Not to bash Bush, but presented to show that he is perhaps not too popular in Germany.
clairobscur, this site says the reporter’s French had an error:
Is it true that David Gregory’s statement included a “huge error”?
I’m with clairobscur on this one: Mr. Gregory was being polite. I lived in France for a year, and the French find it very polite behavior when you speak their language to them. Besides, you do get better answers when you address the source rather than his translator.
I wish we Americans could get over the hangup that speaking a foreign language is somehow pretentious.
december, while it’s true that the verb in this case does take the preposition à and not de, it’s not so grave that a native speaker couldn’t understand the question. You wouldn’t want to have such errors on final copy, but as errors go, it’s not confusing or insulting for anyone, and that French is not Mr. Gregory’s first language would surely be apparent. Mr. Chirac would be okay with it, sans doute.
What if a foreign speaker addressed our leader, asking him if he could “add your comments with this question”? Is that insulting? Confusing? Or do you think a reasonable person would cut him some slack? Someone seems to be picking nits for petty partisan advantage.
december, what percentage of American reporters’ questions are grammatically correct in English do you suppose? And what, do you think, are the chances that Bush noticed the grammatical error? (Hint: he don’t speaka the French.) And what in blue blazes difference does the error make in this context? Do you think it proves “grandstanding” on Gregory’s part? Could it be that his conversational French is what you might expect from someone speaking a second language in another country?
All this effort to justify a nasty little attack on a reporter by a nasty little President?
Yes, because reporters and pundits are allowed to attack the President in print with impunity. Like saying that he tried to wave to a blind man. Or [insert nasty barb at Clinton here]. Heaven forbid one of these noble public servants get a taste of their own medicine.
pldennison: Cite, please, for David Gregory’s attack on the President which precipitated the bold and brave (not to mention totally appropriate situationally) retaliation by our noble Commander in Chief?
Didn’t say he did make one, did I? (checks) Nope. I said “reporters and pundits.” You know, like, in general. Thanks for your concern, though.
Dollars to donuts if Bill Clinton had said this, everyone would be praising him for his everyman sense of humor and his ability to put people at ease with his jokes.
Hey, everyone in the room seemed to think it was funny, non?
Jokes? Who could act like an asshole and pass it off as humor? Nothing doing. Clinton would have been barbecued for saying something like that. The press tore Clinton apart at every opportunity, and you know it. I’d really like to know where they gave Clinton a free ride. After eight years of concentrating on a non-scandal like his alleged sexcrimes, they still haven’t given up.
Face it: Bush made a nasty attack that was out of line and deserves to be taken to task for it. And if you don’t think the press has been giving Bush a free ride for the past three years, then you’re either in denial or delusional. No president, of whichever party, has ever gotten such kid-glove treatment in my memory. My memory stretches back to Gerald Ford, for what it’s worth.
I half expect some news magazine to do a feature speculating on whether those who dislike Bush actually do hate freedom. I mean, come on! It’s been over a year now. Isn’t the honeymoon supposed to be over? On the other hand, I guess it’s not sporting to bully the weak…
“Hey, everyone in the room seemed to think it was funny, non?”
Well, I kinda doubt that Gregory thought so, but what the hell, as long as he got to be the proxy for all those pundits in general…
But you don’t seriously want to compare Bush’s social graces with Clinton’s, do you? Or claim that Bush was trying to lighten things up? Dollars to donuts if Bill Clinton had made a joke “to put people at ease”, everyone in that room would’ve understood the intent.
But wait . . . I thought Reagan was the Teflon president that got the big free ride?
No, no, I remember–from 1992-2000 it was the Republicans telling me that Clinton was getting a free ride with his bimbo eruptions and draft dodging.
No, it was definitely Bush, Sr. He’s the one that got the free ride, what with his October Surprises and Iran-Contras.
Each party always thinks the press is giving the other party’s President a free ride. Funny.
Hey, didn’t Clinton admit to those “alleged sexcrimes?” I mean, he did actually admit that Monica polished his knob, right?
Yes, Clinton admitted to it. But that’s my entire point: why should Clinton have been taken to task for sexcrimes? After all, there were no valid accusations of rape or of unwanted advances. Particularly with Ms. Lewinsky, who was a consenting adult.
I think it speaks very well of President Clinton that the Starr scandals are the worst dirt anyone could dig up on him, and that this is the worst criticism anyone could make.
And for the record: I think the press was actually fair with Bush I, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon. Yes, they were too soft on Reagan and his subversion of the Constitution. And yes they were too hard on Clinton.
And for God’s sake, will someone please tell me why Bill Clinton’s sex life should matter to anyone outside his own family? Except for when it comes to filling the need for sleazy character assassination, of course.
It’s not the sex, hon, it’s the perjury.
He lied about his personal life? About something that had nothing to do with the issue at hand? About having sex with an intern he’d never even heard about at the time when the Whitewater deal happened?
What a depressing lack of perspective.
Furthermore (and back on the subject), why didn’t the press dog Bush about his non-answer concerning an alleged cocaine habit? Free ride, free ride.
Didn’t say he did. (Can’t you folks read?) But they weren’t alleged, like you said–it actually happened. And as far as I know, Clinton was never actually charged with a “sexcrime” (:rolleyes:). He was charged with perjury. And he admitted to that, too.
Beats me. Maybe because the source of the rumors about the alleged cocaine habit proved to be less than reliable. For all I know, Bush put half the output of Columbia up his nose in the 70s and 80s. I do think he should have answered the question, though, if only to avoid the impression of dodging it, whether he did coke or not.
Why didn’t the press dog Gore about his substantial oil company holdings, or his family’s money from tobacco growing, while he spoke out against “big oil” and his sister dying of lung cancer? Why didn’t the press dog Lieberman about taking money from Hollywood fundraisers while shitting all over the entertainment industry? Free ride, free ride. :rolleyes:
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I don’t care about the man’s sex life. That’s between him and the little woman (and the other little woman). I care that he perjured himself. It’s not that he’s a ho-de-ho-ho; it’s that he’s a big fat liar.
Since no one’s posted it yet:
IMHO, Gregory’s question was pretty snippy and he was grandstanding (was he really going to get a better answer by asking “can you maybe comment on that?” in French?). His French gaffe was not that big of a deal, just a minor prepositional error.
The fact that conservatives just don’t want to face is that the grilling of President Clinton about sexcrimes had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation that Ken Starr was working on, and that it should have nothing to do with any of us, either. Why is it that only about half of the Americans (and essentially no foreigners) find nothing wrong with Mr. Clinton’s behavior? Why do well over 90% of all citizens of democracies find nothing outrageous about Mr. Clinton lying about this?
Perjury? Yeah, right. That was nothing but a political move, and a major nose-thumbing at America’s judicial system.
Why didn’t the press not care about Clinton’s non-answering of sex (and drug) questions, where they just glossed over Bush’s non-answering of the cocaine question? The media went on to make up lies about Gore and the fake “I invented the internet” quotation. How about that? As to either candidate being in bed with particular industries: the press was way too soft on both Bush and Gore when it came to those. But since the American media is owned by large corporations, for the most part, that’s not all that surprising.
Mojo,
The fact is Bush personally attacked the reporter because
(1) He didn’t like the question
(2) He didn’t like the French sentence being thrown in.
He could have answered the questions straight up rather than make a silly remark like that. IMO, it was an immature act, not something which befits any world leader.
Oh, you must hang out with rjung or something–you think I’m a conservative. I get it.
Can I see a cite on that 90% figure?
Clinton admitted to lying under oath. Whether you like it or not, he admitted it. You can wish it away, but it happened. Whether he should have been placed in that situation is another question entirely – and I don’t think he should have – but once he was there, he had an obligation as President of the United States, and an officer of the court, to answer the questions honestly. Period.
I don’t see how anyone can honestly sit there an argue on the one hand that George W. Bush is a big ol’ meanie for needling a reporter at a press conference, and on the other hand argue that there’s nothing wrong with the President of the U.S. lying in a legal proceeding. That’s moral relativism of the stupidest sort.
Why didn’t the press ignore Clinton’s non-answering of sex questions? Maybe because it wasn’t the first time it had happened. Maybe because it was he was involved as a defendant in a sexual harrassment suit at the time. I don’t know, and what’s more, it doesn’t bug me a whole lot.
Chance, speaking as a Clintonista, I think there are a few points that need to be made here.
-
The real error made here was made by the panel of judges overseeing Starr’s investigation, who allowed Starr to wander off into every nook and cranny he saw fit, including the Paula Jones case;
-
Paula Jones’ case was a sexual harassment case, and it has been established that the defendant’s sexual conduct with other underlings is relevant evidence in a sexual harassment suit;
-
Thus, the questions to both Clinton and Lewinsky about their sexual affair were relevant to the Jones lawsuit, and appropriately asked of each, at least in law (we can argue about whether they were appropriate in fact, which I will discuss later);
-
Once a question is relevant, embarassment or other issues is not a justification for providing a false answer;
-
While there is a very strong argument that the questions were asked of Clinton and Lewinsky were asked simply to embarass Clinton, Clinton did not have the right or authority to decide by himself that the nature of the question justified a false answer. He simply cannot change the rules by himself;
-
Clinton lied while under oath. Whether or not that constituted a crime is a question (perjury covers only material lies), but it certainly is unethical, particularly for a lawyer, and it was wrong for him to have done so.
Absolutely, Starr’s investigation should never have gone as far as it did. But it went that far in accordance with the law, and Clinton had no right to evade the legal inquiry.
Sua