President Bush, last news conference

[1Timothy115]

When the reporter asked the question about moral decline of America in the eyes of the world...

I was immediately praying, Lord, give him the courage and boldness to answer this question appropriately.

Wow! Did he ever lay into that guy...Amen!

[HappyChristian]

I didn't hear it - what'd he say?

[deafnva77]

When the reporter asked the question about moral decline of America in the eyes of the world...

I was immediately praying, Lord, give him the courage and boldness to answer this question appropriately.

Wow! Did he ever lay into that guy...Amen!

I'm shocked that a reporter noticed the moral decline of America to even ask that question, but then again, I don't know the the question was, just replying what you wrote.

[1Timothy115]

I'm shocked that a reporter noticed the moral decline of America to even ask that question, but then again, I don't know the the question was, just replying what you wrote.

I believe the key was...morality in the eyes of the world. The reporter included (paraphrase) and I believe alluded to America's disdain in the eyes of a liberal world. To further paraphrase the President's reply..."No. He isn't concerned with world view only how it effects America with regard to the Constitution of The United States of America.

I don't believe the world (especially the liberal news media) could recognize the obvious spiritual-moral decay in the U.S.

[John81]

Bush defends presidency in final news conference

WASHINGTON ? In a nostalgic final news conference, President George W. Bush defended his record vigorously and at times sentimentally Monday ? and admitted mistakes, too, including his optimistic Iraq speech before a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner in 2003.

After starting what he called "the ultimate exit interview" with a lengthy and personalized thank-you to the reporters in the room who have covered him over the eight years of his presidency, Bush showed anger at times when presented with some of the main criticisms of his time in office.

He particularly became indignant when asked about America's bruised image overseas.

"I disagree with this assessment that, you know, that people view America in a dim light," he said.

Bush said he realizes that some issues such as the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have created controversy at home and around the world. But he defended his actions after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including approving tough interrogation methods for suspected terrorists and information-gathering efforts at home in the name of protecting the country.

With the Iraq war in its sixth year, he most aggressively defended his decisions on that issue, which will define his presidency like no other. There have been over 4,000 U.S. deaths since the invasion and toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

He said that "not finding weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment." The accusation that Saddam had and was pursuing weapons of mass destruction was Bush's main initial justification for going to war.

Bush admitted another miscalculation: Eager to report quick progress after U.S. troops ousted Saddam's government, he claimed less than two months after the war started that "in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," a claim made under a "Mission Accomplished" banner that turned out to be wildly optimistic. "Clearly, putting `Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake," he said Monday.

He also defended his decision in 2007 to send an additional 30,000 American troops to Iraq to knock down violence levels and stabilize life there.

"The question is, in the long run, will this democracy survive, and that's going to be a question for future presidents," he said.

On another issue destined to figure prominently in his legacy, Bush said he disagrees with those who say the federal response to Hurricane Katrina was slow.

"Don't tell me the federal response was slow when there were 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed. ... Could things been done better? Absolutely. But when I hear people say the federal response was slow, what are they going to say to those chopper drivers or the 30,000 who got pulled off the roof?" he said.

He called President-elect Barack Obama "a smart, engaging person" and said he wishes his successor all the best. He hinted at the enormous responsibility Obama is about to assume, describing what it might feel like on Jan. 20 when, after taking the oath of office, he enters the Oval Office for the first time as president.

"There'll be a moment when the responsibility of the president lands squarely on his shoulders," Bush said.

He gave his view of the most urgent priority facing the incoming president: an attack on the United States. He chose that risk over the dire economic problems now facing the nation.

"I wish that I could report that's not the case, but there's still an enemy out there that would like to inflict damage on America ? on Americans."

He said he would ask Congress to release the remaining $350 billion in Wall Street bailout money if Obama so desires. But, he said, Obama hasn't made that request of him yet.

If Bush should make the request of Congress, it would take the burden off Obama's shoulders involving a program that is extraordinarily unpopular with many lawmakers and much of the public.

But, said Bush, "He hasn't asked me to make the request yet and I don't intend to make the request unless he asks me."

The last time the president had taken questions from reporters in a public setting was Dec. 14 in Baghdad, a session that hurtled to the top of the news when Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi threw his shoes at Bush during a question-and-answer session with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Bush's last full-blown, formal news conference was July 15. He refused to hold another during the final months of last year's presidential campaign, concerned that the questions would be mostly related to political events and wanting to stay out of GOP nominee John McCain's spotlight. But even though aides had suggested that would change after the election, Bush still declined to participate in a wide-ranging question-and-answer session until now, just eight days before leaving office.

He has been granting a flurry of legacy-focused interviews as he seeks to shape the view of his presidency on his way out the door.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090112/ap_ ... conference

[John81]

Bush says nation's 'moral standing' intact

WASHINGTON ? As President George W. Bush sees it, there's nothing wrong with the nation's "moral standing" in the world as he leaves office.

He told a news conference Monday that he disagrees "strongly" with the assessment that the U.S. has been damaged by the war in Iraq or by the way the nation has gone after terrorists.

Bush says some countries criticized the American prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, but then weren't willing to take any detainees.

And he says people who criticize the way the U.S. gets information from terror suspects are asking after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks why officials in Washington hadn't been able to "connect the dots" ahead of time.

Bush says most of the world still sees Americans as a "strong, compassionate people" who care about freedom.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090112/ap_ ... standing_1

[1Timothy115]

You know what each of these news posts has really toned down both question and reply.

The question did include "moral" and "in the eyes of the world" and Bush was far from indignant but was highly critical of the question as framed...too bad I can't get the text for the actual.

However, it does prove to me how the media/press manipulate you and I.

[1Timothy115]

As much as I distrust the N.Y. Times at least they qouted the conference. The full conference text is at...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/po ... ted=1&_r=1

Its the question below that bothered me, and I suppose, if it were one of us I wouldn't care. But, the liberal media was taking a very cheap shot at the outgoing President. Who is this "Mike," anyone know?
Yes, Mike.

Q One of the major objectives that the incoming administration has talked frequently about is restoring America's moral standing in the world. And many of the allies of the new President -- I believe that the President-elect himself has talked about the damage that Gitmo, that harsh interrogation tactics that they consider torture, how going to war in Iraq without a U.N. mandate have damaged America's moral standing in the world. I'm wondering basically what is your reaction to that? Do you think that is that something that the next President needs to worry about?

THE PRESIDENT: I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged. It may be damaged amongst some of the elite, but people still understand America stands for freedom, that America is a country that provides such great hope.

You go to Africa, you ask Africans about America's generosity and compassion; go to India, and ask about, you know, America's -- their view of America. Go to China and ask. Now, no question parts of Europe have said that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq without a mandate, but those are a few countries. Most countries in Europe listened to what 1441 said, which is disclose, disarm or face serious consequences.

Most people take those words seriously. Now, some countries didn't -- even though they might have voted for the resolution. I disagree with this assessment that, you know, people view America in a dim light. I just don't agree with that. And I understand that Gitmo has created controversies. But when it came time for those countries that were criticizing America to take some of those -- some of those detainees, they weren't willing to help out. And so, you know, I just disagree with the assessment, Mike.

I'll remind -- listen, I tell people, yes, you can try to be popular. In certain quarters in Europe, you can be popular by blaming every Middle Eastern problem on Israel. Or you can be popular by joining the International Criminal Court. I guess I could have been popular by accepting Kyoto, which I felt was a flawed treaty, and proposed something different and more constructive.

And in terms of the decisions that I had made to protect the homeland, I wouldn't worry about popularity. What I would worry about is the Constitution of the United States, and putting plans in place that makes it easier to find out what the enemy is thinking, because all these debates will matter not if there's another attack on the homeland. The question won't be, you know, were you critical of this plan or not; the question is going to be, why didn't you do something?

Do you remember what it was like right after September the 11th around here? In press conferences and opinion pieces and in stories -- that sometimes were news stories and sometimes opinion pieces -- people were saying, how come they didn't see it, how come they didn't connect the dots? Do you remember what the environment was like in Washington? I do. When people were hauled up in front of Congress and members of Congress were asking questions about, how come you didn't know this, that, or the other? And then we start putting policy in place -- legal policy in place to connect the dots, and all of a sudden people were saying, how come you're connecting the dots?

And so, Mike, I've heard all that. I've heard all that. My view is, is that most people around the world, they respect America. And some of them doesn't like me, I understand that -- some of the writers and the, you know, opiners and all that. That's fine, that's part of the deal. But I'm more concerned about the country and our -- how people view the United States. They view us as strong, compassionate people who care deeply about the universality of freedom.

[deafnva77]

-- never mind

[deafnva77]

ok, your article clears it up now.. it is mostly about war and violence and America's reputation.. which is the eyes of the world.

[John81]

In the eyes of much of the world America illegally and wrongfully invaded Iraq; tortured prisoners, wrongfully held people in Gitmo, and has been trying to bully others into doing things their way; etc.

I know a great many folks in Europe do indeed look upon America in a negative way. In no way do they view America as being a champion of freedom or democracy. These are not the elites either, but the average folks who write blogs, post on forums, write letters to editors, etc.

As to what those in Africa think, I really can't say. I also can't speak as to what the average Chinese believe along these lines either.

[HappyChristian]

In the eyes of much of the world America illegally and wrongfully invaded Iraq; tortured prisoners, wrongfully held people in Gitmo, and has been trying to bully others into doing things their way; etc.

I know a great many folks in Europe do indeed look upon America in a negative way. In no way do they view America as being a champion of freedom or democracy. These are not the elites either, but the average folks who write blogs, post on forums, write letters to editors, etc.

As to what those in Africa think, I really can't say. I also can't speak as to what the average Chinese believe along these lines either.

In the eyes of much of the world? Nonsense. Much of the world was with us when we went into Iraq...and you don't know all the ins and outs of why, so the adjective "wrongfully" is just a repeat of what the MSM liars spew. Wrongfully held prisoners in Gitmo? Wrongfully in whose eyes? Those whom we are fighting. And, again, the MSM. Those prisoners were treated very well. How many of our prisoners are given prayer rugs, allowed the time to practice their religion, etc? Never, in any of the wars we've been in...

I know a great many folks in Europe who look upon America in a positive light. Yes, we are hated. But then, so are Christians. Does that make the hater right and the hated wrong? Not necessarily.

I'm getting just a bit tired of the negativity. The plain fact of the matter is that this country has not been attacked on this shore since 9-11. And the reason is simple...Bush's policies, so maligned by some here, echoing the great wisdom of the MSM, have kept the terrorists from our shores. Don't think for a minute they haven't wanted to get back here. And don't think for a minute they won't succeed if BO implements all those promises he made. Then people will scratch their heads and say maybe that dumb ol' Texan wasn't so dumb after all.

[John81]

In the eyes of much of the world? Nonsense. Much of the world was with us when we went into Iraq...and you don't know all the ins and outs of why, so the adjective "wrongfully" is just a repeat of what the MSM liars spew. Wrongfully held prisoners in Gitmo? Wrongfully in whose eyes? Those whom we are fighting. And, again, the MSM. Those prisoners were treated very well. How many of our prisoners are given prayer rugs, allowed the time to practice their religion, etc? Never, in any of the wars we've been in...

I know a great many folks in Europe who look upon America in a positive light. Yes, we are hated. But then, so are Christians. Does that make the hater right and the hated wrong? Not necessarily.

I'm getting just a bit tired of the negativity. The plain fact of the matter is that this country has not been attacked on this shore since 9-11. And the reason is simple...Bush's policies, so maligned by some here, echoing the great wisdom of the MSM, have kept the terrorists from our shores. Don't think for a minute they haven't wanted to get back here. And don't think for a minute they won't succeed if BO implements all those promises he made. Then people will scratch their heads and say maybe that dumb ol' Texan wasn't so dumb after all.

I'm not being negative or saying their perceptions are correct but I read a lot of material that is put forth by Europeans...as well as some Canadians and Australians and a few others, and the vast majority have a dim view of America. Sure, there are some who speak well of America but they are far fewer in number.

With regards to countries backing America in Iraq, it should be noted some did to the protest of many of their citizens and some of these countries got out of Iraq as quickly as they could because of the vast unpopularity of them being involved there. Then there are some like Australia which held more true to their original course despite protests and growing opposition.

All that said, one can't go by what a countries government does (or doesn't do) as being a reflection of the will of the people. For exampe, the American government allows millions of illegals into America each year and allows thousands of unborn babies to be murdered each month but in both cases the majority of Americans are against this.

Acknowledging this has nothing to do with whether what Bush did or didn't do was right or wrong.

As to the terrorist threat in America...were immigration laws already on the books upheld those terrorists wouldn't have been here to do what they did on 9-11. Keeping such terrorists out of the country didn't require all the actions Bush took; such could have been accomplished by sealing our borders and fully enforcing immigration laws.

Like most presidents Bush has done some good and done some bad. I do believe as time goes by more of the good he has done will be put forth. While he was in office it's understandable that the media (made up mostly of liberals) would do all they could to highlight anything they viewed as bad or could make appear bad. Reagan was often vilified while in office but after he was out of office such lessened and once he died the media had many wonderful things to say about him.

[JerryNumbers]

I'm not being negative or saying their perceptions are correct but I read a lot of material that is put forth by Europeans...as well as some Canadians and Australians and a few others, and the vast majority have a dim view of America. Sure, there are some who speak well of America but they are far fewer in number.

With regards to countries backing America in Iraq, it should be noted some did to the protest of many of their citizens and some of these countries got out of Iraq as quickly as they could because of the vast unpopularity of them being involved there. Then there are some like Australia which held more true to their original course despite protests and growing opposition.

All that said, one can't go by what a countries government does (or doesn't do) as being a reflection of the will of the people. For exampe, the American government allows millions of illegals into America each year and allows thousands of unborn babies to be murdered each month but in both cases the majority of Americans are against this.

Acknowledging this has nothing to do with whether what Bush did or didn't do was right or wrong.

As to the terrorist threat in America...were immigration laws already on the books upheld those terrorists wouldn't have been here to do what they did on 9-11. Keeping such terrorists out of the country didn't require all the actions Bush took; such could have been accomplished by sealing our borders and fully enforcing immigration laws.

Like most presidents Bush has done some good and done some bad. I do believe as time goes by more of the good he has done will be put forth. While he was in office it's understandable that the media (made up mostly of liberals) would do all they could to highlight anything they viewed as bad or could make appear bad. Reagan was often vilified while in office but after he was out of office such lessened and once he died the media had many wonderful things to say about him.

When you do the right thing there will be many who will not stand with you. For instant President Bush standing with Israel.

History will not be as harsh on President Bush as many are in this present time.

The truth is, President Bush was a much better President than the 2 he beat out would have been.

[John81]

When you do the right thing there will be many who will not stand with you. For instant President Bush standing with Israel.

History will not be as harsh on President Bush as many are in this present time.

The truth is, President Bush was a much better President than the 2 he beat out would have been.

Whether I believe he was right or wrong, on the issues he believed in he stood his ground and I admire that. While the war in Iraq and terrorism issues dominated his presidency there were other things going on, some good, and these things will come forth.

It depends upon who writes the history as to what will be said of Bush. Here we are 20 years out from Reagan being in office and it's still very difficult to find an objective account of his presidency. Of course the same is true for most presidents of the last century.

While Bush probably was better than what his opponents would have been it's impossible to know for sure and at this point it doesn't matter. Virtually the end of the world was predicted when Clinton took office yet most fears were not realized. Folks looked forward to a Nixon presidency and he turned out to be far more liberal than anyone ever imagined he would.

It's really hard to tell exactly how ones presidency will be until they have already been there. There are so many outside factors to consider that one can't go only by their philosophy and desired agenda. One very interesting thing to do is look at what politicians planned to do before they got in the White House and what they actually ended up doing once there. Typically it's very different.