In mourning

Bush is a crook who made Tony Blair join in an illegal war. End of.

Cannot wait till this idiot is gone!

But not looking forward to what the US mob have to offer everyone next!

When the remaining two of the three most dangerous men in recent years, George Bush, Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon are out of public life altogether and preferably locked up, the world will be a better and safer place.

Nick

Are you trying by any chance to regain your popularity with us?

What do you think the reaction by the public to sending more troops to Afghanistan will be, since many people think that

more troops = more body bags

Do you agree, and do you also think, like many others, that Gordon Brown is too weak to resist Bush's advances.

Says it all that these two losers actually think they have done anything other than antagonise half the world and leave out of pocket the other half.

The Downing street ditherer pats on the back and waves goodbye to his old pal in the White House

What exactly did this meeting achieve? Lower food and energy prices? An end to the credit crunch? Higher living standards for the poor? None of the above just a few photo opportunities for the bungling prime minister to show himself up again.

I'll bet you'd have found Hitler a scream if he'd given a news conference ... "No further territorial ambitions in Europe" .. just before the invasion of Bohemia. What a laugh that one was. .... and that young Genghis Khan, chooping off the legs of those heralds who brought him bad news ... he'd have had you stitches justifying that, I bet.
Listen, Nick. Can you hear the people of Iraq laughing ? ... because they, sure as Hell, are going to miss Dubya too ...

Be afraid Nick, very afraid!

If Obama wins he will do "thinking" and then speaking and listening and then acting. Dubya had a tendency to go in the reverse order and skipped listening so you would have had an easy ride.

If McCain wins he's not stupid but he may have to take a nap between speeches and taking questions.

Hopefully either one will sort out the corrupt oil and rebuilding contracts and maybe that means a commission to investigate Cheney and Bush. Dunno whether you can pursue a President though.

Interesting take. "My legacy contains a rich store of mistakes for my successors to learn from".

I'm sure W will miss your questions, too.

Much has been made of the fact that Bush and the West only invaded Iraq because of the possible loss of oil supplies. Can you imagine the cost of petrol at the pumps if this very thing had happened at the same time as increasing oil demands from China and The third World? People are already squealing at the current high cost of fuel. To criticise this as being a bogus reason to invade is somewhat hypocritical in my view. Iraq most certainly posed a threat to our standard of living and our whole way of life because the Government would have lost billions in tax revenue had prices gone up even further. Granted much of it has been wasted on a bottomless pit of public expenditure but even so we would all have had to pay the consequences.

You guys are forgetting the whole Presidential Pardons when it comes to trying to get Cheney

You must stop mistaking 'spite' for 'humour'.

The reason you will 'miss President Bush' is that it is well known that he humiliated you at a White House press briefing in which you asked a loaded, ill-briefed question about the war in Iraq and, quite simply, he gave you a metaphorical slap in front of the world's press.

Not to worry Nick. I mean, the USA have had plenty of Muppets as Presidents. Look at cowboy Reagan. He was absolutely stupid where politics is concerned and did not have any idea of Geography. Clinton could not keep his belt tight enough so that things did not fall out of place.

Who knows Nick. As you say, politics is getting even more unpredictable day by day. Incidentally Nick, why are you so quiet about David Davis? I hear that there were plenty of hot headed Tory MPs who are calling for an early conference to ditch a certain person within the party. Are you sure you are not hiding anything from us Nick? Have a nice day Nick.

Dear Nick

Here in the U.S., National Public Radio in its news bulletins today is giving the impression that the PM is complying with Mr. Bush's "warning" that Britain not pull troops out of Iraq. This interpretation might be closer to the truth than we Britons care to admit.

And is it necessary for Mr. Brown to (seemingly) go out of his way to assert the rightness of the war in Iraq, given British public opinion?

As for those new troops to Afghanistan: Two hundred? A necessary sop to American public opinion, but don't tell them how few we can spare?

I can't help feeling that it's business as usual in Britain's attitude to the U.S. They say jump, we ask how high.

Say it isn't so. Please.

Nick,

Has anyone told you that the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty? Do you have a view on this, or are the BBC trying to pretend it didn't happen?

In the meantime, GWB has achieved what he set out to do by keeping the Democrats out of the White House. In fact, it may well turn out to be the case that he has stopped either Barak or Hillary from getting there. As a Republican, I am sure he feels that he has done his duty. As for Europe, there is no point in claiming that the Americans care one way or the other what Brown, Hutton, Sarkozy or any other politician says, because they will act as they wish anyway. All the rest is mere 'froth' as Prescott might have said.

So can we have some debate about the EU Treaty now?

All the best.

You've omitted to mention he's committing even more troops (8000) to Afghanistan and is not pulling out of Iraq. Indeed he was congratulated by George Bush for his commitment to Iraq.

All this from the man who flew to Iraq during the Tory confernce to tell them they'd be home by Christmas.

Does Gordon Brown have the first idea what he's talking about? He changes his mind more often than the weather. If this is leadership I'm the Dalai Lama (no disrespect intended)

More gritty reporting I see. E-

Bush and Brown - two lame ducks - you just know that nothing practical is going to come out of this meeting.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in a chat between Obama and Cameron - these are two people who really may have a chance to shape history over the next few years.

"Some people may be rather surprised to learn that, after the decision to invade Iraq was taken in not an entirely multilateral way."

Probably because the UN decided to ignore Iraqi breaches of the ceasefire and UN resolutions for 12 years

Fact is, whining lefties, the war was legal because of the above circumstances.

Thanks for pandering to the anti-American consensus Nick. It shows real bravery!

In fact, the liberation of Iraq was one of the most multilateral military exercises in modern history. It involved the armed forces of over 20 nations, and followed the passing of 17 separate resolutions at the United Nations security council.

Of course the liberal left mind simply cannot entertain these points as factual truth. For them, truth is whatever they say it is.

Yet another reminder why Nick Robinson would be unfit to tie the late, great, Tim Russert's shoelaces.

Any chance of giving this kind of spiteful, snide 'journalism' a rest, Nick?

Oh, and Jackturk, Sharon is currently in a persistent vegetative state. I think that counts as 'out of public life.'

dear Nick,
Sorry to object but Bush is an "Orrible bit of sleaze",
He and Cheney have made millions in personal money from the Horrors of war,
The family have a history, that engages with the enemy, in all the wars todate, ( The Bush Family Fortune).
When Five British Para's come home in a coffin, think ! Bush has made millions out of death, and that is immoral. Good ridence to bad rubbish is what i say, and that goes for anyone associated with him,
Id rather be beside our own service men and women than associate with these war mongers.

17

Of course, the USA was quick to push for UN resolutions for the invasion of Iraq based, but has always vetoed UN censure of Israel for its attacks on the Palestinians.

I wonder why?

Could it be that the Jewish lobby in the US controls the media and lots of the fund raising for the political parties.

Double standards?

George Dubya is doing the rounds on his farewell tour. Does he need a job when he get's thrown out of the White House, then?

A bit like Tony Blair's farewell tour of the US - what's in it for Dubya?

Nick - what did he actually say to you at this press conference?

Also, to those who say the BBC isn't covering the Irish "no" vote, clearly you haven't read the following article: https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7455955.stm

Quite correctly, Mark Mardell (the Euro correspondant) has been following that ... stop with the Nick-bashing!

Hi Nick, with hindsight how do you think the Bill Clinton and George Bush presidencies will end up being judged by the world at large? Obviously in Bush you have seen a president who struggles to get his view accross effectively and has entangled the US and her allies in a costly war. However in Clinton you had a president who talked a good game but whose reticence to get involved in world affairs saw events such as the genocide in Rwanda and the Balkans as well as the rise of Al Qaeda. Could it be said that it needed a better president than Bush to tidy up the mistakes made by Clinton?

""Some people may be rather surprised to learn that, after the decision to invade Iraq was taken in not an entirely multilateral way."

Probably because the UN decided to ignore Iraqi breaches of the ceasefire and UN resolutions for 12 years

Fact is, whining lefties, the war was legal because of the above circumstances.""


No, for it to be a legal war it needs to meet the requirements for legality set down in international law - it didn't and is therefore illegal.

The argument you are using is the same as the "Look at the scary bad man!" type crap that led us into this war. You can't ignore the law just because he's [i]really, really[/i] bad and you just [i]know[/i] that he's up to something.

I respect Bush. Unlike Brown, he doesn't send his troops to battle over-stretched, under-funded and under-equipped.

Furthermore, from what I gather from people who've met him, Bush is said to be charming and funny. On the other hand, I'd rather dine with a dead donkey than with Brown.

#8 parkavenue301: ".......the fact that Bush and the West only invaded Iraq because of the possible loss of oil supplies"

I am always somewhat amused by the things that people on this board regard as 'facts'. There have been a number already on this issue, and we are only up to #22, but it may be worth just questioning this statement. Does it not seem possible that the way to protect oil supplies would have been to keep Saddam in power, and to lift the sanctions so that he could upgrade his infrastructure and make himself even wealthier in the process? You may recall that this was the French position, and that there are a number of conspiracy theories to explain why that was so.

Well, Nick, you must be one of the only ones (to miss him).... the vast majority of Britains, and for that matter Europeans, Asians, Australasians, etc, etc), will be glad to see him go.

The only way I'd welcome him back is in the dock at the International Criminal Court.

I like him, merely for the fact he gets under lefties skin.

One might rejoice the departure of the "Idiot Bush" (a phrase I've picked up in Canada) and rightly so, but I have been left disillusioned with democracy at its core. I don't entirely blame America, Israel or Britain for this; I have had my eyes opened by their reckless actions to the real powerlessness or lack of intent of the international community to act accordingly to their responsibilities. Why go into Iraq and not New Orleans? Why call Darfur a genocide and sit back and watch Rwanda all over again? Why blame Islam and not Evangelicals? I am scared of what the future has to bring and I'm not alone. As a recent graduate I should be full of ideals and hope, not cynicism. Politicians have pulled the wool over the eyes of my whole generation, we don't believe our voice counts in the international arena!

Surely we are forgetting that going into Iraq was a sideshow, if memory serves me correctly the people behind 9/11 were supposed to be in Afghanistan. Leaving aside the rights or wrongs of that conflict, surely we allowed Dubya's fixation with Iraq to sidetrack international efforts to get Bin Laden?

Still spouting you Liberal propaganda I see. At least you are consistant. Pity you gave up journalism.

Yes, Nick, but how many Countries are 'Allies' in Iraq and Afghanistan as he spoke of a multilateral approach to deal with those tyrants?

Just responding to DavidGinsberg.... Clinton reticent? No, wrong, he bombed more countries than any other peacetime president including Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq (In 1998 Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change in Iraq official US policy), Somalia and Afghanistan (in one case a medicine factory).

No, just like everything every other president of the US since Dwight D Eisenhower, Clinton liked to use planes, bombs, missiles, troops and covert warfare (car bombing and backing of attempted coup in Iraq).

Just because someone says they're a liberal doesn't mean they actually are!

Consequently, the official pretext for Clinton’s bombing of Yugoslavia was that it refused to sign up to the Rambouillet peace accords and was committing “ethnic cleansing” (genocide) in Kosovo as part of the war. These pretexts were disproved, just as the pretexts for the Iraq war were disproved.

re: extremesense, I don't think there is anything to say that liberal/democratic administrations have a less effective foreign policy. I think Kennedy, Johnson and not to forget Jimmy Carter showed a willingness to get involved in the world stage to varying degrees of success. My problem with the Clinton administration was that it talked about resolving the big international problems without ever effectively tackling them. This was a president who had such a poor handle of the Balkans conflict that Wesley Clarke nearly started a war with Russians. I'm not saying Bush has been better but he has to a degree been put in a position where he had to act. Clinton was in power at a time when the world needed a strong superpower to regulate areas like Rwanda and the Balkans instead they had a president who was too busy fighting battles with the Republican Congress.

Not sure how many times Bush has been on UK soil in last seven and a half years but my guess less than the fingers of one hand...

Has he created such an impression on you?
Never saw you as one to be sucked in by that "Texas Drawl"

History will be his judge.

More insightful journalism. Well done, Nick.

Re: DavidGinsburg, yes, I agree. Clinton talked tough but tended to back it up with half measures (one-off bombings and covert operations) - I think this was due to his experience at the beginning of his presidency with Somalia. Then, of course, followed Paul Jones et al, and as you mention, the battles with the republican congress, Kenneth Starr/impeachment.

You're right, he did shy away from from the major challenges requiring action whereas Bush hasn't in most cases (Myanmar being perhaps an exception). Yes, Bush will be seen by some (probably many) as doing things the wrong way although he certainly cannot be accused of not appyling bold steps to the challenges he has faced.

Clinton on the other hand will be seen as being half-hearted when far more was needed.

It's certainly going to be interesting seeing how they are both ultimately judged. I do feel that Clinton is viewed is through rose tinted spectacles when he shouldn't be.

Like Pavlov’s dogs the people of Europe are salivating at the prospect of George W. Bush’s demise. They will be almost unanimously pleased to see him go. Or at least they think they will. Bush has been reviled as a dynastic mediocrity, an irresponsibly elevated cretin, a placeman of the oilmen and an idiot warrior-President. He has been hated richly and variously, but not pointlessly. Anti-Bush sentiment has filled all sorts of psychological and political needs in Britain and on the continent.

We all want to feel that we can look at the world and feel that we can make some sense of it. Bush and his litany of political sins provides us with the simplicity that we need. In taking him as the symbol of America we can construct America as a nation of imperialistic hick-Evangelicals controlled by shadowy corporate interests. In taking one part of America for the whole it becomes a simple, ugly ‘other’ against which leftist, secular Europe can self-approvingly define itself. This denigration of America is a way of healing the wound of envy caused by Europe’s cultural, economic and military eclipse by the US.

Moreover, the confounding of Bush and America allows Europe to rationalize its own diminished power as a sort of transcendence. The international projection of power ceases to be a desirable political end and comes to be seen instead as the reckless blundering of a politically immature hegemon no longer in control of its power, but controlled by it.

To read about Bush at greater length search for my blog, just who the hell are we?, hosted by wordpress.

Bush is greatly misunderstood.Saddam had to be taken out eventually.I commend Bush for his bravery in being the one to do it.In his 2nd term his foreign policy has been much more moderate and multilateral in fact.He does not deserve the low opinion poll ratings he's getting.You wil find President Obama deals with Iran in a very similar way to Buah,and he will not be slow to use the military strength of the USA either.There will soon be alot of disillusioned anti-Americans who think Obama is somehow 'one of them'.

Nick,

I hold you in the highest regard but - don't worry it is just a small but - were you really at President Bush's last news conference?

As you know he popped over here to Belfast and met with First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness.

Soon after the meeting he held a news conference at Stormont which to be the best of my knowledge is in Northern Ireland which is part of the UK.

So technically he held his last news conference on British soil here in N Ireland.

I grant you that it was attended by us local media and the deathwatch White House press corps but obviously I apologise profusely if you were at Stormont to witness this historic moment.

Seriously though, it was a real filip to inward investment here and anything which puts this little place on the world stage for the right reason has got to be worth 'the last President Bush news conference on British soil.'

If Gordon Brown believes that the 'prize' of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is worth the loss of British soldiers lives why doesn't he and the other EU leaders accept the democratic verdict of the Irish people to reject the Lisbon treaty.
Why do they all appear to be ignoring democracy in action and keep talking about a way forward to overcome this ‘obstacle’? It is not an obstacle; it is the people of a democratic country giving their verdict on the rights and wrongs of the treaty.
The treaty is now dead; they should accept this democratic verdict. If they don't really believe in democracy, what are we doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Complain about this comment

"Note: If you disagree with a comment please do not submit a complaint, add your comment to the discussion instead."

Damn.
My objection to #18 was:
"because it's devastating to my case!"

Hey Nick at least you got to sneak in the "I will miss him, NOT"

You Brits.. God love your incomprehensible multiplicity. Who would think that mere proper use of language could cause a fractalization of meaning clear out to the event horizon.

I was dismayed and frankly embarrassed to watch Nick Robinson's lead story this evening on the BBC news at 6.
It appears that Nick Robinson has forgotten the fact that the BBC should be strictly impartial in its reporting. His ill-disguised dislike of Bush was clear from his abrupt and hectoring tone. When questioning Gordon Brown on troop numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan he addressed George Bush as 'that man' rather than President Bush.
His use of politically loaded terms like 'so called' war on terror made the piece appear more like a Guardian editorial than a BBC news story.
Whether or not one agrees with George Bush's foreign policy, I fail to see why the personel feelings of a correspondent should be given free air time. Is this a personal vendetta against Bush?

rlee1968 @45,

The answer may indeed be 'yes'. It possibly started when Bush teased Nick about his deficiencies in the hair department.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick,

Do you feel that you are cut out for political punditry? For somebody who so often appears to believe that he can feel the pulse of the British people, you went badly wrong by maligning Davis, and now you say how you're gonna miss Dubya. You want to get out more and talk to real people.

Been listening to your bits for news bulletins. They are laced with sarcasm, 'the so-called war on terror' etc. They undermine your analysis and explanation and make you sound biased and not reporting what is happening. Your question at the press conference with Bush and Brown was a hugely missed opportunity and came over to me as a question asked b y someone who was trying to be smart and embaress the prime minister. To me it was a poor question that was easily countered.
please get rid of the smart clever double meaning, the implied tongue in cheek remarks and do what you can do brilliantly. Report and comment and let the fact do the speaking.

"Today is yet another example to join the list, when Dubya claimed that one thing he would leave behind after he left the White House is "multilateralism to deal with tyrants". Some people may be rather surprised to learn that, after the decision to invade Iraq was taken in not an entirely multilateral way."

And the reason why a multilateral policy on disarming Iraq was impossible:

Russia and France had loaned Saddam Hussein billions based on future oil revenues - they put their own narrow financial interest in maintaining his regime and eventually lifting sanctions/getting their money back ahead of everything else.

Bush was a Joke as your sarcasm implies, but he had considerable help in reducing the UN to a circus from the likes of Chirac and Putin.

Funny how the BBC never seemed to mention that. Oh I forgot, it dosn't fit into a T.V. sound bite slot, does it.

Do me a favour Nick, let Mark Urban do the commentry when UK soldiers make their final return.

Try to keep off defense matters if you possibly can, as the devil is aways in the detail on that subject. Mark is brilliant at it.

And for the record sometimes suicide bombers are not always Afgan citizens, they are sometimes young Pakistani's brainwashed at the sad madrassa schools of death across the international border in the North Western Frontier region.

Gordon bennet,just joined the site and all i see is??bile?hatred,and the kicking of certain people.Blair did what he did {I disagree with 80% of what he did] because right or wrong he thought it was right!Nick writes what he writes because he believes it is right?He works for the BBC which by definition is woolly and liberal,and he gets paid a£5,000,000 [or thereabouts. for his pains] I have seen many political battles,[being born in 1908],but the present one is very exciting,a team of "absolutely nobodies",never ran anything ,even a corner shop,except that Geordiy guy who ran a bookshop before becomming head of the NHS!against another team who boast people who have experience of??I do believe young Osbourne has some bright ideas..but it is time to tackle Tax[Direct and Indirect]Flat tax or whatever,Credits should be banned as should all means testing.Paliament should be blown up.I am a Yorkshire man and would volunteer!We need only 200 MPs,100 Lords and probably 5 MEPs,why do we need an MEP for??Yorkshire..weve nowt to say?

Bush and Brown both have the same legacy as each other; both their successors will find it incredibly difficult to fix their economies after they're gone as they've both done almost irreparable damage to them via massive mis-management/waste and just plain stupidity.

Coupled with that is the damage created by the foreign policies adopted by them.

Then you've got the domestic policies adopted for similar aspects (Guantanamo bay; the Americans have a physical place for it, but we'll soon have a virtual place which has exactly the same effect as Guantanamo bay)

I'll be extremely glad when they're both gone; I just hope that whoever takes over from them have a bit more common sense.

Re #19. Great comparison between Tim Russert and Nick Robinson.
Russert genuinely liked politicians and respected them. On the whole he believed they acted with a sense of public duty.
I'm afraid Nick Robinson represents the polar opposite of this approach to politics.
It also goes without saying that politicians, of all persuasions, liked and respected Tim Russert. A truly great broadcaster.

Good Bush Bad Bush? does anyone really care. Reagan was going to cause World War III according to the left, it never happened. Maggie was ousted to appease the wets, we then got a grey man who made life easy for Labour, John Smith died and Blair had an easy ride to No 10.
There are plenty of guilty leaders in the world, but the Left ignore them as it doesn't fit in with their ideology. Ask yourself what would Al Gore have done? Showed us how to cook on camel dung.

re 13: Mark Mardell reported on the lisbon treaty in his blog and on the general news pages, but there's a spurious statistic which the BBC (and sky) are reporting on regarding the vote....

They keep mentioning the fact that only around 1% of the total eu population voted, and they wonder why 53% of 1% should stop the other countries from being able to ratify the treaty.

To my mind that's a totally spurious statistic and a nasty argument; the point is that 99% of the population were not allowed to vote because their governments wouldn't let them.

It's not Ireland's fault that none of the other countries allowed a vote, so I think Ireland have a perfect right to put a stop to it.

53% of people who voted, voted no, and that's democracy. If the other countries didn't allow a vote then they can't cry "foul" when Ireland's vote turned out to be "no".

no.19 I'm fully aware of Sharon's situation, which was why I said "the remaining two out of three most dangerous men"

Nick:

It is an interesting note....You will have another president (Barrack Obama and or John McCain) in the next year, that will make you job interesting again.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick,

Is Dubya a moron? Is Gordo a puppet? Whatever. You are a tool of the liberal elite. Why don't you kiss Kim Jong Il on the lips? Otherwise, please report the news... not what you have given us so far: a rehash of something I could get on SkyNews. Please, a little journalistic integrity. You tool.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

'Found it broke the House Rules', I thought so! How convenient for you media hacks to spew your left wing, weak kneed 'compassion mongering' unchallenged in the court of public opinion! Lenin would be very proud of you and your sycophants!

I think Bush cheney iraq war money and disregard for human life about sums it all up.. Can anyone look at Bushs record and see anything good? America's war on terror? I dont know. Islam is a very big problem set to get worse. Perhaps they are working for the free world. The trouble is after all the bad stuff how can they be trusted?

I look forward to the next reverting report from Nick ... perhaps he can tell us what sandwich he's enjoying today.

Meanwhile, if readers actually want to find out what was said in the aforementioned press conference and what exactly Nick asked try Quentin letts sketch at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026936/Bush-touched-Brown-couple-times-making-recoil-like-novice-nun-smile-terror.html

Having to link other papers - says it all really.

#24 Jordan D

I am hardly Nick bashing by asking that he cover the topic of the EU. I would, however, accept your point that Mark Mardell was the man to cover the EU Treaty were it not for the fact that Nick had the perfect opportunity to tie up his earlier dig at Hague (12 November). If you want to speculate, as he did, about what the Conservatives might do if a nation did not ratify the Treaty, then perhaps it is only to be expected for Nick to return to the topic with his views when just such an event occurs. Personally, I regard the visit of Bush as meaningless to my life, whereas the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is of much greater significance.

My suspicion is that the Beeb finds it difficult to be impartial about the EU since it is naturally biased in favour of the concept. Go on prove me wrong.

All the best.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

67 majic aldo since my post in favour of what you had to say was blocked by the moderaters then I will just say I agree with every thing you say and about time someone told it as it was . Good on you lad.

I think we're getting to the stage on these blogs where they're getting horribly personal.

Charles Hardwidge once said that people tend to view other people in the way they view themselves. An interesting piece of philosophical thinking.

Try and keep it clean grandantidote.

Nick, it seems as if much of the raging blogosphere thoroughly enjoys posting their small minded, anonymous, idiotic comments on your blog! The lack of any actual insight on so many of the posts had me skipping all but a few and here are just a few comments.

I sense a serious lack of reading comprehension from a number of those posting. If you don't understand something on the facetious and tongue-in-cheek, then please, don't write anything. Else, we'll all know what fools some of you actually are.

Furthermore, for those who expect "journalism" on a blog? Please do us a favor and quit reading. You're diluting and concurrently insulting the intelligence of those who read and realize that hey, this is an opinion piece and not necessarily meant to be journalism.

Also, for those who think President Bush can slap anyone around, least of all an accomplished journalist, are you serious? We know all know that Cheney does the slapping in this administration. Duh.

Tim Russert's iconic status and sound journalism (most of the time) are undeniable. However, being as he was a pretty humble guy as well, I'm sure he tied his own shoes and that he and Nick would've gotten along quite well.

Finally Nick, in some ways, you're absolutely correct that the end of the W. Bush years will mean a number of things, not the least of which will be a lack of quality soundbites to but on YouTube and friendly reminders to "cover that BALD head." Cheers.

What ever Bush, is was or should have been, I think your means and manner of asking him questions and perservering with the issues should be commended, having a sense of humour even in the most dire circumstances can elicit the critical moment of indiscretion from those being interviewed.
Nick keep it up and don't let the comments get you down.

Personally I am relieved that he is on wane, we must hope for someone with integrity, charisma and sense of purpose that is more inclusive, being incompetent and lacking effective communication skills is a double whammy and I have never been so embarrased as when watching dubya perform.

Lets look to the future and conspiracy theories that will no doubt abound about the next POTUS

How on earth can we treat these news conferences seriously! Brown is so confident that we are 'winning' in Afghanistan that he is proposing to send even more soldiers. What about the old military truism 'never reinforce defeat'.
We are the occupiers in a foreign country. The soldiers, who we have supposedly trained, are now apparently going to be sent by the Afghan government into Pakistan. Maybe they ought to make their own country secure. Oh, that's right they are trying to do that by effectively invading Pakistan.
We saw the same in Iraq. Turkey invaded Northern Iraq, and we, with our American alllies, did well exactly nothing.
The whole situation is a tinderbox and the ignition is not far away. In the words of somebody famous, 'you ain't seen nothing yet'.
Whoever takes over from Bush will still have to sort out the problem. As for there being no repeat of 9/11 the killing fields are now in the middle east, if you exclude the fire men who actually went into the building have not more soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan than were killed in 9/11. Where did most of the people who flew into the twin towers come from, why Saudi Arabia, only people do not want to be reminded of the facts. They may have received final training in Afghanistan but the country with the problem is Saudi Arabia, the country who we are relying on to reduce oil prices. You couldn't make it up.

In my opinion, Quentin Letts is an awful political correspondent.

His fundamental problem (with anybody from the 'left' of politics) is that he personalises it.

He was an complete disgrace at the last PM briefing, where he simply went into a mini-rant at the PM.

Which neatly reflected the Mail itself, i.e. crude and ranting.

If I was Lett's editor, I'd haul him over the coals and tell him to be a bit more professional.

@71 Grinnellian.

Your point regarding Nick's blog not meaning to have any journalism is taken - though I'll ignore the comment about not reading.

I agree that blogs can contain anything and they are a series of thoughts that strike the person at any time. Normally.

Nick's Blog is different. He knows it is read by politicians - it's even been complained about in Parliament. Nick is paid for by us to be a journalist. I'm happy that his blog can be about his holidays IF he actually files a report on subjects like the question he asked of Dubya (and the response.) If Nick doesn't like this suggest he blogs using a free site like facebook etc.

There is now balanced reporting evident recently - the David Davis story showed how the Beeb can affect the tone of events.
I really hope that it wasn't done deliberately - but count the number of times a headline referred to "madness" of DD.
Nick wrote not a single word on what, I think is fair to say, is a big story that was critical of the Governments response. He solely gave his opinion that DD was wrong/mad/at war with tory party etc.

When reports becomes tinged with opinion I don't feel it unfair to expect opinion to be tinged with journalism.

i watched in disbelief how bumbling idiot gordon brown spotted dubya kissing his wife, so he decided to kiss dubya's wife...

this at the same time as the plane landed bringing more of our fallen brave troops home!

id have dragged bush to the airport and forced him to explain whats happening to the families there waiting

still a photo opportunity might make the new headlines....
those in power need a reality check!

Oh for goodness sake

People really are either forgetfull, stupid or will fully blinkered.

Afghanistan is a conflict that should be fought, had full UN backing and is the right thing to do.

I'll repeat what I said on a previous blog for those of you hard of thinking.

1) Afghanistan = Good
2) Iraq = probably bad.

Capiche?

As for Bush going, well dont let the door hit your behind on the way out.

# 74 as a sketch-writer, I imagine Letts has to personalise it otherwise his craft doesn't work. In fact, open any newspaper and whenever there's political comment there follows critical, personal comment too. Twas ever thus; not always nice, but limits do need to be observed - there are libel laws, after all. The most disgraceful piece of personalised abuse was in 1997 when Labour devoted a whole broadcast to calling John Major a liar.

Dear Nick,
Politicians are so predictable, having just let France, Bush and Sarkosy agree a change in stratejy over defence.
France is to cut its defence force for a revamp in Intelligence services.AS this is the political trend through out Europe the down sizing of the Communities Forces indicates one issue, PAN EUROPEAN MILITARY FORCE, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON INTELLIGENCE.
"why, because European Politicians and Governments are more Frightened of the People than they are of going to war.Within the Community lie the fundalmentalists and the Terrorists, " FOR THIS REASON ,
It is the people who being spied upon FROM within the community, the loss of personal freedom, is indicative of the suppression being applied by the terror laws now being implimented, but infact this is state control in accord with communism during the Cold War.
This is not democracy it is state suppression, and exavctly what the politicians want. Gordon Brown is suppressing the people 's right to vote this is communism at work, But the Irish are right, stuff the European Union.

# 78

Yes, I did not describe it very well -I won't be applying for a political sketch-writers job!

What I meant to say when I stated that Letts personalises it - is that his personal hatred for all things 'leftie' comes out in a very unpleasant way.

I much prefer the wry way that Anne Treneman in The Times gently takes the rise out of these over- inflated politicians.

There is a way to do it with humour - but the Letts approach leaves this reader feeling some distaste for the sketch-writer.

@ 43, Bush, Blair, Brown.... They all speak highly of democracy, but completely ignore it when it suits them, so, I guess that democracy means something different to them. to them democracy means any minority view that happens to agree with their own personal objectives.

So when are you going to signup Bradshad1 No. 77. I do love armchair generals. Just because the UN says something it does not make it right. Look at Zimbabwe, where exactly is the UN on that.

What would you do if a sovereign foreign power invaded Britain because one, or some, of our people did something terrible.

Would you resist or would you just role over and take the foreign powers money and live the good life.

The whole of our moral authority has been lost because of our invasion of Iraq.

You ask some of our soldiers who were actually in Afghanistan after the invasion what the first days were like. Did they not play football with the locals who fully appreciated what had done been done for them.

We threw away the peace because the Americans wanted to 'do something' about Iraq. We have lost and it is time to come home, we are the problem and never will be the solution. By the way ask yourself why no British soldiers wear blue helmets, which if you are fighting for the UN then you should, also who actually gives the orders? Are our soldiers being given orders by 'foreigners' even if they are Americans, I thought our boys signed up to fight and die for Queen and Country, not George Bush.

We are not fighting under the auspices of the UN in Afghanistan (a NATO mission) or in Iraq (a coalition mission).

Nick - surely you love Bush purely because he folically challenged you at "that" news conference?

81 purpledogzzzzzzzzzzz

I've just noticed that our recent incompetent leaders names all start with the letter B. Bush, Blair, Brown.

Is this important or just a statistical blip?

And if we get someone starting with C or M will it be better?

Could this be the beginning of a very deep philosophical discussion?

there was me thinking we went into Afghanistan before Iraq.

And who says I havent served?

I forget tohough, Afghanistan was a haven of wonderful peace, with everyone living happily side by side, everyone equal, no one dragged into football pitches and shot through the head for going against some fanciful medieval religous fanatacism.

And you wear UN blue when you're on peace keeping duties, when you're fighting, you try and keep the whole camoflage thingy going on, and its a nato operation with UN backing.

Also if Iraq was a bad thing because it didnt have UN backing, how is Afghansitan a bad thing when it has UN backing?

Nobody says you did or didn't serve bradshad1. You seem an intelligent sort of guy so please tell me who gives 'our boys' their orders.

If you did sign-up did you not take an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Again can you seriously say that by killing foreigners in their own land that we somehow or other are saving ourselves. The ends do not justify the means. They never have and they never will.

Our soldiers , and more importantly, their officers, should not accept orders which are illegal. Did you not see Prince Harry sat at his computer screen ordering bombs to be dropped on 'insurgents'. Just how noble and glorious is that?

Do we now not use pilotless planes, Reaper and Predator, which we will use because maybe our pilots have a conscience and refuse to drop bombs on people who are defending their own country.

No. 76.

I saw that kissing thing too. Gordon has absolutely no idea of protocol.

I also noticed body language as Dubya stood in line when the photo's were being taken with his arms around Sarah Brown and Gordon's backs, almost herding them into position. This means that Dubya thinks he is still top dog - even in the UK. He did it with the Queen, although he didn't actually touch her. Damn cheek of the man!

Gordon is not confident in his body language. He comes across as being very nervous and his hands move around a lot. Dubya, on the other hand is prominent and forthright - and it shows!

#70 park avenue, If you cant stand the heat stay out the kitchen, a number of my posts have been removed, I dont know why perhaps you know? There all addressed to you or scepticmaxand I know its not him as he told me that he would never have anyones post removed, whereas I have had a couple of vieled threats from you. my posts were certainly not as offensive as some of the posts on this blog and yet they were removed I suspect through recieving a complaint. we had one other doing the same thing a week or two ago,Hav'nt heard from him lately.

# 87 TAGriffin I'm not at a loss for anything to say to you today regarding the activities of Queen and country that you constantly disparage but if I did, with the moderaters in the mood their in they would only tell me it broke the house rules. I will refrain under protest but you carry on running down our armed forces to your hearts content there's no fear, it seems, that you break the house rules. and of course your are keeping on the subject of the blog are'nt you.which is "Great news conference" just in case you had forgotten.Just dont call anyone an Idiot. Thats much more important than running down repeatedly our armed forces.

#77, 86 bradshad1: Careful - it sounds as if you know what you're talking about. That is asking for trouble on here!

shellingout @88 wrote:
"This means that Dubya thinks he is still top dog - even in the UK."

That's because he is. Brown, on the other hand, doesn't even rate the title of poodle - anywhere.

"#19 Oh, and Jackturk, Sharon is currently in a persistent vegetative state. I think that counts as 'out of public life.' "

War criminal. Karma.

"I like him, merely for the fact he gets under lefties skin."

That sums up the politics of the right for you. No doubt you'd have liked Hitler too, if it meant that you could get one over on the left. Who cares about his politics, hey? As long as he winds people up....

Disgraceful attitude.

DialSquareDomination @93 and 94,

Oooh! a new juicy right-on leftie: fresh meat.

I find the Nick bashing, as someone above calls it, very amusing on this topic.

On the one hand we have a large number of people hitting him for being too pro-Bush in this little article,

in another post he gets hit for being anti-American

and in another he gets hit for not reporting enough news.

Just goes to show that people can and will read what they like into any piece of reporting.

Nick, I think that you showed a great deal of disrespect to the President when you refer to him in your question to the Prime Minister as 'him'.
Like him or loath him he is still President (equivalent to our monarch) and requires respect for that position.
I must say that there seems to be a decline in BBC reporting standards , starting with yourself in not showing respect for position. e.g refer to Brown or Cameron. There is clearly decline in these standards in public which are aided by badly chosen words of the media reporters.

The issue with Afghanistan and Iraq will never disappear. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter to either country whether our soldiers are there because of NATO the UN the USA or GB, all these people see is what I would see if somebody invaded our country. Invaders, foreign invaders, and does anybody think that there would be a resistance to the invader.
Those who take the invaders money are collaborators, so do not the Aghans and Iraqis have a duty to defend their country.
What happened to many French collaborators after WWII, what happened to the reputation of some famous English people who deserted the country and went to either America or Canada. Come on tell me, because they were not looked on very favouably.
What I think is that Gordon Brown is as guilty as Blair because of his support for the wars. He paid for them, now he is the PM what exactly does he do? Come on tell me!
Look at what is happening to the millions of Iraqis who have fled their country, what do you think will happen to them when, and if, they return.
Does nobody see that the main reason why the violence is down is because the ethnic cleansing has taken place. The Americans now give money and support to the militias they were fighting only a few months ago. How do you the American soldiers feel working beside the people who killed their colleagues.
Bush goes to France, France now announces a return to NATO, no connection there then. How much will that cost.
Finally, as I have said elsewhere, we cannot afford these wars, the country is going bankrupt and the sad thing is that Brown will have to announce the withdrawal and what exactly will have been achieved. Nothing?

I will miss him...because he gives great news conference.



So did Hitler, but we don't miss him, do we? Ok,bad joke, but how could you miss that war criminal? He and that other war criminal, Blair, were responsible for the slaughter and maiming of 100,000s of innocents in Iraq alone.

Bush and Blair must never be allowed for forget that.

Bush and Blair have also greatly exacerbated the security risk to their countries with their sickening illegal invasion of Iraq.

Yet there they both are, safe as houses, given the sort of financial rewards and security protection that the rest of us couldn't even dream of.

I'll tell you a story about Pres. Bush, Nick. His ancestors come from Messing, the same pin drop quiet, one horse village in deepest Essex that some of my family came from.

A few years ago when Bush was on a prior visit to England, a black, stretch limosine pulled up outside the Queen's Head pub, Messing one day, and in sashayed two flipping great blokes with bulges at the hip and dark glasses.

"Can I ask you, where's the castle, m'am", said one of these guys.

"oh, baint no castle 'ere moi darlin", she replied, then added with a knowing smile, "You be Yanks, yeah?"

"what're you dooin' in Massin', then? You sure you aint a lookin' fer Colchester, they got a castle? Or Leeyer Marney, thas a bit loik one?"

The two guys made a hasty exit however, before their limo screeched away in a cloud of dust, tyres burning, one was heard to say into a radio:

"We godda divert him, Moid, no way is this place s'cure enuff: no castle, no moat, no Lords, no Ladies - zilch! And the people here are like g**am half breeds, they don' even speak English!"