³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I thought that the quality of the questioning that you undertook in the White House press conference, screened on the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ1 6 O’Clock News this evening, 7 December, was superb. The incisive nature and the reaction from both President and Prime Minister showed them to both be made most uncomfortable, by your direct approach. It was just the type of close-questioning that we need to see put, at this critical juncture, to arguably the two key instigators of US & UK involvement in the War in Iraq. Thank you and very well done.

Great Question Nick, ABOUT TIME.
But why do so many of us feel that the country is out of our hands with a faffing useless arrogant PM and a USA ally with a chimp of a President?

Because we only have a voice when voting. We need more direct questioning by our media of these (at last) weakened dangerous leaders. Nick, lend your Cajones to a few more political interviewers please.

Nick

Amazing!! Some progress!!

Perhaps you could now start tying TB down on what he means by a "two state solution" - maybe you can get him to refer to the 1967 borders?? And admit he should not have supinely colluded in the folly of the Israeli incursion into Lebannon??

I am afraid that I saw your rather one-eyed questioning as being rather vain and foolish.

If you had also put the question to Blair as well, then I would have had a different view. The line from No.10 and the left, is now to get everyone (including the news commentators like yourself) to critisise the Americans, so that attention will be deflected away from Blair, and then to make out that Blair is a hero for trying to restrain Bush.

Am I wrong, or was it Blair and Bush together who had a joint strategy to illegally invade Iraq, who jointly told untruths, who jointly made mistakes, and who are now jointly trying to save face.

I am afraid that I rather felt ashamed at your attempt to look big at the expense of the truth.

Since Prime Minister Blair put respect and responsibility at the top of the agenda, I have put a great deal of faith in him. Apart from misunderstanding his position on the nuclear deterrent issue, these latest developments suggest he’s picked up the ball and is running with it.

Strategists think in terms of total war, flexibility, and long-range, and the way I’m reading the current situation is that the mistakes of the past have been acknowledged, and the disaster is being used to leverage opportunities for forward movement.

While success for all involved stakeholders is difficult to see, as a martial artist, I have complete faith in the things it has taught me. Unlike men and women who lie, bend, and break, strategy has never failed me and, I believe, they’re right on the button.

People should march and demonstrate in support of this initiative.

You formulated that question very quickly and delivered it well.

It surprises me that Bush is still using the same rhetoric. "Victory" and "the fight against terrorsim" and other, now familiar, phrases may have been useful back in 2001 but they appear outmoded and serve to reinforce the what appears to be a gulf separating reality and the US Administration's policies.

Quite worrying.

At least the PM is using language that gives the impression he's got a mental grasp of the situation - even if he hasn't a chance in hell of acting on that.

"...he tried to raise all the things that would encourage the American people to support him."

Bit late.

Shame Nick Robinson spoilt his question by saying 'deteriating' rather than 'deteriorating'

Nick, next time Bush and Blair prattle on about democracy, ask them why they deny the Palestinians their democratic mandate, despite a 16month ceasefire by Hamas, yet support the Israeli government with all its shortcomings, not least defying international law, discriminating against Israeli Arabs, which has recently campaigned for and been elected on a policy of redrawing borders with or without the consent of its neighbours.

Then ask why they allowed Israel to go bananas in Lebanon and the occupied territories in the summer, killing and maiming until they feel satisfied.

Then, ask why they support street protests who want to rid Lebanon of pro Syrian politicians yet when pro Hizbollah protesters are equeally vocal they say this undermines the fragile democracy.

Then ask them why they think they are so despised in the Arab world…....

Maybe President Bush should listen to The National Intelligence Council & Britain's Royal Institute of International affairs, which has concluded that the presence in Iraq has without a doubt increased the threat of terror in Britain and the United States.

The response Bush gave was unbelievably predictable, and as always, ridiculously flawed.

Evening Nick

Does Bush understand that these terrorists are all over the world and not hiding in Iraq and Afganistan?

Does he understand that everytime one dies, ten more people join the terrorists?

Does he understand that in the end we are going to have to sit down with them and talk? Blair should understand that more than anyone.

I think the real reason he mentioned all
these things was that he was rattled by your question. It was obvious from his initial terse response, before he gathered himself for a more considered answer.

The major difference now is that he does admit things are bad, albeit with caveats, whereas before he discounted that idea wholesale.

The Frightening thing is G.W. waSn't talking about Iran when he spoke of the nuclear threat, he was talking about Iraq. Just how stupid can one man get, there were no W.M.D.
Remember when our own PM said he'd seen the evidence for WMD, LOL.
I tell you what it makes me wonder if couldnt do a better job than the pair of them, and i've only got one "O" leval, and a few "CSE'S".

Just watched the clip, can someone decipher the substance of what Bush was saying - seemed to cover everything and nothing. Good question!

Unbelievable.

if Iraq has become a base for Al Quaida, its because of the war. They were no friends of Saddam.

Any question of Saddam having nuclear weapons was a farce. Possibly a post debacle government could indeed become a threat in nuclear terms. So who should be blamed for that?

The man is indeed in denial. Walking away is not the answer, the situation is too bad for that. There is at least some logic in seeking an understanding with Iran and Syria, but is bush capable if facing that?

Its unbelievable that such a character is the president of the United States.

President Bush clearly did not like the question with its inherently critical tone, but it was fair and needed to be asked for the reason you state. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

It's simple, to quote Doctor Who "You've been noticed". Nick Robinson for the next White House press secretary, perhaps?

I thought it was a great question Nick, and at exactly the right moment. Good on you sir.

You spoke for the free world when you put Bush and Blair on the spot. Thank you for meeting the challenge: something the two leaders have so clearly failed to do in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Israel/Palestine.

A generous assesssment. However, a phrase much favoured by my scots nanny intrudes on me:

He's away with the fairies.

I think your question was inappropriate. I'm no fan of Mr Bush, but in my opinion you've taken the word "unsettling" completely out of context. The vast, vast majority of the time when he talks about Iraq he invokes terrifyingly Apocalyptic terminology... he talks about the threat of a wider regional conflict; the misery endured by the Iraqi people on a daily basis; and of course the pain suffered by the thousands of military families in the US that have lost loved ones. He does not simply shrug his shoulders and say "shucks, it ain't that bad" - which seemed to be what you were suggesting.

Mr Bush is a politician - he has to defend his political face or else his administration will crumble. Instead of respecting that your question came across more like a personal insult, and that is why you were 'eyeballed'.

Also I'm really disheartened to see that each & every one of the comments in your 'white house news conference' discussion gave the thumbs up to your question. It's not much of a debate if everyone agrees now is it?

It must be the journalistic scoop of the millenium for the President of the United States to have told you that a spirtual medium; he did say that he's met with the families that died!

Give a mouse a crumb...thanks for the laugh.

Outstanding Nick,the Bush man was really in a tangle,almost as laudable as (I HERE THERE'S RUMOUR'S ON THE INTERNETS)on a more serious note,does the man really understand just how desperate the Iraq study group finding's were?(JUST WHO ON EARTH WOULD DESCRIBE 650,000 DEATHS AS "UNSETTLING")

It was a fascinating response - I've just watched it on the 10 o'clock news. He seemed to go out of his way to be sincere, which always seems strange to a British audience. Unclear to me how well it would have played with an American audience, but it seemed a little too studied to me.

I think the detail of GWB's response became so incoherent it was gibberish. He tried to convey how passionate he was about doing the right thing, and then allowed himself to confuse so many issues that it is hard to believe that he really has a grasp of the situation in either Iraq or the Middle East. And they say he is a very intelligent man. Good grief.

Well done Nick - one of those moments of genuine journalistic triumph which provokes an unexpectedly revealing response. I'm not sure which was the more fascinating - how prickly Mr Bush was about the premise of your question, or the melodramatic hyperbole of his answer. Methinks the Lady doth protest too much. Keep on speaking truth to power on behalf of the 'unsettled' masses everywhere.

Well done Nick - but still too easy.

I have stopped feeling angry, fearfull and bemused. It is sad and and pathetic. Bush is a cretin. Blair ? I just do not understand...

Well he has clearly still not learnt that nobody now believes him that Iraq was a threat to security and had no involvement whatsoever. Perhaps you can tell us if the American people are fooled by his rhetoric about the whole of the middle east being a threat to his country and that good old axis of evil- surely they have now realsised that he talks an absolute load of useless rubbish (and I would liked to have put it more strongly but I dont think you would have published it)!!!!!

The most striking/depressing part of the exchange was how Bush and Blair can be allowed to slip into pre-rehearsed rhetoric with nobody present pointing out what a glaringly obvious diversionary tactic they are using. B&B clearly think we're all idiots and, from his silence, Nick would seem to agree with them.

Your question was much appreciated by those who view the White House media corps as something resembling a real corpse. You really stirred him up and created a new Busism about 'dead families." Unfortunately you'll now be on the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖland Security list of undesirables.

The interesting thing is that the White House was so embarrased by the question that they changed it in their alleged transcript. They claim Nick asked:

Q Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating. You said that the increase in attacks is unsettling. That won't convince many people that you're still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course.

The last sentence of course started "That will convince..."

I wonder how the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's "lad" feels about that. Also, has anybody ever heard the term "lad's question" as in the snipe Bush made at Nick when answering the question after his to Blair.

I appreciate the Prime Minister's answer to this lad -- we call them lads, in Great Britain -- lad's question, is that --(laughter.)

Mr Robinson,
You are my hero for asking the question you did. I thought it extraordinary and very well aimed. It must have taken real guts. I notice that when Bush replied "It's bad in Iraq" he then paused and said "that..help?" and then he smirked and laughed, as if the small matter of his discomfiture could be legitimately followed by a laugh, a nervous one sure, but when the stakes are so grim, What person can fail to recognize the gravitas of the situation and worse fail to show any sense of responsibility and culpability that the whole world knows would be appropriate.
I also saw you on 'This week' with Andrew Neill and I heard you say that it was really unnerving to be eyeballed in that way by the 'leader of the free world' as I said, you are my hero, and thanks.

I hope George Bush understood what we understood 3 years ago and he did not want to understand and it is perhaps still not understood by these two leaders as much as their country men & women understand.
Good job Nick we do understrand!

this is my first time reading your page Mr. Nick and I must say I really enjoyed the way your question seemed to make Mr. GW squirm I do not know how he talks to the families who died, but I guess he's the "most powerful man in the world" so he can do that sort of thing...I think the way you posed the question was perfect for the situation where you have these two "respected members of government" standing before the world looking like complete fools grasping at any straws they can find to keep public support behind them in this war. I understand why they don't want to admit defeat it will just re-affirm the notions that Iraq should have never been invaded, and that all of these men and women are dying for a cause that even other areas of government are saying is in vain. I think you may have really woken some people up with your question. Thank you.

Congratulations Nick Robinson, for your great questioning of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. I watched the coverage of the news conference by different channels and ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ was the best, primarily because of your contributions. As to the the President, he was clearly rattled by the study group report, but predictably he was not going to change his stance so quickly. As you point out it was the same invoking of 9/11, dangers of unstable Iraq etc without any hint of how the botched military actions have increased those dangers. Both Bush & Blair are basically manoeuvring to avoid judgement today by saying that history will prove them right. The reality is that no future end would justify the killing and misery caused at such a vast scale.

Since 9/11 the American media (esp the Washington Press Corps) has been very solicitous of the Pres and has asked only soft questions. The press did not do its job (not with Bush or with Chaney)and consequently they felt that the nation and the world were solidly behind them to do their arrogant work. Nick Rob's question was the kind that will make the Ameican press corps ashamed. And let me tell you...YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THE LAST ABOUT THE COURAGE OF NICK IN ASKING THAT QUESTION.

I just saw the conference on tv and then came across your webpage at the bottom of the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ news website. That was some reaction you provoked from the President. I even got the feeling that the Prime Minister wanted to giggle when the President went off on one, doing a Rumsfeld with his 'You understand I understand you understand...newkiller weapons'.

That's the way a proper question and answer session should be conducted.

Good stuff. Great entertainment. Shame the subject matter is so brutal though.

Nick

Great choice of question, and I liked your segment on the politics show! I must admit if Bush stared directly at me saying 'it's bad' I'd need a change of trousers. However his laugh just after clearly illustrates how arkward you made him feel, and how serious this situation has become. Does this arkward moment give any kind of appology to the living, breathing, thinking human beings that are dieing on a daily basis, based on the decision, of lets face it one man, the real reasons of which are to this day unknown.

I see Bush talking all the time in the news, and it never ceases to amase me how the American people could have elected such a person to be a leader? His words seem minced and his answers are either meaningless, or frequently contradict themselves! But then we elected Tony Blair didnt we?

I wonder if when all of this is over, when the washing is hung out to dry on the line, will Bush and Blair be hailed as heros or war criminals? I dont know, but whatever happens I fear that the real reason, is the one that everyone first thought of when all this began, its black Nick, and our cars run on it.

I didn't see any eyeballing and, although it was a decent question, it was hardly earth shattering. It does seem to have brought out your fan base though.

Nick - as a Brit living in New York I really miss the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ News 24 political coverage, but it was very refreshing to catch your piece on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ World. If only the television news services in the United States asked questions like you asked in today's press conference. If they did there'd be an awful lot more accountability and hopefully that would lead to a much more controlled diplomacy rather than a reliance on the military.

Thank-you Nick

Your question allowed us to catch a little glimpse of the real
George Bush. He was passionate, and committed, and un-characteristically eloquent in expressing his unshakeable certainty that he is engaged in a righteous endeavour and shall prevail. These are quite admirable qualities in a leader.

How ever much Mr Bush would like to portray the military deployment and consequential social implosion in Iraq/Afghanistan as a heroic battle between right and wrong or good and evil, it is still true that more than 100 times more people have died as a direct result of US/UK intervention in the region than have been killed by Al Qaeda globally.

If there really is such a thing as a 'War Against Terror' then the US/UK must be winning it hands down(?)

In fact the US/UK have shown to the whole world they have the will, motivation, and ability to employ more troops and
Weapons of
Massive
Destructive power than anybody else.

By re-emphasising that US/UK are on the 'correct' course our leaders also re-assert that any subsequent military, infra-structure, social and personal devastation, on all sides, is also imbued with the same 'correctness,' and as such a price worth paying for standing up for whatever it is 'we believe in.' The families of an estimated 600,000 dead in Iraq since the start of hostilities would no-doubt have a different point of view.

It is now catch 22 time.
To stay in Iraq/Afghanistan will most likely perpetuate the political and social breakdown of the whole region, which is bad for Western security (we are told) and a humanitarian disaster for those caught up in it - and would probably force a hurriedly unstructured withdrawal; yet to pull out would be to admit defeat to an enemy and question the fundamental validity of the initial impulses to embark on state violence in the first place, let alone continue - this could lead to social and political instability in the US and UK as voters became increasingly more inclined to despair of, and to distrust their respective political processes. Either scenario is a nightmare.

The third alternative available to the US and UK is to simply throw the hands up and say to the world, 'oh dear, we took some wrong turns and have ended up making a mess of everything, for tat we are sorry.' And ask the UN, and all of its member states, to commit the recourses necessary to rebuild, restructure and reinvigorate the culture which the Western powers have so efficiently and so totally demolished.

(Yeah, like that's ever going to happen!)

The only thing that bothers me about this is the seeming pride you are taking in being part of the story - I always thought it was your job to get the news, not be the news?

Gosh you were eyeballed by the President - that is a story because?

I don't see what the big deal was. Maybe you should pat yourself on the back a little more, that's all so-called journalists seem to do these days.

Well done Nick. That's what we need -more questions like this being asked. Bush and Blair have been shaken by the report of the study group but in their usual arrogant way are not going to admit to being in the wrong and accept something must be done about Iraq very soon. With their bland rhetoric they continue to try and pull the wool over our eyes. They don't care how many lives have been, and will be lost, as long as they can stay in their ivory towers. It is so sad to see our country continuing to be dragged down by the 'love affair' Blair has with that smirking buffoon, Bush.

Excellent question to GWB. Actually I thought his first answer was rather better than his second one, which was wittering gibberish.

Nick, were you as uncomfortable as me with the President of the United States apparently speaking on the UK's behalf? All through his speech he kept referring to "Great Britain and the United States" this, and "Great Britain and the United States" that. We didn't elect you Mr Bush.

I thought TB looked pretty uncomfortable too. If he was not already on the way out, I thought that Mr Blair's presence on that stage would have meant that he'd have to resign pretty much immediately on returning to the UK.

That was special - it was like you touched a button that just made him overcompensate in his openness. having said that, I was equally impressed by the question to the PM - that took full advantage of who was standing next to him.

Almost a 'Frost' moment

That is the first time I've seen the President string that many sentences together so elequently.

However I still do not understand what 9/11 has got to do with Iraq. Have I missed something or has there never been any links proved between 9/11 and Iraq?

The President also talked about the need not to fail. How does he define a success? The popular media has in recent months stated that terrorist activities has increased as a result of activities in Iraq. In this atmosphere, how can a conventional occupation of a country be successful in stopping that?

Dear Nick Robinson,

I hope you realise that you and other reporters like Snow, Paxman, & Humphries remain the only access members of the public have to our misguided and deluded leaders. Your 'tough' questions to Bush were wonderful. For god's sake, keep them coming. The extent to which b&b continue to isolate themselves from the reality that is Iraq is truly frightening.

Good work. Let's encourage other press men and women to keep up a spirited response. David Paroissien

Well done Nick. A superb display of journalistic questioning especially against a president who now is well out of his depth in politics. Our PM looked very uncomfortable and I feel wished he were not there.

A very well phrased question that put Bush on the spot - excellent. You're right, what he said in his answer was very revealing; not of what he's going to do but of what he's worried about. At the end of the day, he's got no answer to why other people have had to say "this isn't working". He had to segue to the soundbite-sized grand vision value pack - buy one get one free (that's bogof to you).

He was clearly rattled in a way that he's not used to getting from the US. The disadvantage, I guess, of not having free press in the US of A - it's in fact a very expensive press.

I thought Blair seemed almost pleased at Bush's discomfort. I liked his "you're not going for a follow up are you?" remark. We are seeing more and more of a public divergence on Iraq and Israel/Palestine, and I think that's interesting. In political terms it's minor, but in international diplomatic terms, cracks we've long suspected to exist are becoming visible.

Also, you made reference to Bush's response on nuclear weapons. I couldn't find it myself. I heard something about 'nookular' weapons. Perhaps that was it.

"Our strategy must remain nuclear"

Oh, I'm sorry, that was a typo.

"Our strategy must remain unclear"

bush again trying to link afghan..iraq and 911 together...anyone for scaremongering the american people again?

I am less interested in GWB's ineffectual re-iteration of his old mantra about the dangers imposed by Iraq than in TB's astonishing brass neck.

In the House of Commons, he (TB) was asked if he agreed with the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group and his response was "Of course." - as if that's what he's been saying all along!

The breath-taking mendacity of this hypocritical, self-aggrandising buffoon is beyond belief.

Stop worrying about your "legacy", Tony - you WILL be remembered......for your lies and "spin" and for taking us into an illegal war against the wishes of the majority of the country.

Well done, Mr R. That's one for the scrapbook and no mistake.

I guess it'll be rerun even more often than Michael Howard being Paxoed.

good on you! ,I've always thought that reporters give bush an easy ride, it's about time he is confronted about his incompetence and ignorance , he still didn't seem interested in the Israel-Palestine problem (the main problem in the middle east!) and a nuclear threat from iraq? bush is obviously completely lost the plot

Nick

Just checked on Fox News and MSNBC and it's clear that US audiences are still not being told the truth about Iraq and their President's response by their media. Maybe your question will galvanise them into being less supine....maybe!

Interestingly, there is no mention I could find of your question, the pathetic response from Bush, his malapropism re. speaking to dead families or his patronising and unsuccessful attempt to belittle you.

Don't eat any Sushi or step in front of any cars in the next few days...

Wouldn't you just love the joint press conference in 'Love Actually' - with Tony Blair standing up for the UK for once in this very one-sided relationship.

Great questioning Nick!

Nick,

Fantastic, incisive, question, Nick.

Why, when it's now clear that we all know the reality of post-invasion Iraq and no amount of spin can change it, neither Bush nor Blair seem to recognise the value of stating an unvarinished truth is beyond me. It cannot be politically expedient to deny a widely known truth; you just look foolish or duplicitous, or both, if you do.

I think it was Macmillan who once said something to the effect that the House of Commons regards a statement of apology in much the way schoolteachers regard a boy who owns up to doing wrong? Blair, sadly for him, has such evident trouble convincing us that anything he says is unvarnished, and not 'glossed' or 'spun', that even if he said 'Ok I was wrong about Iraq', most us (and undoubtedly the HoC) would suspect him of duplicity. That goes double for George Bush.

Isn't it sad that our national leaders are so indifferent to truth that they maintain we are all dumb enough to ignore it? Doesn't this degrade politics?

Nick,

Fantastic, incisive, question, Nick.

Why, when it's now clear that we all know the reality of post-invasion Iraq and no amount of spin can change it, neither Bush nor Blair seem to recognise the value of stating an unvarinished truth is beyond me. It cannot be politically expedient to deny a widely known truth; you just look foolish or duplicitous, or both, if you do.

I think it was Macmillan who once said something to the effect that the House of Commons regards a statement of apology in much the way schoolteachers regard a boy who owns up to doing wrong. Blair, sadly for him, has such evident trouble convincing us that anything he says is unvarnished, and not 'glossed' or 'spun', that even if he said 'Ok I was wrong about Iraq', most us (and undoubtedly the HoC) would suspect him of duplicity. That goes double for George Bush.

Isn't it sad that our national leaders are so indifferent to truth that they maintain we are all dumb enough to ignore it? Doesn't this degrade politics?

Nick - Is it true that GWB is considering joining Alex Fergerson on the "I won't speak to the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ anymore" list?!

Thank you for doing what the American media is apparently incapable of doing-- asking a logical questions that require something beyond an answering machine or chimp to answer. The fact that the Occupant of the White House answered as he did-- an incomprehensible mash of unrelated phrases-- indicates how little our President can understand what a real question IS, and the depth of the total lack of understanding he has.

Has the American (and, frankly, British) media done this back in 2002-03, we would not be in the mess we are today, so the Press is at least partically culpable in the disaster of the Iraq War. Better late than never, I guess.

Great job Nick. About time someone from the press asked Bush a real question at one of these orchestrated little gatherings.

The funny thing about the Love, Actually comparisons is that Billy Bob Thornton comes off as thuggish as, but also more intelligent than, our actual president.

Good going, Nick Robinson. You did all of us - and I say so as an American - a favor. Now please arrange to appear at all of his future press conferences, asking similarly incisive questions.

Well done Nick. It makes me proud to be British.

I've been living over in New York for just over a year and, given the current distasterous state of US politics, I'm constantly amazed by the timidity of the news media here. Jon Stewart is a comedian- he doesn't count.

Re: the US reaction to your question. Rush Limbaugh called you "arrogant and insolent'(well done!) whereas you received praise on MSNBC's Countdown.
Keep it up!

If Alastair Campbell was still active in No. 10, what letters or emails would he be sending you? When all you are doing is repeating the concerns of the Iraq Survey Group, you would be accused of bias. You represent a recovery of some of the guts that the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ gave up after the Hutton report and resignation of Greg Dyke.

Kudos to you and the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ for asking the tough questions. The news outlets here in the States might occasionally lob a softball at the President...but leave it to a Brit to cut through the fluff and get to the heart of the proverbial matter. Cheers n' all the best...

...and didn't he call you "sir" at one stage? Well done mate!!

Great job, Nick. You can see the overwhelming arrogance of the man with his attempted "stare-out" intimating "...how dare you ask me that question..." Keep up the good work.

There are alot of myths being spread within this commenting section about the American media.

1. Mr. Robinson's question was highlighted on ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS not because it was necessarily rare but because it stood out at that particular news conference.

2. The question wasn't any tougher than questions the president had faced at previous press conferences with the American media. David Gregory's (NBC) exchanges with Bush are routinely much more confrontational than that one question posed by Mr. Robinson.

3. I'm curious as to why Mr. Blair was spared the bold 'in-your-face' questioning from the British media. Iraq is a two-faced (Bush and Blair) catastrophe. Just because Blair is trying to repolish his legacy before leaving office doesn't absolve him of responsibility, does it?

4. The U.S. media has always had a slanted view against Bush and more so now because his approval ratings have been consistently dismal. Why would the media not appeal to the majority consensus of their viewers? Just as the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ appeals to the anti-Bush feelings of the British public so does the American media.

Mr. Robinson sir, you are a jackass and a boor. You are a guest in my country. You and your organization have been extended the privelege to attend Presidential news conferences and ask questions. A presidential news conference is NOT Prime Minister's Question Time in the British House of Commons where it is acceptable for people to behave like braying hyenas and make impudent remarks about Britain's Prime Minister. The so called "special relationship" between the United States and Britain if it exists at all does not extend to that type of familiarity. Don't be fooled by our often informal nature, American culture is different from British culture and has its own set of rules. One of those rules is that those whom we elect to govern us are held in the highest regard, not only personally but with the greatest of respect for the office they hold. None is held in higher esteem than the office of The President of the United States. Within our culture, we have acceptable ways to question and challenge those elected officials we disagree with. You have transgressed beyond those bounds. How would anyone in Britain whether a monarchist or anti monarchist feel if I as a guest in your country spit in Queen Elizabeth's eye, I'm sure they would take that as a great insult not only to her personally but to the entire British nation. You can print whatever you like in your damned newpapers and tell whatever lies you care to on your radio station but your unacceptable behavior at the news conference hasn't gone unnoticed. Were I in charge, neither you nor ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ would be invited back to another one for a very long time and they would be told in no uncertain terms exactly why. By our standards, you are representative of the same kind of mentality which won your nation a reputation for its drunken soccer hooligans which inflict themselves on people in other nations when they travel abroad. Whether you know it or not, you have disgraced yourself and ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ. You owe the President and the American People an apology.

i wish journalists would ask tough questions of politicians more often,like Boulton did from Sky news asking blair about whether he approved of the hanging of sadham hussain

Nick, That question was without a doubt below the belt stuff. Never before have I heard a question or an answer like the ones shown. I must say that you have little or no respect for the Office of the President of the United States, so in future I would like to see questions and comment about Tony Blair or his replacement to be just as below the belt and cutting as the ones that I have just witnessed. I think that it would be in the best interests of both the country and you to do so.

Excellent Nick, a great reaffirmation of what journalism should be all about -- forcing those who make and take such far-reaching decisions to face up to scrutiny.

The support for Nick Robinson here convinces me that what I suspected all along is true, that ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and its followers are as jealous and hateful of the United States as France is. And while ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ may have convinced itself and others that it is a tower of knowledge and sound judgement, the truth is that the United States government collects, sorts, analyzes, and presents more information about Iraq to the President of the United States in a week than ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ can glean in a year. Unlike, ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ, the President's job is not to inform or entertain an audience, it's to guide the largest most powerful ship of state though very stromy seas. And while the mine of the insurgency it touched off with the invasion may seem to have created a large explosion, it is insignificant compared to the one of Saddam Hussein having or eventually acquiring WMDs it thought it saw and avoided by invading. Contrary to all reports in the press, we still don't know to this day if that mine was real or a deliberately created mirage but a lot of other governments saw it and believed it was real too including Britain's.

I'm fairly cynical about journalists, but you have done justice to the profession.

Anyone who can put the President of the United States on the back foot deserves praise.

People I know who have little interest in politics were talking about it. A chink in the armour of the most powerful man in the world.

Now you've got the organ grinder you could have a go at his monkey.

Excellent questioning, Nick. You demonstrated clearly to anyone watching how vacuous the Bush administration's arguments re Iraq actually are.

I thought Tony Blair was going to soil himself when you stood up with the follow up question. Great stuff - the sort of professionalism and intelligence that makes the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ the envy of the broadcasting world.

Be careful not to ruffle too many more feathers though Nick - you may find your return flight to the UK redirected over Guantanamo....

Nick I'm interested, I'm presuming that you've seen GW in person on a number of occasions. I've heard it said that in person he's very charismtaic (certainly he displayed a formidable force of personality in the clip)

There is an impression given out this man is an idiot, one that he is fully aware of, and on occasion uses rather well. This suggests to me he is considerably more capable than people have been led to beleive. What is your opininion on the man?

Nick, did you know you are misquoted on the White House website?

"Q Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating. You said that the increase in attacks is unsettling. That won't convince many people that you're still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course".

"won't" should of course be, as you said it, "will" .

A touch of the Campbells, eh?

Very good indeed Nick. But, how about putting more effort into home soil issues and exacting your very incisive questioning on our very own 'Teflon Tone' about his countless policy failures and useless cabinet?

Although he is on the last leg of his second period in office, George Bush knows that he is going to be remembered for his military intervention in Iraq. He knows he does not have enough support to carry out the policies favoured by
McCain and Henry Kissinger and he also knows that without the said policies there can be no success. If the Democrats play the political card to shape up for the next Presidential election, they would not be very interested in things working out in Iraq. It is like saying: Bush has failed, say hello to Mrs President Hillary Clinton.

Dear Nick,

At last...a journalist who doesn't beat around the Bush (pun not intended) when it comes to scrutinising the seriously flawed US/UK foreign policy. Bush, the babbling fool kept reiterating the same inane points and just in case we had all forgotten what our troops are doing in Iraq/Afghanistan... 9/11 is still the excuse for the invasion. As vindictive as Saddam Hussein was as a dictator, he kept a lid on sectarian violence. Bush has single-handedly opened Pandora's Box and now everyone else involved has to feel the effects. It is so refreshing to see journalism taking a stand and talking on behalf of the US/UK citizens who want reasons for being in this so called 'War on Terror'. It has taken him this long to see the problems...lets hope it doesn't take him as long to come up with a solution.
Harry

It is indeed worrying to hear Bush STILL talk about the 'nuclear threat' when talking about Iraq.

The evidence Bush used to go to war about WMD's was from someone who was tortured on the Americans behalf in Egypt.

Ironically i highly doubt Bush cared about the reliability of the information he just needed a excuse to go to war.

But good going Nick Bush really did look rattled by the questioning.

I remain comfortable with neither the attitude of the UK media in questioning and reporting of politics (not you Nick, more the Daily Moan), nor the softly-softly approach of the US media. Despite other comments, the US media rarely gives viewers a glimpse of true dissent and challenege.

However, I would like to say that I too hold a great deal of respect for the Office of the President. It still amazes me how they manage to make the walls round yet the doors straight. Freaky.

There is an underlying constitutional problem that us poor Brits don't readily understand. Her Majesty is kind of like a big mum - some like her, some don't but she's still the mum. We don't like Jonny Foreigner taking potshots, and to that extent I can identify with the offended yanks.

We don't, however, mix British nationalism (please, I don't mean the BNP) with British politics in they way they do. At the end of the day, electing George W Bush into the office of President is something we should respect. The great people of the USA are perfectly entitled to elect a muppet if they so choose. We should treat him with the respect the office deserves. Maybe even the whole building.

What's happened to the weblog? Has Nick gone to sleep or is he on strike? I think we should be told.

Where has Nick gone? No post for a week? I want my license fee back!

"The detail of his response was fascinating. In his answer, he mentioned 9/11, the danger that Iraq would become a safe haven for terrorists (as Afghanistan was), the nuclear threat (presumably he meant Iran), and oil. So it seems that while the president is on the back foot at home on Iraq, he tried to raise all the things that would encourage the American people to support him."

Hmmm, he's never done that before when asked a real question. Shame he forgot about the Iraqi peoples suffering. I wonder how many of their families he's met.

nick now you have to challenge them on the fact that the election in irak was a side show to put in power their collaborators and if things stay the way it is there will never be a democratic irak

Any comment on Blair's role on SFO's decision to drop investigation of BAE Systems dealings with Saudi?

What sort of message does that send out to the world?

How would it be now if the Saudis decided to cancel Typhoon anyway and ordered the French Rafael's instead!!

What the US failed to learn from Viet Nam is that if you want to win a war, you must be absolutely ruthless and unrelenting until you are sure the enemy is stone cold dead. There have been two wars in Iraq, the coalition won the first one handily, but it's not winning the second one which is being fought by Iraqi surrogates for Iran and Syria, Al Qaeda, and ex Baathists to prevent a stable democratic government from being formed. Perhaps the coming war against Iran will help relieve some of the pressure. That one will make Iraq look like a Sunday picnic.

I really like your column and your wit. It seems to me that there will be only one resolution to the conflict in Iraq whether the USA and UK like it or not, and that is after a prolongued struggle, one party with one tough brutal leader will emerge and crush the others and secure peace in Iraq by force and by terror...someone perhaps like Sadam Hussein. And then later perhaps the West can engage with him and discuss democracy. But there appears no way that a government in Iraq or outside parties are going to be able to accomplish this. Perhaps the West should have negotiated with Sadam Hussein and pressured him instead of deposing him and creating a power vacuum. Food for thought for Bush and his poodle Blair.