TheAgitator.com
Bush’s Ire(land)
Friday, July 2nd, 2004Perhaps my anti-Bush bias is getting the best of me, but doesn’t it seem just a wee bit ridiculous for the White House to file an official complaint with the Irish Embassy because an Irish reporter asked agressive questions in a sit-down with President Bush?
I thought our president was supposed to be the rough n’ rugged Texas cowboy. He can’t take a few direct (though not at all unfair) questions without whining to the embassy and creating an international to-do?
Here’s the interview. Judge for yourself.
Also, check Jesse Walker’s take on the dustup.
Yeah, well, she should have known better. How dare she not lob softballs and nod in agreement at George’s empty rhetoric!
Wow, this guy fucking scares me. Everything was about how “he believes” this and “he believes” that, how he won’t let the trrrrists determine the fate of “free” people. Everything he says is so fucking deluded and condescending, it boggles the mind. HE is going to lead the world in a war for freedom. Ugh. It makes my head spin, how shamelessly he ties the trrrrrists to Iraq. I’m the FIRST PRESIDENT to call for a palestinian state. Who fucking cares? Why should we be involved in the first place?
On the other hand, RTE is a branch of the Irish government….
bad day evan??
i haven’t read the complaint yet, but I would bet it probably has something to do with all the interrupting the reporter did. Granted Bush did some rambling on some answers, but generally leaders of foreign countries are allowed to finish speaking before an interviewer has a follow up question. I watched the interview, and it seemed like the reporter was trying to start a mono a mono debate with the president. Generally news people are supposed to report the news, not make it (at least while they are at work.)
[off-topic]
Well, sort of.
I was standing in line at Subway yesterday behind a kid, couldn’t have been older than 15, who was adorned with Bush/Cheney and GOP buttons and shirt. One was a little painting of raygun. Another said “proud GOP”, and yet another said “this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs”, next to, respectively, the elephant and donkey. Clever. The best, however, was the button that said “The 2nd Amendment: America’s original homeland security”. I didn’t feel the need to embarrass him in front of his pal, so I spared him the question, why does the second amendment matter, but the first and fourth do not, at least, according to Bush and Asscroft? While the stunned look on his face would have been priceless, I decided it wasn’t very nice to expose his naivete in the middle of Subway during lunch rush.
This is our future. GO BUSH! GO KERRY! Um, why?
Uhhh, GO BUSH! GO KERRY!
evan, i bet he doesn’t even know what the 4th amendment relates to.
Aaron,
Nah, my day’s goin fine so far; I had just watched the Winnebago Man clip.
As for the interviewer reporting the news and not making it, well…here’s a good response to that.
Which is one of the reasons why I spared him.
Evan,
spared who?
“Asscroft”
hehe – that’s funny.
Now who was it that couldn’t have been older than 15?
Saw the interview.
I wish out reporters were like that with EVERY politician.
Actually asking followup questions. Sticking with the question until they get an actual answer.
mmmm maybe we can off-shore our reporters to Ireland….
Bush supporters think the Irish reporter unfairly assaulted their guy, and that he acquitted himself assertively and articulately.
Bush opponents think the reporter was imminently fair, but tough, and that Bush threw a tantrum, crapped his pants and replied with incoherent babble.
As always, the truth is somewhere in between. She was aggressive, clearly had an agenda (not necessarily a bad thing for a reporter), rudely interrupted on occasion, threw in a couple of gratuitous points (“I saw four of your soldiers dead . . . “) and did make some broad, unfavorable generalizations (that the world is categorically less safe today than before the Iraq invasions, for example). Overall, though, her questions were tough, direct and not exceedingly unfair for the president.
Bush stumbled, stammered and rambled in spots, and projected hyperdefensiveness with his Perotian “can I finish can I finish” answers, but he also frankly answered some of her questions quite well and never really lost control or completely disintegrated. He didn’t stray much from the talking points, but so what? Those positions are relevant responses to her questions, for the most part.
The White House made the biggest flub by filing the silly complaint, further establishing the thin skin and righteous dismissiveness of this administation. Buck up, tough guys.
I have not seen the interview so my comments may be off base. But if the complaints are mostly about frequent interruptions, which I suspect, then I think Bush has a legitimate point. She’s interviewing a foreign head of state for Irish Television, not doing a human interest story on the employee of the month down at the local corner pub. She should show some respect for the office if not for the man.
The interviewer obviously has an interest in directing the focus of the interview. They always have their own agenda. But did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the President has his own agenda? That maybe he has an interest in getting out his own answers? They may be different from hers but that does not make them inherently wrong. If she does not like those answers she can ask follow up or redirect questions.
Bottom line, interrupting someone, repeatedly, is just plain rude. Whether you are conducting a news interview or just having a casual conversation. This lady just needs to learn some manners.
Aaron:
The kid. He’d probably say something like “the second amendment means I can have guns! Guns are good! The government shouldn’t take my guns!” And when I asked him why the 4th amendment wasn’t so important, he would have given me the dumb old “what’s that” look. But hey, I have some sympathy. His parents have probably brainwashed him into supporting the GOP agenda, just like my dad got me into the Redskins. It’s like a sports team to alot of people, and they wear the buttons like they’d wear their favorite player’s jersey. Yet, I’m quite sure that the kid has no friggin clue that Bush is the biggest spender of non-military discretionary monies since FDR or “The Great Society”. I’m sure he doesn’t care that Bush’s medicare plan is as opposed to the real conservative agenda as it gets. And I’m sure he’d mention the Bush tax cuts, without knowing that, while Bush was making those “cuts”, he was adding taxes in other places to balance it all out.
I guess it’s just sad that his parents did that to him.
Bruce,
Time is of the essence, however, and when Bush starts rambling on in stupid self-congratulatory tangents, someone needs to bring hiim back to reality.
But, as Radley said, Bush likes to portray this rough-n-tumble Texas machismo, you know, a good cowboy who don’t take no shit and demands that the suicide bombers “brang it awn”. If he can taunt suicide bombers with machismo and arrogance, why does he go crying like a little girl to the Irish Embassy because some reporter interruped him a few times.
Maybe it’s because, when he was daring the bombers to brang it awn, it wasn’t actually HIM who they would be branging it upawn, it would be expendable military grunts.
I suppose that’s the point. Bush sort of reminds me of Toby N. Tucker (TNT) from U-Turn. A whole lotta mouth, but cries like a girl when the heat is on. Maybe he should have dared the interviewer to brang it awn as well?
Who dares question the great OZ?
The White House has contacted the Irish Embassy to complain about the Irish journalist, Carole Coleman, who interviewed President Bush last week. (via Radley Balko) “‘The White House rang Thursday evening,’” said Irish embassy s…
Evan, your posts are priceless.
Brang them awn.
:-)
OKAY now!! Evan, I agree with what you are saying, but to say twice “cries like a girl” is over the top! You are saying all girls go crying instead of facing up to situations!! And if you keep it up, I’m gonna go home and tell my mommy on you! :)
Sorry Evan, but I disagree with you. She is perfectly within her rights to leave what she does not like on the cutting room floor if air time is an issue. I just think she should show the President of the United States the same courtesy she would show that employee of the month. Common courtesy is just that: common.
Bruce,
You must realize that Bush is considered a murderous tyrant by a great many people. In their mind, why should they afford him the common courtesy of lofting him softies and keeping your trap shut, when he didn’t exactly afford 10,000+ civilians the courtesy of letting them live?
But ok, let’s say I were to accept that Bush deserved to not be interrupted. Now, don’t you think it’s pathetic for macho-man Bush to go crying about it after the fact? God, get over it, move on, be a man.
“You must realize that Bush is considered a murderous tyrant by a great many people.”
Such ss Saddam, Bin Laden, Michael Moore and any number of your personal heroes.
“God, get over it, move on, be a man.”
You wouldn’t know manhood if it rang your doorbell and delivered you a pizza.
Evan I realize some people consider Bush to be a murderous tyrant. But just because they believe does not make them right about that little tidbit. Some people may consider you to be pompous and overly opinionated. Doesn’t necessarily mean they’re right either.
Quite honestly, you are the only person I’ve heard refer to the President as “macho-man Bush.” Is it because he chooses to stand up to murderers and terrotists? Frankly, I consider that to be a refreshing trait in a President. The eight years of Clintonian appeasement certainly did not deter them. If standing up to people who want to kill Americans is not part of the President’s job we should make it so.
I see nothing wrong with someone voicing displeasure at rude at discourteous treatment. And I see no credible reason why the President, or any other public figure for that matter, should be any different.
This lady had any number of other options that did not include being rude and discourteous to the American President. For my money, she made the wrong choice.
Once again I say that common courtesy is just that: common. And best of all it’s free.
All right bruce and evan, you’re both right. The interviewer was incredibly rude, but frankly the administration should have better things to do than file a complaint with Ireland over something like this.
Bush should have pimped slapped her the first time she interrupted. I bet she wouldn’t kept her mouth shut after that.
sorry, i meant to say, “would have kept her mouth shut”
Why am I have flashes from the Southpark Movie? Bush sounded just like the canadian prime minster in the movie. May I finish, may I finish please. The problem was he wasnt answering the question he had just been asked.
Whatever. Kerry may be a douchebag but he’s still better then bush.
T – no politicians answer the question they are asked. thus the advent of the follow up question. kerry is what you say, but i doubt bush is worse.
it doesn’t really make a difference yall, they’re both bonesmen.
She suffers from the same malady our American media does: confusing news with editorializing. Talent and journalism has been replaced by attitude and opinion. If this lady has a preconceived agenda to call Bush a murderer, she is not reporting, she is making an editorial. Those are vastly different things. Just the facts ma’am. Tell us the facts that lead you to believe Bush is a murder and let me make up my own mind. Quit shoving your own pre-conceived notions down my throat and calling them news.
Doug Walker writes: ” Overall, though, her questions were tough, direct and not exceedingly unfair for the president.”
The man makes $400,000 a year, paid by US taxpayers.
The man is responsible for a war that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
I’m sorry, but he *should* have to face very, very tough questions, and bullshit answers should not be acceptable.
Bruce writes: “She should show some respect for the office if not for the man.”
Fuck that. He’s not the fucking queen. He’s just a man, a temporary office holder, living off taxpayer money.
For $400,000 a year, he damn well better be ready to undergo harsh questioning when he gets into a king-size cluster fuck like the Iraq war.
The president should not be treated with the kindness and patience you’d show the slightly retarded kid who bags your groceries. Which seems to be what you demand.
Let the bastard earn his money.
If he can’t hack it, then it’s not the reporter diminishing the office, it’s Bush himself.
There is a filter in EVERYONE, Bruce.
Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. She was asking questions he didn’t want to answer, didn’t know how to answer, didn’t have the answers to.
Why should I as an American have to stand up for our idiot, not-quite-elected President? Why should I have to settle for his incompetence?
Yes Saddam was/is a bad guy. At least Iraqis knew who to blame for their misery, torture and oppressed lives before we invaded. Now any yahoo with a high school chemistry understanding can randomly blow up as many Iraqis as he likes. The Iraqis have no idea who is doing it and any Iraqi who understands the game Connect can, dot dot dot, put it together that we brought it on them by invading.
Bush should be put on trial just like Clinton was and made to perjure his little way into the reality I see through my filter.
y’all just need to realize that restricting the second amendment would only injure the honest law abiding citizens, while first and fourth (and now fifth) restrictions only injure the criminals and the communists.
Michael
Bruce, for a guy who admitted he didn’t bother reviewing the subject at hand, you certainly have strong opinions of the matter.
Michael (doc tom), that might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. I hope you were kidding.
jon and actually, i saw a somewhat perplexing bumper sticker on my way back to work from lunch today. perhaps you might enlighten me as to its meaning. it said “bombs can kill but only love can cure terrorism.” are you of this opinion too? i am still trying to get an idea of how the “appease-people-who-hate-you-cross-your-fingers-and-hope-they-let-you-alone” mind works. fascinating. absolutely fascinating. if you are under the age of 25, i can chalk it up to youth and idealism.
have a very safe weekend, boys, and a wonderful independence day. michelle
I’m more of the “let’s not prop up evil dictator’s and then cross our fingers and worry when we back stab them” persuasion. Saddam was no threat, there were no WMD’s. You heard our thief in chief, he had the capabilities to think about making WMDs. Iraq WAS a strategic take out of a propped up regime in a region that we “need” to rear our ugly heads in. We were lied to, coerced into believing the hype. The case made was about as hollow as a bumper sticker on a car.
And, quite frankly, I am not threatened by “terrorism.”
There are no threats to this country, none that we have not some way, shape, or form propped up, trained and sold weapons to ourselves. We reap what we sew.
You read Badnarik:
People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.
The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results. It overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced him with the despotic Shah. After making Iranians the enemies of Americans, the U.S. government gave weapons, intelligence and money to Iran’s mortal adversary, Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government also helped Libyan tyrant Col. Qaddafi come to power, propped up the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian dictatorship, and gave assistance to Osama bin Laden.
Merry July 4th
actually:
I hope you like swallowing Michael Moore’s lies. And since, I know that out of ignorance and obstinence (and mostly due to the domain name of the URL) you will not read the following link:
http://www.probush.com/ryan_wmd.htm
Enjoy living in ignorance!
actually:
And just in case you get confused, the little numbers in [..] brackets are things called “references”. They generally point to corroberating evidence and are used by people when they want to demonstrate that they are not just making shit up.
Well div, your link is to an old document that says:
“Iraqâ??s WMD Efforts
Possible findings of WMDs in Iraq are reported here because it is possible the Administration is holding out on releasing such finds, so it can be presented all at once. Kay has hinted at a full report being released around June-July, 2004.”
I guess we’ll be finding out about them real soon.
Also, your “enjoy living in ingorance” message brought a smile to my face. Thank you.
Craig:
I forgot that after a year, all the references instantly become false. Sorry for the inconvenience, I’ll try to come up with something more inline with the 1984-style revisionist history that is promulgated on TV….
Why on Earth would I take any drivel coming from a site titled http://www.probush.com with MORE than a grain of salt, unless of course the site title is referencing hairy pelvic regions?
I’ve been published in peer-reviewed journals in the past, I know what footnotes are thankyouverymuch.
I also seem to recall some footage of Colin Powell and Condi Rice from 2001, stating Saddam is no threat. What made him so dangerous in the past 2 years?
You don’t think the first thing Shrub and company would have done once they found WMDs in Iraq was hold up a big trophy of a WMD for all to see how right they were?
Or did you also miss Bush’s interview in this thread where he states “Saddam had the capacity to make weapons.” Well shit, so do I. I have the capacity to do a lot of things.
Jeez, he’s so groovy, I just love Bush. I trust anything that comes out of his mouth. Right.
David Kay resigned when he realized the facts. He also said this:
“the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies did not realize that Iraqi scientists had presented ambitious but fanciful weapons programs to Mr. Hussein and had then used the money for other purposes.”
They say the most dangerous thing in this country is a long memory.
Indeed.
Why don’t you let this little tidbit of wisdom sink into your thick skull:
“Loyalty to the country always; loyalty to the government
when it deserves it.” – Mark Twain
She is perfectly within her rights to leave what she does not like on the cutting room floor if air time is an issue.
I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that Coleman wanted to wrap up the interview — this is the first time the US President has been interviewed on Irish TV for over 20 years, I think she’d probably let it run over time — but that Bush made himself available for a limited interview. She couldn’t just let him waffle on for fifteen minutes and then broadcast only the coherent parts — there’d be nothing left to show!
Bush had the questions 3 days in advance, and this was the best he could do.
Seriously.
Ask the guy hard questions; it’s his job to have the answers. If he doesn’t answer directly, then ask a more pointed follow-up question when he’s done. Don’t try to start a shouting match with the President.
Sometimes answering a question requires a bit of background and context and it takes a little while to get to the point of the answer. Several times in the interview it seemed that she interrupted in the middle of such a buildup. Whether or not it’s going anywhere, as the interviewer you need to give the guy a chance to build his answer, not cut him off in the middle of it.
Filing a complaint is not about hurt feelings or machismo or anything else. From the Bush viewpoint, someone is interviewing him with the intent to unfairly make him look bad to Irish citizens.
My Job Is To Do My Job
In case you missed it, a week or so ago, Bush ran into an interviewer/ buzzsaw who made a fool (not a hard thing to do) out of our goofy Pres. I found this blog piece that was so good, I just had to pass it along and attach myself to it like a parasi…
Yes, the Prez makes $400K a year … and I expect him to earn every penny.
I also expect journalists, and “we the people” for that matter, to not waste his time repeatedly “asking” him to answer every moronic question they can think up … particularly when the intent is to embarass as much as to learn.
I expect him to be running the freakin’ Executive Branch — not explaining his every instance of breaking wind to the likes of those who think war is never the answer (unless America has NOTHING to gain from it … then it might be OK).
Problem is, we have a bunch of people who can’t seem to see a threat to the peace when its history and reputation makes that clearly evident … and instead see a leader as a threat simply because (1) he won’t take from the rich to give to them, and (2) he might frown upon some of their “fun”.
Let me make myself clear: I believe that the President does have a responsibility to answer questions … but I also expect some intelligence from those who ask — both to figure out the obvious answers for themselves, and to exhibit intellectual honesty in their queries.
And, I expect you to treat candidates for the office the same way — where’s your hard questions for Kerry?
Evan, about that Taibbi article…
http://www.narphonax.com/blog/2004/07/good-for-awhile-there.html
(yeah, I know, long-winded, but it just kept coming out…)
John
Just maybe Bush was bloody annoyed at some of the crap being spun about him by the Irish press. They have been hammering on him for months now. It’s only human for him to be annoyed at someone.
I bet if Kerry goes to Ireland, RTE will treat him with kid gloves.
yeah, that’s right. the president doesn’t like SPIN.
heh.
John, that was one of the silliest things I ever read. Taibbi’s column was gonzo humor, and you’re treating it like he’s supposed to be on the debate team.
Andrew Ian Dodge writes: “I bet if Kerry goes to Ireland, RTE will treat him with kid gloves.”
Well, that’s because Kerry hasn’t been running around like a jackass for four years, saying things like “watch this drive”, “bring it on”, “mission accomplished”, etc. Kerry didn’t launch a war based on the disinformation campaign of an Iranian spy.
Etc, etc.
Competence has its benefits.
Jon … and flip-flopping has its consequences, as in I-voted-for-the-$87-billion-before-I-voted-against-it. Is that evidence of “competence”.
We tried it Kerry’s way (or at least the way his supporters want us to go, which will probably turn out to be his approach) for decades — and it never removed one dictator. Is that “competence” in the primary mission of any government: the protection of our right to live?
Chalabi’s info was only one piece of the whole puzzle — problem is, y’all wouldn’t even consider the character and history of Saddam & Sons in making the go/no-go decision for war.
You’d wait until the bodies dropped on our streets, instead, before you’d be that “judgmental”.
“You’d wait until the bodies dropped on our streets, instead, before you’d be that “judgmental”.”
You have to remember, Rich, that these are libertarians. When bodies drop in our streets they blame America for it.
rich,
when if ever have the actions of saddam and sons ever caused bodies to drop on our streets? Are you one of these who maintain Al-Quaida is a front for Iraqi intelligence?
[anonymous]:
Yes, yes, the article was supposed to just be funny (and it was, I laughed my ass off), the thing is that humor has a hard edge to it that insults a great deal of the media, while making assertions about journalism. If he honestly believed what he said, then fine, but he should at least stay consistent.
Bush has a pretty clear pattern with his domestic press conferences and interviews: Reply to any remotely difficult question with an incoherent bunch of bluster, invoking 9/11 and freedom as frequently as possible. Forget interruptions; I’m waiting for a reporter who’ll deliver a firm kick in the nuts next time he tries that bollocks.
Wade:
No — but I do maintain that Saddam & Sons would have no qualms cooperating with Al Quada, religious differences notwithstanding.
If they thought it was their advantage to materially support an Al Quada attack on American soil, they would do so. In fact, it would give Saddam & Sons the ability to leverage their resources to create problems for us, while maintaining plausible deniability in the eyes of the rest of the world.
My concern is neither retaliation nor revenge — it is preventing an attack from people whose history and character clearly indicate they would have the will to do so, the instant they thought it was to their advantage and/or our will to overtly oppose them faltered.
And, let’s not forget the reported Iraqi ties to the FIRST WTC bombing. So, if these reports are true, they did contribute to American deaths on American soil.
…these are libertarians. When bodies drop in our streets they blame America for it.
First, let’s look at what I call the “dichotomy of blame” that follows something like 9/11. Simple-minded folks who do not wish to investigate the root causes of a tragedy will be quick to say “it was them evil trrrrists! Let’s kill all the terrrrrsts!”
On the other hand, there are those who are courageous enough to stand up and face the problem head-on, and look at the realities of our situation, rather than burying their heads in the sand and spouting off a few soundbytes about how we’re gonna “win” the war on “terra”.
Now, in this dichotomy, if one would be courageous enough to open their eyes, there are 2 causes: the immediate actionable cause, and the driving factor behind that cause. First, the immediate actionable cause: the 17 hijackers and their organization, Al Qaeda. These are the people responsible. These are the people who should be punished. There is no question about that. Yes, Libertarians believe in justice.
But if we are to prevent another 9/11, then we must ALSO look beyond the immediate action, and investigate the causes. Saying we’re going to wage a war on terror is like saying we’re going to wage a war on…jealousy, or anger, or lust. How do you wage a war on terror? Terror is an innate part of the human psyche. And killing a bunch of known terrorists is not really going to put an end to the idea of “terror”. Nothing will.
In fact, I believe that Badnarik’s statement above, which has been made before by a great many people on the left, right and center, is the true root cause. They don’t hate us because of our freedom, or because they want to take over our country. Sure, there may be a few extremists who want to turn the earth into a muslim kingdom, but the muslim world, as a whole, hates us for another reason. And that is, quite simply, that we’ve been sticking our nose in their business and trying to turn them into us, for years, often with dire results for them.
This isn’t just the ol’ “everything the government does is bad” schtick.
Evan:
1> In this context, terror is a method … making the lives of noncombatants the primary target of surprise attacks, by forces that do not take steps to identify their members as a military force, to evoke a political response that is based more on fear than reason.
IMO, our response must be to make clear that this method is absolutely unacceptable as a lever for political change, regardless of the cause, if we value the stability of civilization itself (not just American, either).
2> What I see as the primary fuel for today’s terrorism is not a yearning to simply throw off the influence of “evil America” — I see the driving force as a puritanical hatred that is only palatable to fanatics … a hatred that is not embraced by the majority of people in these nations, and in fact has made their lives miserable on many occasions (ask the Afghanis).
These fanatics seek to severely infringe upon the inalienable rights of these people … which in itself creates instability.
That’s not to say that we have not added to that by our errors in foreign policy … but I lay those errors as much at the feet of the Leftists who dissuaded us from the direct use of American force to immediately remove despots instead of coddling them, as I do at the feet of the Right who went along with this.
In fact, part of the disdain for America is because they equate us with the corrupt despots who oppress them … even as those despots rail against us.
3> History aside, when nations allow themselves to be hijacked and leveraged by such fanatics, to the point that they enhance the threat of these fanatics to the inalienable rights of those outside their borders, free people have both the right and responsibility to “tell these nations what to do” — if necessary, by force.
I have never watched Irish news so I don’t know if that was the status quo but, in my opinion, that was a debate not an interview. What interested me most about the segment was how she suddenly personalized the conversation and made herself the story. If that’s how they do things in Ireland, fine, but I would consider it rather unprofessional if a U.S. reporter did the same.
The line between reporter and commentator has gotten far to blurry for my liking.
congratualations evan, on your ability to win a political debate with a 15 year old.
i dont know about the rest of you but its not much to brag about.
One of the issues that is completely ignored, it seems, in this ‘war on terror’ is the brainwashing of young Muslims in these ‘nothing-but-Koran’ schools. They don’t teach love and tolerance and are allowed to operate cult like with no repercussions.
Given the local poverty and despotic leadership, and given and easy scapegoat to blame (the US), the existence of terrorism is a foregone conclusion.
Hand these people the odd BS invasion, bombing of the odd wedding party full of civilians, the seemingly endless & faithful support given to our Israeli masters (Christ bless their benevolent souls), and the internal Muslim propaganda machine has all the ammunition it needs to carry on the effort.
Changing any one or two of the above facts would have little effect on terrorism and would only be declared to be a failure.
The war on terror is not a war on individuals or nations (barring the odd skirmish). These individuals or nations only serve as misguided middle-men for consequences.
It is a war on policies, both West and Middle-East.
I may be anti-Bush, but that doesn’t mean that I am unfair. She was a little too biased in cases and overly rude, and that’s not a good way to conduct a worthwhile and meaningful interview.
If most adults nowadays, and unfortunately many of their children to follow, had not been brainwashed into the Democrat and Republican’s sorry excuse of a foreign policy, we’d have a hell of a lot less to worry about. Terrorism would not go away, but we never would have reached the point we are at now; hated and targeted. It’s amazing how blind many Americans are when it comes to the things our government does. I couldn’t imagine why they’d hate us, considering those thousands of rallies comprising millions of people over the last decade, protesting our troops being in their lands. Especially since we pretty much just told them to shove it and continued on unfazed.
michael-Even didn’t have a debate with the 15 year old. He thought something, but did not say it. So, congrats on your ability to look like an idiot for only reading half of a story and opening your mouth.
Sorry for the mis-spell Evan…
Quick question for Crash: Are you including yourself in the blind Americans category or are you setting yourself up as an example of the enlightened? Just want clarification on that point.