Two Bush Presidents Interviewed

January 11th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Fox had a first timer every single other network would love to have had: it was allowed to interview former U.S. President George H.W. Bush and his son and current President George W. Bush at the same time. The two had some interesting things to say.

Bush 43 (as George W. is frequently called) told Fox News’ Brit Hume, for instance, that he had refused to provide any kind of “bailout” for a political party (probably his own considering that Democrats won the ‘06 elections on a promise to force Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq) by withdrawing prematurely from the Middle Eastern country. Bush senior then praised his son for his courage and conviction, even though many believe that Bush 41 opposed his son’s decision to go to war with Saddam Hussein.

“During the darkest days of Iraq, people came to me and said, ‘You’re creating incredible political difficulties for us,’” the current president said as his term draws to a close. “And I said, ‘Oh, really? What do you suggest I do?’ And some suggested retreat, pull out of Iraq.

“But I had faith that freedom exists in people’s souls and therefore, if given a chance, democracy and Iraqi-style democracy could survive and work,” the president said. “I didn’t compromise that principle for the sake of trying to, you know, bail out my political party.”

The two presidents also agreed with each other about the ‘infective’ in politics these days; George H.W. said it had gotten a lot worse since his days in office saying: “it’s offensive, very offensive.”

George W. agreed: “The biggest disappointment in the political process, that’s been this kind of bitterness by a few people to the point where they don’t want to have a logical discussion or a civil discussion about policy,” he said. “They just want to tear you down.”

He also announced he plans to write about a book about his presidency. “I’m toying with the idea of maybe describing the toughest decisions I had to make as president, and the context in which I made them,” he said. “It is very hard for people to remember what life was like a mere four or five years ago. And it’s going to be very important for me to recreate the environment in which I had to make certain decisions, particularly the environment of right after September the 11th, 2001.”

Whether or not one agrees with every single policy of Bush 43, it should be clear that the debate has indeed gotten a lot more aggressive during his administration. He is partially responsible for this himself, as are some of his senior advisers, staffers and cabinet members, but liberal Democrats bare the grunt of the responsibility for the deterioration of the tone of the political debate. This is a very serious problem; one can only hope that it will change now that liberal Democrats finally won the presidential elections; Barack Obama was their man.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. marc
    January 12th, 2009 at 19:42
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I dislike the left-right rancor even as I work hard to point out flaws in the thinking of those whose views I believe to be wrong. Should people like us stop doing this?

    I don’t think so. But we do need to be honest in our evaluation of policies, political appointments, etc., and not toe a party or ideological line in the face of logic.

    With regard to presidential politics, it’s important to remember what Republicans put Bill Clinton through. For what reason? Were they truly outrages that he was getting some side action from a young hottie? Don’t believe it. It was a political and personal vendetta, plain and simple.

  2. Avinash Machado
    January 13th, 2009 at 08:14
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Politics is nowadays basically a filthy thing. Too much muck raking and mud slinging.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.