"Banned" Interview - President Bush

I'm not going to touch on the political side, but his arrogance and attitude is absurd. He stomps and shakes his finger around when someone criticizes him.

I would not be surprised at all if he smacked his wife around.
 
I've just watched the video. Actually, I really don't understand what's the problem.

W is invited to answer questions. He asks for time to answer without being interrupted. What's the problem? Woul dlike other people on NS to be able to cut parts of your posts?

Moreover, I don't see here an interview, I don't see a journalist. I see a woman who doesn't ask question but sets the God revealed truth. Listen, she should tell the Kurds of Alabjah that Iraq was a safer place under Saddam?

I really don't see a problem with W on that. HE is president of the USA. You just don't interrupt him llike you would with Britney Spears. Actually, britney Spears is not even interrupted when interviewed.

Again, it's our times journalistic disease: journalists want to be the star of their shows. This journalist probably thought that by being pushy and even disrespectful, she would become famous and so on. Well, I guess she missed that.

W was pretty good in this interview. I like the way she tries to go on another subject when W talks about this guy who lost his hand because of Saddam.

Again, you don't talk to a president or the Pope or any of these kinda people like you would talk to a pop star. This journalist learnt that you don't do that to a president, because a president will not let the interviewer do his/her show.

Bush 1 - 0 redhead journalist
 
You don't find the part where he is condescending and rude, much PRIOR to being cut off to be disrespectful?

He shakes his finger, and talks down to everyone right off the bat.
 
how the fucking hell is 9/11 bush's problem that "he created".....

i thought the world sucked our dick under the clinton admin, so could you please explain to me how the fuck bush is to blame? if anything it was the policy's of clinton that made osama hate us, right? he was in power, so doesnt the blame start, and end there? or does that only work because its bush in office and not clinton?

really tell me how "he created" it........ while you are at it, i would like to know what your response to the "drill here" thread is, because i noticed you havent posted in there..
 
wow .. "he shakes is finger" ... it should be a federal crime ... lame

People should stop thinking bashing bush is cool and trendy. You can hate him, that's your right, but using things like "he shakes his finger" to find another way to attack him is pretty ridiculous.

Come on, you hate him . ok. I can understand.

Try this: sit down a minute or two, imaguine you're the president of the USA on 9/11 and try to figure out honestly what you would have done.

Trust me, Bush was pretty calm, I was so mad on 9/11 that I would probably have wiped out afghanistan, iraq, saudi arabia, algeria off the map.

I saw a t shirt last week saying something like "remember 9/11 cause democrats have already forgotten". Damn true
 
have you seen team america: world police? its a really interesting documentary i think you'd be very interested in it!
 
Thats why your not the president dumb shit. Its not the job of the president to react brashly based entirely on emotion, he needs to think things through. I have no problem with the fact that we went into Afghanistan. Now if you had your facts straight you would know the Bush family is BFFs with the Saudis, so obviously there still there, regardless of the fact that they oppress their people too (note:i am not advocating charging into every muslim country cuz they oppress their people, theres definitely better ways.) However explain to me how Iraq has ANYTHING to do with 9/11
 
Him shaking his finger while acting in the manner he is, is incredibly condescending. Is that really how you want your nations leader and spokesperson to the global community to act? You want your nations spokesperson scolding other countries like they are disobedient eight year olds?

But I am clearly hating on bush because it's "trendy and cool" to do. It has nothing to do with his foreign and domestic policies at all.
 
You know what is condescending? MY french prime minister going to the UN making a lesson of morals to our best allies and letting them down, 60 years after USA liberated europe.

Ok, let's say Bush was condescending with a disrespectful reporter.... such a big deal ... I really think he should go to prison for that...

SO, you hate bush for his policy ... ok, you have that right. That's so funny that his foreign policy hasn't change during 8 years and that he was easily reelected ... are americans so versatile? You guys change your minds so fast?

Come on, almost all presidents in all countries get bashed during their last year of power. It's an internatinal sport: hate the ones you loved. I'm talking to you personally, but the people as a whole.

Hating bush is trendy. Especially for young people. But don't take it personally
 
1/ you insulting me shows how smart your intervention may be.

2/ where did I say iraq had something to do with 9/11?

3/ Iraq had something to do with terrorism as a whole ... you probably don't remember saddam paying large amounts of money to the families of dead palestinian terrorists, no? Just an info: Israel is your ally!

4/ Don't you think going to iraq and making their oil secure was a good way to get rid of our dependance to arabian oil?

5/ again, you're all quite funny, I see a lot of criticism but no propositions. What should he have done? What would you have done?

Whatever the reasons for iraq, do you realize Saddam killed 1,5 million people in less than 30 years? SO you guys feel good in your couch and don't give a damn about this kinda country?

I can understand that. On my side, I think that us, developped free country have a moral duty to help other countries and even showing by force that no dictator is safe
 
Nope, but I'll check on the web.

I don't know what it is about, but since I've seen Michael Moore"s bullshits, I guess nothing can be worse!
 
1) apology for the insult. i was grumpy last night.

2) You implied that after 9/11 you would have invaded all of them.

3) And regardless i dont justify him paying terrorists for invading and starting an unwinnable war. Tons of people support terrorism monetarily.

4) Spending billions on a war is not the way to reduce dependence. How about instead we reduce dependence on oil period. From anywhere. And clearly its not working gas is higher than its ever been. Not to mention bush has never claimed its for oil he said weapons of mass destruction, then when that didnt work out he decideds "oh its for the people" who by the way are still dying.

5) yes i did propose something. Not go into iraq, its a pretty simple proposition.

Also for that matter if were going to go into Iraq cuz he killed people were also going to have to invade most of africa. The iraqis arent liberated their living in chaos, with no real government, and the minute we leave (regardless of when that is) teh country will collapse in civil war.

 
It's true that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin Laden - they hated each other. It's true that Saddam Hussein had no active programs pursuing weapons of mass destruction. But this statement is simply not true. Is Iraq a great, fun, peaceful and prosperous place to live? No, but it's improved dramatically in the past year and there is an increasingly good chance that we will be able to pull out most of our forces in the next few years and have reasonable stability maintained by the Iraqi government. Also, while this conflict has had a terrible toll for the Iraqi people, the fact is that it has turned extremist groups against each other and caused a much greater percentage of the Islamic world to reject violence as a political tool. Terrorism is waning. Has it been worth it? I'm not gonna try to answer that here - hell, I'm not even sure - but the truth is progress has been made.
 
God... I am so fucking sick of politics on NS. Everyone is so fucking bigheaded and sure that they are right. A lot of you have a lot of growing up to do.
 
Regardless Bush said that Saddam HAD WMDs, we have found 0. Then after we were already there, he has changed his angle, claiming that it was for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Thats just plain wrong.

Now to Iraq today. Terror is not really on the drop. There are still constant suicide bombings and IEDs. Killing both Americans and Iraqi's. Rather than living in fear of Saddam, they live in fear of extremist groups, its a lose lose situation but we haven't helped. Not to mention the people that since we invaded have been cutoff from power or water for extensive periods of time.

Finally, you cannot deny that eventually America will have to leave (i hope sooner rather than later). Regardless of when that happens be it in 10 months or 10 years of 50 years, the weak Iraqi government that we did instate will not hold, and the country is going to fall into civil war. So in the end, we haven't helped at all, if anything things are worse.
 
Including Iraq massively skews the analysis. In the NCTC and MIPT data, Iraq accounts for 80 percent of all deaths counted. But if you set aside the war there, terrorism has in fact gone way down over the past five years.

This implies that there are more deaths there due to "terror" which is really all civilian deaths in Iraq from the war. So are they better off? i dont think so.
 
I'm not saying Iraq is better off (right now). I'm saying that as a result of the war in Iraq, terrorism around the world has gone down - not necessarily because terrorist groups are less capable of operations, but because they've lost credibility in their support base. Now that they're mostly killing other Muslims, the Islamic world has turned against them and is embracing legitimate, non-violent methods, more so than they have in the past. I'm going to try to do a cost-benefit analysis on this here - that's a subject for a doctoral thesis, not an NS post - but the fact is that the Muslim world is undergoing a significant and positive ideological shift. In a strange, roundabout way, the war on terror might be bringing modernization and (classical) liberalism to that culture, not because they're learning to love Western democracy but because they're learning to hate violent extremism.

 
see i think this has more to do with the invasion of Afghanistan and a general crackdown on terror than Iraq. Iraq wasnt the home of terrorists so much as a horrible dictator. And clearly the people of Iraq are still fucked, which is the main point. Terrorism shouldnt be stopped at the expense of Iraqi civilians.
 
Granted, all either of us can really do at this point is speculate, but I disagree. Support for Bin Laden was strong throughout the first few years of American involvement in Afghanistan - a large network of sympathizers is what allowed him to escape, most likely to Pakistan. At that point, most people being killed by Al Qaeda were Westerners. After Hussein's fall, that changed. The organization made what I think will prove to be a fatal mistake - they moved in Iraq and started attacking not only Americans, but also Iraqis. Iraq turned into a power struggle between Al Qaeda-supported Sunni groups and Shiite militias, leaving the average Iraqi civilian caught in the middle. The rest of the Islamic world has watched this happen and they've grown tired of it. That's why we've seen support for extremism drop across the world.
 
She interrupted because she only has a little time with him, and the guy isn't answering her questions, just oozing the same cliche bullshit out of his mouth that doesn't really apply to anything in particular that we have all heard a million times before

 
but again, its at the expense of the iraqis, and that civil war is only gonna escalate when we leave. i feel like were stopping terror elsewhere at the expense of Iraqi lives...
 
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to

develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.

That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If

Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We

want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass

destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq

is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal

here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,

chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest

security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He

will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times

since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,

18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and

consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary

actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect

Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's

refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to

President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom

Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein

has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction

technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made

a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,

CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money

on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There

is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons

programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear

programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In

addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is

doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop

longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our

allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D,

FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief

that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability

of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is

building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering

them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that

he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons

throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's

search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter

and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in

power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many

years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass

destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The

last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are

confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and

biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to

build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence

reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert

Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the

President of the United States the authority to use force -- if

necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly

arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave

threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There

is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to

develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the

next five years ... We also should remember we have always

underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons

of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He

has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,

every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and

destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.

This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In

the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show

that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological

weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear

program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,

including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left

unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to

wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop

nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We

are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam

Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity

for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen.

Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to

disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an

oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat

because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is

miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his

consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of

Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen.

John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
 
Funny but we didnt end up in iraq when clinton was president... and kerry. i didnt like him. well. he was better than bush but... didnt like him.
 
but they didnt invade. they said they needed to disarm him but they didnt start the billions of dollars war (wow that is an awkward sentence.. oh well).
 
"I will be voting to give the

President of the United States the authority to use force -- if

necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly

arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave

threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
 
so did bush do what clinton didnt have the balls to do?

"If

Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We

want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass

destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
 
no it has to do with the fact that clinton was looking for a better way. he knew it would be the shitshow it is so he didnt get into it. it has nothing to do with balls it has to do with thinking about the good of the country
 
but clinton's actions led to this...

"I will be voting to give the

President of the United States the authority to use force -- if

necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly

arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave

threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
 
and as i said i didnt like him. but i liked him better than bush. i didnt support the war period
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top