John Bolton - who is appearing on The World at One right now, talking about Iraq.
We were talking about Pakistan. I enjoyed it hugely. I asked him one question - he answered in the briefest way, and I thought - mmm, THAT was interesting, he should expand on that.
But wily soul that he is, Mr Bolton was not about to fall into that trap. So a long gap ensued. We will play it in full on the programme tonight.
(I blinked first)
Jump to more content from this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Um, Eddie - Would that be the long gap you'll be playing or the interview?
Incidentally, if you go back to the Bishop posting at the moment, you can't go forward (if you get what I'm saying). Looks like there's a link missing somewhere.
Dead air can reveal so much!
re blinking first....Eddie, do your eyes 'water' when playing poker
oh....thought so,,, will raise you!
That was a gap and a half!
Can't stand the man. Why do we have to keep hearing from him? Don't the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have access to any other Americans?
thank you for airing the silence... shows more of American stance than the host blinking first!
or where you just thrown by a straight answer which required no further qualification?
I was stopped in my tracks by his reply and bravo for bradcasting the pause, but Eddie, you didn't ask the obvious follow up-
If he believes democracy is less important than security, why didn't that apply to Iraq?
I could almost hear his brain expecting that, and thinking he'd just set a trap for himself. But you let him go.
I love Americans. They're so honest.
As a service to other listeners I would like to share the thoughts which went through my head during that 'Mind the Gap' moment..
"So democracy is not an objective which it is worth risking the innocent lives of tens of thousands of civilians in Pakistan..
Whereas in Iraq democracy is an objective of such paramount importance it is worth risking the lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians..! Omigod, has the radio snooze function kicked in..have I fallen asleep.. has Eddie fallen asleep.."
By which time Eddie asked his next question.
Who needs John Pilger and a feature length film, when you have an Eddie Mair 'pregnant pause'?
I think the gap was superbly expressive. Also refreshing to hear some honesty, albeit silent honesty!
what is it with the Beeb and John Bolton? Is he your rent-a-republican of choice, everyone's favourite hate-a-Yank figure, does he never go to sleep? Or is it just that he can be relied upon to produce, without fail, something so jaw-droppingly incorrect that even the divine Eddie is forced to blink first? I can see this must be irresistible.
Eddie, I don't know about blinking or eyewatering - but surely you must have been astonished that Bolton could be so blatant about the US realpolitik? Or perhaps you interviewed him because you can rely on him to state the Administration's position without any 'spin'. Whatever the case when are the Americans going to get over that they were a colony, that they benefited from being such and are now the greatest colonialist nation ... and this from a colonial (Australian) who would Britannia still ruled the waves rather than the US misruling the world.
Bolton has no shame. What a shame.
Without security there can be no democracy. To everything there is a time. Unless you are a typical Beeb leftie. I thought the PM presenter's pause spoke volumes about his student-like self-righteousness and said absolutely nothing about Bolton. The latter's comment about the parlous state of Pakistan post-Independence was also spot-on.
Now you can get back to your cosy consensus masquerading as debate.
That was quite good, Harvey, but I think a long, uninterrupted silence on your part would go down very well. Especially with John Bolton.
I don't have a TV: really, I do get better pictures on the radio. The picture accompanying the astonish(ed/ing) silence was of two unscripted, engaged people having a serious conversation, that just happened to be broadcast. Thank you.
Harvey @ 15
I absolutely agree: before I was born, a lot of people over whom I had no control made a monumental mess-up of doing as they were being commanded to do and getting the British presence out of the Indian subcontinent after they'd been there for a few hundred years.
I'm not *quite* sure how relevant this is to an interview with someone who was personally involved in invading a country and not leaving it, but for what it is worth I agree that you're right. Given another thing on the news tonight about Pakistan and its current ruler, it was a lucky pause for the interview subject yesterday, too.
My feeling about the pause was that it was more like 'good grief!' from the interviewer than 'that's a good point', but it's a little hard to interpret silence with any accuracy.
In the matter of the importance of security existing for democracy to be able to exist, I'm not sure I agree with you. We had precious little security in 1940-1945, but we seem somehow to have clung to the British democratic ideas at that time. A lack of security is usually the case when a country is being bombed and attacked, I would have thought.
Now we have vastly greater security than we had when individual civilians were at daily risk of violent death or dismemberment, and less democracy, with more control over individual civilians' private lives by the government both elected and unelected. To use 'we must be more scure' as an excuse for 'we can't therefore afford democracy', which is what is happening in both the US and the UK at the moment, seems to me to be a dangerous course to follow.
And y'know, I don't think that makes me a typical BEEB leftie -- I'm not working for the BEEB, and often disagree with what is broadcast -- since I don't see that thought should be the prerogative of the left wing (whatever that may mean apart from being an all-purpose boo-word).
I've never heard such a long gap (that I can remember). I thought it was great - it made it quite clear that Bolton does not think that he has any explaining to do.
Sid
On this subject, I have been emulating the eloquence of that pause - by saying nothing until now.
Surely, democracy is a luxury that security provides?
Eddie, The pause was brilliant! I thought that you had been gob-smacked for the moment! I took it as a moment of incredulity.As someone who lived in the USA during the Vietnam war from '68-'70 and have many US friends from that period, none of them support the Iraq incursion and none has a kind word to say about John Bolton. Keep it up! Peter T Greene
It’s another admittance that the US would rather deal with terrorist groups and dictators, who give them what they want, rather than democratically elected nations, such as in Central America or South East Asia who may not comply with US policy. The oil’s been secured…who needs democracy?!
Alan Roberts @ 21, is it? I'm not sure they are intimately related at all: in eg Stalin's USSR I think a very large number of people enjoyed security (in that they knew exactly who their bosses were, and what the rules were and what was likely to happen if they broke them, without any of the insecurity that comes from doubt) but had neither democracy nor safety, for instance. Likewise it probably wasn't very secure or even safe being one of the parliamentatians who set up democracy in England in the late seventeenth century, since if one didn't succeed one's head might well be chopped off.
In fact I think putting up 'security' versus 'democracy' and asserting that you can't have both may be one of the more clever bits of dubious 'dialectic' trickery this century, and get noted as such in a few decades' time, assuming that anyone is by that time allowed to say anything that isn't what Our Glorious Leaders have decreed is ok.
It does rather imply that a person or country can have one or the other but not both or neither, and that has to be rubbish. (I am *not* saying that's what you said, I'm following the thought through.)
We switched on the radio in the car about halfway through the interview tonight, and were more than a little surprised by the one word response followed by what seemed like Eddie trying desperately to put his brain in gear after a direct answer that he clearly wasn't expecting.
Because I didn't recognise John Bolton's name, I looked him up on the internet. From what I see, which coincides exactly with what I heard this afternoon, he looks like a politician who puts what he sees as the interests of his country above all else. But I see from the blog comments that John Bolton is clearly not liked by the majority of your correspondents. I can understand why. He clearly knows exactly where he stands, doesn't waffle, isn't much of a one for political correctness - in fact, most things that the soft-headed woolly left in this country detests. But I think I'd rather have him running my country than most of the political nebbishes who pass for government in the UK.
Your silence spoke volumes. It revealed the horrible truth behind his words. BRAVO.
The pause was almost too good. I was just thinking that my radio must be on the blink, when Eddie Mair blinked.
And to Mr Roberts, above, I've always presumed that my security was a luxury provided by democracy.
Nigel (25) - Are you sure you didn't look up Adolf Hitler?
"The people are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one".
First I thought that my internet connection had broken,(i listen in Canada) then I thought Bolton had beaten Eddie for being a godless Liberal, then I expected Clement Freud to buzz and say "hesitation"
John Bolton, he of the moustache and the rage against the entire world and one of W's gifts to this world.. The USA is the big bully now, but there was a time when the UK was it! I doubt that Bolton holds the ´óÏó´«Ã½, or any Brit in very high esteem, for his arrogance knows no bounds. The USA is all that matters and I have no doubt that Bolton agrees with Wolfowitz's (the neocons) manifesto for USA dominance of the world, forever. Well that we all should know him for what he is, for his type is as much an enemy of democracy as is Osama.
Well, well the penny has finally dropped and it took a tortuous silence for the realisation to suddenly dawn.
In that few seconds the realisation that all the effortless and unquestioning sychophancy of England (and other countries) toward the USA since World War 2, stands for exactly nothing. All those great, comfortable speeches of freedom and democracy, about liberation and rights for all countries in the world, and all America cares about is herself!!
Oh dear, oh dear. When will England ever learn!!!
Whose son or country is going to be sacrificed next for the betterment of the USA?
One thing I should have mentioned - it's obvious but I realised last night that I didn't - is that Mr Bolton was sitting opposite me.
That's quite a rare event these days. I would guess that about one in 100 interviews I do is face to face. It has become worse since we left Broadcasting House (the building). The JOY of having the person in the room is that the interview can take on whole new forms. Midway through the silence last night I looked into Mr Bolton's eyes and I raised my eyebrows. He smiled a little and just fixed me even more steadily with his stare. I doubt if the silence would have happened if we had not had eye contact throughout.
Excuse me for poking my oar in - but I wonder if all those lovely studio's in Broadcasting Hse are any busier than the last time I viisited.
I still do not understand why it so important for PM to have to originate from Television Centre.
The most important thing is to be able to talk to more of your contributors 'face to face'. And there is plenty of desk space in that building.
Sometimes in needs outsiders to see the absurdity of how it's currently organised. - Come to that - it would be more practical for ´óÏó´«Ã½ 7 to swop over to TVC where most of there editing is done on the desktops.
Now that really is scary Eddie. He SMILED after a statement like that? Even more chilling than the words he said.
I suppose I assumed most interviews were still done face-to-face. Though obviously sometimes you mention something that makes me realise the person was elsewhere at the time. Hadn't realised the proportion was only about 1 % face-to-face though. I suppose logistically it's much easier, but not nearly so easy to be interviewed when you can't see the person asking the questions. No wonder some of the guests sound a bit ill-at-ease sometimes. I don't blame them.
Annasee;
I suspect that he smiled because of the battle of wits taking place, much as people playing cards for high stakes will try to psych out an opponent.
I'd reckon, on balance, that Bolton won that round, since Eddie by his own admission 'blinked first'. But Eddie was in the weaker position, since for there to be a duologue he has to pose questions for Bolton to answer, he can't just wait an eternity hoping than further enlightenment will simply arrive. Bolton, as a wily old operator will have understood that and known that he could wait it out.
Si.
Nigel Blumenthal @ 25:
If someone (in this case Bolton) is exclusively in favour of his own 'side' (in this case what he sees as American interests) and really, honestly, either doesn't care about or is opposed to anyone who is not entirely on his 'side' (in this case anyone who isn't American and of his beliefs) it isn't really surprising that those not on his side should mistrust and dislike him, is it?
Given that most listeners to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are not on his side -- not American and not of his beliefs -- it's really quite reasonable for them to mistrust and dislike him, I would have thought, whatever their politics and beliefs might be apart from that one thing.
As for prefering him to our current crop of politicians, that would depend what I wanted. If not wanting my 'side' to dominate everything to the detriment of every other inhabitant of the globe is to be a member of the 'soft-headed woolly left' then I am probably guilty of being one of that group, in spite of my anarchist dislike for and mistrust of *them*. But then I don't like the idea of *any* 'side' having that sort of power over every individual, regardless of their political aims and personal ideals and objectives, really...
So I'll try and respond to Eddie once more! As the last one did not make it!
I still do not realise why it is necessary for PM to be broadcast from Televsion Centre. I have asked this question before and am aware of the arguments that John Cooper put up - however, with the communication links between BH and TVC and the studios and desk space now available at Broadcasting Hse - I would have thought it would make more sense to migrate back in to central London.
If anything it would be a better solution to have ´óÏó´«Ã½ 7 at TVC as they don't require a large studio - such as S1?
Just seems so logical somehow.
Jonnie 33/37 - Move back into central London? Better to move out of London altogether, and choose a non-city site free of inflationary factors like Congestion Charges, parking rip-offs and expensive housing. Somewhere more central would be good, giving better accessibility for the masses who pay for the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
Yeah, you had Bollton cold, not answering a question that he hadn't been asked, waiting silently and smiling, SMILING when Mair looked at him!! Well done PM!
Should have put him in an orange jump suit, taken him by extraordinary rendition to Fifi's pad in Stamford and beaten the answers out of him. American-style, - to questions he hadn't been asked.
Or did you? He hasn't surfaced since the interview and the word from Stamford market is that Fifi was seen buying 7 veils and a large charger this morning.
I commented earlier about Eddie letting Bolton off the hook, but I also assumed the interview was 'down the line' not face to face. Knowing this now I'm even more dissappointed.
Its not that you blinked first Eddie, its just that your words to end the pause should have been
'...and of Iraq?' or more pointedly, 'The relatives of all those who have died in Iraq as a consequence of your country's military intervention would be very interested to have heard you say that Mr Bolton.' And then possibly
'Thankyou, you need not say anymore.' end of interview.
But hey , I don't mean to get at Eddie, but should you or your colleagues get the opportunity again....... don't blink!
I see this has been picked up on the bloggersphere: