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
THe Bushies went after the interviewer big time after this incident. They were trully pissed off that someone had the audacity to actually ask him real questions. I wonder what came of her after this?
From Carole Coleman's Wiki page: "The interview, for which questions were approved by the White House press office, led to complaints by Bush and his press officers." Read more here:
http://en.
OMG, just when you thought it couldn't get any worse LOL
Thanks for digging this gem up for us.
Bush should not be let out in public without adult supervision.
LOL
Well, that's 10 minutes and 40 seconds of my life I'll never get back. I suspect the interviewer felt the same way. Nice try, but he just talks until your eyes start to glaze over, and then he slides on by. If Eichmann inspired Hannah Arendt's remark about the banality of evil, Bush puts the exclamation point after the phrase.
Bush has a "reprobate mind". He doesn't have a clue. Does providing financial aid for food and treatment of diseases (AIDS) give you the right to invade another country and cause the loss of thousands of lives? I think not!
God Help Us!
I am terrified of GW BUSH, HOW MUCH MORE DAMAGE MIGHT HE DO TO AMERICA BEFORE 2009, HOW CAN WE REMOVE HIM EARLY?
Let me finish! Let me finish!
-You'd think he was at the Kerry debate hooked up to the wireless to Cheney.
The 800 lb gorilla in the room is difficult to ignore :
When this video was shot, we all were thinking that we would elect a Democratic Congress and Senate who would bring Bush to heel. So we did, based on the Democrats promises to do just that.
The Democrats've capitulated 100% (Obama voted for FISA too). Plus they've could've stopped the war immediately by cutting off the funds. 'Bush & the Repubs are only 50% of the problem.
This video was shot in 2004. You are off by two years. Republicans still controlled Congress in 2004 and 2005.
And 2006. The democrat led congress that was elected in November 2006 only began serving in January 2007.
Besides that--
50/50 does not work in the Senate. If you wanted the Dems to change things and overpower GWBush, then you should have given them the 60 Senators they need. You know the almighty VETO Override they cannot acheive with only 51 votes. Get it?
"least respected and most hated president in the history of the United States. "
Wow...to think I lived during such times! It ain't a positive but it IS notoriety!
Who the heck let him go to another country and talk? Geez, it's so embarrassing.
WTF, is he kidding? America hasn't done s**t for Ireland. Not a damn thing...
Home rule mean anything to anyone?
1: The assertion that Iraq "Tried to acquire Yellowcake from Niger" is actually shown to be at least very likely in Wilson's original report (though not in his comments about his report); so long as you don't confuse "tried" with "succeeded".
2: Weaponized Yellowcake was found in Iraq (It's being used in Canadian power plants right now!).
3: NPR (All Things Considered) reported that there is reasonable intel that the Iraqi WMD's are in Syria via Russian Trucks, but that we are trying to avoid calling out the Russians for fear of poorer relations with Russia. Chemical weapons were also found (Banned for use in warfare) In Iraq.
4: Yeah. Anyone that ever thought Bush was in control of anything (or that Barry will be) is sadly mistaken.
1. ok, I've seen everything released so far and Wilson was spinning until he got before Congress;
but
2. the yellowcake found in Iraq (and just recently shipped amid much angst to Canada) was already known to the US/UN/etc. This was not part of the Niger assertion.
3. I have no facts so no comment.
4. OK here. But don't misunderestimate the next decider's strategery.
1. The whole trial of how the evidence got into circulation is in question. Micheal Ledeen might be able to shed some evidence on that.
2. The enriched uranium in Canada is not nearly concentrated enough to be weapons grade.
3. I recall hearing the RW noise machine try to make that assertion but no credible evidence was found. An NPR interview with unnamed administration officials don't cut the mustard. Lets use a little logic here. If Saddam had them....wh
4. I agree with your assessment about Bush. My crystal ball isn't clear enough to make judgement on Obama, except that the next President will have an infinitely harder time thanks to the mess created by the present Boy-king.
3. Doesn't pass the common sense test. Why would you give up your most powerful weapon on the eve of your country being invaded? Especially the one thing that we were actually afraid of.
What incentive would Syria have to take Iraqi chemical weapons? Syria already has their own and taking Iraq's would just bring down more heat from the US.
It would have been so great if American journalists had the figurative "stones" to face up to Bush and make him actually have to face up to some real questions even though he did all he could do to avoid those questions. Perhaps if we had journalists like Ms Coleman we would not have had to suffer eight disasterous years of George Bush.
"Now, even Republicans do not waste their time with him, quietly wishing he would disappear and stop embarrassing their party."
Ben,
Obviously you don't listen to right-wing radio, or C-Span's Washington Journal, where you can hear delusional people call in who still support Bush/Cheney. I believe it's still around 30% of Americans who think George has done a darn fine job.
Go figure....
What keeps jarring me - frightening and sickening me - is Bush's replies to questions about government policies and actions by saying, "I made that decision because...
This is buttressed by his claims that he doesn't chase popularity polls. The fundamental problem with his presidency is that he believes that to listen to ANYTHING that ANY citizen says, including in the form of votes for legislation, is a popularity poll. In other words, he will not listen to ANYONE.
Ugh.
And the way he demands that a conversation proceed with him dominating. People interrupt one another all the time. You have to respond, reply, keep up. In fact, he himself interrupts the interviewer on occasion.
I was with you on your critique of bush until you got to the part about the interruptions. In polite society we do not interrupt one another all the time.
I felt she (the interviewer) was being very unprofessional in that regard, and if I had been the interviewee would have found her behaviour to have been very rude.
Instead, let him blather on until he winds down, then come back with essentially the same question, except phrased to point up the deficiencies in his answer. But by interrupting, she comes off as having a bit of an ideological axe to grind.
Were there really terrorist bombings every day in 2004?
Every day?
No. She was being very professional. Her interviewee, a public servant in charge of waging wars, was straying from the topic of her question. He was not polite. He was being either evasive or just stupid, and his body language showed aggressive anger. Her professionalism remained. The results are clear.
my favorite people in this world have a big, bloody, ideological axe to grind with mister dubya.
If you really want to nitpick, go right ahead. That doesn't change what a fool president Bush reveals himself to be. Nor does it excuse how American news reporters have dodged asking the tough questions.
Bush has been so coddled by corporate media here in the US. If the American public saw Bush as he really is . . . well, he'd have been ousted long ago.
No wonder Lara Logan (among many others) refuses to watch American news - it's so shallow, so trite, and such a waste of time.
Wanna kick and cry about how I lie?
Answer this: When was the last time you saw a photo of a dead American soldier, a coffin, or a funeral in the US news, anywhere since 2002? Selective reporting on everything - it's a sham and a disgrace.
The interviewer unprofessional? You are joking, right? Asking pertinent, succinct questions of the POTUS is unprofessional? The POTUS by precedent is the "leader:" of the free world. Shouldn't he/she be better prepared, more intelligent, wittier, quicker, etc., than you, me, name any journalist, my dog Spot? I am a blue collar worker, I've had tougher interviews for $12/hour jobs.
George Bush is an IDIOT. Raised in a world of privilege without accountability for even dressing himself. My garbage man would make a better POTUS.
We have all been shamed, degraded and devalued during his tenure. Your home is soon to be worth nothing, in 5 years you'll be arming yourself for a trip "outside" to secure even the most basic necessities. The "legacy" lives on!!
wow...this was so painful I had to stop watching 7 minutes in...could we have elected a bigger jackass??? I want an IQ test instituted for all citizens prior to being registered to vote!!! we need standards damnit!
One for the voters and for the candidates, too, please. Bush's IQ is about 85. Emotionally, he's about 12. Very unstable age, 12.
They say that 41 sits in a dark room at night and cries, knowing 43 has destroyed the family name and all of their legacies.
What a shame to have your oldest son to be found out by the world, to be the idiot his family always knew him to be. A lot of the fault lies with the family, as they should had him committed the same day he expressed his desire to run.
But think of all the millions of dollars he has to make him feel better.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
