Â鶹Éç

Maybe that's actually what he does think. However, 'what's important' here - such an overused phrase - is that Bush and Blair understand 'that it's bad'.

And there's precious little sign of that - except in terms of their political positions.

As for being eyeballed, well many have suffered much worse at the hands of GWB, so count yourself very lucky, Nick.

It is great that he is having second thoughts now about Iraq, but why has it taken him and Blair so long to realise it. Surely if he had thought this two three years ago it would have saved lots of innocent civillians and troops from being killed. I was talking to a former soldier who used to fight in Northern Ireland and he noticed back in 2003 when the conflict began that the US and UK didn't have a long term plan, not just of bombing the country but a plan of rebuilding infrastructure, putting in schools and hospitals and distrubuting lots of aid. A lot of the country then was still in a bad way from the first gulf war in 1991. Let us hope that Blair can finally put a good word in at the White House from us who noticed the war was jinxed from the very beginning.

Well done Nick you managed to really get under the President's skin.

Watch out when you leave the US though, the computer they now have may have you down for a 'special' search :-)

Was watching the press conference. You must have had your heart in your mouth for a second :)

Well done Nick. The US President isn't going to forget you in a hurry. What do you think was going through his mind as he eyeballed you? And, for the record, what was going through yours?

Nick

Be grateful you didn't get a twin eyeballing - or you might have found yourself in real trouble !

...it might be important for him to share his new found awareness with us, but it doesn't fill me with any confidence. I'm probably far from unique in this regard.

Well done Nick. Hope you get out off the country in one piece. I don't think you made a friend there.

Rob.

Sterling work Nick. Very good questions.

"It's important, he told me, that you understand that I understand that it's bad."
The problem is, no-one understands him!

Well done but how about throwing a tough question at our own Prime Minister? He is just as guilty of denial. He only puts his hands up when his back is up against the wall.

Thank you Nick for asking what most of the UK would have asked if given the chance. It's good when reporters do their job well.

Nick - A word of advice:

When GWB makes one of his jokes and then chuckles to himself you're meant to wait, let him enjoy the moment and then make a longer answer. (Well this is what the the White House Press Corps always do!)

You didn't allow him to do this and asked another little question ... schoolboy error!! I hope diplomatic protection covers journalists too!

... "Does that help?!"

Nick,i guess you call that "GUMP" no, not forrest but George,"STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES,did you understand any of that!talk about the wrong man in the wrong job.

Well done Nick! I admire your guts
GWB IS IN DENIAL, he really is

I just caught your question in the interview with GWB. However , I wonder how Tony Blair would have answered the same question. It probably have been a left-sideways glance to check whether it was his turn and how to answer without compromising GWB.

Well done Nick !
Why does that man still repeat the fallacies that '911' and Al Qada were in any way linked with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. That is 'denial' on the grand scale and he has been allowed to get away with it for far too long !

Never have I seen two politicians quite so thrown by 2 questions. Well done Nick - perhaps the American and British people will now see what a pair of incompetent idiots we have as leaders. The quicker they go the better for all of us.

Haha. Looks like you're off his Christmas card list, Nick.

This may be terribly unfasionable but I think Bush is right in what he says. Iraq and Iran are a huge threat western society. Well done smug Nick but you dont represent the most powerful nation on earth.

I have never watched a Â鶹Éç clip 3 times, but I did with yours...the President looked furious that someone should dare speak so truley of what this man has misunderstood from the start. Well done Nick...when is round 2?

Nick, great question at last some resmblence of an admission that its going belly down over there. Pity you couldn't have continued questioning Blair who remains to blind to see what is really happening. In the words of Rowan Atkinson on Not the 9 oclock news that really was worth the licence fee

Fantastic - ruthlessly exposed the infantile, emotional response to a reasonable question. Continue the good work.

Histororians.... brilliant

Talk about newsmen wanting to make themselves the news. If you want to be a celebrity get a chat show.

I watched his unabridged speech in response to your question. It was embarrassingly that of a cod actor's outpouring of ad lib diarrhea. The weapons of mass destruction have inconveniently absented themselves from proceedings, the Al Quaida influence I believe the Americans themselves have previously acknowledged to be without credible foundation and the assertion of a nuclear capability is of course just plainly mistaken.

By his own list, that leaves the oil.

But it is holiday season.

Good question.

That video has made my day! Old Mr Bush looked like a naughty Badger caught stealing yoghurts from the fridge. Well done Nick.

The ultimate tragedy in watching Bush and Blair in this performance is that you get the sense that the only thing that really concerns themselves is saving their political face. At heart, this comes above (i) the lives of British and US servicemen (ii) the lives of innocent Iraqis (iii) finding the most expedient solution to ending the war. Their priority is minimising their own personal embarassment. Why on Earth do the British and American people, as well as the media and the politicians around them who still have a conscience, put up with it. To our shame, collectively we do.

I quote GWB:

"I talk to the families who die...."

Can we prosecute him for crimes against the English language?

Loved the questions Nick, superb journalism.

Good question Nick. It really evoked a strong response! I also liked your question to Blair. I'd like to see similar sorts of questions asked of David Cameron. I think you are giving him a bit of an easy ride.

Well done Nick - Bush looked completely stumped at first, which is evident from the beginning of his pathetic response ‘It's bad in Iraq. Does that help?’ The first are probably the truest four words hes ever spoken, good on you for bringing out a bit of honesty in the arrogant, war-mongering US President. You did the Â鶹Éç proud! x

Congratulations Nick!
Please ask more questions like this, it's the real spirit of journalism.

and when Bush said "does that help" you should have said "No, of course not...." and then waited a little for a proper response.

Why are more journalists not asking these common-sense questions???

If I could have swapped placed with you, Nick, I would have. It would have been a crowning achievement in a journalistic career to watch Bush, once again, make a fool out of himself and America's foreign policy. The fact that he 'eyeballed' you, then felt uneasy in the silence that followed his opening comment, only to shrug it off with a laugh..! The biggest comedians so far over this debacle of an invasion and its terrible aftermath have been the Morecombe and Wise double-act of Bush and Blair.

well done!!
im new to all this and didnt know ballsy and courageous reporters like you still existed-i think i may have found my new hero!
I like the way ur line of questioning showed him up for what he is- a man with no real answers, just a passionate patriot, revolving the same memorised-from-a-sheet answers he gives everytime. I liked the fact u eye-balled him back, u have nothing to feel ashamed of, he has for not answering your q satisfactorily!
you are such an inspiration.

Nick you looked quite pleased with yourself during that little interview. I'm so glad you enjoyed it, but actually I think the President batted you down conclusively.
I for one do not buy into the "let's all hate GWB" fad. He answered your question firmly and resolutely, and I agreed with everything he said.
Any objective observer could see that he came out of that encounter looking a lot better than you did.
We should not give up in Iraq just because Nick Robinson thinks we should.

I tracked you down after I saw a clip elsewhere. Thank GOD someone is willing to give our president the tough questions. It's sad that our own journalists won't do the same. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Whiver way you look at it, one can only say 'Well done Nick'. One for the Brits!

Dear Nick Robinson

President Bush has stated "It could take anouther ten years". Can you please make Bush and Blair aware that going by the current US and UK body count and a simple maths calculation, every US and UK soldier in iraq will be either wounded or dead in less than ten years.

Yours Faithfully.

AB

I bet he was thinking "who is this guy? Isn't he supposed to be impartial? Hahahahaha."

I dont like Bush however i would do the same to you. Ive watched many news broadcasts over the years with different "Hounds" but never seen one as arogant and one sided as yourself. Its sometimes cringe worthy.

I thought it was interesting that Mr Bush laughed at his own answer when you asked him that question; although personally I think the situation he and Blair have got us into is not a subject of any humour whatsoever. I don't think the Iraqi people, or the relatives of many dead and injured soldiers in the UK and the USA find it as funny as he does.
It really is a shame that Mr Bush and Blair have not up until now been questioned as directly and honestly as you did today.

I think I'm in the minority here, but Nick - you just got your question quite effectively put to sleep by someone I've previously regarded as little more than the village idiots political advisor. He provided quite a strong answer in what I assume was an unexpected situation (unless you've sold out and pre-scripted). I even liked blair's little remark "you're not going to try for a follow up are you?". Credit where credit is due, and while it was a nice question to ask, it was expertly fielded even by a shrubbery, and blair seemed positively eased by it.

I'm afraid I don't think you were eyeballed so much as a good use of body language to demonstrate intention and commitment to the question. Not necessarily genuine, but also not what I expected from bush.

After all this President Bush do not want to hand over control to UN under which lot of countries like Russia, China, India and lot of Arab countries ready to send troops for piece keeping.

I have one question for President and Vice President.

Got cheap Iraqi oil ?

-- Ven.

Good on you 'lad'...

Nick, you made the Â鶹Éç proud by teaching your American colleagues how to put a bully on the spot with a simple question. And as for the answer; the body language (of both Bs) did the talking not the words!
Thank you.

You always know that a journalist has asked an important question where the politician answers so angrily ,implying that no one should have the temerity to ask them such a question !
In the end it is not how hard Bush will try to solve Iraq but more whether he has the intellect or strategy to find a solution. His continual denial of a catastrophe that he created does not inspire confidence. He needs to be put on the spot more often !

Excellent work Nick. It's great to witness a journalist who's not afraid to put the questions that need asking to the world's most dangerous man. It's also nice to see a good Cheshire lad doing his bit to try to promote world peace!

Dear Nick, I always enjoy your reports and like your neutral style. I would be hard pressed to guess your own politcal views. Well done with your questioning of George Dubya and you certainly had him squirming like a worm on a hook! His answer was better slapstick than Rory Bremner sending him up!

well done Nick, I would like journalists to ask Bush and Blair questions about DRCongo and the rest of Africa in the same way you asked Bush about Iraq. You know as I know about what the British and American Governments are making African to suffer

Hi Nick

I am currently living in the US and saw/heard the pree conference this morning. I saw the answer to your question before I knew you had asked it. I wondered who the unfortunate recipient of the president's reply was. My reaction when I saw it was you was well done! Bush showed far more about his frustration at his failure in Iraq than any words possibly could. Thank you.

Fantastic work. So often I wish that top politicians were asked such questions. Thank you...

I listen to you often on CNN and have always admired your comments and style. This time you really hit the jack-pot. Bravo and I look forward to your next bash at Iraq. Did you not travel with Blair to US?

This just seems a case of two leaders who need each other more than the world needs them.

I thought it was quite amusing the number of preconditions they were asking of Syria and Iran before they would sit down and talk to them. Why would Syria and Iran want to talk to these two anyway? They're going to be gone in no time at all.

Maybe he likes you Nick are you looking for a promotion/career change.

Macclesfield Town 2 Chelsea 1

Nick - looks like it is easy to please the British public. More of a statement than a question though.. wouldn't you say?

Well nice one Nick.

Hmm, I think you just showed the American people what they have for a leader.

If I was American, I would now be very embarrassed.

Take care

It was a good question and it bought out a good response from Bush. I think you both deserve a pat on the back (whether you agree with Bush or not, he clearly believes what he said).

I don't think he took any offence at all.

I didnt actually hear an answer to Nick's question...at least not from Bush, though Blair's was somewhere along the right lines.
Bush was asked about his denial of the Iraq war, and what he seemed to do was say "hey, you're forgetting something...TERRORISM/AL QAEDA/DEATH/MURDER/GRRRRRR" and try to bring about the same rubbish the whole world has been fed ever since 9/11. The problem isnt so much that Bush doesn't understand the situation (though I wouldn't be surprised if he didnt)-the problem is that he doesn't have a solution, and even when given one he's thrown it out the window.

Nick: you were the only articulate one in that clip. The other two proved once again that they have not a clue what they are doing- what a load of non-sensical blather. Good on you for eliciting it. And how dare that man laugh at his own jokes under these circumstances.

My least favourite word since 9/11 has been "prevail", which means:
"to prove to be stronger and in the position of greater influence and power"...hmmm.

Well done G W Bush is what i say. A very impressive performance. It is good to see the White House firmly back on the offensive and Nick Robinson did get his question answered. Im pro Iraq war and Pro Bush administration, and proud of it.

I think it was a cheap shot. Bush and Blair see the threat in the middle east to us all. They get it. They are acting against it, and future generations will be greatful they did. However, because of that kind of journalism, and the huge appetite for cynicism of people making silly remaks on this message board, they may not feel that way. Never mind. When it was needed, we had two world leaders who did the right thing. Removed Saddam Hussein, fought the Taliban, confronted islamic fascists and defended free society in the western world.

Nick

You are a star, other people should have been asking the same question as directly for years. Clearly the American press is utterly servile when dealing with their political leaders. Fortuntely in Britain our press is less sycophantic, and to be honest in recent years it has been the only thing to hold the present government to account, as the so called opposition parties have been utterly ineffectual and more interested in themselves rather than looking after the interests of the nation.

Nick, I have long suspected that you are a dangerous liberal. Now it appears that you are a terrorist as well. I suggest that the newsdesk dispatches the Â鶹Éç sat truck to Gitmo to enable you to file your next report. Do you understand that I understand what's going to happen when we all understand? I hope so, Sir. Understand it. 'Preciate your posting-lyness. And your question. So now we both understand.That it's understood.

Steady!

You got GWB to admit things were "tough": that's the word he used most.

This meat is tough: this meat is bad. Same???
This decision is tough. This decision is bad. Same??
This leader is tough. This leader is bad. Same??
The situation in Iraq is tough. The situation in Iraq is bad. Same??

Of course not. Just semantics as usual and a willingness to answer his own question, not yours.

Nick, I think panic set in for GWB. Embarassing to watch one of the most powerful men in the world struggling to get his brain into gear.

Well done Nick, really excellent questioning of them both. It's a shame Bush doesn't get such a hard time from the US press a lot of the time..

It's an amusing video clip and George Bush's inane answer provides further ammunition to further ridicule him. But the subject is far from inane and it scares me to think of the consequences of what Bush and Blair are continuing to pursue in Iraq. How can we justify this “good� vs “bad� picture painted by Bush and Blair. We will all suffer the long term fall out of this and the blame should not be one-sided.

Good questions. But the replies, I can never remember, is the word blether or blather, or in this case will either do?

Nice job, Nick. Not for rattling GWB (which, done for its own sake would have been cheap), but in doing so, for eliciting a revealing answer.

Next time, ask him if he knew about the 9/11 plot before hand, or if it was a conventional coup by the military industrial complex/privatised intelligence service/Israeli cabal.

9/11 is a lie, Iraq is a lie. None of the stated reasons are true and he's getting desperate trying to defend his absurd position. Makes me cringe. Thanks goodness people are waking up! False-flag terror is coming to the end of its life-cycle...

I believe President Bush does understand, is not stupid, but is mistaken.

There is a quick & simple Machiavellian exit (6 months) option:

Install Saddam as an American puppet, with a brief to 1. pacify the country, 2. stabilise the region, & 3. inhibit Iran's ambitions. Terms, conditions, safeguards would apply, including the encouragement of a major American base in Iraq (collateral benefit: up yours Saudi Arabia!)

I'd guess the President isn't big enough to take it - when it comes to pragmatism, the neocons bottle out.

The current interest in the 2-state solution is not sincere. It is mere posturing. This is very cruel to the ordinary Palestinians: oppressed by both the state of Israel and by their own Islamic radicals.

If Bush (the American administration) wants a solution, he will provide enough stick (and some carrots) to make Israel & the Palestinians turn up in America, and not leave until a deal is made. Remember Camp David and Dayton?

When will they ever learn?

Blair should stop making a laughing stock of British diplomacy; please stay home.

Nick, well done. I missed the broadcast, but from several viewings of the clip posted, it's a definite 'rattler' question.

It's very telling that he took the Maggie line of answering a different question to the one that you put.

Well done again.

Excellent. Two hard hitting questions which left Bush/Blair shuffling and looking very unsettled with flat-footed responses. It was a political Press conference at its finest.

Clearly you accidentally knocked his rhetoric dial up to maximum when you threw that one, Nick.

Good show, though. Comedy and politics mix so well.

Nick, I do enjoy your blog.

Please keep it up, when I'm out of the country I find it the most useful way to stay informed about how the whole political shebang is going.

Just out of curiosity who blinked first?

What I was intending to say has already been said by virtually all previous responders. Congratulations! Intelligent questions, delivered with no pussyfooting or political correctness.
Bush uses the verb "prevail" so frequently that I looked up its definition. The Oxford definition is so woolly that it is probably just right for Bush's purpose. A real "Humpty Dumpty" word.

Hmmm.... the most powerful man in the world, possibly, but definitely not the brightest.

No real message or content in Bush's response but enough cliches??

Good work Nick.

THANK YOU NICK!
At least someone finally got some balls and asked one of the terrible twosome, one of the many many questions the public has been waiting to hear!
Well done that man, and i hope you make it out of the US, please don't end up in Guantanamo!

All Hail- King Nick the Incisive.

Bush 'understands' that he's up to his neck in it.
He 'understands' that he needs to start getting the American voters to 'understand' that he 'understands' & is not 'under-understanding ' how bad the situation really is in Iraq is' !

Well done Nick!

It was just a pity that GWB never fully understands what everyone else already knows.

But why was Blair talking about Palestine & Israel, when your question was Arab & Israel, and Iran and Syria are obviously more recent news stories and may be more relevant to Iraq.

Anyway, hope your US visas won't have any probs in the future.

Well done Nick. American politicians are simply not used to being asked direct questions. They are not used to being made to feel uncomfortable. You did a great job; he blustered and obviously was unsettled. Maybe he hadn't thought about it.

I guess the President did not really understand the question, he looked unhappy that you dare ask such a controversial question. I have to say I think Tony Blair does answer the question more then George, at least he deals with them!

Nick, how can you take someone seriously who, with all his advisors and handholders, still pronounces the word nuclear as 'noocular'?

Messrs Bush and Blair are still parroting the same empty rhetoric about 'winning' in an arena where they can never win. I say 'they' advisedly, because I think precious few of the people of this country have any expectation that a country - Iraq - divided at least three ways (let's not even think about Afghanistan!) can be united in the cause of imposed democracy in the time that it takes them to extricate themselves and to try to preserve their tawdry political legacies.

A Labour votor all my life, I would encourage David Cameron to listen to the people of this country. There is a famous quotation about the USA and UK being divided by a common language, and I believe that a majority of people in this country are coming to the realisation that, whatever differences, it is towards Europe and not the USA that we should be looking for a future 'special relationship'. Remember the ignominy of "Yo Blair", it said it all.

Richard

I wonder why he only mentions two Muslim groups as people using extreme actions over people who don't "cow tail" to them. Wasn't it unsanctioned by the UN when Mr. GW went head first into Iraq because they would not "cow tail" to him?

Obviously Bush hasn't changed his mind, if he has one to change, about Iraq. He's just lost the ability to push everything through on the domestic front. -- And of course he's "in denial". Not cognitively however, but politically. He knows it's a mess, but is literally sticking to his guns. Fact is that Bush doesn't care about Iraqis or Americans dying, never has. His interests are oil, money, and US power. He is "a man with a mission", exhibiting the intransigence one expects from those deluded and hubristic enough to believe they are acting on divine inspiration. (Cf. G. Schroeder's comments recently after meeting Bush.)

Apropos of hubris, however, I wanted also to comment on vain, self-centred nature of Nick Robinson's report. As far too often, NR here misuses his media exposure as a means to promote himself rather than focusing on the actual issues. Strange also that all the posts on this blog are laudatory. I wonder if these negative words will slip through the net?

Nick, you represented the very best in Â鶹Éç values today. Good on you for asking what we all want to ask. It is a shame that in the world's richest democracy that most of the US media contingent would not have dared to challenge Bush. Keep up the good work. I am sure there are officials that will be checking your background thoroughly. Is he a communist? Is he in a same sex relationship? Is he a muslim or a sympathiser? Has he been to Pakistan or Afghanistan? You might end up in Gitmo, so watch yourself!!!

Oh he understands.

I'm a little disturbed by the prevailing tone of comments posted thus far.

Civility is something that is woefully lacking in politics today, especially here in the US, and not only being deliberately confrontational but then congratulating yourself for being so - AND receiving dozens of comments from your readers for being so - does not help the tone of politics.

What is also missing is respect for the office of President - not for the man himself, who NO Â鶹Éç/Guardianista has anything but contempt for, but for the office that the man holds. Engaging in the intellectual snobbery that you do here, and congratulating yourself for annoying the President shows a distinct contempt for that office.

Democracy requires robust independent journalism, but it also requires civility and respect.

I hate to say this Nick, but when you were in your previous job I thought impartiality, respect, and civility characterized your output. I am rather afraid that at the Â鶹Éç, you may have lost some of those attributes and gone native.

Good questions!
I don't understand though - what were either of them saying? None of it made sense to me in the context of their actions.......

Well Done Nick. You get my vote for the journalist of the year award.

Just Brilliant !!

I have always admired incisive journalism, well done to you. However, in a modern era of instant solution/instant gratification, where some people do not have the forsight to even plan their own pensions, let alone see past the day's newspaper headlines, I wonder whether there may well be a point in Bush's passionate and inarticulate argument. Picture this blog in 15yrs discussing Iraq and Iran as vastly developed havens for terrorist organizations. The future President may well ask the question-NOW do you understand? And I do wonder what our reply will be.

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 - surely(?)

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 reason US reporters do not ask these questions is that they would NEVER be allowed back to the White House.

Kow-tow, or you are out of favour. Simple as that.

The really interesting thing here is what happens next. I hope Nick Robinson is able to tell us if he senses he is being marginalised as a result of asking this question.

I'm not normally supportive of NR, but you did your job well there.

I imagine every US reporter in that room felt very uncomfortable -- because deep down they know you showed they do not do their job properly.

Nick,
always look forward to your reports, interviews, questions etc and this question to Pres. Bush was like music to my ears.

I've seen how a lot of American "journalists" are with their questions, only asking very simple and easy questions in order to be allowed back in for questioning next time, so to hear a good question that actually puts Bush on the spot and forces him to acknowledge reality whereby he is forced to give a somewhat real (and very emotional) answer as opposed to a very scripted answer, is just excellent.

Bravo sir, bravo - that was excellent.

Well Done!!!

From somebody who's stuck on the Bush side of the pond (an embarrased American wanting desperately to escape.) You really gave him a zinger and he just went on showing his denial. He uses 9/11 as an excuse for anything he does.

What he should have learned from Viet Nam is that the final result was We Quit and the world didn't come shattering down. He has created a mess and is just trying to save face as other people here have mentioned.

I Can't believe what is wrong with this country to have voted him in.

Well done Nick....although I assume you aren't going to be applying for a post as Washington correspondent any time soon. I can't see you getting into another press conference with GW!

Great work, Nick. Just be ready for the nasty reprisals. Bush will bully Blair in order to get even with you. He's like that. You can expect an Income Tax audit soon after you get home, that's the usual first salvo from the Establishment. Then comes mud-raking and character smearing. Hope you're squeaky clean in your personal lifestyle habits. Not that this will phase them if you are, they won't let the truth get in their way. My advice is that you keep up the great work and maintain a high profile in the media. The free world needs brave guys like you to face down these power-crazed, so-called 'leaders' of ours.

I just thought you might be interested in what Rush Limbaugh had to say about you. His show is the most listened to in America or something. He called you 'a very insolent reporter, smug, arrogant SOB from the Â鶹Éç named Nick Robinson.' I suppose it means your name has been brought to millions of Americans but i hope the fame won;'t go to your head. Limbaugh is a total bully with his callers if you listen to his show. And he lambasts Democrats for not uniting behind the President but then claims that 'consensus is cowardice' and, quoting Thactcher, is an absence of leadership. Then again, he is a neo-con.

'What is also missing is respect for the office of President - not for the man himself, who NO Â鶹Éç/Guardianista has anything but contempt for, but for the office that the man holds. Engaging in the intellectual snobbery that you do here, and congratulating yourself for annoying the President shows a distinct contempt for that office.'

Dear oh dear!

David (#96) is correct, not because I found your question in particular rude, but because of the general childishness of the British press (Â鶹Éç/Guardianistas). Not standing when the President & Prime Minister walk into the room? Millions of people elected them; you guys are a dime a dozen and look like impertinent 8 year olds having a laugh at fart jokes. As for your question, I don't think it rattled him at all or that he was 'eyeballing' you. This blog has been a lot self-congratulatory back-slapping. Don't break your arm.

For the person above who doesn't know "cow tail" from "Kowtow", let me help: Kowtow, vi, (1) to touch the forehead to the ground while kneeling as an act of worship or reverence, esp. in the Chinese fashion; (2) to act in an obsequious manner. Origin: Chinese.

Oh, the horror for an elitist to have a smaller vocabulary than George W. Bush!

You're a legend!

If this is what you're capable of, Jeremy Paxman will absolutely blow GWB apart!

Absolutely wonderful set of questions!

I'm very worried by the self-congratulatory tone in your reporting of the questioning of the US President. Not only do I think that you don't deserve that much praise for "doing your job" I also can't understand the "eyeballed" comment. He looked at you when replying to your question. Is that so strange? Big deal.

Also, the nature of your question simply allowed Mr Bush to comment on how much he understands how "tough" it is for US personnel and their families - not the Iraqi people. I have no doubt that the President does know it's tough for US citizens. As he says, he calls the families of the US dead every day.

You failed to elicit any response on the question of whether USA policy on Iraq is the cause of the current violence to Iraqi people BY Iraqi people. Getting someone annoyed is not the point of your job. Nor is self publicity when that happens. Sorry, but you failed in your task - just as the President has. Strangely, it's just possible you did so for the same reason - personal arrogance.

Bush's response was straight out of the Donald Rumsfeld book of knowledge. 'I's important that you know that I know it's tough out there.' Would that be a 'known known' then?

The primary role of a journalist - at least one who takes the job seriously - is to question at the deepest level those who would assume authority. On behalf of ordinary people like me who do not have any access, a journalist has to doubt, to probe, to query and above all to challenge individuals and organisations who presume to act on behalf of us all.

Their motives behind the "good work" that they are doing has to be challenged and challenged hard. If they cannot justify convincingly what they are doing then that fact needs to have a very strong spotlight shone on it for us mere mortals to see for ourselves.

In your efforts at the White House conference you achieved this superbly. The Blair-Bush (perhaps we should just call them "Blush" for short) pair were shown for all to see as being deeper in trouble, and more out of control of the situation than had ever been shown before.

The utter confusion of the mumbled and condescending responses show us all just how little thought has been put into the whole Iraq situation, and just how out-of-control these politicians are.

Very well done, a definite high-point in the history of political journalism.

To all the people saying they agree wholeheartedly with what Bush said, you disqualify yourselves on the grounds of comprehension. "Nukular weapons", "I talk to the families that die", "9/11", all meaningless doggerel.

Nick,
It doesn't really matter for Iraqis if GWB thinks that the situation is bad in Iraq. For them it becomes bad when your prime minister, unilaterally with his GWB, decided to invade their country.
Your question was meant to get an admission from a War Criminal and the fact that you got one does not really mean a lot. Asking a war criminal a question, getting an admission, and then glorify the story does not make any sense for me .... may be it is a scoop for you, but not for the millions of Iraqis who are dying/fleing the country.

Excellent work Nick left GWB floundering....and yet..and yet....TB off the hook. Good to see you try to highlight the futility of his ego trip to the middle east whilst lacking substantive support and action from Washington. Perhaps this can be pursued at home.
Thank you and please keep up the excellent journalism. We need you.

Absolutely fantastic. Best 30 seconds of television I've seen in quite a while. Keep up the good work.

Why should British journalists respect the office of a foreign power? American journalists frequently traduce the office of the President of Iran, I see no reason why the US President's office deserves any more respect from us.

Besides, here in the UK we have this healthy irreverence toward public officials (even the Royal family which is the closest analogue to the president here) that your in the US would do well to learn from.

Well done Nick! Of course Bush is in denial. Denial of the what is happening in Iraq. Hunting down al Quaida...9/11...protecting the American people from harm. What is really happening is an ugly sectarian conflict -here's a good joke for you: why is the Iraqi democracy like the American democracy? Answer: It has its constitution, and it's well on its way to its civil war- and America's version of Afghanistan: Islamic extremists arriving to take a pot at a sitting duck superpower. (Ironically, Afghanistan is becoming the UK's Vietnam: fighting an un-winnable war against an enemy who attack then melt into the local environment.)
The Baker plan looks too much like defeat for Bush. Better to push on with the war with talk of 'prevailing'. Better to not be winning than to have lost one. It looks like Bush is going to go on like this until the next US election, and Blair is going to follow his lead.

David, above comment:

You miss the point. Nick is not congratulating himself. His listeners are!

Fortunately not everyone is blinded by the screen of "office" particularly when it is held by such an individual who can barely articulate a sentence and who has put the whole world in more danger.

Do not mistake this for anti-Americanism. There are plenty of Americans who feel just like this.

What is the point of a press conference if direct questions can't be asked? And: Nick was not rude or uncivil, he just asked the question nobody else dared to.

I was watching the press conference when you asked your question and thought it took a lot of bottle on your part. But you got him to characterize it as 'bad' for the first time ever. Good job. It must have made your American peers squirm with guilt over permitting him not to answer it before.
And you do look like that sketch of you on the Â鶹Éç.

Nice work Nick.

I haven't seen such a candid response from a US President since Frost interviewed Nixon, and you had just one question in press conference.

I got the impression that he actually had to hold himself back a little and the retreat to the old stories of Al-qaeda, 9/11.

The question I would like hear Bush answer is: Does he think he could have taken the US to war in Iraq with the explanations used now, rather than the reasons given in 2002/03? (ie, that it amounts to fighting the terrorists in their own backyard rather than on US soil?)

Well done

Im glad someone in the press core has laid the smack down on him. Hopefully he might see some sence and realices the situtaion that he's in.

Thankyou

You can still go to any restaurant. America is a 'free speach country'

Nick,

Too bad the British people are sheeple mindlessly going along with everything the Â鶹Éç says and does. Please may I remind you that your job is to report the news neutrally, not to express your own thoughts and views. I am sorry that you did not show more respect for the office of the president and were so rude and interrupting as you were. Thank God the Â鶹Éç is not running the world.

Amazing that there are still people who will defend Bush and Blair against the slightest probing question.

My favourite segment was when the duet ended and Bush put his arm around Blair and said "Well done!" like a schoolteacher praising his top pupil.

The humiliation of our PM is endless. And he deserves it.

Nick that was wonderful. Lets hope that the White House Press Corp may have learned something about how to be a journalist from you.

nick,

you show off, and then you use the blog to get a pat on the back.

is it not a bit childish?

Good work. I'd be interested to know if you and the other foreign hacks stand up at these events when Bush comes in to the room or if that sort of deference is only shown by the White House press corps.

I think that is sad, sad that such a man in such a position can't see what the rest of the world see's. The whole Middle East (and the world)has erupted into chaos due to his family vendetta against Saadam, the U.S's need to control the supply of oil - and he knows he's been found out. Cut your losses Mr Bush and let our brave men and women come home.

I saw the clip and felt GWB was rattled - he certainly has your number! It was quite compelling and I doubt that he had recieved such a direct question from US reporters for a while!

Top-man Nick for having the guts to say what he did to GWB. You are a brave journalist - keep going.

Mr George W Bush,
President of the United States.

Dear Mr President,

As a British citizen I am writing to apologise on behalf of Mr Nick Robinson, the Â鶹Éç reporter who questioned you yesterday at the joint press conference you gave with our Prime Minister Tony Blair.

I am sorry that Mr Robinson did not show you the respect afforded to you by your high office and so rudely interrupted you as he did.

Please allow me to assure you that not all the British people are mindless 'sheeple' agreeing with everything the Â鶹Éç says and does.

There are some who regularly pray for the Lord's blessing on you and your country and have a deep love for the American people.

Yours Sincerely,

Julian St.Clere-Smithe.

Nick last night on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann featured your question to the President. Here in America the press never ask Bush questions like these. I only wish someone would ask him 2 questions. 1. You claim that Jesus is your all and all but you do things that are against his teachings. How do you square that? 2. If Iraq is so important, why are you afraid to go to Iraq and go outside the green zone and walk the streets and be prepaired to give your life for what you believe in ?

In future i think you should show some respect for the office if not the man.

I saw the entire question and answer on the Â鶹ÉçAmerica newscast, including Mr. Bush's snarky little giggle. However, when I watched the NBC news,the newscaster mentioned that a reporter had asked if the President was in denial (no mention of the reporter being British)and then Mr. Bush's response of "no, I know it's bad". That was it. Our broadcast news is a disgrace.

..civility and respect for the office....
I do wonder what David was writing in the Clinton era ....

Respect demands respect ...Bush has never shown respect for his office or for the country he has sworn to serve ...civility was banished from this administration well before they took office ....
Well done I say, if only to have Bush wish for the return of Jeff Gannon and his inane softball questions ....

Where was the respect for the office of the president when the Supreme Court handed it to him on a plate? Bush has shown nothing but contempt for anyone who doesn't believe as he does, and deserves no respect at all. Upholding the U.S. Constitution is his job, and his lack of respect for that document, and for Geneva Convention standards, and other international treaties...no respect for his actions at all. Nick, good job; you really hit a nerve, because he isn't used to difficult questions. You won't be invited back-just ask Helen Thomas.

Nick, I have long suspected that you are a dangerous softy liberal. Now it appears that you are a terrorist as well.

Do you understand that I understand what's going to happen when we all understand? I hope so, So now we both understand.

That it's understood.

Nice question Nick. You should have followed that with:
1.)Why not attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, since 90% of the 9-11 hijackers came from there and 0% came from Iraq.
2.) Why is the Pentagon figuring out where to go when it should be the state department? How about some diplomacy, a carrot instead of a stick?

Thanks for asking a real question during a white house beifing. I watch the Â鶹Éç for all of my news.

Bravo.

As an American I have been underwhelmed with the performance of our press since 9/11. It is as they are frightened to be unpatriotic with every question they ask this lying administration. They are more fearful of being seen as a quisling than of offending.

Thanks for asking a great question in a great way.

Dear George Bush
I must say you handled that question very well from that smart mouthed British reporter. I know you are not in a state of denial. First of allyou have to have a state of mind. Keep up the good work, I am sure that the new recruits the right wing and your self have allowed Al Quida to gather will thank you in the future. By the way, I know WMD's where never found but that little fib shouldn't hurt your legacy as a great American war criminal. If Saddam can go on trial so can you.

Why oh why won't our American press ask questions like that? It is so absolutely easy to expose the idiocy of our president. Bush is a man who doesn't waste time on thought when he's groping for "the way forward". He has no business running a powerful nation.

Thank you.

As an American, let me ask if we may borrow some of your journalists, pretty please? Ours seem to have lost their stones years ago.

The White House press conferences are too carefully stage managed. When the veteran 86 year old journalist Helen Thomas asked a question earlier this year about how the President feels about the war costing thousands of lives, she was pilloried by the usual conservative suspects for being "disrespectful". One, Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly, stated the President should have "laid her out".

The body language of President Bush since the release of the Iraq Study Report has been telling. He looks strained and outside his comfort zone. He fairly bristled at the questions this week, resorting to finger pointing. Maybe President Bush is telling the truth. He finally is understanding what a mess he has created.

Thank you Mr. Robinson. I too say well done. To see Mr. Bush quirm is just grand.

It's interesting that it's a press conference between the British and American heads of state, and the question was asked by a British journalist, and yet over and over again, Bush refers to the importance of Iraq to the *American* people, how he has been warning the *American* people for a long time. Could he have made it any clearer that he doesn't give a damn about the international community?

Nick hit the nail on the head by asking the question theat 99% of us would have asked given the opportunity. Well done, journalism at its best.

Wow! I was blown away by your question, Nick!! Why can't our American reporters ask good questions!! They are so wimpy! Wish we could keep you here in the U.S.A. That question and idiotic response made my day!

I agree with an earlier poster, although it was an excellent question, Mr Bush came back with body language, the same key words and phrases about Iraq, and was clearly deliberately trying to come across as the upstadning Patriot. Unfortunately, in some quarters, it may have worked.

Sorry world, Bush just doesn't get
it. He's already checked out. He's
more worried about his so called place in history than in reducing
the loss of life.

I'm sorry that my country inflicted
upon the world an idiot.

Excellent questions to Bush and Blair. Bush was in denial about his own denial, giving his usual rhetorical spiel. I really really hope that you set an example to the US journalists out there. Bush's attempts to intimidate you were very sad. The very fact that he responds in such a defensive way shows he isn't asked enough hard-hitting questions.

I applaud your journalism Nick.

My rejoinder, if I may:

"..civility and respect for the office....
I do wonder what David was writing in the Clinton era .."

I was 6 when President Clinton came to office. Many Republicans, and some journalists, showed a distinct lack of respect for the office of the President then just as many Democrats, and some journalists, do now. Ideology is not the issue. Civility is.

My naive expectation be that journalists such as Nick Robinson would treat ALL holders of the office of US President with respect, and behave in a civil way toward them, regardless of their ideological orientation.

Recently former President Carter was rounded upon by a caller to a talk-show on which he was appearing, and I found that to be objectionable too. The tone with which politics are practiced in Britain and the US - more so in the US - is horrendous.

I don't want Nick to stop being robust and pressing. I do want him to stop contributing to this awful tone.

Nick the answer that GWB gave you deserves to be in this list

Nick, congratulations - it was truly revealing to see how Bush reacted to your question. His answer veered wildly between just about every disjoint justification for the US's Iraq policy that's been used over the past 5 years - from 9/11 to WMD to nation-building to the wider war on terror and back again.

Perhaps the UK and the US are in the difficult moral position we now find ourselves precisely because all these issues are viewed as "the same thing" - which, of course, they are not.

Very Well Done Nick; My mouth went dry even just looking at your performance. I was so So glad to see you put him under a bit of pressure. This softly softly rhetoric and euphanismation approach of an utter disaster of US/UK foreign policy is simply not working.]

Well done again for having the courage to do what you did, the more questions he gets like that the more likely he is to smell the coffee.

Eddie :-)

A little late to the party, but:

President Bush was, well, President Bush. You were never going to get an educated reply from him.

What disappointed me more was Blair's acknowledgement that he would never do anything (Middle East) without the President's blessing. Exactly when Mr Blair did we become the 49th State of America?

By the way Nick, bet that's the last time they ever let you near the president, let alone ask a question!

Mr George W Bush,
President of the United States.

Dear Mr President,

As a British citizen I am writing to apologise on behalf of Mr Nick Robinson, the Â鶹Éç reporter who questioned you yesterday at the joint press conference you gave with our Prime Minister Tony Blair.

I am sorry that Mr Robinson did not show you the respect afforded to you by your high office and so rudely interrupted you as he did.

Please allow me to assure you that not all the British people are mindless 'sheeple' agreeing with everything the Â鶹Éç says and does.

There are some who regularly pray for the Lord's blessing on you and your country and have a deep love for the American people.

Yours Sincerely,

Julian St.Clere-Smithe.

A REPLY TO MR SMITHE.

Eddie Dinnage
Nottingham
UK

Dear Julian,

I am so pleased to read your reply to Mr George W. Bush. Apologising on Mr Robinsons behalf about his behaviour at the joint conference with Mr. Blair.

Just a few points

A: Mr Bush is NOT the American people he was elected yes; but there is a large question mark over the validity of that election that has never been satisfactorily cleared up.

B: If Mr Robinson wishes to apologise, he shall do, I however see absolutely no ground whatsover for him to do so. Mr Bush is an extremely forceful person in politics AND in foreign policy, just look at the state of the Middle East! Mr Robinson asking a very fair question in a robust manner is not rude, it should be expected. I hereby petition the gentle-reader; that this writing acts as an 'anti-apology' that cancels out your apology on Mr Robinsons behalf!

C:This 'sheepie' concern, When all that glitters is not gold, it is often first reported in the British press, not the right-wing bias of the American press. The Â鶹Éç performs to the best of it's ability - especially when Mr Robinson in action! I decide what I believe, not anyone else!

D:One thing I do most incredibly agree with you, praying for Mr Bush and the American people - I most certainly do - I also pray for the civillians of Iraq and the British and American troops and for America that more questioning of the leader of the 'free' world can commence.

As the NYPD state if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear - it has to work both ways - Yes!

E:I too have a very deep love of America the culture and the people, that is why when someone threatens that, I will support the person who can revive the American Spirit of being one of the greatest countries the world has ever seen.

Mr. Nick Robinson is a star, and althouth he is bald and wears geeky glasses (that he thinks are fashionable) has done a wonderful thing. Letting a powerful person go unquestioned or unchallenged is the mechanism that open up the gates of hell.

Consider you weak kneed apology cancelled.

yours in sincerest of terms

Edward Dinnage.

I know its been a few days since the airing of your fearless questioning put to the tyrant GWB. Its certainly still fresh in my mind. You were the only one with the guts to really do their job and ask the questions that UK and American people want to know. Bloody well done Nick!
Keep free speech free and England free! Gawd bless ya

Nick, How I wish our American press were as gutsy as you!!! I almost jumped out of my chair when I heard you ask the president your question. Bravo!!!!

The question was excellent and the reply revealed far more than the words that were said. It was nicely done and its a shame that American reporters don't ask such penetrating questions.
That said I am willing to wager that you don't get asked for a question again, which is a loss.

Typical, Blair makes an appearance in Washington DC just to reinforce the UK-US relationship - at the tax payer's expense.
No real answer was given to your question to Bush. He made the same point many times.
What sort of answer was, "It's bad in Iraq. Does that help?"
Of course it's bad in Iraq but maybe he should think about why it is - because he started it. Closely followed by Blair.
I supported the war in Iraq back in 2003 but maybe we were wrong to follow the US. What have we really achieved? Peace? Security in Iraq? Security in the UK?
I certainly wouldn't want to be eyeballed by that man.

Thank you for questioning Bush so directly and for not tiptoeing around him like our pitiful American press. If only he had to face a press corps of British journalists more often...

He wasn't eyeballing you Nick. He was thinking or a response. That was a look of intense concentration.

And the moon really is made of cheese.

Nick,

I think you might have given Bush a fleeting glimpse into what it could be like in front of an international war crimes tribunal.

Maybe get him some shackles to add to the authenticity.

Very good question, Nick. The world should realize what is happening and put an end to it. We are just closing our eyes and pretending that it´s not happening, but it is.

If any journalistic event was to command my attention it has to be Nick Robinson's question to Bush of his, Bush's, being in denial. Bush is in denial. I was less concerned with Bush's long-winded dire tribe of ever repeating the excusive phrases that seek to justify a cause long ago lost. However, I was more concerned with Nick Robinson's response to Bush's answer. Today is an age when sharp investigative journalism is more protective of the individual than many a political party or aspirant. All the more sad; therefore, that Nick Robinson allowed the politician Bush to get away with a long repetitive predictable and boring answer - an answer that should have been interjected in order to bring Bush back to the question of being in denial. I hope Nick will be all the more fired up next time round in the wake of a journalistic lost opportunity. Leading/Anchor Journalists need to be a bit more like Paxman and being like Paxman will remind Jeremy to be alert to keeping on top.

Just a little note to Peter Gibbs - we would be the 51st state. 49 and 50 are Alaska and Hawaii although i cannot remember in which order.

Nick - that was a fabulous moment in journalism. You asked the question 99% of the world would like to have.

I have to point out that asking self congratulary politicans difficult questions is not a lack of respect and is the very thing reporters are supposed to do. Its difficult to respect a man who clearly holds no respect fror the position he holds. Difficult questions are not unpatriotic but the very thing any patriotic person should be doing - or at least thats what it says in the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps Jefferson just had no idea what he was talking about.

Also, Nick is congratulating himself. WE are all congratulating HIM for asking the question we have all wanted to ask for the past 3 years.

Nick, to be honest, I think it was more luck than judgement that you hit the bullseye with Dubya, and you are claiming more credit than you might deserve.

Here's what Toby Harnden, the Daily Telegraph's Washington Correspondent, wrote of the Robinson question, which he witnessed:

"The question certainly made a lot of American reporters wince. They argue that it was a "look-at-me" question designed simply to draw attention to the questioner."

Indeed.

Nick, great work as ever. When will the Today Programme take note and give you a job as presenter?