Bush's Banned Interview: An Insight Into Insanity
While surfing the net on 'Stumble', I came across an interview with President Bush on Irish television that caused a bit of a storm in 2004. The interview conducted by the tenacious Carol Coleman of Radio Television Ireland was not aired on American television, and Bush's press officers apparently complained vociferously about the rigorous questioning.
The video shows Bush at the absolute peak of his arrogance -- convinced of his own rhetoric about Iraq, flooded with confidence from international subservience to American power, and high off a crushing military victory that reinforced his childish fantasies of American power and preeminence.
The problem was, Coleman was having none of it, and what transpired was a unique insight into the warped brain of the least respected and most hated president in the history of the United States.
"Mr. President," asked the stone faced Coleman. "You're going to arrive in Ireland in about 24 hours' time, and no doubt you will be welcomed by our political leaders. Unfortunately, the majority of our public do not welcome your visit because they're angry over Iraq, they're angry over Abu Ghraib. Are you bothered by what Irish people think?"
Other than stutter, the president managed only to answer in vacant homilies about 'the great values of our country.'
"We are a compassionate country," he asserted. "We're a strong country, and we'll defend ourselves -- but we help people."
And that was about the depth of his explanation for the invasion of Iraq. Supremely satisfied with his own answers, Bush expected Coleman to be bowled over with his 'good ol' plain speakin' English', but Coleman, not infected with the American media's insatiable appetite to service power, had other ideas.
She continued to grill Bush about the rising violence in Iraq, increased world wide threat of terrorism, and failure to find the weapons of mass destruction. Flustered and unaccustomed to serious challenges to his power, Bush displayed flashes of anger, and an increased reliance on catch phrases to argue the unarguable.
"These people are willing to kill innocent people," he answered testily in response to questioning about the Iraqi death toll. "They're willing to slaughter innocent people to stop the advance of freedom. And so the free world has to make a choice: Do we cower in the face of terror, or do we lead in the face of terror?"
Coleman cut through the simplistic slogans about evil doers and freedom loving Americans and continued to ask Bush serious questions about the illegal war he had just launched. It fast became evident that this was a man who really had no idea what he was doing -- someone so removed from reality that he failed to even understand what he was being asked.
The world in Bush's mind exists of good and evil, right and wrong, and America and everyone else. He could not fathom anyone disagreeing with his nobility, and simply refused to acknowledge that a different account of reality existed.
The interview took place almost four years ago, but is the perfect illustration of a man elected purely on name recognition, dirty money, and no discernible talent. Four years ago, there were still enough Americans who believed Bush's infantile bluster was charming and direct. Now, even Republicans do not waste their time with him, quietly wishing he would disappear and stop embarrassing their party.
The interview with Coleman should go down on record as definitive proof of Bush's utter incompetence, a priceless picture of a madman who had no business occupying the highest office of the land.
Watch below:
Ben Cohen is the editor of www.thedailybanter.com and a contributing writer to www.espn.com and Boxing Monthly Magazine. He can be reached at thedailybanter@gmail.com
Follow Ben Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/thedailybanter
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I'm with you, rh654. I don't see this interview as bad at all, and I also think Bush has been a complete disaster.
Carry on - no news or nothing interesting to see here.
I have a hard time getting past the thought that Bush is a hood ornament, symbol for a pathology that runs much deeper than yet another guy in power who doesn't want to be challenged on matters of public business. Sure he and his worldview, like that of the cronies he serves, is shallow and execrable. But, to the point about journalists, if we had something other than lapdogs in the presence of power, the peddlers of banalities wouldn't find any takers. Two additional depressing observations: Maybe most of our journalists, especially in the broadcast media where it's the pretty mug that matters, just aren't bright and/or educated enough to understand the vital role they should be playing in a republic. (Of course, it could also be because they're venal. Friendly coverage means access to people in high places, which translates into fame and lucre.) And maybe, like the politicians they cover, our journalists are little more than sales people giving the market exactly what it wants.
I couldn't watch the entire interview. It made me physically ill. When I think of what this man has done to our once great country it makes me want to throw up.
While I don't like Bush and think he has been a disaster - I really don't view this interview as so bad. While the reporter brought up issues - she didn't really "nail" Bush on anything - she called out points, Bush responded and I don't really think this is all that bad.
In fact I can see Conservatives looking at this and saying Bush looked pretty strong - not letting her interrupt, keeping her questions short, not allowing effective follow-up
Given the facts and details available to nail Bush on Iraq and this "War on Terror" - I don't think that the interviewer was very effective at all - in fact I thought she was rather weak and lacked the ability to really question Bush in a way that backed him into any logical corners that left him no escape.
I can think of a number of interviewers that I would love to see go after Bush in a no holds barred interview - this interviewer would not be one of them.
I kind of agree. It didn't live up to the description, IMO. Not that he looked great, but he could have been nailed much worse. The main thing that came across is how ticked he got at her cutting him off when he tried his usual pattern of rambling on and on about ramdom things in a circle before just sort of petering out. She wasn't having any of that and that did seem to drive him crazy. Reminds me of how my Dad reacts to me sometimes when I get impatient and jump in to a conversation when he's slow to get through an obvious thought.
I agree. If anything she wasn't aggressive enough. The problem is that it is impossible to properly address Bush and his idiocy without being VERY confrontational. You are forced into showing the man a lack of respect because 90% of what he says are platitudes and lies. If you confront him on this, the sycophantic American press would accuse you of being rude (ala Dan Rather and Bush Sr.)
The truth is that we have elected a MORON to consecutive terms as president and short of impeaching him, we have to keep listening to his one-dimensional stupidity. "The hate us for our freedom...
This man is cancer to our democracy.
Thanks. Quite interesting. Too bad we don't have good journalists in the US.
Should be manadory viewing for all Corporate Media.
ask the iraqis if they think they are better off
here is what viewers need to know
americans love to show off their super power status
shock and awe we love
we have become a war mongering country
it is about oil pure and simple
most dumb downed americans dont have a clue
great interview
47 million without health care in america
oh yes we are a compassionate people
"Bush can't dazzle with brilliance
You know he's gotta hate having a woman talk to him like that...esp
You could just as easily be talking about Brother McCain. George Bush with a flash temper. And we thought Bush was dangerous.
After you read Bugliosi's "Prosecution of GWB for Murder", read "The Sociopath Next Door" by Dr. Martha Stout. You will not only understand the weirdness of Bush, but that of the other political flotsam at the top- Cheney, Rove, etc.
Equally as important, Dr. Stout's "Sociopath" explores why society gets fooled by and tolerates the crimes of these monsters in human form. They lack the capacity to care one iota about the consequences of their actions, no matter how grave, and care only about winning the power "game".
They are a threat to the very survival of life on this planet
A good one too is the book that defined and laid the foundation for much of the later conversations about sociopathy, Without Conscience by Dr. Robert Hare.
Nice chapter on 'white collar' sociopaths.
Without Conscience was also referenced many times in the book version of "The Corporatio
Nice flag lapel pin George!
"The God I know is the one that promotes peace and freedom."
========
He knows God? God told him he promotes peace and freedom. What did the Iraq's God believe in?
Who's side is his God on anyway? Is Bush God's angel of peace and freedom? Let's check the scorecard on that.
"History will judge what I'm about"
-George W. Bush
How prophetic!
Yes, that and more Mr. Bush.
One more thing re: Bush - if you want greater insight into this man, please read "Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President" by Justin A. Frank, M.D. (You may be able to read excerpts for free on Google Books.) When I read it, it all made sense - the president is a crackpot, his family helped make him that way, and Republican trickery and deception convinced roughly half of the registered voting population to take a chance on this fool as our Commander-in-Chief.
Does anyone remember when the CEO of Diebold (electronic voting machines) promised to deliver the state of Ohio to Bush in 2004? It got down to Ohio on election night; of course, Kerry conceded because he didn't want to repeat the drama of 2000. So, for people who say that 50% of the country voted for this man in 2004, I beg to differ. Given the track record of Diebold and some of its employees, along with voting irregularities across the country, I labor under the assumption that GWB did NOT win 2004 as well - rather, the election was again handed to him by a pusillanimous Kerry who proved to be the ultimate letdown as a candidate (and I supported him).
And here http://itp
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
