Bush has solid stance on Africa, less clear on climate change

July 4, 2005 1:39 PM

Bush sort of answers lots of serious questions This transcript of Trevor McDonald's interview with Bush is actually quite interesting. I find myself agreeing with his stance on Africa, which is probably a first for me with ANY of his stances on ANYTHING. His climate change and Iraq stances, on the other hand, I didn't quite agree with.
posted by antifuse (58 comments total)

Note that President Bush's much-vaunted $15-billion fund for HIV/AIDS has been aggressively funding programs that say abstinence is the only way to stop transmission.
posted by docgonzo at 1:50 PM on July 4, 2005

Noted.

And promoting abstinence is just one legitimate tack to take in reducing HIV/AIDS cases, as are all the others. I don't think that datapoint should deflate a very important $15 billion fund.
posted by dhoyt at 1:58 PM on July 4, 2005

Trev McDonut - he *is* the news... \o/

I'm absolutely gobsmacked that GWB used the phrase "quid pro quo" in context - holy feck! :-) Not only that, but "carbon sequestration"... I wonder how long he practiced saying that?? :-)

Hmmm...
posted by Chunder at 1:59 PM on July 4, 2005

Quoth Adam Savage (Mythbusters), "I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
posted by howling fantods at 2:03 PM on July 4, 2005

He came across quite well, I thought. I'm impressed with the statement on eliminating farming subsidies - has that been corroborated elsewhere?
posted by Marquis at 2:06 PM on July 4, 2005

Dhoyt: Read the linked article. Your opinions might change.
posted by docgonzo at 2:21 PM on July 4, 2005

TONIGHT: But pollution in this country has increased amazingly since 1992.
PRESIDENT BUSH: That is a totally inaccurate statement.
TONIGHT: It's a UN figure.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I just beg to differ with every figure you've got. The environment has - the quality of the environment has improved, in spite of the fact that we've grown our economy.

Uh... what?
posted by grouse at 2:23 PM on July 4, 2005

TONIGHT: So this is aid with strings attached?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, this is aid - this is partnership. This is saying to nations we want to work with you as partners, partners in alleviating poverty, partners in helping fight HIV/Aids. But you've got a role to play - you, the leaders of African nations, you've got a role to play to make good governance decisions. That's what the taxpayers of my country expect.

Regarding the role Africans can play in [US] politics--a role which I have unfortunately personally encountered a few times now--those people can take their crazy Bush Doctor bullshit and shove it up their ass.
posted by nervousfritz at 2:25 PM on July 4, 2005

grouse —
that's precisely what made me think of the aforementioned quote
posted by howling fantods at 2:27 PM on July 4, 2005

grouse - According to White House figures, pollution has decreased under the Bush presidency (search for "air pollution").

That's not to say that the UN figures are wrong, but Bush isn't just na-na-na fingers in ears: he's received conflicting info.
posted by Marquis at 2:31 PM on July 4, 2005

No surprises from this Brit that GWB went to soft touch Trevor MacDonald for this interview.

To see the working methods of Jeremy Paxman, the other main current affairs interviewer, check out this transcript of a pre-war interview with Blair. My favourite part (with hindsight):

JEREMY PAXMAN: And you believe American intelligence?

TONY BLAIR: Well I do actually believe this intelligence -

JEREMY PAXMAN: Because there are a lot of dead people in an aspirin factory in Sudan who don't.
posted by athenian at 2:41 PM on July 4, 2005

Further to athenian's comments, consider also that this is a very low-risk interview for Bush. The comments that struck me the most were him saying he would end farming subsidies provided Europe did the same. I don't know, but I'm guessing that he hasn't said the same thing at home. He speaks of ending farming subsidies as being almost a responsibility. I agree with him, but I can't imagine it playing well in the States -- has anyone in the US heard anything domestically on this?
posted by nthdegx at 2:47 PM on July 4, 2005

This is the first I've ever heard of him saying he would eliminate farming subsidies. I think he is probably trying to play a relatively low-risk card, as he probably suspects that the EU would never ever end farming subsidies. However, I think it would be great if they called him out on it.
posted by antifuse at 2:51 PM on July 4, 2005

odinsdream - I wasn't trying to come up with further stats showing that pollution has decreased, but rather trying to demonstrate that Bush wasn't just being an idiot, saying "that can't be true!" due to pure disbelief. He's seen (and issued) conflicting figures.
posted by Marquis at 2:51 PM on July 4, 2005

Then why doesn't he say he was provided with figures that show the opposite? Why doesn' he say a study by my administration said, Blah blah, or whatever. Right now, he comes off as rather bullheaded, and comes off like a caricature of himself.
posted by raysmj at 3:16 PM on July 4, 2005

And why didn't the reporter here ask where Bush's received his information?
posted by raysmj at 3:18 PM on July 4, 2005

Dear Antifuse, thanks so much for the front page update on what you agree and don't agree with. I eagerly await your opinion on a multitude of other issues. Waiting patiently...
posted by justgary at 3:38 PM on July 4, 2005

grouse, I was just going to post that quote. Amazing.

"Pollution" can mean so many things. My bet is that Bush doesn't consider Co2 emissions as pollution, although it is a main factor of global warming.

According to this article Bush has cut diesel pollution, but could/should have done more.
posted by hoskala at 3:38 PM on July 4, 2005

"Officials in Botswana are disputing the Bush administration's claim that the United States is supporting the treatment of 20,000 HIV-positive people in Botswana, saying that most of the funding for treatment has come from their own government and not the United States, the Washington Post reports." link
posted by docgonzo at 3:40 PM on July 4, 2005

Marquis : That's not to say that the UN figures are wrong, but Bush isn't just na-na-na fingers in ears: he's received conflicting info
Actually, I think it's probably fairer to say the White House is manufacturing conflicting info ...
posted by kaemaril at 3:58 PM on July 4, 2005

First off, I was shocked that Bush was able to provide such cogent and reasonable responses. Where was this guy during the presidential debates? I suspect that he was given the opportunity to prepare answers in advance. Otherwise, I doubt he would have agreed to this interview. On the other hand, it could simply mean that Bush does not speak well under pressure, and he knows his performance here is of little importance back home.

Secondly, his rhetoric on Africa was impressive, and making aid conditional on transparency and accountability in the recipient governments makes plain, simple sense; however aid still needs to be more, something like the 0.7% of GDP promised. Furthermore, boasting of food aid, a result of OECD agricultural subsidies, is a slap in the face of every African, whether Bush knows this or not.

This leads directly to Bush's talk on farm subsides. Here Bush's rhetoric is completely empty. If he had any commitment at all to the principles of free trade, and helping African and other impoverished nations develop, he would have vetoed Congress's monstrous farm bill. While the US does not protect its farmers from the market as shamelessly as the EU or Japan, it is increasing farmer entitlements faster than any other OECD nation. The only leader who speaks with any credibility on this issue at all is Blair, and he faces virtually intractable resistance from France and Germany and other EU members, which pretty much consigns his protests to irrelevance. Once again, I fear Africa will get screwed.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:59 PM on July 4, 2005

Can I just suggest American readers read athenian's linked transcript, if you haven't already ... now, a quick question : anyone like that in American media? I'd genuinely like to know, 'cos all I hear is that the American media are basically whipped ... they can't ALL be... can they?
posted by kaemaril at 4:14 PM on July 4, 2005

I've always thought that GWB is reasonably intelligent. He's slack with his intelligence; he doesn't push it very hard. But he's fluent with his data and models, and he doesn't cross himself up. As in this interview, he can acquit himself well when pressed to do so.

He wouldn't be a terrible president if his job were mostly one of maintenance, or working the aisles at congress or handing out the occasional speech. It's just when he's trying to be visionary that he seems way out of his depth. Witness his latest speech, where he really needed to transform the political climate. Instead, he just kept up his talking points and seemed pleasantly determined as ever.

I also think that Bush avoids doing the heavy lifting in presenting his ideas. He stays away from press conferences, rarely talks on his own. Why? He doesn't like being pressed, for one thing. He doesn't see having his ideas challenged as a pleasant thing (few people do).

But he also understands that if he doesn't communicate much that leaves a void that can be filled by all the nasty, divisive voices -- Rove, Cheney, Coulter, Zell Miller, etc. He benefits from the shit they kick up but none of it gets on him. He gets to look like a square, stand-up guy and get the benefits of discord. Works pretty well.
posted by argybarg at 4:18 PM on July 4, 2005

First off, I was shocked that Bush was able to provide such cogent and reasonable responses. Where was this guy during the presidential debates?

Bush can do that when he wants to. You should see the videos of his first gubernatorial debate in Texas (online somewhere). Sharp as a razor. The slow "just folks" persona he's taken on since entering the national stage is just a persona.
posted by grouse at 4:35 PM on July 4, 2005

Thanks for the great post and link, athenian.

Yes, Kaemaril the American press is totally whipped.

There have been a number of comments posted here about how well Bush acquitted himself in the interview. It didn't seem that impressive to me.

A question for both/either of you; what's been the reaction in Britain to the interview? I'm guessing they weren't impressed.
posted by joedharma at 5:02 PM on July 4, 2005

joedharma : I think "meh" about sums it up.
posted by kaemaril at 5:06 PM on July 4, 2005

The slow "just folks" persona he's taken on since entering the national stage is just a persona.

Yes, that's been a brilliant "strategy" for Bush which won him 49% of the popular vote in 2000.

If you want to impress people, just run around saying things like "architectural fancy machine" or "I'm so thankful and so gracious, I am gracious that my brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well."

What a brilliant man! What a brilliant strategy!
posted by joedharma at 5:21 PM on July 4, 2005

Quoth Adam Savage (Mythbusters), "I reject your reality, and substitute my own."

Adam's a MeFite. [/offtopic]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:39 PM on July 4, 2005

Why does anyone - at home or abroad - pay any attention to what Bush says anymore? Do the thnigs he says ever correspond with his true intentions, with his later actions, or with the outcomes of those actions in any predictable or otherwise useful way? Everything he says is carefully planned talking points, carefully designed to mislead.
posted by Western Infidels at 5:52 PM on July 4, 2005

Wasn't there a big article a few days ago about how all the promised "aid" the US keeps flaunting about doesn't actually get delivered?
And how come it's okay to give money to Africa, but not to stop genocide from happening there?
posted by nightchrome at 6:01 PM on July 4, 2005

I'm sure Adam is sorry he ever associated his name with the sorry bunch at MeFi.

I think he's going to get into Bartlett's with his "I reject your reality....." It's a great quote and I've already seen and heard it used several times......

Also really off topic, my daughter bought a "I do all my own stunts" t-shirt which we subsequently saw Adam wearing on the show.
posted by joedharma at 6:03 PM on July 4, 2005

Secondly, his rhetoric on Africa was impressive, and making aid conditional on transparency and accountability in the recipient governments makes plain, simple sense;

Until you consider that, for the most part, "transparency and accountability" are euphemisms for economic liberalisation; the country must open its economy up to Western companies. Bush says it himself during the interview: "That's the whole reason why we've got the African Growth and Opportunity Act. As a matter of fact, the benefits that have come from opening up markets - our markets to them and their markets to us - far outweigh the benefits of aid."

To quote an article in the Grauniad today:

"In truth, corruption has seldom been a barrier to foreign aid and loans: look at the money we have given, directly and through the World Bank and IMF, to Mobutu, Suharto, Marcos, Moi and every other premier-league crook... Twenty-five countries have so far ratified the UN convention against corruption, but none is a member of the G8. Why? Because our own corporations do very nicely out of it..."
posted by flashboy at 6:15 PM on July 4, 2005

Congratulations for many of you on buying into the bar. He composed a coherent sentence. That man really is impressive.
posted by dreamsign at 8:39 PM on July 4, 2005

they can't ALL be... can they?
posted by eustatic at 9:29 PM on July 4, 2005

Say what you want about GWB's wars (or not), but his intentions in Africe are spot on. I'm about as liberal as they come, and I (along with a lot of liberals) agree that Africa needs a Marshall Plan.
posted by menace303 at 10:25 PM on July 4, 2005

If he spoke like this routinely, I think more people would simply disagree with him rather than hating every bone in his body.

I wonder if this is avoided because it a tolerant and rational discussion is likely to produce a rational debate in which both sides can easily move to a middle ground.
posted by mosch at 11:06 PM on July 4, 2005

I'd pay money to see Bush / Paxman. It'd be fantastic.
posted by seanyboy at 11:35 PM on July 4, 2005

Buck Fush. I wouldn't believe him if he said that today is the 4th of july
posted by growabrain at 11:57 PM on July 4, 2005

And why didn't the reporter here ask where Bush's received his information?

Because, though likable, McDonald is not a good interviewer. For context, you may like to know a little bit about Trevor McDonald. He is widely respect, I think because he has read the news in a nice voice many years, but the outfit he works for ITN on ITV is television's low-brow option. His "investigative" programme, Tonight With... jumps upon whatever hot-bed issue the Sun readers can be whipped into a frenzy about that week.
posted by nthdegx at 12:09 AM on July 5, 2005

If he spoke like this routinely, I think more people would simply disagree with him rather than hating every bone in his body.

This is what he said about climate change at the joint press conference with Blair:

I don't know if you're aware of this, but we lead the world when it comes to millions of dollars spent on research about climate change. We want to know more about it. It's easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it.

This is what he said in his interview with McDonald:

Do you accept that climate change is man-made, sir?

PRESIDENT BUSH: To a certain extent it is, obviously.

It sounds to me like Bush is a liar. He won't admit there is anthropogenic climate change in a press conference in front of the American people. Being honest would make him look bad.

But he can be a teensy bit honest in an interview he assumes most of the American people will never hear about with McDonald.

What a manipulative piece of crap.
posted by joedharma at 12:22 AM on July 5, 2005

I'd pay money to see Bush / Paxman. It'd be fantastic.

Me too.

I'd give Bush 5 minutes before he started crying....
posted by joedharma at 12:35 AM on July 5, 2005

Makes a change from Tonight's usual "hard hitting" interviews......
posted by brettski at 1:58 AM on July 5, 2005

Speaking as a Brit, I thought it was a fairly lightweight interview - nowhere near as aggressive or searching as say, a Jeremy Paxman interview. And I didn't think Bush came across very well here either - his arguments were full of holes, etc and a decent interviewer would have taken him to task for it.

Programs that try to tackle aids with abstinence are a waste of money - why do US aid programs always do this? It's like trying to kill a bull elephant with a pea-shooter.
posted by BigCalm at 2:05 AM on July 5, 2005

It's worth noting that MacDonald came to public notice reading the news in the 80s. He was hired to read the news because of his authoritative but friendly tone of voice. On several occasions he was voted "best news reader", because we Brits are that laughable, and because he seemed like a nice man in our living rooms.

He now presents "Tonight... with Trevor MacDonald", which tackles the issues surrounding some tough problems (sometimes well, sometimes with insulting inelegance), however he is only in shot for 20 seconds at the beginning, the end and surrounding the ad-break.

The man is not an interviewer, he is a pleasantly rounded voice. Christopher Lee could interview Karl Rove but you wouldn't expect any new answers. I dare suggest all questions were vetted and approved before any meeting took place.
posted by NinjaPirate at 2:54 AM on July 5, 2005

I'd give Bush 5 minutes before he started crying....

And not much longer than that before the spooks standing in the wings start to get itchy trigger fingers. Bush/Paxman... if that ever happens (and it won't, not while Bush is still president anyway), it'd be remembered for a long time.

Probably as the day when UK/US relations started to seriously deteriorate...
posted by NeonSurge at 2:55 AM on July 5, 2005

McDonald is a lightweight, but he did say the C word on live TV.
posted by the cuban at 2:57 AM on July 5, 2005

BigCalm
Programs that try to tackle aids with abstinence are a waste of money - why do US aid programs always do this?

Because promoting the use of condoms would make Baby Jesus cry. The right wing, particularly the religious right, believe that distributing condoms is tantamount to saying "Go ahead, have as much sex as you want, it's OK", which of course would be a Sin, unless of course it's in the context of "traditional" one-man-one-woman matrimony, and then only to make babies. They'll also happily quote a bunch of made-up figures that make it appear that condoms are completely unreliable and don't really work anyway.

Bottom line - "abstinence" is ideologically sound, and has the added benefit of further stigmatizing sex.
posted by kcds at 3:17 AM on July 5, 2005

I fucking love Steve Bell.
posted by anagrama at 4:17 AM on July 5, 2005

It's interesting--Dubya does sound rather clear and concise in this interview, and I also agreed with a lot of what he had to say.

Probably because I didn't have to watch a video of it, and be enraged by his smug, smirky, condescending attitude he gives anyone other than Larry King or FOX News. He and his whole administration have redefined arrogance when it's implied that *gasp* they could be wrong about something.
posted by zardoz at 4:28 AM on July 5, 2005

And promoting abstinence is just one legitimate tack to take in reducing HIV/AIDS cases, as are all the others. I don't think that datapoint should deflate a very important $15 billion fund.
posted by dhoyt at 4:58 PM EST on July 4 [!]

Dhoyt,

Abstinence education, independent of HIV infection rates, fails miserably. This is statistical fact. Education about birth control has been statistically demonstrated to work successfully to reduce HIV and other STD rates in Africa and SE Asia.

Given two options, both of which you know the general outcomes, which would you pick to spend US$15 billion, as a rational, thoughtful human being?
posted by Rothko at 6:32 AM on July 5, 2005

Thanks, Rothko, was going to link to same. Abstinence education's complete ineffectualness undermines any claim of its legitimacy. This to me is yet another example of the right taking a puritannical, bury-my-head-in-the-sand approach in favor of a "morally" less palatable, but demonstrably more effective approach that might actually help alleviate this horrible problem.
posted by psmealey at 7:08 AM on July 5, 2005

Dhoyt,
... as a rational, thoughtful human being?
posted by Rothko at 9:32 AM EST on July 5

Does not compute.
posted by nofundy at 7:14 AM on July 5, 2005

Buck Fush. I wouldn't believe him if he said that today is the 4th of july
posted by growabrain at 2:57 AM EST on July 5

Grow a brain, please.

(Yes, I realize that it was still the 4th in California when that was posted, but the comment itself is dumb.)
posted by oaf at 9:22 AM on July 5, 2005

Regarding soft interviews, Jeremy Paxman, etc:
After viewing several entertaining Paxman interviews generously provided in previous mefi posts, I could not help but wonder:
Why would a controversial politician subject himself to a Paxman interview? Unless you are a supremely confident debater, it seems like a no-win situation. Given the choice, why wouldn't said politician pick a less aggressive media personality? I can not think of US equivalent to Paxman. Sure, several Fox reporters would go after a liberal pol with a vengeance, but Paxman seems to be aggressive across ideological bounderies. The only thing that comes to mind is that Paxman has a bit of a cult-like personality in the UK, and those who turn down his interview offers are percieved as weak-willed and afraid of criticism.
Any Ukers want to provide some insight?
posted by Osteo at 2:00 PM on July 5, 2005

Did anyone else catch this gem from Bush? "See, these folks represent an ideology that is based upon hate and kind of a narrow vision of mankind " *eh-hem*
posted by nTeleKy at 2:21 PM on July 5, 2005

I read the interview and remain wholly unimpressed with the man. He smacks of elitism and making people jump through his hoops before he gives them some money to get some food and medicine.

And the fact that he continues to believe that the war in Iraq was justified and the right thing to do is just plain wrong.
posted by fenriq at 2:53 PM on July 5, 2005

I recorded this on my hard drive and watched it this morning. The man is so ridiculously smug every time a hard(ish) question is asked that it almost made me want to vomit. If anyone would like to see it and has an idea as to how I might be able to upload it (I don't have web space) let me know.
posted by ebear at 3:12 PM on July 5, 2005

Osteo writes "Why would a controversial politician subject himself to a Paxman interview? Unless you are a supremely confident debater, it seems like a no-win situation."

I think you have answered your own question. Politicians are supposed to be supremely confident debaters, it's part of the job. That is why the lobbyists give them the back handers on behalf of MegaCorp, because they think the politicians will be a good investment.

Paxman is a narcisistic arse alot of the time, asking questions that show his limited knowledge of the subject at hand and work within the framing of whatever debate, but still all politicians (especially those wealding supreme executive power) should be subjected to this kind of questioning in the media on a weekly basis, IMHO.
posted by asok at 3:01 AM on July 6, 2005