I feel like she is the one who overstepped any bounds, when she asks a question and interrupts his answers because she wants to shove her own opinions in...

This was a great interview on GWB's part. GWB didn't overstep any bounds in this interview, which is admirable against an interview who was clearly trying to make him look bad.

Could the description of this link get any more biased?

"When she asked him pointed, pertinent questions, he became upset when his stock answers failed to satisfy her. "

That's really not what happened at all. He wasn't upset with how satisfied she was, he only became upset when she tried to interrupt him.

We live in the United States, not a collective United Nations. So the UN didn't want to take down a dictator, Bush did. I'll respect the decisions of our chosen leader. Invading Iraq wasn't a bad decision. If I remember right the house voted 296-133 giving bush the authority to invade Iraq.

Has Iraq since been mishandled? Sure. But the world IS better off without Saddam in power.

And they don't just simply like him, but they think he's one of the greatest men to walk the earth since Jesus.

You can't imagine where the world would be if a "push-over liberal like Al Gore were president?" Let me assist.

A month before 9/11, Bush received a memo that said: "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." When agents urgently briefed Bush on their fears of an imminent attack, Bush dismissed them with the comment: "All right. You've covered your ass, now," according to Ronald Suskind's excellent book, "The One Percent Doctrine."

If Gore were president, maybe he would have acted.

We know what Bush did. Nothing.

"I cant imagine where the world would be if a push over liberal like Al Gore were president"

we wouldnt be in iraq. if the attack had still happened maybe we'd be looking for bin laden. the entire world probably wouldnt hate us the way they do now. gore probably would have listened to people with real military experience.

these are my best guesses. since we cant know for certain it's all up for endless debate, but we do know what did happen with the other douchebag in power.

also, why should the president be coddled? are you upset she may have hurt his widdle feewings? great use of biotch by the way. frankly, if i was in her position i'd of said fuck it and took the oportunity to slap him. cant imagine it wouldve ended well but it someone needs to do it.

it seemed like she waited for a pause to ask the next question and he cut her off before she could get it out.

I hate to say it but life is clearly not as innocent as we've all been comfortably fooling ourselves into believing. Bush is an evil SOB. But we are all capable of being evil. There is some major eff'd up ess happening in the world today. But that doesn't mean it should be avoided. Great change in history has always been marked by blood. I hate a lot of the personalities involved in the right wing crusade against anything not "American" and by "American" I mean whatever the right wing agenda chooses to define the word as at any particular time. The fact is the US has become lethargic and needs to change a lot of things, (personally I think we should outlaw obesity for starters - fat people cause a lot of problems). As awful as our situation in the world is today, we must embrace it, completely and make the best of it. I love peace. I love living in the US. I love my Scotch-Irish American heritage. I love and adore Arab people and their culture. I feel like the real enemy that we are facing is greed and corruption. As is evident in China's food supply right now. So if freedom and democracy has to be spread... fine then spread it - we shouldn't stand in its path. Its got a relatively proven track record. Is it the best system to embrace? Is it better than socialism? Maybe, maybe not, but the gears are turning and I feel it best to just facilitate the general direction we are heading and at the same time weed out the greed and corruption however that is possible. I am well aware that a temporary peace could have been achieved had we not unleashed a crusade led by a corporate agenda overseas. Had we just instead waited for the next "domestic attack" and dealt with it then, the world perhaps, might be more at ease. But being at ease, or more accurately, comfortable, does not necessarily mean the world has secured peace. It is necessary for everyone's perspective on the world and peace to be relatively aligned in order to facilitate a world without international hostility. People are so set in their convictions that there will have to be a lot of blood shed before world peace can be achieved. Surely even our own blood must be shed and perhaps in ways that we don't agree with and can't even anticipate. If the goal is peace and it is truly being worked towards, than we must be ready to sacrifice everything. Especially what we are comfortable with.