Bush's Banned Interview

This is interesting, this was never aired on US television because of Bush's press officers complaining vociferously about the rigorous questioning.

Some of his remarks are warped, the world is a better, safer place since we invaded Iraq, is one comment of many.

The interviewer is excellent at pressing home real relevant questions, and Bush doesn't seem to have a clear view of reality.

The interview conducted by the tenacious Carol Coleman of Radio Television Ireland was not aired on American television, and Bush's press officers apparently complained vociferously about the rigorous questioning.

The video shows Bush at the absolute peak of his arrogance — convinced of his own rhetoric about Iraq, flooded with confidence from international subservience to American power, and high off a crushing military victory that reinforced his childish fantasies of American power and preeminence.

The problem was, Coleman was having none of it, and what transpired was a unique insight into the warped brain of the least respected and most hated president in the history of the United States

Obviously the above external quotes are reflective of the person who posted this video, but i do agree, i wonder if the new president will see the "real" problems the world faces today, and will he do any better than the last?

Or do you think Bush speaks sense in this video, and should of been aired?

Video

This video is simply amazing.

You are right, this man is truly out of touch with reality. The shame that Bush learned from this experience, is that foreigners, the Irish... Are not NEARLY as idiotic as he is convinced us Americans are.

He obviously wasn't aware during this interview, that going on about GOD doesn't mean much in the UK.

Yeah ive seen this, I don't think hes out of touch with reality, hes very in touch with reality.Hes just a very poor liar.His lies are out of touch with reality.

Well... You could be right about the whole LIES thing. I had to laugh out loud when he went into his obviously scripted and rehearsed spiel about Pakistan, free democracy "I am the ONLY president!!"..... She asked a question, and he looked annoyed, before starting that sentence over again.. LOL

He kinda comes across as retarded.

i thought the interview was pretty good. im a bush supporter. and to be honest those of you who didnt like what he said in this vid is because you started watching it with the idea in your head that you already dont like the man and dont care what hes says.


he could have said that he was giving all americans a million dollars and you would have found a way to spin his words into some evil out of tuch reality lies..

grow up and be adults...


what he said about france what right on. that alone proves he is in tuch with reality

[edit on 15amu52007 by DaleGribble]

reply to post by Denied


just a side note and maybe i watched this vid as a bush supporter.

i honestly thought this woman went into this interview thinking she was gonna be able to take control of it. she seemed to me that she was trying to turn this into a hate interview and bush would have no part of it.


my self included we should try to be more objective. although i am a minority by a large % on this site being a bush supporter. i love this site because we can disagree in a civil manner and it opens our eyes and helps us look away from our preconceived notions. just my opinion though..

In this type of interview all questions to be asked by the interviewer would have been given to "Bush's Boys" in advance and his answers would have been prepared for him. Hence his total inability to deviate from his scripted spiel. I admire her for continuing to press for answers to questions such as "but there were no weapons of mass destruction" in the face of his rude and arrogant put downs.

US politicians hate the British media because they arent afraid to ask the hard questions. They also dont treat US politicians like royalty, as they think they should be.

And as for Bushs' claim his administration is 'compassionate'..omg..tell that to all the dead innocent women & children in Iraq...

What a nice man he is - He claims to be for freedom & God and peace yet his actions prove his is for the opposite.

If a tree produces rotten fruit, the tree is rotten to the core.

It's funny, because he is getting his answer to the questions she's giving him in an earpiece. You can see him waiting for the next line. That's why he always wanted to finish and couldn't jump. That's why they didn't look at the questions. He has a team giving him his responses. He starts doing an impersonation of his father during one part. "Evil terrorist, brutal dick-tator" I think he's pretty funny sometimes. He's not trying to be, but he is. Peace

Originally posted by Mayacara
scripted spiel. I admire her for continuing to press for answers to questions such as "but there were no weapons of mass destruction" in the face of his rude and arrogant put downs.

how long is it going to take you guys to realize THERE WERE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

really i want an honest answer, a simple easy honest answer.

how long?

www.foxnews.com...

the MSM took so long to report on them because it was CLASSIFIED. that means they dont tell the you or the press about it.

when you are ready to step off of your high horse the rest of the world will be waiting on you, and i personaly will welcome you with open arms..

reply to post by DaleGribble


Wow. Thanks Dale. I have to say that I have never even heard about this report or that they actually found any chemical weapons. Where have I been that I never even knew of this report. Why isn't the White House rubbing this in everyone's face?

I think the real reason this video wasn't shown is that his answers don't conform to the to the government line on why they are in Iraq. He states it because Saddam was a dictator, and killed his own people, yet in the run up to the war it was because firstly Iraq had WMDs, which has been proven as false (his claim in this video is they had the capacity to produce WMDs - but that still isn't the same as having WMDs, a claim he made in the Senate and to the UN, so he lied on both those occasions).

Then once we were in Iraq, it was claimed that Iraq and Saddam were funding Al Queda, again a claim that has no foundation or irrefutable proof. And now in this video the claim is that Saddam was a dictator who chopped of peoples arms. That's maybe true, but he was a dictator for decades, so why now? And also, this is now the third separate reason the President himself has given for war in Iraq. This guys is supposed to be a leader and, as he states in this very video "My job is to make tough decisions." Well you're very decisive if you can't even decide on why exactly it is you're at war with Iraq, or your reson for being at war in Iraq goes against the "official" reason.

The claim that Saddam was a dictator, and had the capacity to produce WMDs also flies in the face of what is happening in North Korea. That is also lead by a dictator, that has proven to have WMDs not just the capacity to produce WMDs, and is/was part of the axis of evil. So what's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander right? Wrong, because North Korea doesn't have oil.

This video wasn't shown because it shows Bush for what he really is, an indecisive lying warmonger.

reply to post by Daz3d-n-Confus3d


could you imagine all the retractions and the excuses the MSM would have to pull out of their buts.

i really dont know why it hasent been brought up much and id be willing to go out on a limb and say the entire report has yet to be declasified. who knows it will come out one day and people are gonna have to accept the fact that there were chemical weapons there. and i bet if they havent found any more yet they will soon. but it may take a nother few years before we hear anything about it...

Originally posted by Alethia

but he was a dictator for decades, so why now? And also, this is now the third separate reason the President himself has given for war in Iraq. This guys is supposed to be a leader and, as he states in this very video "My job is to make tough decisions." Well you're very decisive if you can't even decide on why exactly it is you're at war with Iraq, or your reson for being at war in Iraq goes against the "official" reason.

i wonder what was the reason congress wanted to go to war with iraq?

or the UN's reason for the war?

you do realize that Bush would not have gone to war with out the approval of both of these governing bodys dont you?

right or wrong the war wasnt just one persons choice..

Makes me proud to be irish
Yes america has helped Ireland alott but that idoit (bush) never did one single thing for ireland
Except use us as a base for secret CIA planes and bombing runs without or knowledge
Does anyone know when the recording was off this?
Because i havnt even seen it on Irish television
Also, i love have he manages to add how they help with "famines", thats rich

[edit on 15-7-2008 by WERE_ALL_GONA_DIE]

Originally posted by DaleGribble

i really dont know why it hasent been brought up much and id be willing to go out on a limb and say the entire report has yet to be declasified. who knows it will come out one day and people are gonna have to accept the fact that there were chemical weapons there. and i bet if they havent found any more yet they will soon. but it may take a nother few years before we hear anything about it...

Ok, so even "if" they had WMD, did it warrant invasion?
The world is an unsafer place now, mainly because of invading Iraq, and occupying, were we any better than the threat perceived?

Even Bush himself say's in the video, history will judge him, and that it will.

What will we do the next time a country becomes a "perceived threat" Invade?
Seems Iran is next on the list.

reply to post by Denied


well i cant say that reason alone should have warrented an invasion. but there is no if. they found weapons of mass destruction. which is one of the reasons Bush, congress and the UN went to war...

well lets hope not. being a disabled vet, i want nothing more than to see all of out troops come home.

i would like to see a democratic socity in every country, but that dream is pretty far fetched at best. i dont think we should be the nation forceing it on everyone either. they have been fighting for thousands of years in the middle east and as much as i love this country its pretty arrogant of us to think we can change that.

makeing the statement that the world is an un-safer place because of the war is just as bold as saying it is a safer place. however that is just my opinion.

the middle east may be less safe, that is a given. but i just fail to see how this war has destabilized the entire world. i can be narrow sighted sometimes though. if you can answer that for me feel free by all means...


edit to add: stared and flagged btw. even if i disagree about bush im intrested in where this thread is going..

[edit on 15amu92007 by DaleGribble]

Originally posted by DaleGribble
how long is it going to take you guys to realize THERE WERE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

really i want an honest answer, a simple easy honest answer.

how long?

the MSM took so long to report on them because it was CLASSIFIED. that means they dont tell the you or the press about it.

In the six key points of the FOX memo two things really stand out to me:

The term "degraded," as in degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent, and the phrase "assessed," as in "Despite many effort to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War munitions are assessed to exist."

I suspect that in the full text of the still classified version you find that that the majority of the "degraded" chemical agents found were actually the residue from spent shells used in Kurdish and Iranian campaigns. Remember, this is the same administration that sent Colin Powell to the U.N. with "proof" of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Could the administration's global intelligence claims on this vague document have any less credibility?

So sure, you can say there were weapons of mass destruction in the form of a relative few chemical munitions. So tell me, as one of the few remaining Bush loyalists, were these weapons worth:

1. The death of 4000+ Americans,

2. Destruction of our economy,

3. Destabilization of the region,

4. A rise in global terrorism,

5. Eroding of our constitutional rights,

6. And our resulting loss of status, reputation, and influence in world affairs?

Too bad the American press doesn't have the guts to do what the Irish reporter did. Perhaps we could have mitigated some of the damage of what will go down as the most disasterous presidency in our nation's history.

The sooner Bush and his cronies are relegated to the garbage heap of history the better off we all are.

Originally posted by befoiled
So sure, you can say there were weapons of mass destruction in the form of a relative few chemical munitions.

It's not only the chemical weapons. There is a lot of evidence that Saddam removed some WMD to Syria before the war.

Syria storing Iraqi WMD

DoD report:: 50 trucks carry WMD to Syria

U.S. Spy Satellites “Saw” Heavy Eve-of-War Convoys to Syria

Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq

So tell me, as one of the few remaining Bush loyalists, were these weapons worth:

Destruction of our economy

Sorry, but the economy is not destroyed nor is the downturn caused by the Iraq war. The slowdown is because of greedy bankers giving loans to people who they knew could not afford the house.

Destabilization of the region

The region has always been unstable. It's been this way for centuries.

A rise in global terrorism

Is this your opinion or do you care to provide some proof?
I think your statement is inaccurate.

Eroding of our constitutional rights

Really? Please tell me which right you have lost.

And our resulting loss of status, reputation, and influence in world affairs?

Who really gives a rat's ass what others think about America? 'They' are not looking out for Americas best interest, so who cares? Not me.

It's too bad we don't have any real reporters like that here in the US..