It’s like watching an elderly parent start to show signs of old age dementia; who will step forward to take charge?
He never lied to the grand jury. The blow job question came in the Paula Jones civil deposition.
[/quote]
I hardly see how it’s “debatable,” since
a) He denied sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky, and
b) the semen on her dress was proven to be his.
[/quote]
He didn’t deny sexual contact, he denied sexual intercourse. The phrase “oral sex” was specifically crossed off of the definition for sex that he was given during the deposition. He tried to be a little too clever. He wasn’t going to volunteer information and the question was not relevant to the case anyway.
The judge dismissed the case for lack of merit. The supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, only on the question of whether a sitting president can be civilly sued. The definition of perjury requires that the “lie” must be about a matter which is material to the case. Clearly, a consensual BJ had nothing to do with a sexual harrassment suit. The question was a set up, a perjury trap set out of desperation after the inquisitor, Starr had wasted untold millions of taxpayers’ money chasing phony scandals and utterly failing to turn up any corruption. The best he could do was a blow job.
This Clinton stuff is really all tu quoque anyway. It has no bearing on Junior’s integrity at all.
This is a distinction without a difference since the first amendment guarantees the right of the press to be there.
I call bullshit on this one-- right of a free press and all that…
Well, i guess it depends on what your definition of “hound” is. The press certainly has the right to ask questions, and to persist in asking questions, no matter how embarrassing that may be to the president.
The public depends on the press to get reliable and true oinformation about its government. This is the first and foremost ethicla responsibility of the press. Profit is second-- and let’s not forget that some of the press is publicly funded. The White house press secretary, specifically, works for the tax payer and his job is to answer the questions of the people. He is not supposed to be a PR guy for the prez, although that is what the job has become.
When he establishes that only certain questions may be asked, when he shows abject terror at the thought of having to go off-script, when refuses to make eye-contact with reporters who will ask tough questions, I will personally assume that he is afraid to defend his policies. YMMV.
Please, :rolleyes:,let’s not play semantic games. I don’t literally mean “force,” I just mean that they have to be relentless in confronting him with questions. They should be “forceful” in their badger9ing. They should not just passively accept whatever he says.
Clearly a lot of it is just manipulative lying, though, and how are we supposed to know the truth from the bullshit without confrontational questioning. Personall, i don’t think this president deserves any more respect or dignity than a guy caught telemarketing swampland to widows on a 60 Minutes segment.
I should have put a winky there. I was just being facetious, as I am often wont to do. 
Anyway, furt, it’s obvious Diogenes the Cynic is smarter than ::ahem:: some people. 
Perhaps, then, we should accord Diogenes the Cynic the same amount of respect he affords POTUS…
His administration’s policies in key areas including taxes and the environment have gone through with minimal effective opposition. He has gotten approval for undeclared war in a sharply divided Congress. He’s led his party to a strengthened hand in said Congress.
You could argue that his policies are largely moronic (and we’d find areas of agreement) and that his successes are largely traceable to his opponents being even dumber than he is.
Or you could acknowledge that he’s a canny operator, stop underestimating him and cease with the pointless and moldering insults. They do your position no good at all.
I’d say you had a point if we didn’t know as much as we do about the influence of Karl Rove. I personally don’t believe that GWB has anything much to do with the machinations of his own presidency. I think he just goes where they tell him to go and says what they tell him to say. He has admitted in the past that he does not read written policies and that he relies on his advisors to explain things to him. I also think that he got a huge political boost from 9/11. Rallying around the president is a natural public response to a national crisis. It doesn’t matter who the president is. The same kind of jump in approval ratings would have happened for Gore, or for Pat Buchanan, or for Pee Wee Herman or for Cher. Intelligence and/or competence have nothing to do with it. Before 9/11, Bush was floundering with 50ish approval ratings, a sinking economy, no vision, no charisma and no real plan forv the future. 9/11 was the best damn thing that ever happened to him.
You’ve enumerated a number of bad policies which Bush has gotten through congress largely on the strength of his 9/11 currency. That currency won’t last forever.
… Intelligence and/or competence have nothing to do with it …
Thus spake Diogenes the Cynic; might we not judge him by the same words?
Welcome to the boards, MommaBear. I think you’ll find Diogenes the Cynic to be much more intelligent and competent than you imagine. Lurk a while. You’ll find intelligence her even among those with whom you disagree. That’s what makes the SDMB worth participating in.
Hey, thanks, DesertGeezer. 
Hi, MommaBear, I tend to be somewhat hyperbolic in political threads but I’m much more calm in other threads. Really, I am. Get to know me. You’ll like me.
*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
You’re just making stuff up now.
What part of “freedom of the press” do you not understand? The Capitol building and the White House are public property. The press has a right to report on whatever happens in those buildings.
There’s a difference between
and
What part of “freedom of the press” do you understand?
I fail to comprehend your distinction. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. Freedom of the press implies a right to cover events which occur on public property and on the public dime. Therefore the First Amendment guarantees the right of the press to be present at the SOTU adress. What’s the problem?
I don’t agree. Freedom of the press means that the government can’t stop them from printing whatever they want to. I don’t believe it requires the government to cooperate with the press.
Note that only a few selected media people are accorded the privilege of being present in the White House, but the entire press is free from government interference in what they choose to print.
My point is that the White House cannot categorically deny all press access to an event which is staged on public property. They obviously cannot open up the doors to every single reporter in the world so they choose what is, ostensibly, a representative sample.
An ethical and responsible reporter will push and perservere as hard as she legally can to get to get facts from our elected representatives. It is not illegal to ask the president questions. It is also not illegal for the president to evade those questions. It is, however, chickenshit and not very ethical. I fear that this administration is trying to move away from an authentically representative press pool and into a pool of hand-picked sycophants who will serve as publicists rather than objective journalists.
*disclaimer: my mother was a political reporter for twenty years. I have a naturally protective instinct for Helen Thomas because she reminds me of my mom.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree. Seems to me there are lots of events on government property that are not open to the press. Of course, we don’t read about them in the press.
I agree. But, I don’t really understand all the bellyaching on this thread. The President told us that he will disarm Iraq with or without UN approval and he gave us his reasons. That’s what we wanted to know.
He didn’t deal with reasons for opposing his policy, but that’s not his job. His opponents can explain their POV at their press conference. E.g. people like Nancy Peloci, Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle have done just that.
I strongly disagree that he gave any “reasons.” The way I see it, he asserted that he will stage an illegal, unprovoked invasion of another country, and then refused to justify his intentions with any substantive answers. He is using billions of taxpayer dollars to commit this crime, the least he can do is explain himself. (“Saddam is evil” is not an explanation)
I was just pointing out a fault in a part of the case you were making earlier.
It’s a fairly significant distinction. They have a right to report facts, analyze, deduce, etc… (basically anything but try to hurt someone by reporting things they know to be not true). That’s it. Any other ‘right’ they do have that the public doesn’t is a result of a mere law or regulation.
No. You assert that he will stage an illegal, unprovoked invasion of another country.
He asserted he evaluated that information he has and came to the conclusion that the Iraqi government constitutes a [CLANCY]clear and present danger[/CLANCY].
You (and many other people) would like to have that information and come to your own conclusion. Or, you don’t believe it even exists and Bush/Rove have enthralled Powell, Rice, and a host of other people.
Sorry for the mini-hijack.