush had essentially none, except that strange smile he usually has. It was terrifying to watch, somewhat resembling the interviews with caught mass murderers who seem to have a very strange expression on their faces.
I would really appreciate if anyone can confirm this either way! If it can be confirmed that Bush gave NO individual interviews on June 14, 2001, I guess I would have to accept it. Except that I and others SAW it!
As a scientist, this now brings up all sorts of NEW issues! First, the Official White House Transcript of that day does NOT contain that statement by the President! (Isn't an Official Transcript supposed to include ALL events that happened? Most even refer to coughs, sneezes and pauses!) Second, clearly, such an amazing, and strange, statement by the President of the United States, was certainly immediately shared with countless television Networks around the world, and so they should NOW all have copies of it in their Archives. However, it appears that there is NO videotape copy now in existence! Or even any REFERENCE to the event even having happened! How is that possible? I cannot even discover what Network's camera was still rolling when Mr. Bush made that comment! There are virtually NO records or references to that comment anywhere! A search on the Internet certainly has MANY references to nearly the same comment made on Sept 26, 2002, but the implications of him having said it BEFORE 9/11 seem to suggest the possibility that Bush was even then already looking for some excuse to attack and kill Saddam, and that 9/11 was simply seen by Bush and his administration as the perfect excuse for invading Iraq. Doesn't that essentially qualify as premeditated murder? Even though Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11, Bush and his group insisted that it was URGENT that they attack Iraq! Now, with that video, it makes more sense WHY they did that! It was personal! We had over 4,000 Servicemen die and we spent over a trillion dollars, apparently because a kid wanted revenge on someone who had threatened his father. And when you are President of the United States, it appears that you can obtain your vengeance.
It might be appropriate to note that the Bush government later DECIDED to destroy more than 90 videotapes of waterboarding (torture) when they realized that they would look very bad if anyone ever saw those tapes. So ethics and principles seem not to have had much importance. I still do not see how supposedly INDEPENDENT businesses, television networks, would have ever agreed to dispose of an important videotape, just because it made the President look like a jerk. Would they all have done that? If so, it is terrifying for a Fourth Estate reason!
EIN News might have been responsible for the cameras that day, as they seem to have kept daily coverage of Mr. Persson, but I have been unable to find if they have any Archives of videotapes. I have seen references where EIN News carefully amasses every bit of media content which is related to Göran Persson, as they intend to some day publish an Official Memoir of his time as Prime Minister of Sweden. So, a LOT of media archives SHOULD contain copies of the events of June 14, 2001 in Gothenburg, Sweden, but EIN News seems certain to have saved it.
This is all VERY weird, especially since it has now been confirmed that we DID see the President make that strange comment THREE MONTHS BEFORE the 9/11 attacks!
Now, I want even more to actually see some Transcript of that portion of that meeting, and also actually see the videotape. As I noted above, the expression on Mr. Bush's face was incredibly chilling, as THAT was the reason I realized at that moment that he intended to attack Iraq.
I found that clip. My buddy bet me a $1000.00 it was never said. He lost! I KNEW I saw that speech, it bothered me deeply. I saw the whole speech, and it was pretty clear he had it out for him... Regardless of 911. Shortly afterwards I quit the Republican Party and became an Independent.
They have 3 0r 4 different players to see watch it on.
We also have this (Sept 2002) videotape Bush Daddy Videotape (second).
So it still appears that there may be NO EXISTING COPY of the live telecast which I personally saw on 6/14/01! The mystery continues. And IF some viewer happened to have had a VCR going to capture a copy of it on that day, that will then center a focus on all the TV Networks that certainly USED TO HAVE a copy of that video but now they would need to explain why their Archives seem to no longer contain that video. Maybe if ONE Network would lose a video, but when ABC-Chicago and ABC-New York and ABC-Los Angeles and all the others each aired it, along with the other networks, how could they ALL have lost such an important videotape? Even Networks that did not air it that day, would have received a satellite-feed of that videotape, such that they might consider airing it or excerpting it for their News broadcasts. Logically, there should be at least 50 Archives in the US that should have recorded and saved that video, as they do ALL news segments! There is NO logical explanation for how ALL of them could now not have it, except for an intentional action on the part of the Bush government to force them all to delete it. I can imagine that the reasoning might have been that the President looked really bad, but can the (US) government actually force all the TV networks to dispose of what would now be an immensely important videotape? Isn't America supposed to be different from that?
A second peculiar subject related to President Bush, regarding some very scary aspects of the 2004 election process (and electronic voting machines) is presented at: 2004 Presidential Election, A Very Peculiar Subject. (I do NOT believe that Mr. Bush was ever aware of the incidents discussed there. My friend Peter Jennings thought I was being silly about those matters and he joked that I might be challenging my career as a Research Physicist by exploring a conspiracy theory! Which he KNEW was not true of me! I just see what seem to be facts and solid logic, and wherever that goes ...)
To indicate that my interest is purely scientific and logical, it seems necessary to include yet another subject here.
In the First Term of W, he virtually never left the United States and never even went anywhere where he might be in the slightest physical danger. It was a very obvious pattern. I interpret this as meaning that W's existence was centrally critical to the Republicans, and specifically Vice President Cheney, being re-elected in November 2004. It seemed to me that many things totally changed immediately after that. I suppose it would be a Conspiracy Theorist thought, but it really seemed to me that Bush had rather suddenly no longer had the importance that he clearly earlier had! I did not have any actual evidence, except for these matters, but I had mentioned to my friend Peter Jennings several times about the fact that MANY foreign trips were now scheduled for Bush. And some of those trips were amazingly unsafe for him. It seemed to me that IF Bush would have been assassinated somewhere, then Cheney would suddenly have had two wonderful new benefits! One would be that he would become President of the United States! The other is that the American people would certainly support virtually anything that Cheney decided to do, regarding personal revenge, much like they had done with Saddam Hussein a couple years earlier in Iraq.
I sent this note on Mar. 2, 2006, regarding some amazingly unsafe trips that President Bush was just on. A year before, there had been a similar bizarre situation, where after a conversation with my friend Peter Jennings of ABC News, he even made a phone call to the White House to ask about the concern. It was impressive that immediately after Peter's call, the very unsafe foreign trips were ended! I am tempted to think that once Cheney had realized that Peter had realized that Bush was now regularly put into situations of incredible danger, it would have looked too suspicious if Peter might then mention that fact on the Nightly News! But around a year later, such trips had started again, when I sent this note. I have always wondered if the fact that Peter suddenly became very ill with lung cancer and died, might have implied that the only likely public voice that could note the statistical pattern, might have suggested that dangerous trips might again be planned for Bush.
I realize that this is both impossible for me to ever prove, and also saying that the Vice President was not actually trying to murder the President, but apparently intentionally enabling a LOT of situations where it might have happened. So I recognize that the credibility of this idea is extremely weak. The ONLY actual evidence is that Bush went on NO foreign trips that had the slightest chance of being dangerous prior to Nov 2005, but then a LOT of amazingly dangerous trips after being re-Elected.
It has clearly not ended, as in March 2007, President Bush made another very dangerous trip. It seemed beyond comprehension! Bush first made a scheduled trip to South America for some official meeting. Fine. But then on the way home, Air Force One made an UNSCHEDULED LANDING in Central America (where the Presidential Security Staff had no way of checking anyone out or even arranging any safety for him.) This time, Bush even tried to impress working men by helping load produce into trucks, and even getting into a spontaneous soccer game. The Security people had NO POSSIBLE WAY of knowing if any of those people were dangerous to him, or even whether they had guns in their pockets, because it was all totally unscheduled and spontaneous, and in a small country where many very dangerous people lived! Bush would never DARE do either such thing in the United States, because of how dangerous it would be. And THAT would be in his own country where his Security People would have thoroughly checked out every single person who might have been able to get near him. But Bush did such things in Guatemala and Mexico, where millions of people truly hate him, and where the people who were around him were absolutely unknown to his Security Staff???
(My note of March 2, 2006)
Hopefully, this will be the silliest note you will ever receive. However, I fear it might not be. A year ago, I had mention these things to my friend Peter Jennings and we had a brief discussion about it. He also feared that I might be right.
I was educated as a Nuclear Physicist at the University of Chicago, so Peter liked that I always brought a rigidly logical approach to any subject.
I had noted these facts:
(1) After 9/11/01, President Bush rarely was around any people who were not clearly friendly to his views, an extremely noticeable and statistically valid situation. His personal safety was certainly paramount, and he virtually never left the United States, except in massively secured environments.
(2) Almost immediately after his re-election in 2004, there seemed to be a statistically valid drastic change to that situation. I realize that there were political reasons, but the specific incidents seemed amazingly insecure! A trip to South America is what inspired my note to Peter. President Bush was probably reasonably safe at the Conference he attended, even though it was very obvious that there were many people nearby who would not have hesitated to kill him. But on the way back from that Conference, the President made a previously unscheduled side trip, to a rather dangerous place. I suspect the Secret Service was appalled.
(3) During 2005, the President made a statistically surprising number of trips out of the US. Usually, security measures were probably as good as they could be, but occasionally, there were certainly situations where some angry person could have been in a crowd near enough to him to try to kill him. There was even the man with the hand-grenade that did not explode while Bush was on a Podium.
(4) This current trip to India seems to be an even more prominent example. India itself is probably reasonably secure, but traveling to Pakistan seemed to be "challenging" UBL to try to have him killed! And making an unscheduled side trip to Afghanistan, where security issues could not possibly have been fully implemented, seems pure insanity!
(5) I had told Peter (early 2005) that it would be interesting to watch whether President Bush ever again showed up in potentially dangerous places. Well, it seems to happen far too often, I think.
Observation: In the early years of his Presidency, Bush was definitely a strong asset to the Neo-Cons and the Republican Party. But after bad things in Iraq, Katrina, and multiple scandals, his personal popularity has plummeted to where he is now a millstone around the neck of Neo-Cons and Republicans. It seems like every week new examples of utter incompetence and/or outright lying to the American people arise.
Given all this, WHAT future would be "the best" for the Neo-Cons and the Republicans? Well, a truly frightening possibility is that a President, who always talked about terrorism, might be martyred by a terrorist, and who would then have the highest of any possible image to the American public. No one would then ever criticize an assassinated President, and his "legacy" would be as he dreams it would be.
With any OTHER contingency, Bush would be directly blamed for the coming civil war and destruction of Iraq, for bankrupting the US government and economy, for Katrina issues, and for many scandals. The "negatives" are now endless, and will forever be endless. Already, while still in the Presidency, experts (like Reeves) are already comparing W with President Buchanan as being the worst President America has ever had! As Iraq disintegrates, and therefore affects oil production and distribution (from primarily Muslim countries), coming months figure to become even darker, for America and Americans.
It is definitely a very "sick" thought that any "close advisor" in or near the White House might see some bizarre way to justify lax security around Bush, but the above concepts could engender such horrendous thoughts in some individual who might be more concerned about Bush's "legacy" than his "long life".
I just don't want to see even a glimmer of that happen! I don't respect much about W, but I wish him a long and healthy life.
On an obscurely related subject, I note that NO ONE seems to have even mentioned the "pattern of assassinations" (or death while in Office) during the Tenure of W. When Reagan became President, it was a prominent subject of discussion, and then when he was shot, people seemed to think it "fulfilled the pattern" even though he survived. Isn't it odd that no one seems to even broach the subject regarding W? Maybe it's because, after 9/11/01, it was recognized that many people would want to, and the news media have shown restraint? Even that seems rather surprising!
--- Again, I truly hope that these are simply foolish thoughts and that nothing will occur that resembles them. However, I would ask that, since YOU have communications with people in the White House, you simply mention that you received a "flaky" note and asked for any response. I don't really want anyone to respond to you, but I would only want word to pass through those Halls that they should really make sure the President is EXTREMELY secure for the next 3 years! Because otherwise, suspicion might arise. I look forward to being proven totally wrong on this!
Please note that I am NOT suggesting that anyone would do anything overt in these matters. It is more of a "security sloppiness" which might enable an assassination, which would then turn out to be extremely beneficial in many ways. No one would "intentionally" endanger the President.
And the Deja vu presentation is at:
Déjà vu and other Unusual Phenomena - Deja vu
This page - -
- - is at
This subject presentation was last updated on - -
C Johnson, Theoretical Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago