I know its a common view that France was the whiner and that they got most of the flak from pro-war americans. Still Bush should know better that Europe wasn’t behind him… except for the UK, Spain and a handful of smaller guys. Even these are far far from being “most”. Still he says:
The end about “meaning it” is pretty wierd too
Does he really beleive in that ? I’d rather he just dismiss their opinion than to make beleive.
Then you have this pearl:
So what he beleives proves he didn’t do wrong… ? Well anyone wouldn’t do something they think will go wrong… but things do go wrong… duh. Nothing like a real reporter to get Bush nervous…
Discussion... I know how many of us enjoy bashing Bush. We know he likes to simplify stuff and do some "straight" shooting. I'm used to the same old repeats about freedom and security... and I know they are key phrases for americans who buy it. Still these 2 quotes really SCARED me for a moment. They appear to demonstrate a real distance to world reality and the second one about cause and effect and decision making. Good intentions don't make a good decision.
Is Bush really this "turned off" to world politics ? Is he getting any real news or reality ? Does he think like this simpleton way about decisions ? Or is this just jet lag and bad communication abilities ?
A very brief mention on CBS news tonight. (One of the three major over the air networks. CNN and Fox being the major cable news networks over here.) They did comment explicitly that Europe in general is not happy with the U.S. A lot of what I saw was on security; how safe Georgie is going to feel in Ireland and Turkey.
OK, I gots a question: the talk about security implied that Ireland has never seen this level of cops on the street and so on. I assumed that with the IRA, Ireland has been security conscious since the 70s, and that the security for Bush’s visit is nothing new. Am I wrong?
When reality doesn’t match belief, attempt to alter reality. That’s one of the big reasons people refer to this, with barbed tongue lacerating one’s cheek, as a faith-based administration in more ways than one.
When Bush says “Europe,” he obviously means, “England, France, Germany, and Spain”… none of those piddly little countries, and certainly not “Eastern Europe” which is something else entirely. :rolleyes:
I thought Eastern Europe supported him. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania were all supportive, I’m almost 100% sure.
In fact, I’m pretty sure that if by “most of Europe” you mean most of the national governments of Europe (ie, not necessarily the hoi poloi) he’s actually correct.
As far as I know, the only national governments that openly opposed the invasion (as opposed to the ones like Ireland that just sort of gave angry glares but said nothing) were France, Belgium, Greece, Russia and Belarus.
Yes. We’re in the south of Ireland, and the IRA (which has been on ceasefire for seven years BTW) didn’t attack the south. There were a number of loyalist attacks here in the early 70s, but those who are old enough to remember say that even then the level of security never came near what it’s like at the moment.
“angry glares”? The Irish government winked at the Bush administration, allowing its troops to refuel at Shannon Airport, to train at an Irish military facility not far from Dublin, registering nothing but the mildest protests when US troops walked around Shannon Town in uniform and when Rummy gave a rousing oratory to them in the airport…then had the temerity to tell the Irish people “Oh well we always opposed this invasion”. Oh yeah, and Bill never had sex with that woman :rolleyes:
It got kinda overlooked in the international press, but the Irish Government took a major spanking in the local elections two weeks ago, and its complicity with the US in this invasion which is opposed by the vast majority of the Irish people was most definitely a factor in that.
I think that even in the countries where the governments have supported the war in Iraq, the citizens have been opposed. Hasn’t this become a war not supported by a majority of the people in any country – including Iraq and finally the United States?
Gallup poll from Jan 2003. No European country shown has more than 12% favouring war. Bush has complete contempt for what the populations of these countries think and thought, and only cares if the leaders will get on board.
Well of course. Why should he care about anything else? Do you seriously want the President of the United States formulating policy based on the opinions of the majority of people in, say, Norway? I’m not defending his Iraq actions, of course, but the notion that he should be responsive to polls from foreign countries is ludicrous.
The security arrangements in Ireland are unprecendented, and they are enormous. Quite unlike any counterterrorism measures of the 1970s or 80s.
There is a 10km exclusion zone around the castle and the road that Bush travelled on, a similar air exclusion zone in which anything flying will be shot down, there are tanks all over the area (what use would tanks be against terrorists…?), anyone using Shannon airport has been told to allow 4 hours waiting time before their flight, and all the area’s local residents have had to apply for security passes, listing their friends, relatives, anyone who’s stayed in their house during the last year - and if they refused to answer these questions, then they have been under effective house arrest. There are also something like 2,000 police and God knows how many soldiers.
On a slightly related matter, a somewhat harsh interview by RTE journalist Carole Coleman, in which Bush lost his cool, has been criticised (requires free registration) by the White House:
Oh boo hoo. :rolleyes: Good on ya, Carole. Disrespect is part of the job of someone interviewing politicians. Clearly Dubya can’t handle non-lapdog arse-licking press (oh how I’d love to see Bush go for 10 minutes against Paxman).
This is known as “throwing the toys out of the pram”.
By the way, if anyone wants to occupy Ireland, now’s the time to do it. Invade from the east!
I heard Carole Coleman on RTÉ radio yesterday talking about the interview. She was trying to be as diplomatic as possible, but said Bush was clearly used to the media treating him deferentially, and was very uncomfortable with her asking him hard questions.
I don’t know what misrepresentation you’re talking about. It is always representatives of government, and not state, who vote on things like UN resolutions and military responses. It has always been the case that government leaders have met and conspired to run government business. Franklin Roosevelt met with Churchill and Stalin, not with people on the streets of Kiev and Liverpool.
I didn’t see the interview, but they replayed it on the radio the next morning. she gets admonished for her tone? Bush really couldn’t deal with more than one question at a time, and kept preventing her from following on with pertinent questions. She did a great job.
It always difficult to tell with politicians whether they really are that arrogant and divorced from reality, or whether they are just trying to put a positive spin on the news to further their position.
