As I watched President Bush last night on TV talking with Brit Hume, I was overwhelmed with several emotions and I wondered more than once, just what are the other AD'ers thinking?

I don't want this to turn into political debate so let's stay off policy and legal issues and discuss how it made you feel to see President Bush on TV last night and what kind of emotions were stirred up in the things he said, the way he said them and the body language he used. Do you feel that he dodged any questions or played off emotions too much? Overall, avoiding policy, what did you think?

I felt so proud to see President Bush on TV portraying a very proud, confident American and I feel that his TV appearances always envigorate me because they're in such contrast to Clinton's appearances, which I always felt were phony and prefabricated so Clinton could put one over on me. Also, in contrast to Clinton, Bush seems strong and forward moving, not sympathetic and stalled.

I was happy to see that everything really appeared to be unscripted and that Brit Hume pulled out all the stops and halted nothing in the questions he asked. President Bush was ambushed by questions on Iraq and WMD's and never once waivered or even seemed phased by the questioning. He even answered questions about his opponents, he didn't seem to like that question, even talking about how each one runs on a ticket of hating him, but he answered it honestly.

In my opinion the Whitehouse has been restored to honorability and credibility. Where once the Oval Office had been reduced to scandals involving sex and having a president that offered his opinion on everything from State Issues to his opinion on Hollywood entertainment, it is my opinion that now we're back to having a president that focuses on being the president and running the country.

I'm sure there are a few of you who feel about President Bush, the way I feel about Clinton. Either way, get last night off your chest.

John,

I'm sorry to say I missed it. Is there a transcript to be had that you may know of?

Mr Locke. I also felt proud to see how (although un-united) he protrayed a strong American proud of his country. Yes i liked how he didnt waiver during Iraq WMD.

I missed, and did not make any particular effort to catch it in the first place. just more of the same drivel from our idiot king, I'm sure.

If I HAD caught it, I would likely angerly yelled at the screen many obscenities I can't repeat here, and found ANYTHING else to watch. besides, the broncos played the raiders and I try to NEVER miss those games.



you mean repeating the same lies again for the umteenth time, even though the world now KNOWS saddam had nothing and was no immediate threat? hey, at least he sticks with his lie. (unlike bubba)

Missed it. I don't have cable.

I suppose if President Bush had really wanted all Americans to hear his message the method of delivery would have been different. If he was on Fox, my guess is that it was just a pep rally.

UB,
I said I didn't want to talk policy or get into political debate...Then again I was also talking to people who saw it. Notice how other people who didn't see it don't speculate as to what was spoken about?

Jaime,
Isn't Fox basic cable? It is here in LA and everywhere else I've been as best as I can remember but maybe I am wrong. Either way, it was a great interview and as I said before, Brit Hume really asked all the questions you'd wanna see President Bush dodge, but he didn't dodge them. It was far from a "pep-rally" .

Edited to add:

SoHot,
I don't know of any transcripts and I think you really have to see it to get all the range of emotions.

Was it on the regular Fox network (not FoxNews?) - heh. Well, the Broncos got my TV then...

Bush is a charismatic and brilliant individual. His peace through strength philosophy and actions will soon bring him a Nobel Peace Prize.

Sometimes I doubt it. They didn't do it for Reagan.

these are the people who gave the prize to Arafat AND mother teresa.

Bush? I doubt also.

If for nothing else, I admire Bush's decisiveness and resolve.

It's too hard to comment on this, without having it turn political - - no disrespect to johnlocke intended

However, as Mr. Bush was given the questions prior to the interview, and picked and chose what questions we're going to be asked, I felt the important ones weren't answered, or even asked. I don't feel the interview was hard enough, and seeing as how I view the FOX news network as part of the current administration's echo chamber, I believe it was entirely staged, for the benefit of the supporters he does have left.

I didn't watch Bush's "unscripted" chit-chat on the official network of the Reelect Dubya in 2004 because I'm on a no b.s. diet. But I did watch as a bunch of diplomats sat on their hands when Dubya went before the U.N. to tell them why they should join in on the fun in Iraq.

Apparently it went over about as well as breaking wind in a crowded elevator.

Has an American president ever delivered such a bafflingly impertinent speech before the General Assembly as the one George W. Bush gave this morning?

Here were the world's foreign ministers and heads of state, anxiously awaiting some sign of an American concession to realism—even the sketchiest outline of a plan to share not just the burden but the power of postwar occupation in Iraq. And Bush gave them nothing, in some ways less than nothing.

In the few seconds he devoted to that subject, he cited only three areas in which the role of the United Nations (or any other nations) should be expanded: writing an Iraqi constitution, training a new corps of civil servants, and supervising elections. None of these notions is new.

Otherwise, Bush's message can be summarized as follows: The U.S.-led occupation authority is doing good work in Iraq; you should come help us; if you don't, you're on the side of the terrorists.

The speech seemed cobbled from the catchphrases of last year's playbook, as if Bush were trying to replicate the success of his previous appearance before the General Assembly—his September 2002 speech, which roused the Security Council to warn Saddam Hussein of "serious consequences"—without showing the slightest recognition that the old words have grown stale and sour.

--- Fred Kaplan/SLATE http://slate.msn.com/id/2088799/

Bush hasn't given the slightest indication that he's ready to accept the United Nations as anything other than a clean-up crew in Iraq. He's passing the collection plate and expecting other countries to pony up cash and troops, but only if they do so under the conditions WE set for their help. Is it any wonder that Bush and Blair are standing pretty much by themselves in Iraq?

It would have been far easier not to turn this into a "political debate" John Locke if you hadn't done so yourself in your third paragraph when you took a cheap shot at Clinton in your zeal to throw flowers all over Bush Jr. Then the rest of your post goes on with the usual blah-blah-blah over how Bushie has restored honorability(?) and all that jazz to the White House.

You left out record deficits, a war that has killed over 300 American soldiers, a stagnant economy and virtually NO job growth---none of which existed when Clinton handed him the keys to the Oval Office.

What is it about you Bush groupies that you have to keep bashing on Bubba? Is the only way you can make Bush look good is by making Clinton look bad?

Aren't you guys the ones that tell liberals to "get over" the 2000 election? Bush ran against Clinton's vice president, not Clinton, so why not take your own advice and get over the Clinton Presidency?

Some of you newer members should know - Hugo never uses smilies to let you know when he's kidding.

No cable, no antenna here.

Unabomber - you've got a TV and a computer, and you can't afford CDs? Sell your TV and buy some music!!!

If I had seen it: I would have been so moved that my tears would have turned into diamonds before they hit the floor. This beautiful man deserves more than the Nobel - he ought to be beatified! His policies of "prosperity for the prosperous" are a true work of genius.

Johnlocke, on a serious note: You said no politics and then spent a good portion of your post bashing Clinton. Hmmmm.

I saw what looked like George W. walking out to give a speech, and changed channels. Reading the newspaper later, I discovered that I had likely missed the opening episode of NAVY NCIS.

I have seen neither coverage nor mention of either of the speeches mentioned in this thread. (And I do have cable, I just quit watching Fox months ago.)

As we are "not going to turn this into a political debate;" I will only say he has so little credibility that I wouldn't intentionally tune in his resignation speech. I would just expect him to start it with, "I'm going to discard my prepared speech."

I watched the whole thing. Made me feel embarrased to be an American and a vet almost. I have never been so disgusted in my whole life by a world leader, and that includes Castro.

JL- save the butt kissing propaganda for another thread or your own site.

That drooling idiot Reagan would be less painful to watch.

I watched part of the interview and wasn't overly impressed. He needs to be interviewed by someone who will throw him some hardballs. Not just to get some different answers, but to lend some shred of credibility. I like Brit Hume, but let's face it, he never intended to ask anything out of the norm, and that's the reason Bush agreed to do it.

BTW CR, way to raise the level of debate.

Such compassion

I turn the television off when Bush comes on. I'm sure the speech was characteristically painful to watch.

Yep, portrayal is about right. He reminded me of those old headache-remedy commercials: Hi there, I'm not really the President, I just play one on TV.



Yep, again. It only appeared unscripted. I guarantee you that every question lobbed at him had been given to Bush (or his staff) and approved in advance. After all, this is the same guy that on March 6th of this year admitted during a White House press briefing, that the briefing itself was scripted! Link here:Scripted Briefing

If anyone really thinks this was all an "off the cuff" interview, they need to clean their TV screen, or get a new pair of glasses, or both.


From the interview:
HUME: But you've got nine people out there in permanent positions who are getting a lot of coverage, and they are beating the daylights out of you. You must know what they're...
BUSH: Their slogan is: Vote for me, I don't like George Bush? Well, you know, look, the American people are going to make that ultimate judgment as to whether or not I ought to be reelected.

This was about the only honest answer I saw all night, but I noticed that just before this, he was saying he wasn't really paying attention to any of it at the moment. Yeah, right. And nobody's worried that his polling numbers have fallen almost 20 points in the last month and a half.

As for the Dems all saying they "hate him"? I've seen some of them say that, but I have heard a lot of justifiable criticism of policies as well, and that's not directed specifically at Bush. So to blame it all on an unreasoned hatred of Bush is disingenuous, at best.

He is right though, it will ultimately be up to the American voter as to whether he is re-elected.

I wasn't really going to post to this, but my opinion was solicited via PM. I didn't think the "interview" was much of anything, really. I've spent too much time working in theatre, coaching actors and so on, so I'm never very impressed by someone who is just terrible as a performer. Bush is, simply, a very bad actor - awful - and, frankly, I didn't believe a word he said (even when stating verifiable facts like "this was JFK's desk"). It was lackluster, maudlin, and thoroughly unconvincing.

At least, though, it wasn't as bad as his performance before the UN. That was a national disgrace which made me feel embarrassed for every decent Republican in the country.

I could add more - much more - but I think you get the gist...