The ‘pundit in chief’ takes his message to Fox News

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Most of the news coverage following the president's lengthy appearance on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday dealt with Bush's defense of John McCain's conservative ideology. (The president said McCain is "absolutely" conservative, adding, "Look, he's very strong on national defense. He's tough fiscally. He believes that tax cuts ought to be permanent. He's pro-life.")

But for me, the most striking exchange came towards the end, when Fox News' Chris Wallace brought up torture. Bush emphasized that his interrogation methods were legal because his lawyers told him so, and added the kind of shameless demagoguery we've come to expect from the president on the subject: "[F]or those who criticize what we did in the past, I ask them which attack would they rather have not permitted — stopped."

After the clumsy remark, Wallace asked a jaw-dropper:

WALLACE: I want to follow up on that. Whether it's interrogation of terror prisoners or the intercepting of surveillance among Al Qaida members, are you ever puzzled by all the concern in this country about protecting the rights of people who want to kill us?

BUSH: Oh, that's an interesting way to put it. I wouldn't necessarily define some of the critics of my policy that way. I would say that they want to be very careful that we don't overstep our bounds from protecting the civil liberties of Americans, and I understand that a lot.

I do think that some of the programs we put in place, like listening to people calling into America — that some of the claims about what we're doing have been exaggerated.

Got that? Wallace was so over the top with his ridiculous question, which sought to smear those concerned with American civil liberties, that even Bush wasn't comfortable agreeing with the Fox News personality's point.

As Glenn Greenwald put it, "If the subject of a political interview finds the questions from the 'journalist' too favorably slanted to embrace (basically: "I think you're being unfairly harsh to my political opponents"), isn't that a fairly compelling sign that there is something profoundly corrupt with the journalist?"

Actually, yes, it does.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[kaydee457 13]

Most of the news coverage following the president's lengthy appearance on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday dealt with Bush's defense of John McCain's conservative ideology. (The president said McCain is "absolutely" conservative, adding, "Look, he's very strong on national defense. He's tough fiscally. He believes that tax cuts ought to be permanent. He's pro-life.")

But for me, the most striking exchange came towards the end, when Fox News' Chris Wallace brought up torture. Bush emphasized that his interrogation methods were legal because his lawyers told him so, and added the kind of shameless demagoguery we've come to expect from the president on the subject: "[F]or those who criticize what we did in the past, I ask them which attack would they rather have not permitted — stopped."

After the clumsy remark, Wallace asked a jaw-dropper:

WALLACE: I want to follow up on that. Whether it's interrogation of terror prisoners or the intercepting of surveillance among Al Qaida members, are you ever puzzled by all the concern in this country about protecting the rights of people who want to kill us?

BUSH: Oh, that's an interesting way to put it. I wouldn't necessarily define some of the critics of my policy that way. I would say that they want to be very careful that we don't overstep our bounds from protecting the civil liberties of Americans, and I understand that a lot.

I do think that some of the programs we put in place, like listening to people calling into America — that some of the claims about what we're doing have been exaggerated.

Got that? Wallace was so over the top with his ridiculous question, which sought to smear those concerned with American civil liberties, that even Bush wasn't comfortable agreeing with the Fox News personality's point.

As Glenn Greenwald put it, "If the subject of a political interview finds the questions from the 'journalist' too favorably slanted to embrace (basically: "I think you're being unfairly harsh to my political opponents"), isn't that a fairly compelling sign that there is something profoundly corrupt with the journalist?"

Actually, yes, it does.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

I saw the entire interview and thought Chris Wallace was spot on....By the way, as part of this interview President Bush accurately characterized America's knowledge of Barrack Obama as ignorant of who this guy really is.......

Edited February 11, 2008 by kaydee457

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

So, a neo-Con goes on there saying that another fellow neo-Con is truly conservative.

Note to the ignorant, conservative does not mean "opposed to turrrism."

[simple_male 1]

Most of the news coverage following the president's lengthy appearance on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday dealt with Bush's defense of John McCain's conservative ideology. (The president said McCain is "absolutely" conservative, adding, "Look, he's very strong on national defense. He's tough fiscally. He believes that tax cuts ought to be permanent. He's pro-life.")

But for me, the most striking exchange came towards the end, when Fox News' Chris Wallace brought up torture. Bush emphasized that his interrogation methods were legal because his lawyers told him so, and added the kind of shameless demagoguery we've come to expect from the president on the subject: "[F]or those who criticize what we did in the past, I ask them which attack would they rather have not permitted — stopped."

After the clumsy remark, Wallace asked a jaw-dropper:

WALLACE: I want to follow up on that. Whether it's interrogation of terror prisoners or the intercepting of surveillance among Al Qaida members, are you ever puzzled by all the concern in this country about protecting the rights of people who want to kill us?

BUSH: Oh, that's an interesting way to put it. I wouldn't necessarily define some of the critics of my policy that way. I would say that they want to be very careful that we don't overstep our bounds from protecting the civil liberties of Americans, and I understand that a lot.

I do think that some of the programs we put in place, like listening to people calling into America — that some of the claims about what we're doing have been exaggerated.

Got that? Wallace was so over the top with his ridiculous question, which sought to smear those concerned with American civil liberties, that even Bush wasn't comfortable agreeing with the Fox News personality's point.

As Glenn Greenwald put it, "If the subject of a political interview finds the questions from the 'journalist' too favorably slanted to embrace (basically: "I think you're being unfairly harsh to my political opponents"), isn't that a fairly compelling sign that there is something profoundly corrupt with the journalist?"

Actually, yes, it does.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

I saw the entire interview and thought Chris Wallace was spot on....By the way, as part of this interview President Bush accurately characterized America's knowledge of Barrack Obama as ignorant of who this guy really is.......

What do you mean by this: By the way, as part of this interview President Bush accurately characterized America's knowledge of Barrack Obama as ignorant of who this guy really is.......

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, a neo-Con goes on there saying that another fellow neo-Con is truly conservative.

Note to the ignorant, conservative does not mean "opposed to turrrism."

"You think I look good in this suit?"

"Fabulous!"

[kaydee457 13]

I posted Bush's comments here..... Post #20

Edited February 11, 2008 by kaydee457

[kaydee457 13]

Here, I'll repeat it here, and here's the link to the entire interview....source

WALLACE: Do you think there's a rush to judgment about Barack Obama. Do you think voters know enough about him?

BUSH: I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and break the Mani Mijad (ph). I think (INAUDIBLE) that in a press conference.

WALLACE: I hope not. But so you don't think that we know enough about him or what he stands...

BUSH: It doesn't seem like it to me, but this campaign is plenty of time for candidates to get defined. He has yet (ph) his party's nominee.

WALLACE: So why do you think he's gotten this far if people don't know what he stands for?

BUSH: You're the pundit. I'm just a simple president.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Here, I'll repeat it here, and here's the link to the entire interview....source

WALLACE: Do you think there's a rush to judgment about Barack Obama. Do you think voters know enough about him?

BUSH: I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and break the Mani Mijad (ph). I think (INAUDIBLE) that in a press conference.

WALLACE: I hope not. But so you don't think that we know enough about him or what he stands...

BUSH: It doesn't seem like it to me, but this campaign is plenty of time for candidates to get defined. He has yet (ph) his party's nominee.

WALLACE: So why do you think he's gotten this far if people don't know what he stands for?

BUSH: You're the pundit. I'm just a simple president.

Bush is about as credible as Rush Limbaugh.

[simple_male 1]

I posted Bush's comments here..... Post #20

I have read that thread. Now I know your position. Experience is good. You emphasize on experience very much yet people like you chose Bush over OcCain in 2000 Primary process. John McCain was much more experienced than George Bush in 2000. Why people like you did not consider experience when people like you voted for Bush over McCain? Obama served in state of IL before becoming a US Senator. So he is not inexperienced. Plus Obama would be much smarter than George Bush was during inauguration. One example, while Bush was the governor of TX, he did not know who Pakistan's President (Still it was Pervez Musharraf back then) was. Anyone knows world politics can answer this type of question anytime.

[kaydee457 13]

I posted Bush's comments here..... Post #20

I have read that thread. Now I know your position. Experience is good. You emphasize on experience very much yet people like you chose Bush over OcCain in 2000 Primary process. John McCain was much more experienced than George Bush in 2000. Why people like you did not consider experience when people like you voted for Bush over McCain? Obama served in state of IL before becoming a US Senator. So he is not inexperienced. Plus Obama would be much smarter than George Bush was during inauguration. One example, while Bush was the governor of TX, he did not know who Pakistan's President (Still it was Pervez Musharraf back then) was. Anyone knows world politics can answer this type of question anytime.

I did not vote for Bush.......