Friday, September 22, 2006

Bush vs. Blitzer on CNN `Our position is very clear to the Iranians...'




My pals at Iran Focus published a transcript of an interview President bush did today with CNN's WolF Blitzer. It still amazes me how clueless someone who alledgedly is an informed journalist can be...simply unbelievable.


Here's a sample:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: You're here in New York. The president of Iran is here in New York. You have a chance -- I don't know if you still have a chance, but you had a chance to meet with him. Given the stakes involved -- a nuclear confrontation -- what do you have to lose by sitting down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

U.S. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Our position is very clear to the Iranians, that if they want to sit down with American officials, that they first must verifiably suspend their enrichment program. They know our position, the world knows our position, and I clarified it at the United Nations over the past couple of days.

BLITZER: But if it would help -- if it would help to sit down, talk to them and try to convince them. You know, there have been other moments where great leaders have made that major decision, have a breakthrough -- Nixon going to China, Sadat going to Jerusalem. What would be wrong to just sit down with them and tell them, you know what, here are the options before you?

BUSH: Yes, well, he knows the options before him. I've made that very clear. Secondly, Wolf, in order for there to be effective diplomacy, you can't keep changing your word. At an important moment in these negotiations with the EU3 and Iran, we made it clear we would come to the table, but we would come to the table only if they verifiably suspended their enrichment program.

And the reason that's important, that they verifiably suspend, is because we don't want them to have the technologies necessary to be able to build a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran in the middle of the Middle East would be a very destabilizing and troubling occurrence.

BLITZER: India and Pakistan already have a nuclear weapon. Israel has a nuclear weapon. Why would it be so bad if this Iranian regime had a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: This Iranian regime is -- promotes militias like Hezbollah to create instability. This Iranian regime has made it abundantly clear that they would like to destroy Israel, who is our ally.

BLITZER: Do you think they would drop a bomb or launch a missile on Israel?

BUSH: Wolf, my judgment is you've got to take everybody's word seriously in this world. Again, you can't just hope for the best. You've got to assume that the leader, when he says that he would like to destroy Israel means what he says. If you take -- if you say, well, gosh, maybe he doesn't mean it, and you turn out to be wrong, you have not done your duty as a world leader.

BLITZER: So you take him seriously at that?

BUSH: Absolutely I take him seriously, just like I take al Qaeda seriously when they say they're going to attack us again, just like I take these extremists seriously when they say they're trying to disrupt democracy.

Read the rest here.

5 comments:

louielouie said...

the saudi lap dog toasted kofi annus earlier in the week.
the saudi lap dog paid a tremendous compliment to abbass.
it is/was only fitting to then meet with coyote blitzer. wonder what compliment he paid coyote?

Bubba's Pravda said...

Why would it be so bad if this Iranian Regime had a nuclear weapon? Are you kidding me? I am amazed. I sometimes think, "they can't shock me any more". But this is stupifying. Is is fear that is driving this appeasement and moral relativism? How can you equate Israel with Iran? It must be fear. Nothing else makes since. Either fear, or Wolf is not as intelligent as a man as he should be.

A person does not need imagination to forcast what Iran may do with a nuclear weapon. Ahmadinejad has stated quite clearly that Israel needs to be wiped off the map. So, Wolf, I hope you can connect the dots. If Israel, the only stabilizing force in the hate filled Middle East is annihilated, is that not bad enough? Do you not believe Ahmadinejad is serious when he calls for Mahdi,from the pulpit in the UN,to manifest his presence to the whole world, ushering in a worldwide Islamic "paradise". Is a man who consistently denies the Holocaust not a threat, especially given the above statements?

Wake up Wolf. Negotiation, Appeasement, Diplomacy and Working Dialog are all part of Ahmadinejad executing the Muslim doctrine of Taqiyya. Lie and obfuscate until you are able to crush your enemies.

Wake Up!

Ahmadinejad will never sing Kumbaya with you.

Thanks for the enlightenment, JP.

Bubba's Pravda
bubbaspravda.blogspot.com
alwaysstuckonstupid.blogspot.com

nazar said...

Actually, as a reporter, it's Blitzer's duty to clarify the situation. There's a lot of people who don't know exactly why it would be so bad for iran to get nukes, so wolf asking that question of pres bush is exactly what a lot of people have in mind that are watching.

Bubba's Pravda said...

Actually, Wolf should be screaming from the top of his lungs, with the rest of the media, why it would be bad. It is blatantly obvious, yet the rest of the world is sitting by wondering what would be so bad. The reason it is not clear to them is the truth and import of the situation has not been presented by the media.

Bubba's Pravda
bubbaspravda.blogspot.com
alwaysstuckonstupid.blogspot.com

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Y'all,

Bubba, you're totally correct. There's also the leeetle matter of Iran's Hezbollah cells in this country and elsewhere, Iran's cazy relationship with Hamas and al Qaeda and the dangers of the mullahs passing on a suitcase nuke or two on, real friendly like to the favorite jihadists for an attack...something that might be very difficult to find Iran's finger prints on.

Of course,President Bush, as you notice from the transcript,is unble to articulate this simple fact. *sigh*

Nazar, with all respect, Blitzer is not a `journalist' and there are very few such in the main stream media.

He is merly a talking head who has the proper image and looks good and professorial reading the teleprompter.

That is more important than hard news to the networks nowadays, as news budgets are slashed and they increasingly become part of the entertaiment biz, designed to sell cars, vaginal hygiene products and the network's other offerings at maximum profitability.

Did you know that back in the days of Ed Murrow, George Putnam and Eric Severeid network anchors actually researched and wrote their own news?

If one was actually going to have a provocative, informative interview with the President of the United States and the CIC of our armed forces during wartime, there are a lot better questions to ask than Blitzer's inanities.

The questions themselves and the way they were framed unfortunately tell us more about Blitzer and CNN's biases than provide any actual information.

At least that' how I see it, and based on the ratings for TV news, a lot of others see it the same way.

Thanks for dropping in..weekend monkey says `howdy!'