Bush Interview on PrimeTime

thejollyrodger

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
Presidential Interviews Follow a Script (but Not Always)
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: July 4, 2004

WASHINGTON — His questions were not all softballs, but when a reporter from Al-Ahram, the Egyptian newspaper, went to the White House in May to interview President Bush, he was so polite as to be deferential, a trait that the president would no doubt enjoy seeing become protocol among the press corps.

"I have four topics, Mr. President: Iraq, the Israeli-Arab issue, the so-called greater Middle East and bilateral" relations between Egypt and the United States, the reporter said. "Which one do you choose of them, Mr. President?"
Advertisement

To which Mr. Bush diplomatically replied, "Whatever you want to do, sir, you're the distinguished journalist." When the session was over, Mr. Bush was moved to say, "Good job. Very good job. Very good interview."

The atmosphere was considerably chillier two weeks ago when Mr. Bush found himself parrying tough questions from another journalist, Carol Coleman of the Irish broadcasting company RTE.

Though she had agreed to the White House's request that she submit her questions in advance - a practice that few if any members of the regular White House press corps would ever agree to - she chose not to listen passively as Mr. Bush ran through his stock answers. Instead, she challenged some of his assertions and interrupted him repeatedly with follow-up questions, provoking the presidential ire, making herself something of a heroine in Ireland and setting off a new round in the debate over whether some American reporters are too timid with Mr. Bush.

Although he typically answers a few questions from reporters several times a week and has become more comfortable doing occasional full-scale news conferences - where he often banters with and teases his American inquisitors and sometimes cuts them off - Mr. Bush hardly ever agrees to sit-down interviews with American news organizations. This newspaper, for one, has not interviewed Mr. Bush since he took office.

But Mr. Bush is more accommodating to foreign news organizations. He regularly agrees to speak to journalists from parts of the world where he needs to get his message across, especially the Middle East, and from countries he is about to visit. The interviews are usually quite short - 10 minutes or so - and give the president a chance to make his points through journalists who might be a little cowed by the setting and the pressure of questioning the president of the United States.

If the White House expected Ms. Coleman to stick to that role, its assumption was shattered within minutes after she sat down with the president in the White House library on June 24. In a contentious 11-minute session just before Mr. Bush traveled to Ireland, she questioned Mr. Bush sharply about Iraq and repeatedly cut off his responses to challenge him on particular points.

"Let me finish. Let me finish. May I finish?" Mr. Bush said the first time it happened, when Ms. Coleman interrupted him to point out that he had not yet found banned weapons in Iraq.

"Let me finish," Mr. Bush repeated a moment later when she cut him off again to challenge him on the distinction between what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, and what was happening in Iraq. "Let me finish, please. Please. You ask the questions, and I'll answer them, if you don't mind."

The White House was sufficiently miffed about the interview that it later complained to the Irish Embassy in Washington. But Mr. Bush did not seem to take it personally. After the interview ended, he posed for a picture with Ms. Coleman, even throwing his arm around her shoulder.

"In Ireland, we give all our politicians a tough time," said Ms. Coleman, who agreed with the suggestion that European politicians are more battle-hardened by the parliamentary requirement that they face regular and direct questioning from the opposition.

"I felt I did my job, " she said.


New York Times - the article

thejollyrodger

When Irish Eyes Stop Smiling

Published: July 4, 2004

The planners of President Bush's recent European summit trip may have envisioned a pleasant inning of softball questions when they penciled in a brief interview with RTE, the state television of Ireland, first stop on his tour. What they got was the intrepid Carole Coleman, RTE's Washington correspondent, firing follow-up questions about death and destruction in Iraq, even as Mr. Bush protested being cut off from fully answering. "You ask the questions and I'll answer them," Mr. Bush finally told Ms. Coleman, a veteran correspondent who served up her next question as he complained.

The White House later protested to the Irish Embassy, but her employers gave Ms. Coleman a well-done, and so do we. The colloquy, as the Irish say, was a sight for sore eyes — an American president who seldom holds a White House news conference unexpectedly subjected to some muscular European perspective. "Do you not see the world is a more dangerous place?" Ms. Coleman asked, her tone more curious than deferential.

Mr. Bush gave as good as he got, once his Irish was up. But Ms. Coleman remained resolute. It may have cost her a follow-up interview with Laura Bush. But the griping and debate about the interview was a sad reminder to Americans that the White House seldom welcomes robust questioning, especially when it is most needed.
New York Times - the article

Originally posted by Hobbes

But you didn't really address that. You said that terrorists do things in secret. So do the US. Hows does that make the US more accountable?

Well,If it's known what they did it's not a secret anymore then is it,and then they have to face the electorate.
Theres the accountability.
None there at all with the terrorist.

So your basically agreeing with what I said.

Errr...
Only some of it...

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
Well,If it's known what they did it's not a secret anymore then is it,and then they have to face the electorate.
Theres the accountability.

But just look at the current situation in the US, where there is investigation after investigation to figure out who knew what, who didn't know what, how certain things got decided, depending on all of this, and so on and so forth.

The only accountability thats really existant is that the public can decide in the face of such uncertainty to vote out whoever is Pres should they be running for a second term....

Yes, its still more than the terrorists have, but - at the end of the day - so what? Being better than the terrorists isn't some accolade to be proud of - its the bare minimum that is essential in order to even pretend to the higher moral ground.

jc

Batbat

I saw the interview the other day on the rte website, I have to say I was supprised bush came accross quite well I thought, I really thought he could not string a sentence together. I guess the criminal global terrorists backing him have trained him well

Hobbes

Originally posted by Earthman
Well,If it's known what they did it's not a secret anymore then is it,and then they have to face the electorate.
Theres the accountability

Yet it doesn't happen.

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, its still more than the terrorists have, but - at the end of the day - so what? Being better than the terrorists isn't some accolade to be proud of - its the bare minimum that is essential in order to even pretend to the higher moral ground.
jc

Yes but Bonkey at the end of the day, that is a gripe with the people who vote.
They make the choice.
They vote.
I didn't make the point that what an elected politician does as a minimum should be an acolade of some sorts,I just made the point that if , what they do is not acceptable, then the voters can put them out.
If they don't in suffecient numbers, well then lets move to mars, 'cause in a democracy we all have to live with what people vote for-thats life.

If the voters aren't suffeciently upset with whatever wrong(that we may consider) that their politicians have done,then mars it is, if we can't live with the majorities choice.
I'd include in that majority those that don't bother voting as thats in my humble opinion giving tacit support to whatever status quo they dislike.

I dunno,but in my view,I will hold a politician who gets a democratic mandate in a much higher regard because of his willingness to face the vote than a terrorist who doesn't any day.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
I just made the point that if , what they do is not acceptable, then the voters can put them out.

Yes, as long as the public find out they did it.

I dunno,but in my view,I will hold a politician who gets a democratic mandate in a much higher regard because of his willingness to face the vote than a terrorist who doesn't any day.

Again, I'm not questioning that the politician is above the terrorist in the moral stakes. What I'm pointing out is that your criteria for respect is satisfied no matter how identical the actions that both sanction or perform happen to be.

Personally, if two people are responsible for comparable atrocities with one of them being a politican and the other a terrorist....I won't be holding the politician in any higher regard than the terrorist. You will, by what you've said here, so we'll just have to agree to differ.

jc

Magnolia_Fan

There have been no more attacks on America since 9/11 with Bush in Office which could be a good incentive for Americans to re-elect Bush. I really wish somebody like John McCain or Rudolph Giulianni was running I'd much rather them to Bush or Kerry.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Magnolia_Fan
There have been no more attacks on America since 9/11 with Bush in Office which could be a good incentive for Americans to re-elect Bush.

If you mean on domestic soil then yes. Outside, no.

Originally posted by bonkey

Personally, if two people are responsible for comparable atrocities with one of them being a politican and the other a terrorist....I won't be holding the politician in any higher regard than the terrorist. You will, by what you've said here, so we'll just have to agree to differ.

jc

Agree'ing to differ is ok by me
I have one comment/question though.
If you hold the above position, then you must have no higher regard for some Sinn Féin politicians than you have for terrorists.
After all some of their politicians are convicted terrorists.
Indeed Martin McGuinness has admitted to have been an IRA commander(the functions of which you will appreciate include something other than attending knitting classes at the local womens guild)
He's now an elected MP with a significant mandate.

Thats no different to Bush (if you are considering him as having been responsible for terrorist or pseudo terrorist equivalent atrocities) he got a bigger percentage of the vote in the US that SF did in NI for instance and we'll safely assume that even if he is not re-elected he will have more than 30% of US voters backing him in November.

So are Sinn Féin an exception to your rule?

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
If you hold the above position, then you must have no higher regard for some Sinn Féin politicians than you have for terrorists.

Yes. I would take into account notions such as whether or not the Sinn Fein politican and terrorist in question had fully renounced violence and at least voiced remorse for the suffering they caused etc. But at the end of the day, if you show me two people who have identical past, and one of those has since become a Sinn Fein politican.....then I most certainly will treat them equally.

I'm surprised that you seem to be suggesting that you wouldn't. The Sinn Féin politician won't have comitted his acts in any legal, democratic environment, but you are suggesting they deserve some credit for having joined a political party seperately to comitting atrocities.

After all some of their politicians are convicted terrorists.

Convicted, yes. WHich means they have been tried, sentenced, and served their time. THey have since (supposedly) renounced violence. Do I consider these people no different to acive terrorists? No. Do I consider them equal to other tried, sentenced, punished terrorists who have also since (supposedly) forsworn violence and who haven't joined a political party? Absolutely.

Thats no different to Bush (if you are considering him as having been responsible for terrorist or pseudo terrorist equivalent atrocities)

Yes it is significantly different.

Bush has not been tried, found guilty, and served time for activities which he has since forsworn. In fact, he insists that not only is what he is doing right, but that he hasn't even made any significant mistakes during his Presidency. This coupled with the "we'll fight them abroad so that they'll kill on foreign soil rather than on American" policy is a far cry from a politician who says "I have put violence behind me, and now seek a peaceful resolution. I express remorse for those I have inflicted suffering on and now realise that my actions were wrong, and have been punished according to society's laws accordingly".

But if you wish to see them as identical, we'll just have to agree to differ.

So are Sinn Féin an exception to your rule?

Far from it. Are you labouring under some misconception that I am a Sinn Féin fanboy because I have defended them from some of the more blatantly unjust (or biased) criticism heaped upon them?

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
Are you labouring under some misconception that I am a Sinn Féin fanboy because I have defended them from some of the more blatantly unjust (or biased) criticism heaped upon them?
jc

I'll deal with this first as it's important to put the proper context on this part of the discussion.
No is the answer,I'm simply teasing out your position versus mine.
You will appreciate that in doing so, other questions will arise (as they always do with discusions on this forum) out of what is said in reply to a particular point.
It's not unusual for questions to arise where a post does not and cannot be so water tight as to convey all a posters views on a myriad of related points.

But at the end of the day, if you show me two people who have identical past, and one of those has since become a Sinn Fein politican.....then I most certainly will treat them equally.

Thats the answer to the question I essentially asked.

I'm surprised that you seem to be suggesting that you wouldn't. The Sinn Féin politician won't have comitted his acts in any legal, democratic environment, but you are suggesting they deserve some credit for having joined a political party seperately to comitting atrocities.

I suggested that I'd have more regard for any politician(including a politician with "terrorist" links or one who committs disagreeable acts that some would regard as perhaps"pseudo-terrorist") if they put themselves up for a vote versus a stand alone terrorist organisation..
The regard though(to clarify) would only be in respect of their mandate.
SF are one of the best examples of that regard in practice.

Bush has not been tried, found guilty, and served time for activities which he has since forsworn. In fact, he insists that not only is what he is doing right, but that he hasn't even made any significant mistakes during his Presidency. This coupled with the "we'll fight them abroad so that they'll kill on foreign soil rather than on American" policy is a far cry from a politician who says "I have put violence behind me, and now seek a peaceful resolution. I express remorse for those I have inflicted suffering on and now realise that my actions were wrong, and have been punished according to society's laws accordingly".

Bush hasn't even been charged either and further, what legal authorities that exist have all but forgiven/regularised what he has authorised in the last year and a half.
Thats not too dissimilar to how "terrorists" were dealt with in our peace process,assuming we attach an equalence in our disdain for their previous activities.
I'm sure there are examples where Bush has expressed regret for the loss of civilian life,but not for the deaths of whoever he has described as the enemy in his campaign.

Now I could be wrong, but I've searched and I've yet to find an expression of SF regret at the deaths of crown forces,but theres plenty expressions of regret for the loss of civilian life.
See the similarity?
I've not seen Bush say the Iraq campaign was/is wrong nor have I seen SF condemn the IRA campaign.
I'll certainly withdraw that if someone can point me to an IRA expression of regret specifically for the deaths of "crown" forces as opposed to civilians.
Actually I'll be quite happy to do so.

But if you wish to see them as identical, we'll just have to agree to differ.

Well no two sets of circumstances can be totally identical, but there can be striking and interesting similarities which blur the usual straight foward black and white certainty on our positions on them.
Now before I have the hordes descend upon me, venting at "anti-republicanism" here again,I'm not being that at all,I'm simply teasing out the implications of the last couple of posts and using SF as an example.