October 11, 2005

CONTROL ISSUES:

I wanted to slap him: George W Bush was so upset by Carole Coleman’s White House interview that an official complaint was lodged with the Irish embassy. The RTE journalist explains why the president made her blood boil: an excerpt from Alleluia America! by Carole Coleman (Carole Coleman, 10/09/05, Times of London)

Mr President,” I began. “You will arrive in Ireland in less than 24 hours’ time. While our political leaders will welcome you, unfortunately the majority of our people will not. They are annoyed about the war in Iraq and about Abu Ghraib. Are you bothered by what Irish people think?”

The president was reclining in his seat and had a half-smile on his face, a smile I had often seen when he had to deal with something he would rather not.

“Listen. I hope the Irish people understand the great values of our country. And if they think that a few soldiers represent the entirety of America, they don’t really understand America then . . . We are a compassionate country. We’re a strong country, and we’ll defend ourselves. But we help people. And we’ve helped the Irish and we’ll continue to do so. We’ve got a good relationship with Ireland.”

“And they are angry over Iraq as well and particularly the continuing death toll there,” I added, moving him on to the war that had claimed 100 Iraqi lives that very day. He continued to smile, but just barely.

“Well, I can understand that. People don’t like war. But what they should be angry about is the fact that there was a brutal dictator there that had destroyed lives and put them in mass graves and torture rooms . . . Look, Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, against the neighbourhood. He was a brutal dictator who posed a threat that the United Nations voted unanimously to say, Mr Saddam Hussein . . .”

Having noted the tone of my questions, the president had now sat forward in his chair and had become animated, gesturing with his hands for emphasis. But as I listened to the history of Saddam Hussein and the weapons inspectors and the UN resolutions, my heart was sinking. He was resorting to the type of meandering stock answer I had heard scores of times and had hoped to avoid. Going back over this old ground could take two or three minutes and allow him to keep talking without dealing with the current state of the war. It was a filibuster of sorts. If I didn’t challenge him, the interview would be a wasted opportunity.

“But, Mr President, you didn’t find any weapons,” I interjected.

“Let me finish, let me finish. May I finish?”

With his hand raised, he requested that I stop speaking. He paused and looked me straight in the eye to make sure I had got the message. He wanted to continue, so I backed off and he went on. “The United Nations said, ‘Disarm or face serious consequences’. That’s what the United Nations said. And guess what? He didn’t disarm. He didn’t disclose his arms. And therefore he faced serious consequences. But we have found a capacity for him to make a weapon. See, he had the capacity to make weapons . . .”

I was now beginning to feel shut out of this event. He had the floor and he wasn’t letting me dance. My blood was boiling to such a point that I felt like slapping him. But I was dealing with the president of the United States; and he was too far away anyway. I suppose I had been naive to think that he was making himself available to me so I could spar with him or plumb the depths of his thought processes. Sitting there, I knew that I was nobody special and that this was just another opportunity for the president to repeat his mantra. He seemed irked to be faced with someone who wasn’t nodding gravely at him as he was speaking.

“But Mr President,” I interrupted again, “the world is a more dangerous place today. I don’t know whether you can see that or not.”

“Why do you say that?”

“There are terrorist bombings every single day. It’s now a daily event. It wasn’t like that two years ago.”

“What was it like on September 11 2001? It was a . . . there was relative calm, we . . .”

“But it’s your response to Iraq that’s considered . . .”

“Let me finish. Let me finish. Please. You ask the questions and I’ll answer them, if you don’t mind.”

His hand was raised again as if to indicate that he was not going to tolerate this. Again, I felt I had no choice but to keep quiet.

“On September 11 2001, we were attacked in an unprovoked fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. There have been bombings since then — not because of my response to Iraq. There were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in Istanbul. There were bombings in Bali. There were killings in Pakistan.”

He seemed to be finished, so I took a deep breath and tried once again. So far, facial expressions were defining this interview as much as anything that was said, so I focused on looking as if I was genuinely trying to fathom him.

“Indeed, Mr President, and I think Irish people understand that. But I think there is a feeling that the world has become a more dangerous place because you have taken the focus off Al-Qaeda and diverted into Iraq. Do you not see that the world is a more dangerous place? I saw four of your soldiers lying dead on the television the other day, a picture of four soldiers just lying there without their flak jackets.”

“Listen, nobody cares more about death than I do . . .”
“Is there a point or place . . .”

“Let me finish. Please. Let me finish, and then you can follow up, if you don’t mind.”

By now he was getting used to the rhythm of this interview and didn’t seem quite so taken aback by my attempt to take control of it. “Nobody cares more about death than I do. I care a lot about it. But I do believe the world is a safer place and becoming a safer place. I know that a free Iraq is going to be a necessary part of changing the world.”

The president seemed to be talking more openly now and from the heart rather than from a script. The history lesson on Saddam was over. “Listen, people join terrorist organisations because there’s no hope and there’s no chance to raise their families in a peaceful world where there is not freedom. And so the idea is to promote freedom and at the same time protect our security. And I do believe the world is becoming a better place, absolutely.”

I could not tell how much time had elapsed, maybe five or six minutes, so I moved quickly on to the question I most wanted to ask George Bush in person.

“Mr President, you are a man who has a great faith in God. I’ve heard you say many times that you strive to serve somebody greater than yourself.”

“Right.”

“Do you believe that the hand of God is guiding you in this war on terror?”

This question had been on my mind ever since September 11, when Bush began to invoke God in his speeches. He spoke as if he believed that his job of stewarding America through the attacks and beyond was somehow preordained, that he had been chosen for this role. He closed his eyes as he began to answer.

“Listen, I think that God . . . that my relationship with God is a very personal relationship. And I turn to the Good Lord for strength. I turn to the Good Lord for guidance. I turn to the Good Lord for forgiveness. But the God I know is not one that . . . the God I know is one that promotes peace and freedom. But I get great sustenance from my personal relationship.”

He sat forward again. “That doesn’t make me think I’m a better person than you are, by the way. Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, ‘Don’t try to take a speck out of your eye if I’ve got a log in my own’.”

I suspected that he was also telling me that I should not judge him.

I switched to Ireland again and to the controversy then raging over the Irish government’s decision to allow the use of Shannon Airport for the transport of soldiers and weapons to the Gulf.

“You are going to meet Bertie Ahern when you arrive at Shannon Airport tomorrow. I guess he went out on a limb for you, presumably because of the great friendship between our two countries. Can you look him in the eye when you get there and say, ‘It will be worth it, it will work out’?”

“Absolutely. I wouldn’t be doing this, I wouldn’t have made the decision I did if I didn’t think the world would be better.”

I felt that the President had now become personally involved in this interview, even quoting a Bible passage, so I made one more stab at trying to get inside his head.

“Why is it that others don’t understand what you are about?”

He shrugged. “I don’t know. History will judge what I’m about.”

I could not remember my next question. My mind had gone completely blank. The president had not removed me from his gaze since we had begun and I wanted to keep up the eye contact.

If I diverted to my notes on the table beside me, he would know he had flustered me. For what seemed like an eternity, but probably no more than two seconds, I stared at him, searching his eyes for inspiration. It finally came.

“Can I just turn to the Middle East?”

“Sure.”

He talked about his personal commitment to solving that conflict. As he did so, I could see one of the White House crew signalling for me to wrap up the interview, but the president was in full flight.

“Like Iraq, the Palestinian and the Israeli issue is going to require good security measures,” he said.

Now out of time, I was fully aware that another question was pushing it, but I would never be here again and I had spent four years covering an administration that appeared to favour Israel at every turn.

“And perhaps a bit more even-handedness from America?” I asked, though it came out more as a comment.

The president did not see the look of horror on the faces of his staff as he began to defend his stance. “I’m the first president to have called for a Palestinian state. That to me sounds like a reasonable and balanced approach. I will not allow terrorists determine the fate, as best I can, of people who want to be free.”

Hands were signalling furiously now for me to end the interview.

“Mr President, thank you very much.”

“You’re welcome,” he replied, still half-smiling and half-frowning.

It was over. I felt like a delinquent child who had been reprimanded by a stern, unwavering father. My face must have been the same colour as my suit. Yet I also knew that we had discussed some important issues — probably more candidly than I had heard from President Bush in some time.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 11, 2005 1:40 PM
Comments

She didn't want to interview him, she wanted to lecture him. A true interviewer wouldn't have been interrupting his answers. A true interviewer would have used those as a springboard to further questions.

She may not have been a delinquent child, but she was certainly a delinquent reporter.

Posted by: Mikey at October 11, 2005 2:00 PM

The nerve of him! He simply would not sit still and be lectured by his intellectual superior. Can you believe it? He would! Not! Sit! Still!

Posted by: Mike Morley at October 11, 2005 2:00 PM

Carole Coleman is an arrogant narcissistic twit.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 11, 2005 2:24 PM

Ms. Coleman quite obviously has an extreme lack of self-awareness. One can see her telling this story exactly as above at dinner parties with her chums, and receiving nothing but praise for how she stood up to the evil Bush. She needs to get out more...

Posted by: b at October 11, 2005 2:28 PM

"I was now beginning to feel shut out of this event. He had the floor and he wasnt letting me dance"

Translation: Don't boolaloo at the polk festival.

Posted by: AllenS [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2005 2:58 PM

"booGAloo"

I'm an idiot.

Posted by: AllenS [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2005 2:59 PM

Yet I also knew that we had discussed some important issues probably more candidly than I had heard from President Bush in some time.

All that means is that she doesn't listen. Nothing there was new--it's all the same things that Bush has been saying for years.

Posted by: Timothy at October 11, 2005 3:00 PM

"polKA'

I'm even dummer.

Posted by: AllenS [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2005 3:00 PM

Carole Coleman reminds us the great tradition of Irishmen spending hours and hours away from home in pubs did not stem entirely from an excessive fondness for booze.

Posted by: carter at October 11, 2005 3:04 PM

That "more candidly" comment was weird. I guess she wanted to show at least a little courtesy to Bush, after all the I-want-to-clobber-him stuff.

But nothing he said was any different than what he's said a gazillion times before. In what way was it more candid?

Posted by: Casey Abell at October 11, 2005 3:40 PM

I like how she repeatedly states Bush had his hand raised to her.

Posted by: Pepys at October 11, 2005 3:40 PM
He sat forward again. That doesnt make me think Im a better person than you are, by the way. Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, Dont try to take a speck out of your eye if Ive got a log in my own.

I suspected that he was also telling me that I should not judge him.

Stupid twit--he already knows how badly you judge him, and could care less. Posted by: Ed Driscoll at October 11, 2005 5:17 PM

The Irish press is like the half-witted young step-sister of our press.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 11, 2005 6:02 PM

Now there's a woman with balls ... for brains.

Posted by: Genecis at October 11, 2005 6:11 PM

Boob isn't necessarily just part of a woman's anatomy, you know.

Posted by: John at October 11, 2005 8:18 PM

Her comment about mentioning God ever since 9/11 is telling. I well remember his inaugural address in Jan 2000 and he mentioned God several times in it.

I guess if you are a twit, history begins not only when you were born but also at any particular momentous event you pick.

Posted by: ray at October 11, 2005 10:04 PM

It's all fine & good to paste this dingy reporter, but where is the American Conservative President who could rhetorically rip her a new one "live."

I've never bought the "Bush is stupid" BS, but if we had a conservative that could master the language like Blair, we'd have those 60 seats we salvate after.

Reagan's Charm, Gingrich's vocabulary & Bush's Steel. Now that's a combination.

Posted by: Bruno at October 12, 2005 12:06 AM

ray:

Heck, his final line was a reference to a saying by John Page that he quoted earlier in the speech, and he reiterated that an angel still "rides in the whirlwind, and directs this storm." That was the most memorable line of any Inaugural speech I've ever seen.

As for the author, we need to keep people like this around just for the amusement.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at October 12, 2005 12:12 AM

When the interview subject stonewalls, I want a reporter to interject. Otherwise we might as well shut down the press and simply print press releases.

The President has never been the best advocate for his own policies. He has forwarded the wrong arguments in public and then been proven wrong on it (WMD's), prematurely declared victory (mission accomplished), not maintained morale during the insurgency (support has plummetted), and failed to adequately explain his strategy in the context of ending terrorism. These are major black marks and go beyond the normal snafus that happen in warfare.

People are unsure what will happen and are looking for the President for guidance. Giving a standard stock answer and not addressing the actual question posed does not reassure. Neither are exchanges like this:

Q: Why did you attack Iraq?
A: WMD's!
Q: But there weren't any.
A: Hold on, we were attacked on 9/11!
Q: But not by Iraq?
A: Don't interrupt me.

I'm glad your morale is bolstered by the President' repartee, but it makes me only shake my head, and many of the war supporters I know become demoralized at things like this.

It is a good thing for us that our opponents are less competent and have not been able to fully exploit this. I believe that we will triumph in Iraq, but that because of mistakes the President has made, we will be exhausted as a nation and less likely to do what else needs to be done afterward.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at October 12, 2005 11:58 AM

Chris, I'll type this slowly.
One of the justifications for the Iraq campaign was WMD's. The intelligence, not just ours but others, stated that Hussein had them and wasn't getting rid of them. That was the intelligence consensus before the invasion. Before the invasion. Before the invasion.

Has it sunk through that was the best information we had before the invasion? It wasn't a certainty, it was intelligence.

Now, post-9/11 and pre-Iraq campaign did you think it was wiser to leave Hussein in power with intelligence indicating that he had WMD or would it be wiser to remove him? Please keep in mind what kind of vindictive, vicious, psycho he was.

Remember - you can only use information that was available before the invasion. Not after.

The interview was a lecture by a self-superior twit of a reporter who is going to go tell truth to power and had her rhetorical head handed to her by the Chimp. Now you know why her face was red.

Posted by: Mikey at October 12, 2005 1:47 PM
« HIT THEM WITH TAXES WHILE THEY'RE PSYCHOLOGICALLY PREPARED: | Main | NO WONDER THE LAWYERS ALL HATE HER: »