That hasn’t stopped Fox News, has it?
Nothing substantual to add, just the word pullout keeps making me think of sex.
Bush admiting to getting fucked?
Last I looked, “Fox News” isn’t a person. But if you have cites of a Fox reporter (not a commentator like O’Reilly, but a reporter) stating on the record something similar to what HT has said* on the record, then I’ll be happy to question that reporter’s credentials, too.
*that a sitting president is the worst president ever, or that the reporter would commit suicide if the sitting VP ran for president.
Is Les Kinsolving a reporter or a commentator?
CMC fnord!
Blah. Bush got us into a war, and we still don’t have the REAL answer as to why. Instead of a walk in the park with rose petals, we have possible civil war. Instead of a stable democratic government in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have some hodgepodge of sharia law taking hold. There is still no timetable for withdrawal, and the Iraqis still don’t seem to be able to police themselves.
And people are more upset that a reporter may have hurt Bush’s feelings by asking a REAL question? Give me a break.
Never heard of him. Is he with Fox?
I would need a cite for that. I suspect they are viewed with more respect than the men they elected to the highest offices in the land. They have good reason for their low opinion of these men. One of the reasons is that we are in a war and we aren’t clear about why.
Those questions aren’t just coming from the “left” now, John. Helen Thomas asked a question that is on a lot of minds right now. Do you think that it a question that has been explained adequately previously? Do you think that it is an unreasonable question considering the people’s right to know? Why have the reasons continued to change?
President Bush is responsible for getting the facts out. Asking him why we are at war doesn’t mean we hate him.
“The glee people”? The word gleeful is one of Rush’s cliches that he projects onto the Democrats and anyone who objects to the destruction, incompetence, greed and lies of this administration. He thinks that it’s politics as usual. Meanwhile, Bush’s ratings are lower than any President since Nixon. I assure you that glee is not what we are feeling.
For the first time in four years she was free to ask him a question. And, according to Chris Matthews on Imus in the Morning on March 24, 2006, President Bush felt free to pretend that Helen Thomas was trying to interrupt him at times when she wasn’t. Matthews said Thomas was set up.
No.
From, Les’ Bio
His questions at WH press conferences are of the “Are you still beating your wife” variety.
If he wants to be an opinion writer, fine. Let him do that. But if he wants to be a news reporter, he needs to keep his crabby opinions to himself.
Or is there a double standard?[
](http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/072805.html)
CMC fnord!
The President does *not * get to choose who he wants to have reporting on his administration. Not yet, anyway, but it’s sad to see someone normally as smart as you thinking he does. Where the holy hell did you get *that * idea from?
First of all, fuck you. Second, this idea that it is simple glee at seeing somebody embarrassed, not a genuine concern about the war and the reasons for people getting killed, is a comment we’d expect from the likes of Shodan or duffer. It’s a sad commentary that the best way you can find to support this administration is to deny either the good intentions or the sanity of anyone who’d question it. And did I mention fuck you? Fuck you again, then.
So why *do * you think Bush started this war? Do you even think it matters, much less that it should be explored and discussed in what is still putatively a democracy?
That post no doubt was a cathartic experience for you, accomplishing a temporary if unfounded feeling of moral and intellectual superiority to the mere fact-based community. But it did not add to intelligent debate about the Iraq war and where we go from here. You got your jab in. Great. What did it accomplish? *Less * than nothing - you provided nothing for anyone to think about, you only cemented your recently-hard-won position as a Kool-Aid-poisoned kneejerker - and we have enough of those around as it is.
Grow the fuck up, dude. Accept some responsibility for your country, not the party you still oddly deny you’ve adopted. The country is bigger and more important. And meanwhile, fuck you some more.
I’m thinking this whole “she was mean and partisan and asked a mean partisan question” is bullshit. I’m sorry, but that’s how I see it. It was a fair question. It deserved an honest answer. It feeds into other questions about other things, which were / are justified by the “we’re at war” argument. One question should lead to the next. And the next. Tough shit if Bush didn’t like it, and tough shit if his “fans” don’t like it. Saying that reporter was mean or biased is a sorry right wing bullshit talking point.
As for “signing statements”, bullshit on that too. Hey Bushy, either sign the fucking thing or veto it. By the way, did anyone catch the way he slipped that “unitary executive” phrase (a John Yoo invention) in there? The more I think on it, the more I believe he was once again telling all of us “I will do whatever I fucking please”.
Have you followed the Domenech plagiarism debacle this week? The level of right wing whining over those impolite lefties beggers the imagination!
I’ve been following it. That “writer” was a liar, a plagiarist, a bigot, and a general scumbag. To hell with him and his defenders too.
I never said she was mean, but she is partisan. That’s a fact. If you can refute the proof I’ve offered about that, have at it.
I don’t give a damn if she is or isn’t. What does it matter? After all, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc, have been NOT asking hard questions for several years. Uhhhhhh, what was that one which was “held in abeyance” until after the last election??? I want real news and answers. I do NOT want “happy news” about how great The Leader is, or how well the war on everybody is going. If it’s partisan to not roll over and play nice, then have at it. I had a big problem, just around the time I joined the Dope - the news I read did NOT match the facts I knew. I was real confused, and thought it was just me being stupid. Why? The “media” was acting like a big spineless lying echo chamber for the White House. Now someone finally has the nerve to ask a real question, and the righties get their panties all twisted up.
Again, I don’t give a shit if she is partisan. It’s all been partisan for years, in the other direction. I’m sick and tired of the barely disguised “dearest and wisest leader tell us how wonderful you are” shit.
Well, if he advertises himself as an editorial writer, then I don’t see a problem. I’m not sure what Helen Thomas advertises herself as these days, but I think it would be disengenuous of her to call herself a news reporter. That’s all. She might ask the most insightful questions in the world, but at this point I wouldn’t trust any of her news articles, if she even writes any these days, because of her declared bias. It’s nothing against her specifically, but any reporter who makes his or her bias explicit.
If Rush Limbaugh wrote an “article” about Ted Kennedy, would you believe anything in it? I wouldn’t.
Emphasis added.
Isn’t that exactly what I said earlier in this thread? Do you think Bush suddenly decided to call on HT out of the kindness in his heart? I suspect she was set up.
BTW, I don’t have a cite per your other question. It’s an opinion, but one shared by quite a few political analysts I’ve seen. If you disagree, fine.
GWB:
'Bout fucking time, George. At least you’re learning.
John Mace:
Y’know what would have accomplished something? An actual, honest answer to the fucking question. Just a thought.
John Mace again:
Yes, if “Are you still beating your wife?” were preceded by: "Sir, everybody’s seen the police reports about you beating your wife on several occasions, and we’ve talked to the neighbors about your beating your wife, and looked at the videotapes of you actually beating your wife at various times and with various implements, so we were just wondering . . . "
Let’s try to focus on the positive here.
By conceding the existence of future presidents, it appears Bush has given up any plans he may have had of cancelling the 2008 elections.
Little Nemo
Yes, but he might be working on repealing the 22nd amendment.
Much as I abhor George II, his pomps and his works, I kinda doubt this. For one thing, it’s awfully late in the day. For another, unless it’s framed in such a way as to be an utter political sham—which we know would never happen under this administration—it would allow one William Jefferson Clinton to run again. And that would be a nightmare beyond their wildest conception.
Sure would be fun to watch the election debates, though, huh?