Come to think of it, Jimmy Carter only actually served one term. Just saying, is all.
I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but personally, there is a sort of bleak entertainment to be found in the increasing directness with which people are directing Bush to consider his myriad failures in the attempt to discern whether the man has anything even vaguely resembling a sense of shame. As spectator sports, it’s awfully morbid, considering what’s at stake, but I take what I can get.
Her position is irrelevant. How is the question partisan?
As spectator sports go…
It was relevant when I first brought it up in this thread in response to a discussion about her. I only brought it up again when it was challenged.
I never said it was. I just said it was a stupid question to ask beacuse you know the answer you’re going to get. Even someone as dim as Bush didn’t fall for the “trap”. Does anyone really expect him to say: “Well, Helen, now that you bring it up, the real reason I wanted to invade Iraq was…” Yes, reporters ask those trick questions all the time, but for those who think it was such a great question and helpful in the process of getting the fact out: What new information did we learn as the result of HT asking this question? Nothing.
Yes, in this case.
When so much has been revealed about what the administration did and did know know and believe prior to invasion, as well as what, given the information known to be available to them, it is reasonable to expect that they should have known and believed prior to invasion, and considering that Bush’s current round of less-screened public appearances is reputedly aimed at clearing the air between him and the American people, yes, I expected a straightforward answer to that question, because the answer he gave, a parroting of the known untruths he and his administration have been peddling to an increasingly dubious public for the past three years, was, at his has been since day one, an insult to my intelligence.
Again, that says something, but not about Helen Thomas.
In the same way that, as Rob Corddry pointed out, “From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it’s become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.”
I don’t think you really believe that, but if you do, all that shows is that I’m better at making predictions about these things than you are.
A fool could have predicted that he would dodge the question.
What was refreshing was to see a journalist who hadn’t forgotten that the likely outcome didn’t imply the question shouldn’t be posed.
With about 2/3rds of the country against Bush at the moment, it is clear that the people want some straight talk on Iraq. It is a journalist’s duty, as someone with access, to ask directly for that straight talk. When the president says he’s there to talk straight, such a question provides him with an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is.
A straightforward answer would have been an indicator to me that Bush is sincere in wanting to explain just what the hell it is he thinks he and his cronies are accomplishing. It would have shown me that he has a shred of human honesty in him.
I am also, sadly, not the least bit surprised at this point that he chose not to answer the question honestly. But it’s all for the good: the people need to see and hear what sort of leader he is, so the question had to be asked, just as he needed, as he has for some time, to talk to the people in these unfiltered fora.
IOW, you knew he would dodge it, but you hoped he might not. That’s different from what you originally said.
Meh. This happens all the time. If not to Bush, then to Scotty. There was nothing refreshing or insightful about it. It wasn’t even particularly original. I’m all for the Harball questions, but they have to be effective questions, too. If you want some good examples, check out the GD thread from a few weeks ago when the OP was soliciting questions for his friend to ask Bush in the Cleveland meeting. I think our own folks here had some better ideas than HT did.
Bush is continuing to avoid and deny reality. Every time that fact is re-confirmed is significant, and the question needs to be asked daily, until either the answer changes or the people get fed up with the evasion and march down Pennsylvania Avenue with pitchforks and torches, or whatever passes for widespread abandonment of a leader in our electronically fragmented culture.
Cervaise: Don’t get me wrong-- I’m not unsympathetic to that point of view at all. I’m just being realistic in my cynicism that it has any chance of happening. We just had the 3 year anniversary of the Iraq invasion. The protests were miniscule*. The only way to affect change is for the Democrats to gain control of at aleast on of the Houses in Congress in November. Frankly, the more Bush is out there being all comabtive with the press, the more he shores up his base, and even turns some of the undecideds in his favor. I bet he gets his polls numbers up a bit due to these recent events (although I have no doubt they’ll sag right back down again as soon as he stops). Sorry if I can’t get excited about some throw-away question from HT.
*Did you participte, btw? If not, then a call to the barricades is pretty empty.
As I said, I wouldn’t take Scott McLellan’s job for a pile of money and all the maalox in the world. My biggest gripe is that these questions are never answered, they’re side stepped. And yes, it’s probably naive to expect an answer at this point, but I don’t think that should stop us from asking the hard questions. Congress won’t challenge the administration’s actions, someone has to.
As far as what I ORIGINALLY said, it was that I was amazed at how he answered the question. Amazed is not surprised. I can be amazed that The Great Zamboni pulls a rhino out of the back of his pants during his magic act, but if I had every indication (posters, ads, my program) that tonight’s performance would include the rhino-from-the-pants trick, I will not be surprised.
Simpering sycophant that he is*, I cut McLellan some slack. While he SHOULD know the details of White House policy on everything, it can be hard to call them all to mind in the heat of direct questioning, and the personality required for the job pretty much says that you will leap to the defense, even if what comes out of your mouth makes little sense. I feel no compulsion to offer ANY president such consideration. It’s their policy, they should know it like the back of their hand.
*Not knocking him actually, it’s pretty much in the job description for a press secretary. I recall years ago in the 80s that John Chancellor did a TV special where the panel was every living former press secretary, from I believe Eisenhower’s or Truman’s guys up through at least Jody Powell from the Carter administration. Powell was the only one of the bunch who allowed himself to show even the slightest sign of having an objective, possibly critical opinion of the policies it had been their job to explain to the press. Everyone else was just as much of a toady as they had been while on the job.
No, just barely reported upon by the lapdog mass media. Hundreds of thousands participated.
[qutoe]Frankly, the more Bush is out there being all comabtive with the press, the more he shores up his base, and even turns some of the undecideds in his favor.
[/quote]
Approval ratings down in the mid-30’s now. Even among Republicans, it’s down to around 70. Is that statement drawn from the facts or from your partisan fantasizing?
I’m afraid Dubya will not be able to dump all this on future presidents:
A discussion on this, over here:
Screw the election debates. I just want to listen in when the subject of who’s going to run is “discussed” at the Clinton household.
Somehow, ivy, I don’t think it’s going to work out that way in Iraq.
When I was in Germany in 1988, the guide had told us the land the base was on was deeded to the USA,so it is our property. It makes it easier for the US to move troops with less expense and most of our injured soilders are move there for faster treatment.
Monavis
Now the U.S. is “telling” Iraq to replace their Prime Minister - with someone more compliant I suppose.
Hmmm? Cite?