I saw most of the President’s interview on MTP and like
James Joyner, thought that it was nothing new, but that Bush came across sufficiently presidential as to score the event a political success anyway. However, I also know that there was nothing in the interview that will quell the complaints of the President’s critics.
The NYT take can be found here: In Rare Talk Show Interview, Bush Defends Decision on War.
And, indeed:
Noting that Prime Minister José Maria Aznar of Spain had told him that Ronald Reagan was unpopular overseas, he said, “I’m keeping pretty good company,” and then added: “When you do hard things, when you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions.”
For one thing, it is incorrect to think that we were universally loved prior to the Iraq situation, and for another, the degree to which we are liked at any specific point in time by the leaders and populations of other countries really isn’t that important. What matters is the long-term picture, and any fair observer of US-European relations will see that we are still working well with our allies were it counts, even France and Germany.
Sphere: Related Content
Bush could have arrived at that interview with Bin Laden’s head on a platter, dragging a little red wagon full of anthrax canisters with “property of SH” labels, and it wouldnt’ have been enough to “quell the complaints” of the critics. They would simply switch gears.
They are professional critics. Being “quelled” means having to look for honest work.
It’s reasonable to question and criticize, it’s logical to listen carefully to the responses and weigh them on their merits. But its fantasy to think that any answer exists that will satisfy this type of questioner - for the whole exercise is farce that depends upon our suspension of disbelief. Why? The majority of the questions Russert asked have already been asked, hashed, rehashed, explained and dissected a thousand times over in the past week.
It’s not an interview, it’s a mind game, and it’s insulting to be subjected to this charade year in and year out, by a media that already thinks it knows everything, interviewers hoping for a stumble they can replay endlessley, and politicians who seem unable to call it for the bullshit that it is.
(Thinking about the exceptions to the rule, I suspect this is why Rumsfeld is so popular in some quarters - he has the gonads to actually say what 85% of observers are thinking. But then, he’s not a politician.)
Small wonder the majority of the voting public stays home.
Comment by Kate — Sunday, February 8, 2024 @ 5:21 pm
Best line in interview:
Russert: Will the UN participate now in reconstruction?
President Bush: The UN spend OUR money!? Hell No!
Comment by Jane — Monday, February 9, 2024 @ 1:17 pm