Watch Bush's excelent performance in this one on one interview

[Czar]

I'm sorry for being so .. forward.. but after watching an interview pointed out in another thread then I just exploded and posted a way too harsh post, so this is the edit

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6376.htm

watch it, judge for yourself, you can not say that he is not a good public speaker, this is a one on one interview and he is not in defense and unsure about himself ... he is fully aware and supporting everything he is saying there

I really dont want people to post here and agree with me like so many want. But how about those who support Bush, how can you explain this?

 

[conjur]

Note you can download the video in AVI format here:
http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/bush_interview.avi

It's fun to poke fun at him for his Bushisms, much like Dan Quayle. However, what we see in this president is the result of years of being coddled and refusing to surround himself with people other than those who agree 100% with him or will kiss his arse. Dissent is patriotic and debate in an administration should be a requirement.

 

[raildogg]

Sigh. Another thread where Bush is called childish names. Why don't you people create a single thread and put all this stuff in there?

And get a hobby other than surfing anti-GOP or anti-Bush websites. It accomplishes nothing.

The fact is that Bush is a better alternative to whatever the Democrats can offer. That is it. If they had a better candidate run against him, they would have won. Hillary might have beaten Bush.

Oh heres your prize, for your childish name calling.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Sigh. Another thread where Bush is called childish names. Why don't you people create a single thread and put all this stuff in there?

And get a hobby other than surfing anti-GOP or anti-Bush websites. It accomplishes nothing.

The fact is that Bush is a better alternative to whatever the Democrats can offer. That is it. If they had a better candidate run against him, they would have won. Hillary might have beaten Bush.

Oh heres your prize, for your childish name calling.

10 minute video, lets say.. 2 minute download time.. 12 minutes and here you are 5 minutes after my post which you probably noticed about 2-3 minutes after I posted, so that gives you about 2-3 minutes to watch the whole thing, ponder what you were going to say and then write it down

please please, I beg you, watch the video and post your thoughts about it

 

[raildogg]

I've listened to it, and it is the same thing Bush usually says in press conferences or the interviews. He was responding to a hostile, clearly anti-war and probably anti-Bush journalist. I don't find anything he said out of the ordinary. I don't support Bush and I clearly am not anti-Bush, but he is saying the usual same lines he has said many times over. This did not warrant starting a whole new thread and calling names. I have some differences with Bush's fiscal and social policy, but I do support our new aggressive foreign policy. Since you're a Icelandic, you do not share the view of Bush and/or America. We must be aggressive and we must pursue our interests and the interests of other countries should come second to ours.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: raildogg
I've listened to it, and it is the same thing Bush usually says in press conferences or the interviews. He was responding to a hostile, clearly anti-war and probably anti-Bush journalist. I don't find anything he said out of the ordinary. I don't support Bush and I clearly am not anti-Bush, but he is saying the usual same lines he has said many times over. This did not warrant starting a whole new thread and calling names.

Are you going to watch and give comments or just b!cth and complain.
He wants bush supporters to explain and defend his comments, i agree the name calling was a bit much, but it is up to you to PROVE why it was too much...

for you, for jumping all over the democrats/anti-gop without considering the material.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: raildogg
I've listened to it, and it is the same thing Bush usually says in press conferences or the interviews. He was responding to a hostile, clearly anti-war and probably anti-Bush journalist. I don't find anything he said out of the ordinary. I don't support Bush and I clearly am not anti-Bush, but he is saying the usual same lines he has said many times over. This did not warrant starting a whole new thread and calling names. I have some differences with Bush's fiscal and social policy, but I do support our new aggressive foreign policy. Since you're a Icelandic, you do not share the view of Bush and/or America. We must be aggressive and we must pursue our interests and the interests of other countries should come second to ours.

tell me, how was the interviewer hostile?

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: raildogg
I've listened to it, and it is the same thing Bush usually says in press conferences or the interviews. He was responding to a hostile, clearly anti-war and probably anti-Bush journalist. I don't find anything he said out of the ordinary. I don't support Bush and I clearly am not anti-Bush, but he is saying the usual same lines he has said many times over. This did not warrant starting a whole new thread and calling names.

Are you going to watch and give comments or just b!cth and complain.
He wants bush supporters to explain and defend his comments, i agree the name calling was a bit much, but it is up to you to PROVE why it was too much...

for you, for jumping all over the democrats/anti-gop without considering the material.

Even after listening to it, it was the same BS that he usually says. NOTHING DIFFERENT. It did not deserve a whole new thread created just to call him a idiot. There are many other threads in which that could be accomplished.

Take your back, it was nasty and rotten.

tell me, how was the interviewer hostile?

Listen to it. She should have let him finish his statements without interruptng.

 

[conjur]

If by hostile you mean trying to interject a question to explore a point, then yeah. If by hostile you mean insulting, crass, rude, condescending, etc. then you are way off-base.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Even after listening to it, it was the same BS that he usually says. NOTHING DIFFERENT. It did not deserve a whole new thread created just to call him a idiot. There are many other threads in which that could be accomplished.

Take your back, it was nasty and rotten.

Which thread would this be more appropriate in?
If you do not care for the topic, DON'T POST IN IT.
You aren't a moderator or forum police...
You are completely overlooking what the OP wants...

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: raildogg

tell me, how was the interviewer hostile?

Listen to it.

I did, I did not find her hostile, just questions coming from the viewpoint of a european, now tell me, how was she hostile? did she ask questions that were what? too hard to answer?

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: raildogg
Even after listening to it, it was the same BS that he usually says. NOTHING DIFFERENT. It did not deserve a whole new thread created just to call him a idiot. There are many other threads in which that could be accomplished.

Take your back, it was nasty and rotten.

Which thread would this be more appropriate in?
If you do not care for the topic, DON'T POST IN IT.
You aren't a moderator or forum police...
You are completely overlooking what the OP wants...

Can anyone support that idiot called Bush!?

The title says it all. Maybe he should have changed it.

Yeah, duh, I'm not the moderator or forum police, but I do have a right to point out threads which I deem less than stellar, to put it mildly. He already started a flame bait thread and if you cannot see that, you're not looking.

I did, I did not find her hostile, just questions coming from the viewpoint of a european, now tell me, how was she hostile? did she ask questions that were what? too hard to answer?

Of course she has a European viewpoint. Hard questions are always a good thing in my mind. Maybe she could have let him have more of chance to completely make his point? She was interrupting him several times. I guess the word "hostile" was too strong, but still, you could easily assume she was coming from the anti-war perspective. She claimed that she was speaking for the entire Irish population, but is that how all of truly Ireland thinks?

 

[Czar]

raildogg,

explain this
"First of all most of europe supported decision in Iraq, you really are talking about France isnt it"
and no he is not kidding

 

[Starbuck1975]

but it is up to you to PROVE why it was too much

I thought the intent was for OP posters to present topics worth discusses...all I see is a deliberate and immature flame thread with no particular merit for discussion outside of the typical partisan bantering.

watch it, judge for yourself, you can not say that he is not a good public speaker, this is a one on one interview and he is not in defense and unsure about himself ... he is fully aware and supporting everything he is saying there

So the OP wants to know why Bush isn't articulate public speaker...doesn't leave much room for discussion considering it is already well documented and we have discussed Bush's ineptitude as a leader in multiple threads.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

but it is up to you to PROVE why it was too much

I thought the intent was for OP posters to present topics worth discusses...all I see is a deliberate and immature flame thread with no particular merit for discussion outside of the typical partisan bantering.

watch it, judge for yourself, you can not say that he is not a good public speaker, this is a one on one interview and he is not in defense and unsure about himself ... he is fully aware and supporting everything he is saying there

So the OP wants to know why Bush isn't articulate public speaker...doesn't leave much room for discussion considering it is already well documented and we have discussed Bush's ineptitude as a leader in multiple threads.

yes sorry about that, but this interview just pushed me over my limit, going to edit the original

 

[Starbuck1975]

yes sorry about that, but this interview just pushed me over my limit, going to edit the original

May I suggest extracting or otherwise comments on the things he said that pushed you over the limit.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Czar
raildogg,

explain this
"First of all most of europe supported decision in Iraq, you really are talking about France isnt it"
and no he is not kidding

Support doesn't necessarily mean sending troops or supplies. If he had said that Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, he would have been more accurate, but he got his point accross. He probably meant those countries I listed. He knows who opposed us on the war.

There were several countries in Europe who did support us directly in the Iraq war, while others indirectly supported our war.

Heh, you totally took a reversal and changed your entire OP.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

yes sorry about that, but this interview just pushed me over my limit, going to edit the original

May I suggest extracting or otherwise comments on the things he said that pushed you over the limit.

The one that pushed me was the part about most of europe being behind the decision to go to iraq, all except france that is to Bush

That serious lack of common knowledge just amazed me and put other things in perspective, like his lack of understanding of the term "serious consequences". Also his long long answers with filler material to prevent too many questions being asked, as per he so often stopped the interviewer from asking a question assumingly that he wasnt finished.

 

[K1052]

Yea, nobody ever accused him of being one of history?s great speakers.

Clinton could talk circles around GWB with little effort.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Listen to it. She should have let him finish his statements without interruptng.

This is the problem with Bushies and 51% of americans, moderately questioning the Bush admin is akin to treason.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Czar
raildogg,

explain this
"First of all most of europe supported decision in Iraq, you really are talking about France isnt it"
and no he is not kidding

Support doesn't necessarily mean sending troops or supplies. If he had said that Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, he would have been more accurate, but he got his point accross. He probably meant those countries I listed. He knows who opposed us on the war.

There were several countries in Europe who did support us directly in the Iraq war, while others indirectly supported our war.

Heh, you totally took a reversal and changed your entire OP.

Here is the official list of countries listed in supporting the invasion

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030320-11.html

Afghanistan
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

I bolded the european countries, hope I didnt forget any. There ar 45 countries in europe according to my google search, 17 of them supported the war. Sure you might and probably will talk about the issue after the war, but that support is not support on US actions but for Iraqi humanitarian reasons, big big difference.

So the fact is,
less than majority of Europe supported the invasion, its not "just France" like Bush thinks
no country in Europe had a public majority support

Now tell me, why did he think majority of Europe supported the decision?


and yes the original post was over the top and I fully admit that, got an issue with it?
And I changed the title, and took out parts of the first sentence in the post, was that a total edit? like a majority edit?

 

[Starbuck1975]

This is the problem with Bushies and 51% of americans, moderately questioning the Bush admin is akin to treason.

No it's called letting someone finish a sentence or thought before unprofessionally interrupting them...nothing wrong with objective journalism and tough questions...but cutting someone off mid sentence is nothing more then crude journalism.

 

[Tab]

Poland and Italy supported the war? I know Poland withdrew their troops and I haven't heard the most kind things from Italy.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

This is the problem with Bushies and 51% of americans, moderately questioning the Bush admin is akin to treason.

No it's called letting someone finish a sentence or thought before unprofessionally interrupting them...nothing wrong with objective journalism and tough questions...but cutting someone off mid sentence is nothing more then crude journalism.

not quite mid sentence, but he isnt exactly answering the questions asked


btw, anyone know of a transcript?

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

This is the problem with Bushies and 51% of americans, moderately questioning the Bush admin is akin to treason.

No it's called letting someone finish a sentence or thought before unprofessionally interrupting them...nothing wrong with objective journalism and tough questions...but cutting someone off mid sentence is nothing more then crude journalism.

Hardly. So, interupting the president mid-absence of thought is akin to not "letting someone finish a sentence." Since when does the bush admin get to dictate how interviews are conducted? Tough interviews are a like a debate, easy ones are the ones where president dumb dumb gets to stammer on incessantly and drop his usual soundbytes.