Wow, all I can say is GO IRISH! This is President Bush giving a news interview in Ireland. This female reporter, has more balls then anyone in our cowardly American Media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSiuRqNUG-E

Let me let me let me lemme finish. Lemme finish.

Kind of old.

I admit that it's pretty funny, but I think the journalist was obviously rather biased and she's kind of an idiot to:

#1. Expect that the President will ever allow anyone in the media to ask him serious questions.

#2. Be surprised that what she did potentially threatened her career.

Still, though, she spoke truth to power.

I admit that it's pretty funny, but I think the journalist was obviously rather biased and she's kind of an idiot to:

#1. Expect that the President will ever allow anyone in the media to ask him serious questions.

In the wake of the recent McClellan dust-up over Bush and Cheney's participation in the Plame Blow, commentator Joe Rosen recently observed:


Okay, now consider: Al Qaeda makes announcements, and like the president's they instantly travel around the world. But Al Qaeda doesn't have to answer questions. That gives Osama and company an edge. You have to start with something like that in understanding Scott McClellan. Because that is where Cheney started, and he influenced Bush in a direction Bush wanted to go anyway to conceal his own weaknesses.

Cheney and company had a different view of presidential power. They equated it not with the outsized political presence the president gains with his command of the cameras and the public stage, but with the "absence of constraint," as former insider Jack Goldsmith has written in his book, The Terror Presidency. One of the constraints that Cheney and Bush wanted to obliterate was the interlocutor .... The whole idea that the executive ought to be questioned--by Congress, by the press, by allies, by members of his own cabinet, by the American people--was something they dared to question.

They had a different idea, a truly radical one, which Goldsmith grasped only after David Addington, Cheney's chief-of-staff, explained it to him. "We're going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop." Under this theory when the president is elected that is all the legitimacy he will ever need. His powers rightly overawe everyone's unless the White House errs and grants legitimacy to those who would "check" and question him or seek elucidation.

McClellan's specialty was not lying, or the traditional art of spin but what I have called "strategic non-communication." Lying we understand, spin we have to come to grasp. Non-communication we still do not appreciate; its purpose is to make executive power less legible. Only a stooge figure would be willing to suffer the very public humiliations that such a policy requires of the man in the briefing room.

McClellan was often described as "robotic" because he would mindlessly repeat some empty formula he had concocted in anticipation of reporters' questions. The point here was to underline how pointless it was even to ask questions of the Bush White House. And reporters got that point, though they missed the larger picture I am describing. Many times they wondered what they were doing there.

(Rosen (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071124/cm_huffpost/073896))

false premises and the consequent kneejerk acceptance (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020607M.shtml)

The topic of W's fumbling at certain important Presidential tasks has been beaten to death,

but someone ought to point out how diplomatically incompetent it was for the US President to bring up and praise Britain's and Blair's "anti-terrorism" help (as a "neighbor" of Ireland !) in an interview with an Irish reporter.

And it was an unforced error.

lol at the scrolling text in that video

Wow, all I can say is GO IRISH! This is President Bush giving a news interview in Ireland. This female reporter, has more balls then anyone in our cowardly American Media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSiuRqNUG-E

I remember seeing this interview on one of the cable channels, so how was it banned? and if banned how did it make it into U Tube?

Yes. Banned by the "Zionist" media.

A side note: I can never make it through a Bush interview. Listening to him talk is worse than nails on a chalkboard.

~String

A side note: I can never make it through a Bush interview. Listening to him talk is worse than nails on a chalkboard. Did you make it as far as his invocation of the neighborly Brits and Blair as people whose anti-terrorism efforts should help persuade the audience of America's goodness and upright intentions ?

I think there was a shot of the interviewer's face during that, but I'm not sitting through again to verify.