Irish reporter dares interrupt Bush!

Bush was being very rude. He was having a problem coming up with answers, so he throws the blame on the girl. She was being no diffrent than any other reporter.

I watched the whole thing.

[edit on 28-6-2004 by SpittinCobra]

No irish citizen has to address George Bush as the President. He is the President of the United States, he has no jurisdiction in Ireland and anyone who thinks different needs to go back to elementary school.

There is more royal blood in my left butt cheek than in the entire Bush family tree. They are butt kisser of the super rich and nothing more. None of them could make it on their own and they prove it each time they are in office.

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Secondly, Ireland would be near the bottom of my list of countries wanting to discuss terrorism and the consequences thereof. [edit on 28-6-2004 by Mynaeris]

Just curious, were you aware that the IRA recieved significant amounts of funding from the US, particularly areas with a large Irish American population, such as Boston and Chicago.
Yes, I am aware that most political leaders, and indeed, more trivial celebs get a preview of the questions. Most of them, however, understand how interviews work and how to go about answering questions during one.
After the question relating to the dead US soldiers, Bush responded that 'no-one feels worse about their deaths than me' or something of that ilk. He then left a sufficient pause that it seemed his answer was complete, and so the interviewer moves on to her next question, only to be told that she is interrupting. That pause may be a rhetorical technique which works during speeches, but it is utterly innapropriate for an interview. That was foolish, if not disrespectful.
And Kosmo, your attitude is precisely the reason we have such a vast range of problems. It is what Howard Bloom has termed the Lucifer Principle, the tendency for individuals to define their group as human, and the others as inhuman. You may not go that far, instead allocating a value to the human- Americans top, rest of the world human but significantly less important. I would far rather define the group I belong to as the human population, rather than the fraction of it which is any one nation, identity gtroup or political persuasion.
And yes, you helped out, but in the first world war, only after three years of war had devastated the European economy, leaving the US in a vastly strengthened position, and in the second world war, only after you had been attacked, and had allowed Hitler and the Nazis two years to sweep through Europe and sent various ethnicities to the death camps. At the time, your presidents grandfather was busy trading with the Nazis, so lets not try to take the moral highground. Thanks for what help you offered, but it was always pragmatically the best thing for you to do, and so there is no reason Europe ought to act on any other criteria.
And please, I amnot against the US population, I just have serious problems with the US state, indeed, any state, including my own, and your attitude that as long as we're all right the rest of you can f**k off got me quite riled up.

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
No irish citizen has to address George Bush as the President. He is the President of the United States, he has no jurisdiction in Ireland

Thank you for that which I assume is true - I asked this question earlier.
And I'm relieved to read what Yogi the Sloth had to say. Up till then, I had been wondering whether I had any right to an opinion here, seeing as I am not a US citizen.

Does anyone expect to hear any 'pearls of wisdom' from Bush? At this point I don't. I generally try to avoid listening to people I know to be morons. A one trick pony is boring after youve seen it do the same trick a dozen times. His attitudes and policies are so rigid and brain-dead that even an artfully creative speech crafter couldn't breathe life into a speech for him. That dead horse has been beaten enough. Bury it and leave it in peace.

I am an American and I voted for bush. However Thats not why I felt the reporter in question was both rude and quite frankly incompetent. The point of an interview is to allow your viewers to hear the point of view of the person you are interviewing, not to present your own point of view. The reporters constant interruptions of President Bush prevented her audience from hearing his awnsers, thereby negating the purpose of the interview. As for the awnsers being pre-planned, of course they were. Any time ANY politician speaks to ANY member of the media thier responses are pre-planned its the nature of politics in the T.V. age. Even in rare situations where they do not approve a subject list they will spends days/weeks asking themselves every single question they could possibly be asked and formulating a response. Personally I have NO respect for chirac but were I to interview him I would at least allow him to awnser my questions as best he could. Bottom line asking a question and then interrupting the awnser is a mark of rudeness for an average person and a mark of incompetence for a journalist.

, but who the hell does Bush think he is? Can't the woman just ask him some questions?

He is the PRESIDENT of the United States. The reporter was dead wrong in miss-addressing him. There are ways to ask pointed questions while showing the proper respect to the office of President of the United States. This reporter should have known better. to the reporter.

Thats another good pont Flyersfan. Even if you dont respect the man respect the office.

Bush is in the office of the Unites States, and he has tarnish that position, and has brought doubts on the credibility of that office and the credibility of this country around the world .

Speaking of tarnishing the reputation of the presidency do the words "cigar" and "oval office" mean anything to you?

ha, ha, ha, yes but he did not went to another country and invade in US name.

blech,


normal i dont talk about politics on here, for the simple reason im not from USA. But sometimes reading some stuff just drives me up a wall.

He might be President of the USA, but that dosnt means a SIR isnt good enough for him.

To mwm1331,

The "cigar" and "oval office" (if i get it right thats it) didnt tarnished the reputation of the presidency, his a men, he has his needs, it would have been something to work out between him und his family and not the entire USA.
Atleast so i think and most people i know, it made him human and a normal person. On the other side we are Bush... welp i wont use my time to talk about him , his just not bloody worth it.


Wolve

In the United States you should address the President as Mr. President, if the President of the United States is in Canada or any other country in the world, he can be addressed as Sir, George or whatever as he holds no title in any country other than the USA. I am sorry that some of my fellow country men think otherwise but they are wrong.

just to clear things up.. i think some readers of this thread may be confused.. the reporter who didnt call bush 'mr. president' is a different reporter than the irish reporter who was the subject of the original posting. i think it goes without saying that a non-american has no obligation to call the president "mr. president".. (even an american shouldn't HAVE to, although it should be done out of respect for one's leader, regardless of how one feels about him). i'd be interested to know if the AP reporter was american or not.

as for the irish reporter, i can't believe the white house would lodge a complaint. i guess they're used to being pampered by the likes of fox, the washington times, and ms-nbc, and have forgotten what REAL journalism tastes like. (actually, i thought the interview was tame, if anything.)

-koji K.

[edit on 29-6-2004 by koji_K]

One question that comes to mind after reading the context of the interview is this; Why, in the name of Pete, would you ask a question if you weren't interested in getting an answer? Is she a reporter or a lawyer questioning a witness(which still doesn't make it right)? It sounds as if she wanted to make fairly broad stroke comments, have the president agree with her and move on to her next unresearched, biased statement. She'd been better off writing an editorial and letting a professional interview the president.

I don't think there was anything wrong with asking such blatant questions but most of her accusations would require extensive explanation to fully grasp both sides of the issue. Are we so unsure of our opinion that we think they cannot stand debate and therefore, make statements such as these and attempt to supress the discussion?

You know when I know someone can't uphold a debate with me? When they can't let me answer or finish my side of it.

In my opinion, reporters would be better off trying the unbiased approach and concentrating on getting the truth regardless of their personal opinion. I don't know about all of them, but looking at some of their backgrounds, their opinions aren't the most educated out there. Wouldn't you agree?

"Well, I".......Of course you would and wouldn't you also agree that most should have taken real majors in college?

"Well, I"...Of course you would and why wouldn't you? Isn't it true that most reporters are merely androids programmed by Tom Dashle and Little Dick Gephardt?

"Well, no, not"...Of course they are !!! Thats all the time we have. Thanks for clearing that up!

Originally posted by astrocreep
concentrating on getting the truth regardless of their personal opinion.

Whose truth?
Truth of those who benefit from current world events?

Originally posted by marg6043
ha, ha, ha, yes but he did not went to another country and invade in US name.

No, that would be Bill Clinton. He went and invaded Bosnia and the Yugoslavia area WITHOUT that precious UN approval. Clinton invaded a country that was not any threat to America at all and he did it UNILATERALLY. G.W. went into a country that was supporting international terrorism that was killing Americans (and others) and that also was murdering, raping, and mutilating HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Muslims. G.W. didn't go in ALONE (that was Bill Clinton). Under G.W. we had a coalition of 45 nations - the Nations of the Willing (aka - NOT SCARED OF MURDERING CRIMINALS).

It is easy to get it all confused. Here is the straight facts - The liberal press keeps saying America went in alone under George Bush, but it was Bill Clinton that went in alone. The liberal press keeps saying that America went in without UN approval, but again that was not George Bush, that was Bill Clinton. The liberal press keeps saying that George Bush went in for oil ... but again obviously it isn't about AMERICA and oil, or we would have kept the Kuwait oil fields ten years ago. It IS about FRANCE and illegal oil contracts with Iraq. France was more interested in keeping the illegal $$ flowing in to their country instead of making the world a safer place and stopping the slaughter in Iraq (something the UN wouldn't do - stop the slaughter ANYWHERE - like in the Sudan, Rwanda, Iraq ...)

George W. Bush has the courage to do the right thing, even when the liberal press brainwashes those who are easily swayed into thinking the exact opposite of the truth (which I have layed out very easily for all to read right here).

It's so sad that some folks haven't figured it all out yet. So very sad.

It is true, if youare not an American Citizen you do not have to call him Mr.President. Even more if your country has a president. Just like I don't have to say Mr. Dictator when I talk about Castro. Or say Mr. Torturer in Cheif when I talk about GWB. Also, in America, that is just tradition, no law I know of says you have to call him Mr. President. What if a woman is president? If there was a law that said you had to call the president Mr. President, then wouldn't that be confusing? But there is no law so you can go up to him and call him Mr. Dumbass for all the law cares about.

GWB is not a leader, he is a misleader. Well, Cheney is the misleader, Bush is just a puppet, like his/Cheney's puppet government in Iraq.

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by astrocreep
concentrating on getting the truth regardless of their personal opinion.

Whose truth?
Truth of those who benefit from current world events?

I guess we'll never know as long as half the information is supressed.

I had no issue with the line of questioning, I just think we should have listened to the damned answer. If you want to make a statement which seeks no input from who you're attacking, simply write an editorial. The term question implies a forthcoming answer. President Bush never once declined to answer and asked repeatedly that he be allowed to elaborate. Here we have the leader of a country who has been in this from the get go. He's privy to tons of priviledged information that we aren't and he knows whats going to happen before we do. Why in the hell could this idiot not have taken this chance to pry some of that out instead of making her blanket political assertions derived from what tiny tidbit of information she's been able to dissect from the piles of putrid pollution spewn by people just like her with no interest in fact but only in furthering their political agenda.