On Camera but Unaware, Bush Displays His Fervor

New York Times ^ | 06-03-03

[des]

more fabulous fabulating?

[null and void]

kiss King Hamad on both cheeks.

Unfortunately we've been doing this for some time.

Noooo, we've been kissing all four cheeks.

Not any more!

[MHGinTN]

Imagine, for the Arab/Palestinian mind, sinkEmperor getting a quickie BJ from his Monica toy while Arseisfat waited and waited outside the Oval office, juxtaposed with President Bush IN THE MIDDLE EAST, grinding forward trying to achieve concessions! It must slaughter DNC sleep cycles trying to misdirect attention from the glaring contrasts.

[null and void]

Ummmm, did he give arafat a ceeegar?

[MJY1288]

First I see Richard Cohen of the Washington Post praising President Bush in his editorial, and tonight I see the NYT's publishing an article exposing this Presidents leadership ability to it's readers......WHAT'S NEXT???

The only possible thing to happen next is for me to see a flock of Pigs fly past my window :-)

[Republican Wildcat]

That did happen, didn't it? I had forgotten--hopefully we'll never have that kind of unprofessional person occupying that office again.

[potlatch]

Found it!

[KCmark]

You have to be kidding. Act one. Reagan papers anyone? Oh yeah, they haven't been released.

It's our government, ... or at least it used to be. As a CONSERVATIVE, I'm a little disappointed with several decisions on 'hiding' things.

[danmar]

"No matter how difficult it is, you have my commitment that I will expend the energy and effort necessary to move the process forward," Mr. Bush told the leaders as they gathered for a second meeting, this one with multiple aides.

Why do I get the feeling, that President Bush, is going to resolve the Israel-Palestinian issue, once and for all and thus reserving himself a place in the History as one of the greatest Presidents of USofA.

[Dolphy]

Mr. Bush was also evidently comfortable enough to talk to the Arabs about his own religion

The New York Times gets it wrong again. Bush referred to the Almighty God, a concept shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians. Of course it's the NY Times which is trained to cite any Bush reference to religion as a sign of his ineptness and failure to be inclusive.

Monotheism. Only three modern religions share this viewpoint, and all of them are based on the revealed religion of ancient Israel; Judaism Christianity and Islam.

[walden]

Bush DOES try to hide himself from the media-- but when the truth comes out, he's the same plain, true Christian that we always thought he was.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

And is it just me, or does anybody else find it extremely irritating to see him referred to over and over as MR. Bush?

Extremely!! Especially in light of the fact that the SAME newscasters or reporters call Clinton, "President Clinton" and not Mr. Clinton. They call Hitlery, "Sen. Clinton" and not Mrs. Clinton. It is EXTREMELY disrespectful, and personally I think Americans have caught on to it. Which is why Fox News outranks CNN and the rest. You can BS some of the people some of the time, but you can't BS all of the people ALL of the time!!

[TheMole]

I don't know whether or not this was an "accident", but I do know that this particular New York Times reporterette, Elisabeth Bumiller, loathes and despises George W. Bush and appears to consider it her career goal to make him look as bad as possible. Her bias against him has been noted by many media commentators, including IIRC Howard Kurtz and Andrew Sullivan.

[Hunble]

I came home tonight and my wife was watching NBC evening news.

I was not home more than 1 minute before I heard "Mr. Bush" but everyone else was given their correct title.

Even I noticed this subtle insult and got angry.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Believe me, a LOT of people are noticing this sign of disrespect by the media. It is often mentioned when we are visiting with people. I don't recall EVER seeing this happen. The more it is mentioned and noticed, the less effective the liberals will be in trying to defeat this great man come 2004.

[rwfromkansas]

It was hard to locate, but here is the WH transcript since the NT Times article basically gives a couple sentences:

Remarks by the President at Multilateral Meeting with Arab Leaders




Movenpick Conference Center
Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt

1:50 P.M. (L)

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, Mr. President, thank you very much for hosting this important meeting. I want to thank the leaders for coming, Your Majesties and His Royal Highness. Prime Minister Abbas, I want to thank you and your delegation for coming, as well.

I'm the kind of person who, when I say something, I mean it. I mean that the world needs to have a Palestinian state that is free and at peace. And, therefore, my government will work with all parties concerned to achieve that vision.

I believe now is the time to work to achieve the vision. All of us have responsibilities to achieve the vision. You, sir, have got a responsibility, and you've assumed it. I want to work with you, as do the other leaders here.

We must not allow few people, a few killers, a few terrorists to destroy the dreams and the hopes of the many. Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there's a continuous (*contiguous) territory that the Palestinians can call home.

The leaders at the table have got a responsibility. The biggest responsibility that they have, it seems like to me, is to fight off any source of funding to terror; is to prevent the terrorists from gaining a foothold. I know that is the commitment of the leaders here, I have talked to them about that. It's in their own self-interests to fight off terror. It's in their own self-interests to enable the Palestinian state to emerge.

So this is an historic meeting. It's the beginning of a long process and a tough process. But no matter how difficult it is, you have my commitment that I will expend the energy and effort necessary to move the process forward.

I believe that, as I told the Crown Prince, the Almighty God has endowed each individual on the face of the earth with -- that expects each person to be treated with dignity. This is a universal call. It's the call of all religions, that each person must be free and treated with respect. And it is with that call that I feel passionate about the need to move forward, so that the world can be more peaceful, more free and more hopeful.

Mr. President, thank you for convening this meeting. Tomorrow we've got important meetings, as well. This is the beginning of a process where all of us must not allow the few to destroy the hopes of the many.

May God bless our work. (Applause.)

[rwfromkansas]

I don't have a problem with saying "Mr. Bush" occasionally. Journalists need to have some variety in word choice. HOWEVER, this NY Times article is atrocious. It is "Mr. Bush" all the freaking way through.

I do consider that disrespectful.

But, also, I think you should know that I actually found an old report from the impeachment days. John Roberts of CBS News was the reporter. For the record, Roberts referred to Clinton as "Mr. Clinton" a big number of times and only "President Clinton" a couple.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Thanks. I'm not saying they should "never" call the President, "Mr. Bush" (though I personally think we should call our Presidents by their title all the time, not out of respect for the person but for the office they hold), don't you think President Bush is called Mr. Bush more than normal?

I'd be interested if the "Accuracy in Reporting" (or whatever their name is) did a study on it. I have a feeling that it happens MORE with this President than any other. The media has already admitted in books and on tv that they are predominantly LIBERAL, and it is obvious they HATE this President. He is a HUGE threat to them.

Just MHO.. but I think they call him "Mr." Bush more than they have ever done to any past President. A lot of people are mentioning it. So it isn't just us that feel that way.

I swear I do hear them calling Clinton "President Clinton" more than I hear them calling President Bush "President Bush". Just an honest observation.

[rwfromkansas]

I do notice the "Mr. Bush" a lot more than I did with Clinton. Perhaps because I like Bush and I didn't care for him so I didn't care what they called him.

Anybody have access to Lexus-Nexus? That would be enlightening. Unfortunately, I can't find any libraries around here that subscribe.

[Risa]

>>Religion drives the Middle East. Anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot. Bush knows it, and he is a deeply religious man. He spoke to them on a heart-to-heart level, and I hope the whole Mideast world sees it.<<

You make a very good point, Rightonline. In the book, "The Two Faces of Islam," the author, Stephen Schwartz, suggests that a religious solution based on Abrahamic solidarity, may be the only one for the Israeli-Arab conflict, for the reason you state. In his words:(extracted text)

"It must rather encompass a mission of Abrahamic reconciliation, emphasizing the common legacy of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and a common responsibility for future humanity."

With respect to the conflict, the author further states:

"A meaningful effort to counterpose traditional Islam to wahhabi extremism must also be supported by the west, including measures to induce the Saudis to cease funding its global expansion—as long as Saudi activities supporting theological extemism and terrorism go unchallenged, the Saudi apparent desire for a more significant involvement in resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict cannot be viewed with confidence."


(I only quote Schwartz's text because of the depth and breadth of his scholarship as well as his experience living among the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim people in Bosnia-Herzgovnia.)

regards,
risa