Irish reporter dares interrupt Bush!

I think she was more concerned to keep his answers in than getting her questions out. President Bush kept telling her, she could elaborate once he finished his answer to the question she just asked. At no time did it appear he wanted to styffle her merely give complete answers to her inquiries. It was quite clear whos stance couldn't bare debate as is par for the course when spouting such unresearched uneducated accusations.

I'm an Irish citizen myself and I'm finding some of the opinions offered by the US citizens here genuinely distressing, I had assumed that the majority of Americans were liberal-minded and more aware of the world around them, that the Christian right just shouted louder than everybody else. Apparently not, apparently the media cleansing by CBS, CNN, Fox et al has been extremely effective, the people are being kept completely ill-informed... I have seen some of the "reporting" being done from the war zones by US reporters, most recently a report by Dan Rather from Baghdad showing how everything's just fine, everything's super. Showing American marines assisting with irrigation and just generally being best buddies with the "liberated". This is contrary to everything that is actually happening on the ground there. Over 80% of Iraqis disagree with the occupation, they want these marines gone.
In Ireland and the UK interviews like this with statesmen are not just commonplace, they are the expected norm. Carole Coleman was simply cutting through his b.s. rhetoric for several reasons -
1. Because he is simply trying to waste time and finish the interview without running out of script
2. Because she had valid questions the Irish people want answers to, and finally
3. We have heard it all before, he was saying absolutely nothing new, word for word the same as before. That your "journalists" are afraid to do this does not take away from Ms Coleman's legitimacy, in fact it lends extra legitimacy to her questions, which need to be asked by someone.

There are too many quotes from people which I would like to counter that I wouldn't have room so I'll just be general about them. More than one person paraphrased bush's assertion that the people involved in the Abu Ghraib abuses were "bad apples". That would be nice to believe, wouldn't it? However when you have a document signed by the secretary of defence, donald rumsfeld authorising these abuses it becomes a little harder. rumsfeld AUTHORISED the use of dogs, of nudity, of sleep deprivation, of many types of humiliation banned under the Geneva Convention and by your own torture laws. He signed a document saying that these methods could be used after the administration's lawyers had twisted the Geneva Convention and all international laws horribly beyond recoginition to suit their own ends. It's not torture unless pain is the intended result? Extracting information is an admirable and just cause so. It's not torture unless it results in organ failure or death? Those prisoners are just pussies for whinging about a little smacking about then. And just on a side note, consider this - you've been naked for 3 days, you've been allowed to sleep fitfully for 4 hours out of the last 24, you can't remember the last time you were warm or comfortable or even fed and there's 3 men standing over you with guns saying "sign this confession and we'll let you sleep" "sign this and you can eat" "sign this and you can see your family again".
Anybody who trusts information extracted under these conditions is a fool, a blind arrogant fool.

And can I please reply to this constant reference of the world being a safer place since the first attacks on Iraq, it is not just a comforting untruth - it is a blatant and dangerous lie. The world has descended in to chaos. And it doesn't show any signs of turning around. The bush administration themselves said this, admitted that terrorist activity is at the highest level in 30 years. After, of course, "accidentally" giving the wrong information first. The war in Iraq diverted attention from Afghanistan and America's legitimate enemies. This administration has managed to take unprecedented world sympathy and support after September 11th and turn it in to fierce enmity and burning anger. Literally MILLIONS around the world were ignored by the leader of "the greatest democracy on earth" so that he could bring democracy to the Middle East, anybody get the irony of this? No? Ok, I'll continue so.... The UN, representing the largest democracies in the world disagreed, and were unilatterally ignored... are we getting this yet? No? not yet?... I'll try this; Congress never decided to go to war, they gave the deciding power to bush, which incidentally, is against your constitution, effectively making him a dictator unanswerable to the people. The simple fact is, while a good percentage of Americans believe the contrary, Saddam Husseuin and Iraq had NO LINKS to Al-Qaeda or the terrorist attacks. Your media was lead by a ruthless and irresponsible administration which fears no repercussions because it has the support of it's own lawyers. It fed information to journalists through anonymous sources and then verified them through legitimate channels blinding the people with scaremongering.

The American people have not yet learned to be cynical enough of your media and elected governance. I say you should not question why a reporter doesn't sit silently in "Shock and Awe" of the all-powerful president, speaking only when spoken down to, accepting every unverified word but rather you should question why anyone claiming to be an informer of the public would do such a thing.

Irish citizens had questions they wanted awnsers to? Then maybe the reporter in question should have allowed him to awnser. That you think his awnsers were BS is irellevant The reporter ASKS the questions and the interviewed AWNSERS. If the reporter does both its not an interview.
Irish citizens had questions they wanted awnsers to? And the president of the U.S. cares what the irish want for WHAT reason? You should be glad he was even willing to visit your tiny little island in the first place.
Terrorism is at its highest levels in 30 years? Yeah and it was that high BEFORE the war in Iraq as well. I am so sick of you europeans apologigising for the terrorists.

"its not thier fault they kill, and maim innocent civillians there so misunderstood. Its not the palistinians fault they launch rockets into Isreal. Its not Al quedas fault, they had no choice but to crash 2 jets into the world trade center because of the evil U.S."

Well I got news for ya Ireland maybe if your leaders had some balls and had dealt with ths crap 20-30 years ago we wouldn't have to now. But none of you europeans have the courage of your convictions. We do. We wont be pushed around like the spanish and we damn sure aren't gonna lett a bunch socialist cowards across the ocean tell us how to defend our people either.

As for going against the U.N. think again there was a resolution authorising the use of force passed by the security council. You all made the threat we made the promise.

The irish have questions they want awnsers to? To frickin bad he doesn't awnser to you, hes not the president of a tiny little island that practically invented the concept of terrorism hes the President of the U.S. of A.

Oh get off your high horse, You embody exactly what I was worried about in the US, you are an imperialist dressed in democracies clothing. A tiny little island? People should be ignored for that reason?

"Oh, who cares, it's just 11,000 towel heads, the rapture is coming and all of us God's people are off to his side"

Ms. Coleman asked the questions she wanted real answers to, not pre-prepared rhetoric swallowed by the easily appeased American media. The way to extract real answers (without resorting to sleep deprivation, food withdrawal, beatings and sexual abuse) is to catch a person off-guard, this is what she did and he floundered like a dying fish, lashing out in an unacceptable way for a dignified statesman.

"Terrorism is at its highest levels in 30 years? Yeah and it was that high BEFORE the war in Iraq as well. I am so sick of you europeans apologigising for the terrorists."
That may be so (it isn't, but it may be) but nobody claimed then that they were making the world a safer place. Which leads me on to something else, bush has always maintained he is making THE WORLD a safer place but people like you and your statements ("And the president of the U.S. cares what the irish want for WHAT reason?) Display the narrow mindednes of the US's foreign policy and "World Vision". As they say, most Americans think the first person abroad was Neil Armstrong.
And please stop using the word "defend", you're dirtying it. What use is a 200 billion dollar "Star Wars defence" system if you're the only country on the planet allowing yourselves to have nuclear arms? You're the only to have ever used nuclear arms? You're the only country developing new types of nuclear arms?

And "practically invented terrorism"?! I take huge personal offence at that, this country has an effective peace process in place which is ending violence, not with more, etter armed violence, but with talks. With words. However, you and your towering intellect obvioulsy have a much better method. Perhaps we should take all the Catholics from the North in midnight raids and put them in a prison without charge for several years and beat them until they admit to whatever takes our fancy? Pure genius.

1) when the hell did I mention the rapture genius?
2) the way to get awnser is to ask a question then SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE AWNSER.
3) I don't really care what you take offense to the fact is Ireland has been one of the major terrorist hotspots in the world for better than 100 years.
4) neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon Yuri Gargarin was the first man to orbit the earth, we learn that in grade school
5) its not Bush's job to make the world safe its his job to keep America safe.
6) as for str wars the chinese have rockets and nukes, so does india pakistan and the U.K.
Korea is trying to devolp the tech nd so is Iran so yeah I think we have the right to spend our money the way we want. You don't like it too bad we don't care.

1. You mention the rapture implicitly in your signature, if you truly believe that your 500 year old nation made up entirely of immigrants are actually gods chosen people, then clearly you are the type of delusional christian who believes in wild tales such as the rapture and creationism.
2. She waited quite long enough to hear enough of bush's answer to be able to fil in the blanks, anybody who has ever seen a speech by the man can very easily and very accurately gauge exactly what is about to come out of his mouth. Nothing intelligent.
3. The troubles are approximately 30 years old. The troubles in the North started because England, the dominant empire, tried to occupy Ireland as an invading force. I don't condone this or agree with it, I mreely explain the roots. Currently the US, the dominant empire, is trying to occupy Iraq and by proxy, much of the Middle East. Making the world a safer place? Aye, right.
4. Foreign Land = Abroad. Orbit = Not land. That should keep you occupied (pun intended) for a while
5. No-one ever claimed it was bush's job to keep the world safe, except him. No-one wants him to do the job - He's F**king it up so badly he's starting an entirely new Cold War from relative peace.
6. Very true, they do have the technology. But have they ever used it? Also, it begs the question, why were they not "liberated" by the US? Might it have something to do with the tactical importance of Iraq in the Middle East.
7. The huge majority of nuclear arms and arms in general are supplied by US companies, supported by US government. Saddam Hussein himself was put in place by a US assisted coup. rumsfeld met with him and supplied the bioligical weapons that were used against Iran.
8. And no, you don't have the right to spend that money how you want, this war is being fought on credit. Over 180 billion dollars credit so far. The US debt is currently at 2.2 trillion dollars, compared to 2.5 trillion dollars for all of the poorest countries in the thrid world combined.
9. I would continue with my ppoints but I'm sure you're running out of fingers to count on.
10. Unless...
11. ...You have 6 fingers coz maw an paw wer sisters

Thats about enough of this! If you wish to continue personal insults, take it to U2U. I find it amusing that your point is so weak you have to resort to claiming your opponent is a product of incest to defend it. This is your nice warning. The next will take points.

1)I have no earthly idea what you mean by "As they say, most Americans think the first person abroad was Neil Armstrong." but then again Im probably just not stupid enough to understand.
2) Check your history america is not 500 years old
3) Creationism? Wht in the hell are you babling bout?
4) the troubles are 30 years old? christ you don't even know your own history why would I expect you to know mine.
5)4. "Foreign Land = Abroad. Orbit = Not land. That should keep you occupied (pun intended) for a while" This is so incoherant I'm beginning to suspect your drunk.
6)"She waited quite long enough to hear enough of bush's answer to be able to fil in the blanks, anybody who has ever seen a speech by the man can very easily and very accurately gauge exactly what is about to come out of his mouth. Nothing intelligent. "
Looked to me like she waited about 3-4 seconds but then again thts probably longer than her(or your ) attention span.
7) "The huge majority of nuclear arms and arms in general are supplied by US companies, supported by US government." ohhhhhhhhhhhhkayyyyyyyyyyy hows that crack pipe smokin?
8)" And no, you don't have the right to spend that money how you want" The U.S. government doesn't have the right to spend the U.S.'s money as it sees fit? and I used to wonder why some of my ancestors left ireland know I knw why, because your ancestors didn't
9)"You have 6 fingers coz maw an paw wer sisters"
How could ANYONES pa be a sister?


End analysis

Whatever your smoking give me some please.

Scratch number 9 I forgot about sex-change operations but the other 8 points stand.

Apologies astro, I had not intended to come on here and get in to a slinging match, and apologies mwm, I know can't further an argument by resorting to such pettiness. By way of explanation I would like to say this, the world is getting frustrated - not with the American people, far from it, I've never met an American I didn't like, but frustrated with the bush administration and what it is doing to the American people. The media is very heavily biased, the ban on showing dead american soldiers by the Pentagon is blindly accepted, why is this? The American people are grown-ups you should be able to see both sides of the war. The media had the pictures of Abu Ghraib for some time but didn't release them at the behest of the government, why would they do this? They had reports by the Red Cross about the same treatment in Guantanamo but ignored these until Abu Ghraib came out and they could attach these to the stories.

Your government has been caught lying to you - There was no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, There were no WMD in the country nor even the beginnings of them and the Liberation of an oppressed people? Read here www.realcities.com...

I won't reply to your previous post mwm, unless there is a specific point you would like me to address, if so, let me know.
I have no argument with you, just your president's dangerous policies.

Just this what the heck did this mean????
"As they say, most Americans think the first person abroad was Neil Armstrong."
for the life of me I cant understand what you were trying to say.

I also regret sinking down to that level but I really dont think tht it is a good idea for a reporter to cut people off like that I mean wasn't the whole pont of the interview to hear what he had to say???

The American people have not yet learned to be cynical enough of your media and elected governance. I say you should not question why a reporter doesn't sit silently in "Shock and Awe" of the all-powerful president, speaking only when spoken down to, accepting every unverified word but rather you should question why anyone claiming to be an informer of the public would do such a thing.

I think you should first go to the first post and read the transcript of the interview before commenting on this any further. Certainly, you can agree that the best informed decision can only be made after all points of view are considered. No one suggested she sit in any state of silence and be told what to report. She asked the questions. If she didn't want an answer, writing an editorial should have been her route in gettiing her personal opinions out there. Now, I don't back one political group over another but I do believe that interuption is the highest form of rudness and shows one true lack of respect not only for the person they interupt but for themselves as well. To most people looking at this without a political bias, her refusal to allow any contrary discussion to her point does nothing but take credibility from it.

To a lot of Americans, America is the entire Earth, Armstrong's the first man to land off the Earth... it's an old joke here

With regards to the rudeness you see in the interviewer, I see no such thing, I have read the transcript and bush simply repeats what he was saying before the interruption each time. There is no substance to anything he says. And may I just say, she is not making points, she states facts to the president. This was not an impolite interview or in any way disrespecful, this was a Tough interview, simply. Our Taoiseach (prime minister) faces interviews like this regularly, he does not seek apologies afterwards. Tony Blair faces Jeremy Paxman, a truly formidable interviewer, often. Take a minute to read this transcript of one of those interviews from before the war - news.bbc.co.uk... There was no letter from Downing Street complaining about this.

My point is government officials have to be held accountable up to the highest level, especially when they have been proven liars. And when they try to repeat those lies after getting caught, they have to be pulled up on it. I refer to bush's answer that the world is a safer place since 2001 when his own administration has released reports saying terrorism has sharply increased.

[edit on 1-7-2004 by Saorstait]

Originally posted by mwm1331
I really dont think tht it is a good idea for a reporter to cut people off like that I mean wasn't the whole pont of the interview to hear what he had to say???

As I have mentioned in a previous post, it is standard practice in Europe for journalists to cut off politicians if they think that the answer being offered is drivel. It also enables them to cut through the preprepared answers (correct spelling[i had thought it might be a typo but you consistently spell it wrong, always the same way, so I thought I might point out how it should be spelt]) and forces the politician to think on their feet, which we feel politicians should be able to do.
And as the point about your national debt indicates, it is not your money that you are spelling. It is potential debt. It is just that for some reason, the vast debt which the US is burdened with has not been called in, and much to my disgust, probably will not be. Hell, if the World Bank tried you'ld probably just declare war on it.

it has nothing to do with rudeness or respect. A politician has no right to expect a "tame" audience, anywhere or anytime.

It's a journalists job to get answers, and I mean REAL answers from a politician, in a very limited space of time. This interviewer did not have all day to interview the president.

If the interviewer asks a direct question, and the politician tries to skirt round it, re-frame the question, or simply repeat the same broad, meaningless statements they make in speeches, it is the RIGHT and the DUTY of the journalist to interrupt and bring the interview back on course.

The Journalist did her job. Maybe she did it well, or maybe she did it badly, but she certainly acted correctly.

This whole issue only came up because Bush simply isn't intelligent enough to handle himself in any sort of debate/interview situation. Real politicians can think on their feet, and hold a conversation about the details and subtleties of a situation without resorting to stock quotes.

REAL politicians have to stand up to opposition every single day. REAL politicians expect journalists to be hard on them. Those who can't handle it don't last long.

It's a sad indictment of the US political system when someone can be chosen as LEADER without these skills. Bush is no better than a dumb gangster. His only respect in the world comes from the end of a gun.

Can anyone imagine Bush standing at the dispatch box EVERY DAY, having to fight his corner against an elected opposition, on LIVE televsion, like Blair does? Having every detail of his policy questioned and having to defend it personally, clearly and intelligently against a democratically elected opposition?

Of course he couldn't.. He doesn't have the mental agility do it. Does that mean he should be coddled out of "respect"??



[edit on 1-7-2004 by muppet]

Originally posted by mwm1331
tiny little island that practically invented the concept of terrorism

Just out of interest, you are aware that Sinn Fein is one of the best funded political parties in the world, due to the fact that they get so much US backing. The US has NEVER allowed the UK to extradict any IRA suspects for trial, because the US supported them. The only time the US has ever had any issue with the IRA is when it was discovered that they were training with Farq.
If you are looking for nations which support terrorism you need look no further than your own doorstep.
Also, regarding the 30 years deal on the Troubles. This is the title for the wave of violence which specifically began in the late 60's, it is like the Second Intifada refers to the violence of the last 4/5 years in Israel/Palestine. So to talk about the Troubles lasting 30 years does not require someone to be ignorant of the uprisings which preceeded the first World War, say.
And also, we are not apologising for terrorism. The IRA are vermin, just as Hamas are, just as Al Qaeda are. But we tried responding to terrorism with violence and it DID NOT WORK. That's why we have a dialogue now, which is bringing the violence to an end, and initiating a political process through which the valid political concerns of the terrorists can be dealt with without them having to turn to violence. But the IRA did have valid points, about the treatment of Catholics, as Hamas have valid points, about the treatment of Palestinians. It is that that we ackmowledge, that terrorism requires that issues be addressed in a more sophisticated fashion than simply by further repressing the population which supports the terrorists.

Saorstait if thats the way you think interviews should be conducted then we will have to seriously disagree.(im referring to the link you provided) If I were being interviwed in that manner I would simply walk out of the studio. There is no law in any country that states that a politician has to give interviews and surely no law that he has to say what the interviewer wants him to. Personally I want to hear the whole awnser, I dont want some smartass reporter decideing for me whether or not the awnser is bullsht I want to decide that for myself.

The fact that misled members of my own country have supported the IRA is as always a source of disgust. That being said however the only Valid point I see al queda complaining about is that they cant set up a opressive shariya regme like the one that last year sentaced a woman to death by stoning for fornication.
As to the whole "standing up in parliment" thing I have already said my piece. But no it is not the reporters job to determine whether or not the awnser s good enough and cut off the politician if it isn't. She could have just as easily waited untill he was finished and said "well thats nice but the question was....." the difference is I dont expect a reporter to be an arrogant bitch who thinks I dont have the sense to make my own decision about the validity of the awnser. The job of an interviewer is to ask questions. By asking a question you are giving the subject the right to respond in the way he or she chooses. Hey if you want to listen to what your reporters think your leaders are saying thats fine but me I want to actually hear it.

You know, the president of the US might not be all that smart, and may have made some bad judgements from time to time, but regardless of what hes done, or who he is, he leads a nation.

And to treat him like an idiot to his face, rudely interupt him, and make accusination on half truths just to make a point, is just wrong.

The way I look at it, this may be how reporters "pry" infomation from prepared speeches in the UK/EU/Whereever, but Bush's response to her rudeness is how we American's say "Back the # off."

Would you sit up there, as a leader of a nation, and let some reporter ask you a question and quickly interupt you before you answered the question and/or made your point?

I sure as hell wouldnt. And I praise Bush's patients. The guy has been preverbial ragdoll of the media since he took office. And now he's pissed off.

Clash of beliefs.

mwm1331,

You obviously misunderstand the whole point of a political interview. Don't they have these in the America anymore? It's certainly explains a lot.

The point of an interview is not to offer the interviewee a set of themes or starting points, around which to say whatever they want.

The point.. the WHOLE point, is to get the interviewee to say something new. something they haven't just repeated endlessly in speeches and prepared statements. The people already know all that stuff.

The point is to dig deeper! To try to expose the flaws and faults in their arguments. To force them to answer the questions directly, an simply.

This cannot be done by allowing the interviewee to dictate the course of the interview.