Well, that’s such a farsical strawman summary of what I was saying, that I won’t even attempt to refute it.
There are more than two thousand sets of parents that only wish they could see their children grow up to get embarassed at a press conference. Considering their sacrifices, not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and billions if not someday trillions of dollars gone to waste, I find it hard to worry about whether Bush finds a question embarassing.
I don’t “worry” about it either. I am suggesting that the glee people are feeling wrt Ms. Thomas’ question is because they largely want him to be embarrassed. Which is a wonderful cathartic experience, I’m sure, but does not add to intelligent debate about the Iraq war and where we go from here. She got her jab it. Great. What did it accomplish? Nothing.
Well then, you would be wrong. I liked the question because it’s the one I would like to ask Bushif I had access to him myself. I want to know the answer as to what the real reasons for the Iraq invasion were, because the idea that the administration believed the reasons that they gave and continue to give have been rendered implausible by the facts that have come to light regarding the reality of the situation and the administration’s awareness of it. It was a, IMO, respectful request for respect in turn. Stop treating us like idiots who can’t handle your truth.
You had a reason for invading Iraq. It clearly had nothing to do with the reasons given, so what was it really? Embarassment can only arise if one truly has no answer, and that wouldn’t be Thomas’ fault.
I would say that the US populace has become pragmatic about Iraq at this point. If the president had an underlying purpose for going into Iraq, such as:
- creating a new ME military base so we could get out of Saudi Arabia and perhaps undermine Al Qaida’s tool against us
- installing a sympathetic government which might give us much easier access to oil, helping our economy
etc., etc.
I think a significant portion of the public would be willing get behind him for whatever part of the reason they found worthy at this point to justify the loss. At least enough to raise his poll numbers. Thomas gave him a chance to put that reason foth. He blew it.
More’s the pity.
While I don’t doubt that Bush himself would stay in, I think the people around him would like to get out at the first chance they get, provided it it makes us look glorious.
On the other hand I can make a case that we’ll stay in the region for over a decade, so who knows. We’ll just have to wait and see I suppose.
Well, maybe with sufficient repeated applications of the embarrassment, his head will asplode, right there on the podium. Then we could get a future president earlier than anticipated, and we could get our troops the fuck out of Iraq.
I’m sure Ms. Thomas would disagree, since she’s on record as saying that she would kill herself if Cheney was just a candidate for president. Lord knows what she’d do if he actually became president, which is what would happen in your scenario. 
Maybe it would help to picture Washington and Lincoln praying, “Lord, give this guy a clue…”.
Could someone point out to me in the First Amendment where it says that opinion writers cannot ask the President tough questions at press conferences because only so called “objective” news reporters are permitted to do that? :rolleyes:
Whatever. ISTM that Cheney, by virtue of the old “heartbeat away” chestnut already is a candidate for the presidency. Anyway, as far as I care, she can just work her way through the line of succession, until we get someone who isn’t a piece of shit.
All of this is aside from the point that I really believe that George the Lesses is merely a front, whose purpose is to deflect attention away from those who are actually wielding the power. Hey, just because Douglas Adams was a satirist doesn’t mean none of his plot devices accurately described reality (or eventual reality, in this case).
So don’t look at that, then. Look at this instead (broadband advised, click “video”).
Can you point to where I said that? You can’t, so take your :rolleyes: and shove it up your ass.
Well, what else did you mean by saying this:
In this post?
I meant that she can’t be considered an objective news reporter, or any news reporter, for that matter, since an openly biased news reporter is a contradiction. Unles you want to allow people to call Rush Limabaugh and Ann Coulter news reporters. Do you? Imagine, if you will, that the CBS news anchor started each newscast with “I hate George Bush and think he’s the worst president ever. Now, for tonight’s news…” Even if you hate George Bush, wouldn’t you be at least a little skeptical of what the newscaster was reporting?
That has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
Yes, Helen Thomas is biased, Pope still Catholic, film at 11. But I think Brain Wreck’s point was that you made a specific point of saying the reason you object to her presence in the press room in the first place is because she’s biased. Well, why should she have less access than hand-picked moles like Jeff Anderson? She’s still a member of the White House press corps and a respected journalist.
Oh, and that question she asked the president was hardly a statement of opinion.
After that, she was lucky to get a word in edgewise, so she was hardly badgering him.
Maybe they’re attempting a mind-meld.
They’d need something to work with.
Did I say I objected to her presence in the press room? I recall saying that I wouldn’t have invited her if was Bush, but I also said it’s his perogative to invite her if he wanted. And she is free to ask him any question she wants.
Lets back up a bit, though. I thought we were talking about zamboni’s post. How did you see that what you quoted from me related to the 1st amendment, per his post?
What are you talking about? He cut taxes, and he pushed through mandatory testing of schoolkids. Was there anything else ON his to-do list in 2000? The whole campaign was “I’ll cut taxes! Oh, and Gore is a nerd! Who won’t cut taxes! But I will! Cut taxes!”
As for the OP topic: my reaction was “Well of COURSE he won’t pull the troops out, barring some miracle that lets him claim victory. Otherwise, of course he’ll leave Iraq for his successor to sort out. That way, he and his worshippers can maintain the fantasy that Iraq would have become Switzerland-on-the-Euphrates if only W. had stayed in office.”
I foresee a more Vietnam-ish “and it would have worked if it weren’t for those meddling hippies.”
Wait, that’s Scooby-Doo. Whatever.