President Bush is interviewed by Carole Coleman of RTE.
Posted on 06/25/2004 6:49:45 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
President Bush is interviewed by Carole Coleman of RTE.
If you see this interview, you'll likely notice a hostility and rudeness toward the President. He apparently was interrupted a number of times. Reporters or interviewers who want answers, especially from heads of state, do not interrupt. Reporters who are smug, self-important and without class generally do interrupt.
The Embassy of Ireland is not to blame for this person's rudeness...I merely used the embassy as the resource to find her attention. Irish FREEPers (or anyone else), if you're offended by this attitude, feel free to contact Ms. Coleman. Here is the information. She is a correspondent in Washington (apparently following the President back to Ireland) for RTE.
Carole Coleman
2000 M Street NW
Suite 315
Washington DC 20036
Tel: (202) 467-5933
Fax: (202) 467-5937
Do you know of any other copy of the interview, my computer can't download the recorded interview
Strange. Coleman is not noted here for being a heavyweight reporter - middleweight at best. And yet, Bush becomes flustered and arrogant with even the simplest of questions, he never answers questions put to him, and basicly falls apart. Had it been David Hanly or some of the UK heavyweights like Jeremy Paxman or Tim Sebastian, I shudder to think how foolish he would have looked.
And yet, all that is being argued about is whether or not Coleman was rude - which she simply wasn't, quite frankly. In several cases, Bush paused and Coleman took that as the end of a sentence - and then acted like a petulent child when she called him on not having answered her questions.
Apparently, you don't take into account regional and cultural differences in speech here.
A Texan doesn't speak like a Virginian nor does a New Yorker have the same linguistic style as a Minnasotan.
I think the Europeans know a heck of a lot less about America than they think.
Irish chick is a visiting a head of state in his own land.
Irish chick therefore is morally bound to follow US protocols.
Irish chick makes Irish look bad. But fortunately most Americans know that not all Irish are as rude and self-important as this stuffed irish pig Coleman is.
Irish chick is visiting a head of state in his own land.
Irish chick therefore is morally bound to follow US protocols.
Irish chick makes Irish look bad.
But fortunately most Americans know that not all Irish are as rude and self-important as this stuffed irish pig Coleman is.
Which she in fact does, past even the point of politeness - for example, for us the correct address for talking to George Bush is "Mr. Bush" or "President Bush", unless you're a US citizen (in which case it's "Mr. President"). However, she uses the more formal "Mr. President", simply to be polite. (It's not "Mr.President" for us, btw, because our President is Mrs.McAleese, and she'd be rather annoyed at being called Mr.Bush, to put it mildly).
There are a dozen other such small points that you may have missed because you were upset at the content of her interview - but that does not mean that the interview was impolite.
On the contrary, by refusing to answer questions he was asked and by interrupting her deliberately, Bush was quite impolite himself.
I don't know how you're used to these things running, but over here, the Taoiseach does not have any more or any less civility due to him than any other citizen in conversation...
You like kitties?
Excuse me! BUT,if anybody has a right to interrupt,it's the President and not some Irish reporterette! Who is she? As far as I can tell, it was this reporter who was interrupting the President and not visa versa.
BTW, are you from Ireland?
Bush wasn't arrogant, he was just trying to lay a burden on the reporter's heart. Bush is unable to articulate and expand upon the basic premises of the Declaration, so why should we expect him to seriously confront the liberal-socialist axis with nothing more than platitudes?
Regional speech patterns doesn't enter into it.
What irks me to distraction is that Bush is unwilling or unable to confront these twerps and stick up for us in the combat ring of ideological confrontation.
Really? There's a lot of Celtic blood running through my veins but frankly I was embarrassed at how rude and illmannered she was. She appears to have been raised by wolves and brought shame to her country.
If this is considered acceptable in Ireland today then the country has really fallen. In that case, I won't bother to go back on any more visits.
The silly rude twit doesn't understand that the President of the United States represents the people of the United States and she just insulted ALL of us.
The fact is, Ireland as a nation really has fallen.
The Constitution is very Catholic and until recently so was the moral culture.
Sadly, Ireland has exchanged the best traits of their culture for the worst of ours - and they now have a serious epidemic of affluenza. In other words, materialism has displaced the Irish culture that was.
Hi, I agree. What are they whinging about. Irish people are very aware of current affairs, and hold politicians accountable for what they do. A political figure at any level is fully accountable, and wrong doings are prosecuted in public tribunals. If you can't answer a few questions about your policies without the White House Communications Office getting upset, then maybe you're in the wrong business. Either you know what you're talking about or you don't.
Getting upset with a complete lightweight reporter like Carole Coleman is laughable. Frankly, she does not register on the live interview richter scale. If that is the extent of GW's communications skills, then it isn't difficult to understand why it is strongly rumoured in Ireland and the UK that the White House will never expose GWB to Jeremy Paxman (BBC), or David Hanly(RTE), or David McWilliams(TV3 Ireland), or Peter Allan (BBC).
In Ireland and the UK, you answer for the policies that you put forward. We as the voting public are entitled to ask and probe your motivations. Sometimes the exchanges between interviewers and politicians at all levels are raw, spontaneous and prone to the occasional colourful language that we might associate with the 'heat of the moment'. But what you get in those moments is the spark, the energy and conviction with which the public figure is willing to lead politically.
You can have your stage managed politics with spin doctors writing the text of every word that you hear from your politicians. The problem with that is that you NEVER truelly hear from the actual politician, only the communications and political advisors that keep the politician safe.
GW lost a lot of credibility in Europe audiences because he completely failed to manage Coleman. He blundered and attempted to fill the interview with the top points of his achievements, his campaign to re-elect - all he needed to do was answer the questions.
And before anyone calles me an Irish this or that, I'm generally conservative, served in the Irish army for 23 years. Worked with US troops in Beruit, Somalia, was a liaison officer with the US Defence Attache in Dublin for 3 years, and I have personal and family links with the US.
Regards
You signed up today just to defend an obnoxious reporter and run down the President?
Nope. I'm not against the Iraq war. I am against the over protection of politicians though. GW is a smart guy. You don't get to be president of the US if your not a smart guy. However, on this side of the pond, and particularly from the respected elements of the UK media, there is much unease that a layer of advisors and powerful commercial interests are having undue influence on the thinking of the president. And when he is interviewed in that manner, and appears to dither, and get aggressive, and put forward an election manifesto instead of answering the questions, it seems to us that Ms Rice, or Mr Rumsfelt, or other members of the neo-conservative group from which they hail have a worrying hold of power.
Don't get defensive all the time. You should listen when your friends are trying to tell you that something is not right. I'm not an enemy of America, or necessarily Mr Bush for that matter. Don't direct your anger at me. Instead ensure that Mr Bush knows what he is talking about. I was looking at a program last night of Mr Gingritch (hope I spelled it right) under real pressure in an interview regarding Iraq. He was strong, informed, deliberate, didn't get angry or defensive.
That's the message folks. Coleman wasn't strong. Mr Bush appeared weak. That's a message from a friend.
A word of caution. I understand that the worlds media has reported the interview all over the Globe. In this election year, it is only a matter of time before someone in the States takes a similar pop at him.
Bye.
Pat
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.