Irish reporter dares interrupt Bush!

Video of the Incident
www.rte.ie...

"THE White House has lodged a complaint with the Irish Embassy in Washington over RTE journalist Carole Coleman's interview with US President George Bush.

And it is believed the President's staff have now withdrawn from an exclusive interview which was to have been given to RTE this morning by First Lady Laura Bush.

It is understood that both RTE and the Department of Foreign Affairs were aware of the exclusive arrangement, scheduled for 11am today. However, when RTE put Ms Coleman's name forward as interviewer, they were told Mrs Bush would no longer be available.

The Irish Independent learned last night that the White House told Ms Coleman that she interrupted the president unnecessarily and was disrespectful.

She also received a call from the White House in which she was admonished for her tone.

And it emerged last night that presidential staff suggested to Ms Coleman as she went into the interview that she ask him a question on the outfit that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern wore to the G8 summit."

link: (registration required)
www.unison.ie...


I've got to give this reporter kudos for coming straight out and getting to the meat of the issue. Not to steal the title of a previous thread, but who the hell does Bush think he is? Can't the woman just ask him some questions?

He always gets so damn angry when he's questioned about his policies. Look at the fanatical (or angry, can't figure out which) gleam in his eyes when he starts talking about Iraq. (sigh) There's really not much I can say about this. Just watch for yourself.




[edit on 6/26/2004 by Flinx]

Here's the link to the transcript of the interview:
www.whitehouse.gov...

Notice that Bush is not answering the questions and is evading others. I thought this exchange was interesting:

Q But, Mr. President, the world is a more dangerous place today. I don't know whether you can see that or not.

THE PRESIDENT: Why do you say that?

Q There are terrorist bombings every single day. It's now a daily event. It wasn't like that two years ago.

THE PRESIDENT: What was it like September the 11th, 2001? It was a -- there was a relative calm, we --

Q But it's your response to Iraq that's considered --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. Let me finish, please. Please. You ask the questions and I'll answer them, if you don't mind.

If anyone was rude, it was Bush. He had a prepared speech he was going to deliver and he wasn't going to really do an interview. I wonder if the NEXT time he interviews, he'll ask for a pre-approved interview and restrict questions to the ones he wants.

I agree, the interview was dominated by bush, she was not rude the president was, she asked very direct up today questions about the feelings and concerns of the European community and he did not like the questions.

It seems to me that this president is so delusional that he can not comprehend that his actions in Iraq has brought instability and insecurity to the rest of the world.

I wonder from what planet and country does bush thing he is coming from, in other words as long as US is safe and terror free the rest of the world can go and take a hike.:bash:

This interview is a classic example of how arrogant Bush is, and how he expects the press to kowtow to him. I haven't seen the entire interview, but in the excerpt I saw, Bush appeared to have finished speaking, and the reporter started to ask another question. Bush immediately started his "Let me finish" routine. Atrios does not provide a link, but he quotes Carole Coleman as saying that she was required to submit her questions three days in advance.

For another example of Bush's arrogance, check out this exchange with an AP reporter

THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a couple of questions. Who is the AP person?

Q I am.

THE PRESIDENT: You are?

Q Sir, in regard to --

THE PRESIDENT: Who are you talking to?

Q Mr. President, in regard to the June 30th deadline, is there a chance that that would be moved back?

www.whitehouse.gov...

Just addressing Bush as Sir doesn't show sufficient respect. You must address him as Mr. President!

Wow, What an unbiased interview from the "press". I'm surprised she didn't ask something like "Have you killed enough babys in Iraq yet or are just getting started?" Wonder if she took her Kerry 04 button off before the interview.

Originally posted by donguillermo

For another example of Bush's arrogance, check out this exchange with an AP reporter

THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a couple of questions. Who is the AP person?

Q I am.

THE PRESIDENT: You are?

Q Sir, in regard to --

THE PRESIDENT: Who are you talking to?

Q Mr. President, in regard to the June 30th deadline, is there a chance that that would be moved back?

www.whitehouse.gov...

Just addressing Bush as Sir doesn't show sufficient respect. You must address him as Mr. President!

Look up "sir," in the dictionary, one defintion is "Mister," or Mr.

Of course we know you are the President! So what is wrong with "sir?"

Originally posted by donguillermo

Just addressing Bush as Sir doesn't show sufficient respect. You must address him as Mr. President!

I can think of a few things Id address him as but none of them would be "respectful". Hes a war criminal and Id treat him as such.

I dont believe anyone should be addressed differently because they are royalty or a politician.

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
Wow, What an unbiased interview from the "press". I'm surprised she didn't ask something like "Have you killed enough babys in Iraq yet or are just getting started?" Wonder if she took her Kerry 04 button off before the interview.

So she is biased unless she is grovelling and lets Bush read out his pre-prepared statement?

If you change the "U" to an "O" and add an "S" then you have your name spot on.

a certain president needs to read history... (but, oh yeah, someone doesn't like to read, as he is so fond of pointing out)... the president is called "Mr. President" because such titles as "Sir" or "Excellency" were deemed too pompous and unbefitting a "citizen-president" by the founding fathers.

for bush to reverse this logic and assume that he MUST be called Mr. President is really, really sad in my opinion. it completely negates the original intention of adopting the title- as a reminder that he is MERELY the president, and not a king or some such.

-koji K.

I notice also the sir issues, he wants to be call Mr. President, well if he had won the elections fare and square and without not doubts, he would had earn that titled. Maybe your majesty will be the next title for him.

And talking about attitude!!!!!!!! I see NWO all over his face, and is ok for presidents to have the line of questioning review but his attitude about dominating the entire interview look like a dictator to me.

Bush is not arrogant!!!!!!!!!!! He is a royalty.

Originally posted by Flinx


"THE White House has lodged a complaint with the Irish Embassy in Washington over RTE journalist Carole Coleman's interview with US President George Bush.

And it is believed the President's staff have now withdrawn from an exclusive interview which was to have been given to RTE this morning by First Lady Laura Bush.

It is understood that both RTE and the Department of Foreign Affairs were aware of the exclusive arrangement, scheduled for 11am today. However, when RTE put Ms Coleman's name forward as interviewer, they were told Mrs Bush would no longer be available.

The Irish Independent learned last night that the White House told Ms Coleman that she interrupted the president unnecessarily and was disrespectful.

She also received a call from the White House in which she was admonished for her tone.

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth - of Bush's petulance & overweening arrogance. And it shows a dangerously bad attitude in the way he became angry over any percived attempt to have him deviate from his set piece. Not a good look, any of it.

Now for a minor [to me] point of protocol, as I wish to improve my knowledge on this. I wasn't aware that the President of the United States had to be addressed as "Mr. President" in other countries too. If this is the case, it would surely be rather confusing if this form of address were compulsory in countries that already had a president of their own - surely?

Koji I think you need to read history, "Mr. President" was chosen as the title because it was befitting and "not taken". "Honorable" was already taken by the Judiciary and by the diplomatic delegations, in fact it almost was "The Honorable President of the United States".

But it was settled to simply be "The President" so "Mr." is the added title. There is nothing to do with "it is less pompous as Sir..."

I don't like Bush but Bush wasn't the one who was disrespectful, it was the interviewer.

First of all, the interviewer is an idiot or has been living under a rock for the past 4-5 years.

There was a lot of terrorism before 9-11 and before Bush took office.

The interviewer obviously didn't like Bush, they picked the wrong person to interview him, that's all.

"who are you talking to?",
On Public television, Bush Does not have any respect,
Royalty?, Bah, Someone that full of himself, and that selfish,
when is the next election, Bye Bush!

[sarcasim]If Rev. Moon can be crowned the Messiah...surely there will be no objections in bestowing the title of Your Royal Highness Mr. President upon Dubya [sarcasim]

the point is not this female reporter asked "stupid" questions, as some may feel, or is being disrespectful..as the President's people felt compelled to remind her...

the REAL point in this story is that George Bush has a major problem with ANYONE that doesn't completely agree with him, in ALL ways...He is so busy trying to cover his butt and the butts of his cronies...that he couldn't come up with an ORIGIONAL THOUGHTFUL RESPONSE if his life depended on it...his spin doctors have to be working overtime and then some in order to make sure all of his appearances are kept up to par and cover up any mistakes he makes.

there is no integrity in politics and G.W.B. is one of it's shining examples...

Thank goodness, there are still journalists out there, even if they weren't from the US, that still know how to QUESTION AUTHORITY...Kudos to that reporter, and any others like her.

~oracle

[edit on 28-6-2004 by Oracle]

At this speed he propably declares himself as god before election.

Or maybe it's just that he has already spoiled his public image so badly and that's why he doesn't give a crap about others.

www.infinicorp.com...
Any similarities with Bush's government?

Is that most respondents in this thread couldn't even see fit to post their locations, opting for such crap as "Parallel universe" or "Down to Earth". Only one admitted that they were from Europe (And frankly, has no say in our politics anyway). The rest I would suspect are also not US citizens. I was even more amuzed by the one commenting that Bush is a war criminal and that [the poster] would treat him as such... a foreigner to the US.

Let's get something straight foreigners. The U.S. is NOT, I repeat NOT in a popularity contest to make sure that you foreigners like us. Additionally it is the job of MR. PRESIDENT to ensure the safety and sovereignty of the American public. You don't have to like it and frankly most of us don't care if you do or don't; although it's safe to assume that we would prefer that you support us as we have you.

When you become a U.S. citizen you will retain the right to vote and will, therefore, have a say in our politics. Frankly I could give a rat's arse about Chirac, Blair, Schroeder or the likes. It is always nice when our leaders can agree on a common goal and support one another. However, when they cannot they should simply step aside and allow the other to do what is necessary for their country and it's peoples whilst not affecting the ally's sovereignty. So Mr. Southhampton, England, please take your wrath to YOUR voting precinct and take it up with Prime Minister Blair. Bush has done nothing to affect your sovereignty.

He's not used to 'real' journalists. I mean, here in the States, reporters get blackmailed by the White House, play ball or they and their networks will get a news blackout. In Europe, the reporters have less to lose, and they are also used to their leaders being more open. How many press conferences has Bush had? Compare that to Blair (heck, compare that to Clinton or Bush Sr, Jr does not like to speak in public or answer questions on his own). I read that Bush got the questions three weeks in advance, the reporter seesm to be trying to get a real answer instead of some memorized tripe.

I am assuming that most of the posters on this thread are either not American or teenagers. It is considered disrespectful to organise an interview with a Head of State and to interupt his answers. In most cases a Head of State would insist on a list of questions that would be asked during the interview prior to the interview.When a host insists on her/his way it is not considered interviewing, it falls under the heading of interrogation. Secondly, Ireland would be near the bottom of my list of countries wanting to discuss terrorism and the consequences thereof. Just clarifying the point I am neither American nor a Bush supporter. Just have experience in this field.

It is considered prestigious to have a President of a country on a show, it is however considered offensive to try and make a reputation for yourself at his expense. I believe President Bush's team were correct in protecting the First Lady from similar treatment. For those who aren't aware of the fact that "the gods of Hollywood" use similar techniques in protecting their public image. It is quite commonplace for an actor to say if you try to discuss the following issues I will no longer have a relationship with your publication. And actors with high profiles can and do get away with it.


[edit on 28-6-2004 by Mynaeris]

Originally posted by Mynaeris
And actors with high profiles can and do get away with it.

There's difference, they don't directly affect to policy of country which can affect lives of many people around world.

High position and power should always bring as big amount of responsibility for general good.


BTW, If your neighbour would start acting agressively, selfishly and unrespectfully toward you and others, would you respect him?