READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
Amidst new reports that suspected bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had targeted New York's Times Square for another terror attack, this evening "Piers Morgan Live" invites John Miller to share his insight and expertise.
Formerly the chief FBI Spokesman, Miller is currently a senior correspondent for CBS News, and may be most well known for his 1998 interview with Osama bin Laden. A nine-time Emmy Award winner, Miller will join Piers Morgan for a live, face to interview that figures to touch upon all aspects of the Boston Marathon bombings and subsequent investigation.
Meanwhile, with her son Aaron in a Boston hospital recovering from injuries sustained during the explosions, tonight Katherine Hern will speak live with the host, updating her child's health, and sharing his story publicly for the very first time.
Also, on a day which sees all five living presidents together in Texas for the dedication of the George W. Bush presidential library, Paul Wolfowitz will offer his perspective and analysis. A former United States Ambassador and the tenth President of the World Bank Group, Wolfowitz will join Morgan for a live interview from the Southern Methodist University campus in Dallas.
Tune in this evening at 9 as Morgan follows two of the most talked about stories in the current news cycle, terror in Boston and presidents in Texas.
> Follow Piers Morgan Live on Twitter
> Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Instagram
You go Piers. I hope you make those Bushes run for the hills after all he done to the country. I'm waiting for the Obama library to open up. Is the Clinton library good?
Mr Morgan, You are a good man! Keep up your excellent work, Sir.
Go pound sand Morgan. Even Bush's biggest mistakes are still better than the best thing you've done on American TV.
Ignornat Jason, really childish!
I'm not speaking to you anymore,Intersilence.
But I love you.
IAnd I THINK Dana is dead...)
Wow, talk about false equivalences.
Thanks George for the illegal War in Iraq, and jacking up the debt on our childrens future!
Well, at least he brought a budget out every year to be voted on! This lame-duck president spent his first four years doing nothing. He has finally brought a budget to look at, so that the politicians can actually trim some of the fat and possibly vote on it at some point. Now all he does is fly around the country, kissing butt spending your tax dollars going golfing etc. etc. Even though I do not agree with everything Bush did, at least he had the balls to be a leader! Somewhere down the road, 20 years from now they will be praising what Bush did, and even though I disagreed with the war in Iraq the teenage generation there will think the US for at least giving them the opportunity to be free!
Obama has done "nothing"? Please provide evidence that upon inauguration, he disappeared into thin air.
Also your golfing statement, suggesting the president has been on vacation, is blatantly wrong. George W. Bush owns the record for most vacation days taken, 1,020.
Obama took 131 in his first four years. Let's double that and add another 20% for error and you get 314. Even an exaggerated estimate of Obama's eventual vacation day tally pales in comparison to the last guy.
I personally don't care how many days the presidents spend on their vacation. ALL I CARE ABOUT IS THE RESULTS THEY DELIVER. Besides, I think the presidents still conduct business during a vacation, often socializing with domestic and foreign dignitaries, an important part of the job. I even think they can have productive meetings in regards to the nation affairs on the golf course (but not with Tiger Woods), who cares if they do it indoor or out. They don't punch in a timecard, it's impossible to totally separate the working time from private time, and it's pointless to talk about who had more vacation days over who.
Obama library gonna be way better than the Bush one. Probably have IPads to. Don't be messing with Pierse – he'll set you straight. Why don't you all just pay attention and realize he knows what he is talking about!
We formally request a new Top Gal Contributor 'cos sm is simply terrible,and probably carries 'em in a barrow anyway.
I'm moving on,and would like to present you with a crown and sceptre and Captain Morgan's hand in marriage,two
stout defences of Our Hero Leading The Glorious Charge under your belt(Queens wear garters,y'know,just sayin'...)
Yes,sm is kicked into touch,and Laquisha is crowned:Queen Laquisha I –ALL HAIL THE QUEEN!
Thanks for posting(Your Maj).
Do you have a point to make, or just trying to be entertaining, mocking the thoughts of others?
You just wasted 3 inches of my screen with all that foolish screed.
(I'm on your side,Mr,been a while,sent you a Tweet...)
As an Independent voter, I didn’t always support President Bush’s policies 100% of the time.
However, I am very grateful for him and VP Cheney on one thing for sure. THEY KEPT US SAFE AFTER 9/11.
There have been at least FOUR publicly known terrorist attacks after President Obama took office. Luckily the first two attempts (the underwear bomber and the time square bombing) were unsuccessful thanks to courageous and attentive ‘civilians’ taking action, NOT because ‘the authorities’ acted effectively to avert them. But the other two, Benghazi and Boston, claimed painfully regrettable causalities. Is it only me who thinks these incidents are reflective of our current administration’s stance on, what they prefer to call, man-made disasters??
"They kept us safe after 9/11". What about keeping us safe before? You're giving Bush a pass on 9/11 and declaring him more effective than Obama?
We lost more than 2,800 lives on 9/11 under Bush. It's easy to move the goalposts to say "after" as if terrorism wasn't a problem until that horrific day.
Then, How about Clinton not nailing bin Laden when he had a chance? If he had, the 9/11 attack would have not happened.
There have been terrorist incidents on every President's watch. You can not also conclude that had Clinton captured Bin Laden, another leader might have surfaced, just as Bin Laden's death produced new leadership. That is blind speculation.
Reagan, Walker-Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all share blame to the extent that our intelligence services failed to detect terrorist plots. Bush does not get a freebie on 9/11.
I never said I gave Pres. Bush a free pass on 9/11. I wish he was aware of Al-Qaeda’s capability. Unfortunately the sad fact is, no one (including Pres. Clinton) had imagined they would be able to pull off such attacks and inflict such unspeakable atrocities on American soil. I think it’s fair to say there’s a huge difference between pre-9/11 and post-9/11 mentalities. In the pre-9/11 America, I suppose “fighting against terrorism” wasn’t really on the top of the list of any presidents. So I don’t really blame Pres. Clinton for not capturing bin Laden (though I truly wish he had in retrospect), I gather he had bigger things to worry about at that time. All I was saying was, if Pres. Bush should bear the blame for his lack of imagination, so should Pres. Clinton.
But it all changed on Sep. 11, 2001. Once we became aware of what the terrorist organizations are capable of, fighting against them became the No.1 priority of Pres. Bush and he did everything he could in his power to prevent another killing of Americans. In the post-9/11 America, after the world has seen what terrorists can do, there isn’t really a good excuse for the Obama admin. dropping the ball. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta could not explain why Pres. Obama spoke with him only once during the Benghazi attack, and never called back for any updates for over seven hours. That’s the level of engagement Pres. Obama had toward a terrorist attack. Would I be the only one who is concerned about that?
Lastly, a rather small matter but, when making a distinction between the 41st and 43rd presidents, you need to refer the former “H.W.(or Herbert Walker) Bush”, since the latter shares the same middle name, Walker.
Remember seeing Clinton in a church in New York shortly after 9/11,looked ashen,worry-laden,and I wondered if he was rueing the chance to go after Bin Laden after the attack on the Kohl,a US Warship:you would normally deduce that would be enough to kickstart something,same as for a diver from Aberdeen or Stavanger touching the Kursk,which they managed to reach at depth as I saw in The Times,just before Vladimir Putin condemned them to an icy tomb,refusing to let them lay a finger on account of it being a nuclear submarine which has periscopes to watch ships sail away.
I've never blamed Bill,but,as Nae points out,he may have missed an opportunity.
Love the pink socks Mr Bush! In all seriousness i love that these guys get together for good causes.
Notify me of new comments via email.