• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Interview with Bush - interesting read

Status
Not open for further replies.

ronito

Member
Here's a transcript of an interview with Bush done a few days ago. Somethings I agree with, others I don't. Either way, it's a really good read. Why can't American journalists be like this guy?! I mean we really should be working some kind of exchange program with the brits. I'd gladly trade Bill O'reilly or Sean Hannity all of fox news and a lot of CNN to get this guy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1521149,00.html
BUSH ON BLAIR

SIR TREVOR MCDONALD FOR TONIGHT: Mr President, the G8 summit will be chaired by Tony Blair. He wants to get new international agreements on aid, on trade and on climate change. Now, he gave you unstinting support over the war in Iraq - can he expect the same support from you over the G8?

Article continues
PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, Tony Blair made decisions on what he thought was best for the people of Great Britain, and I made decisions on what I thought was best for Americans. And I really don't view our relationship as one of quid pro quo. I view our relationship as one of strong allies and friends working together for the common good.

TONIGHT: On the question of Tony Blair, his support for you on Iraq probably damaged him politically at home. Supporting his proposals in Edinburgh might be one way of paying him back and making sure that he can probably repair some of that damage.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, again, I really don't view our relationship as one of, you know, we both make decisions and try to earn credit with each other on a personal basis. Tony Blair made decisions on what he thought was best for keeping the peace and winning the war on terror, as did I.

So I go to the G8 not really trying to make him look bad or good; but I go to the G8 with an agenda that I think is best for our country.

BUSH ON CLIMATE CHANGE

TONIGHT: The subject of climate change is one of the subjects on the G8 agenda. Now, the majority of the world's leading scientists now agree that climate change is a reality. Do you agree with their conclusion?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I believe it is a significant, long-term issue that we've got to deal with. And that's why my government is dealing with it. We spent I think over $20 billion since I've been the president to not only research the issue of greenhouse gases, but to develop technologies that will enable us to diversify away from fossil fuels. And I look forward to discussing this agenda with not only the G8 leaders, but also with the leaders of developing countries, countries like India and China.

TONIGHT: Do you accept that climate change is man-made, sir?

PRESIDENT BUSH: To a certain extent it is, obviously. I mean, if fossil fuels create greenhouse gases, we're burning fossil fuel, as is a lot of other countries. You know, look, there was a debate over Kyoto, and I made the decision - as did a lot of other people in this country, by the way - that the Kyoto treaty didn't suit our needs. In other words, the Kyoto treaty would have wrecked our economy, if I can be blunt.

And so my hope is - and I think the hope of Tony Blair is - to move beyond the Kyoto debate and to collaborate on new technologies that will enable the United States and other countries to diversify away from fossil fuels so that the air will be cleaner and that we have the economic and national security that comes from less dependence on foreign sources of oil.... To that end, we're investing in a lot of hydrogen - research on hydrogen-powered automobiles. I believe we'll be able to burn coal without emitting any greenhouse gases, zero emissions plant.

And so, therefore, we've got to spend money and share technology as to how to move forward.

TONIGHT: But Mr President, if I may, the predictions about global warming - and I hear what you say - are very dire. The UK's chief scientist says that it probably poses a bigger threat than global terrorism. Isn't it, therefore, irresponsible for you to say, as you've done, that you walked away from Kyoto and you won't order cuts in carbon dioxide emissions because it would damage America's economy?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I walked away from Kyoto because it would damage America's economy, you bet. It would have destroyed our economy. It was a lousy deal for the American economy. I felt there was a better way. And that's why --

TONIGHT [interrupting]: But is that putting American industrial economic interests above the global interests of the environment?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I think you can do both. See, I think you can grow your economy and at the same time do a better job of harnessing greenhouse gases. That's exactly what I intend to talk to our partners about. I don't think you can expect any American leader to wreck the economy, nor as an ally and a friend of America and a trading partner of America should you want us to wreck our economy.

On the other hand, what you would want us to do is to use our investment capacity, as well as our research capacity to come up with new ways to power our economy, new ways to energise our economy. And that's precisely what we're doing, and I look forward to sharing those ideas.

Secondly, the Kyoto treaty wouldn't work unless all nations were involved. And as you know, many of the developing nations weren't involved in Kyoto. So some of the discussions we're going to have at the G8, thanks to Tony Blair's leadership, is to work with India and China as to how to share technology with them, so that we can all work together to clean up the environment, and at the same time have sustained economic growth.

TONIGHT: They are expecting, many countries are expecting international legal binding agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Can they expect your support in doing that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: If this looks like Kyoto, the answer is no. On the other hand, if people want to come together and share technologies and develop technologies and jointly spend - and spend money on research and development, just like the United States is, to help us diversify away from fossil fuels, [I am] more than willing to discuss it.

I know we need more nuclear power in order - nuclear power, after all, is not dependent on fossil fuels and emits no greenhouse gases. I believe we're going to be able to have coal-fired plants that have zero emissions. We need to work on carbon sequestration technologies. I mean, there's a lot we can do together and achieve the objective, which a lot of people want, which is the reduction of greenhouse gases, and at the same time, have viable economic growth.

TONIGHT: And because, sir, America remains the biggest polluter.

PRESIDENT BUSH: America is the largest investor in the technologies necessary to be able to say to people, 'You can grow your economy so people's standard of living can improve, and at the same time be good stewards of the environment'.

TONIGHT: But pollution in this country has increased amazingly since 1992.

PRESIDENT BUSH: That is a totally inaccurate statement.

TONIGHT: It's a UN figure.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I just beg to differ with every figure you've got. The environment has - the quality of the environment has improved, in spite of the fact that we've grown our economy.

BUSH ON AFRICA

TONIGHT: You recently helped, Mr President, to scrap the debt burden on some of Africa's poorest countries - and you've won some praise for that. But shouldn't a country as rich as yours be giving much more in direct aid to these poverty stricken countries of Africa?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, we've tripled the budget on direct aid to the countries in Africa since I've been the president - tripled it. We have got a great trade agreement with the African nations called AGOA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and that is working. I just announced a $674 million food relief package. We're spending $15 billion on HIV/Aids. No, we're leading the world when it comes to helping Africa.

But we've done something else that I think is smart and I think our taxpayers appreciate. And that is that we're saying, 'Now, for increased aid, you, the leaders of Africa, must have transparency in your government, you must fight corruption, you must invest in the health and education of your people.' In other words, we're not going to invest in governments that are corrupt.

TONIGHT: So this is aid with strings attached?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, this is aid - this is partnership. This is saying to nations we want to work with you as partners, partners in alleviating poverty, partners in helping fight HIV/Aids. But you've got a role to play - you, the leaders of African nations, you've got a role to play to make good governance decisions. That's what the taxpayers of my country expect. And I hope that's what the taxpayers of Great Britain expect, is expect us to, when we make investments in countries, that they work. And they don't work if a nation doesn't invest in its people.

TONIGHT: I hear what you say about tripling the aid to Africa, but it's still only - it's less than 0.2% of gross domestic national product. And that is less than what the United Nations talks about, of having 0.7%. Some European countries are moving towards that. Why can't America?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, there's all kinds of ways to calculate how generous we are. Let me just tell you this: if you take all the food aid, America is by far the most generous country. If you take the direct aid, we're very generous. But when you add on our private contributions - see, our tax system encourages private citizens to donate to organisations that, for example, help the folks in Africa. And when you take the combined effort of US taxpayers' money plus US citizens' donations, we're very generous. And we'll do more. And I look forward to talking about doing more at the G8.

But I've got to tell you, I'm very proud of the generosity of the United States.

BUSH ON TRADE

TONIGHT: Mr President, on the question of trade, how can it be morally justified for the world's richest country to subsidise its farmers so that they can sell their goods cheaper than farmers in the developing world, and, as a result, put those farmers in the developing world out of business?

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's precisely the question we've been talking to the EU about. There are tremendous agricultural subsidies in the EU. We -

TONIGHT [INTERRUPTING]: Yes, but, I put those questions to the EU, if I were talking to somebody in the EU, but -

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, let me - let me finish, let me finish. I was about to say, we've got agricultural subsidies, not nearly to the extent that our friends in the EU have, and therefore, we went to Doha round, WTO - Doha round of the WTO and said, 'Let's get rid of all our subsidies together. Let's join hands as wealthy industrialised nations and say to the world, we're going to get rid of all our agricultural subsidies together.' And so the position of the US government is, we're willing to do so, and we will do so with the - with our fine friends in the European Union.

TONIGHT: So you would if they would, because at the moment, for example -

PRESIDENT BUSH [INTERRUPTING]: Absolutely.

TONIGHT: - cotton farmers in this country get subsidised to the extent of $230 per cotton acre. You would get rid of those things if the EU does?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Absolutely. And I think we have an obligation to work together to do that. And that's why it's very important that the Doha round of the WTO go forward.

TONIGHT: Because if we do achieve this business of free trade, and if markets in the west are opened up to countries in Africa, say, they could be so successful, then, that they could eliminate the need for aid.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Absolutely. That's the whole reason why we've got the African Growth and Opportunity Act. As a matter of fact, the benefits that have come from opening up markets - our markets to them and their markets to us - far outweigh the benefits of aid.

BUSH ON IRAQ

TONIGHT: Mr President, if I can move on to the question of Iraq, when we last spoke before the Iraq war, I asked you about Saddam Hussein and you said this, and I quote: "He harbours and develops weapons of mass destruction, make no mistake about it."

Well, today, no WMD, the war has cost 1,700 American lives, many more Iraqi civilians killed, hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to your country. Can you understand why some people in your country are now beginning to wonder whether it was really worth it?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Absolutely. I mean, when you turn on your TV set every day and see this incredible violence and the havoc that is wreaked as a result of these killers, I'm sure why people are getting discouraged. And that's why I spoke to the nation last night and reminded people that this is a - Iraq is a part of this global war on terror. And the reason why foreign fighters are flocking into Iraq is because they want to drive us out of the region.

See, these folks represent an ideology that is based upon hate and kind of a narrow vision of mankind - women don't have rights. And I believe this is an ideological movement. And I know that they want to use suicide bombers and assassinations and attacks on the World Trade Centre, and the attacks in Madrid, to try to shake our will and to achieve an objective, which is to topple governments. And the best way to defeat an ideology is with a better ideology. And I believe democracy is a better ideology, to provide hope for people and - but yes, it's tough. But we've done tough things before in America. And we've got a great ally in Great Britain. But it's not only Great Britain. As Gerhard Schröder said in the Oval Office, a democratic Iraq is important not only to Germany, but to Europe, and he's right.

Foreign fighters are travelling into Iraq to make it a front line in the war on terror. And I would rather defeat them there than face them in our own country.

TONIGHT: Have you still - do you still think that you may have mismanaged, or do you think you may have mismanaged public expectations about a quick victory and a decisive ending to this war? You've talked in optimistic terms. But now, as you say, the carnage on the screens night after night seems - tell a different story.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, certainly that's a very powerful weapon for the terrorists, is to kill innocent men, women and children, and try to shake our will and conscience. And on the other hand, there is progress being made in Iraq.

Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that 8 million people went to the polls to vote. And you might remember the discussions prior to the vote. I had a lot of people saying, 'Well, they don't know what they're doing, the people don't want to be free, certain people can't - they're not going to - what makes you think they want democracy?' And all of a sudden, when given the chance, 8 million people voted. And now the political process is moving in parallel with the security process. And our strategy is to help the Iraqis stand up a viable government, to encourage them to get their constitution written, and to have the elections, to ratify the constitution, as well as a government under the constitution, and, at the same time, train Iraqis so they can fight. That's our strategy. And we're making good progress.

TONIGHT: Is the administration at sixes and sevens about the insurgency in Iraq? The vice-president said that we're in the last throes, or seeing the last throes of the insurgency. Donald Rumsfeld comes up and says we could be there for five, eight, 10, 12 years. Which is it? Which do you believe?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I believe that we will succeed in Iraq, because, one, the Iraqis want to live in a free society.

TONIGHT: But how long will it take, Mr President?

PRESIDENT BUSH: And, two, that the Iraqis want to take the fight to the enemy. And people want me to put a timetable on things; that's a huge mistake. Putting a timetable on this - on our stay there in Iraq simply emboldens the enemy and discourages our friends. And so, therefore, my answer is just, quickly as possible, and we are making progress.

TONIGHT: Do you ever think maybe this was not such a good idea?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I'm actually confident it's the right thing to do.

TONIGHT: You have never had any doubts at all about it?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I am absolutely confident that we made the right decision. And not only that, I'm absolutely confident that the actions we took in Iraq are influencing reformers and freedom lovers in the greater Middle East. And I believe that you're going to see the rise of democracy in many countries in the broader Middle East, which will lay the foundation for peace.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
The "Flytrap" theory lives!
Foreign fighters are travelling into Iraq to make it a front line in the war on terror. And I would rather defeat them there than face them in our own country.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
Smiles and Cries said:
for some reason Bush does not sound like a total idiot in this interview, did he take some classes?

I think his idiocy is enhanced thousandfold when you actually hear him. And that Iraq discussion did sound pretty idiotic.
 

AssMan

Banned
It's never going to end over there. We just can't stop the terrorists from coming into Iraq. I'm curious to see how many adminstrations it'll take this war to end.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
I think he handled himself well with the enviromental issues. Good, tough questions.


I like how are the journalists are looking for anyone in the administration to finally crack and say "Iraq was mistake". They never will. But at least they are trying.
 

Doth Togo

Member
American journalists won't ask these questions because they would forever be refused an interview or inside story if they didn't comply with the administration and keep their own crazy antics out of the spotlight. Thus, the American media will continue to be scooped by the rest of the world until kingdom come.
 

boutrosinit

Street Fighter IV World Champion
Trevor MacDonald is the fucking man. Shame he didn't get more pushy with his questions, like the one on the environment.
 
Bush is certainly a bit more articulate than usual, but I think his answers stink of the usual glib responses. I mean his replies on the environment seem to come down to the implication that America isn't part of the world, and even to the child like "well those guys aren't doing it. Why should we? WAA".

As far as Africa goes, the aid via government clean up goes, the U.S. African Growth and Opportunity Act isn’t the first thing of its kind, nor is it exclusive to the U.S. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) program also gives debt relief and whatnot to countries that deal with government corruption, with Africa including 32 of the 38 countries on the list. The thing that strikes me as odd though is how it seems like despite these programs, more often than not it comes down to pissing money away. But getting back on topic. The Africa-themed questioned seems to boil down to a dick measuring contest with aid (real modest Bush) … though to be fair, the interviewer did seem to have a chip on his shoulder about that.

The trade stuff sounded to me like a combination of blowing smoke up the guy's ass, and finger pointing. Sure Bush claims he would have no problem with free trade and all that, but then you look above on the Kyoto comments ... if he can put America's needs above that of the rest of the planet on one front, I doubt very much he would have trouble doing it again. It seemed like he ways doing what parents would do for kids when they want something, "yes dear, ok. Someday" You get the idea. As far as the finger pointing, I found him even daring to try to justify the U.S. by saying the EU has mor3e subsidies is just wrong. It's this kind of narrow minded attitude that got everyone to this point in the first place. Maybe he should remember his own little mantra he used on Iraq, you know to stop assigning blame and start fixing the problem ... or does that only apply when he's caught pulling a stupid move?

I don't think Iraq is even worth commenting on, as that was more of the same bullshit.
 

Macam

Banned
I didn't find this interview to be particularly intriguing, even though there were some reports on a few liberal blogs about it being a tough interview -- it's not. Compared to American journalism, sure, but I didn't think it was hard enough generally. That said, I think my perception may be partly based on just wanting to see a full blown debate and watch Bush get destroyed on his rhetoric by facts and figures, like the presidential debates last year.

For what it is, it's a fairly nice interview, but more on the basis that the interviewer actually seems to know his ground and covers a wide swath of topics rather than just Social Security or Iraq. The latter issue is poorly covered in my eyes, as people should be moving pass seeking blatant admissions but pressing on changing opinion, the continued raising of evidence suggesting an illegal basis for entering the war, and reports on the ground. Obviously he thinks he's right, and will continue to say so no matter what.

Bush still sounds stupid. Every transcript I've ever read is littered with run-on sentences, ellipses, hypens, interruptions by himself, and so on. Listening to him speak is worse. Watching him is nothing short of infuriating.
 

APF

Member
Doth Togo said:
American journalists won't ask these questions because they would forever be refused an interview or inside story if they didn't comply with the administration and keep their own crazy antics out of the spotlight. Thus, the American media will continue to be scooped by the rest of the world until kingdom come.
I think it's BS the way critics of Bush/et al like to bully the American media as though they're somehow terrified of the Administration. I'm sure lots of American journalists would love to get a real interview with Bush. He doesn't give them. He gives interviews to people like Sean Hannity, who is a partisan talk-show host, not a journalist. Bush gives interviews overseas because he has less to fear there, and because people in other countries may read those interviews and come to the same point that many people here have--that Bush isn't as crazy/stupid as they were led to believe, even though they may disagree with many of his positions.

Here's another foreign G8-related interview with Bush, from The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22649-1674668,00.html
 

Sergenth

Member
APF, you have a point.

Being mad at journalists for not facing Bush is silly.

Bush will get interviews with soft tv talking people, never journalists.

However, that's not a point for Bush, just for his handlers who are skilled at keeping him away from people with seriously probing questions and the weight to keep him from simply walking out when he recieves questions he doesn't answer or doesn't have an answer for.

He still doesn't display any intelligence that might have existed outside the "sphere" of the interview and the cheat sheet his handlers have given him.

Reading the interview above, the ONLY source that Bush quotes is himself.

TONIGHT: But pollution in this country has increased amazingly since 1992.

PRESIDENT BUSH: That is a totally inaccurate statement.

TONIGHT: It's a UN figure.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I just beg to differ with every figure you've got. The environment has - the quality of the environment has improved, in spite of the fact that we've grown our economy.

Says WHO? You?

The man cannot remember what other people say in specifics. He's a D student through and through.

edit: Sorry, APF. I thought you were directly positing that Bush wasn't crazy and/or stupid, when you were just talking about people that don't believe he his, due to his bullshit skillz.
 

MetatronM

Unconfirmed Member
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I just beg to differ with every figure you've got. The environment has - the quality of the environment has improved, in spite of the fact that we've grown our economy.
This right here is why Bush is an asshole. WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT THE FIGURES ARE OR WHAT THEY SAY, he will BEG TO DIFFER on EVERY environmental figure they put before him, simply because he knows that the FACTS do not conform with his world view.

This isn't even a political thing. This is a "how can a man be trusted to rule the most powerful nation in the world responsibly if he won't even pay any mind to the actual facts of the world around him?" thing.
 

whytemyke

Honorary Canadian.
What do you mean you wish more reporters were like this? This isn't a reporter. The reason most reporters aren't like this, friendly, is because they want to get answers for their questions and not just have everything sidestepped like Bush CONSTANTLY does, even in this interview. I mean, you're calling Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity JOURNALISTS? do you even know what a journalist is? Those guys are PUNDITS, not journalists.

And then the fact that Bush has the gall to turn around and say that his politics isn't quid pro quo, simply so he can get out of having to back Blair at the G8 summit? I'm sorry... a firm 'alliance' isn't the word I'd use to describe UK/US relations. If we were only common allies, than we wouldn't call the PM first whenever we do something internationally.

I don't know. I just think Bush is a punk of a politician if there ever was one, and while I'd never dream of killing him, I'd sure pay a lot of money for a chance to kick him in the balls.

Oh yeah, and 20 billion in research for alternate fuels since he's been president? That's a very paltry figure when compared to the billions, if not trillions, made since he trashed the kyoto resolution to begin with.
 

ronito

Member
whytemyke said:
What do you mean you wish more reporters were like this? This isn't a reporter. The reason most reporters aren't like this, friendly, is because they want to get answers for their questions and not just have everything sidestepped like Bush CONSTANTLY does, even in this interview. I mean, you're calling Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity JOURNALISTS? do you even know what a journalist is? Those guys are PUNDITS, not journalists.

Fact is a lot of america thinks of O'Reilly and his like as journalists.

http://www.atsnn.com/story/147122.html

I'm proud to say that I'm not one of them. What I'm saying is I'd like to have a journalist, instead of the plauge of pundits we have here. Anything would be better.
 

FightyF

Banned
PRESIDENT BUSH: I walked away from Kyoto because it would damage America's economy, you bet.

Mr. Bush has asserted an excellent point...let's see how he follows up with evidence.

It would have destroyed our economy.

What an excellent example! If this doesn't convince the World, I don't know what will. Now...can he wrap it up to shame all the doubters?

It was a lousy deal for the American economy.

Marvelous! I am astounded by this man of influence. He has absolutely and undeniably shamed the sensationalist reporter with his quick wit and indisputable arguement! Bravo, Mr. Bush! Bravo!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom