But he didn’t say anything. Seeing as how he has about three press conferences in almost as many years, it was kind of normal to expect him to say…well, something. And as much as I scorn the man, I never thought he would still be trying to sell us Saddam’s dreaded WMD’s again.
And what, in the name of all that is Holy, was this crap about mustard gas hidden on a turkey farm? Who writes this shit?
All I can figure is that somebody convinced him that he had to have a press conference to turn this shit around, and he really, sincerely believes that all he had to do was repeat the same tired crapola and this time, it would work.
Which is why I’ve cringed at press conferences from pretty much every president I can remember. Reagan was little better at actually trying to answer the questions, but the rest of them were all the same. Bush stands out more because he can’t dance very well around with the bullshit, not because he’s any worse at not answering the questions.
Debates are the same way. Reporters ask the tough questions, and the candidates answer the question they wish had been asked. If you guys think otherwise, you have either very short or very selective memories (or both).
Lying and being pathologically inarticulate are two different things.
I can’t see how Clinton’s having lied about an affair (in and of itself) was the least bit harmful to the country. Certainly, vehemently pursuing a ludicrous impeachment was harmful.
But honestly, Clinton’s knowledge of global and domestic affairs, and his ability to clearly articulate his ideas, were never questioned even by his most ferocious attackers.
Bush inability to formulate coherent sentences is so much worse than any politician of national importance I’ve ever heard or seen, it defies the imagination. One can’t even spoof this man: the real thing is beyond satire.
…and yet… we elected him. Or at least, the Republican Party tells us we would have, if the Supreme Court had let us finish counting the votes, and if all the ballots had been allowed.
Or perhaps your own memory is incomplete. I refer you to this 1997 Clinton press conference, and this one, and this one. Each features reporters following up their own questions, or the questions of other reporters.
I agree that evading unpleasant questions is a time-honored political tradition. But I also believe that Bush took it to the extreme last night.
Anyone else reminded of King Arthur’s battle with the Black Night? “Your arm’s off.” “No it isn’t.” “Yes it is.” “Just a flesh wound.”
I’ve been wondering about the conference. I mean, why? Why’d the WH decide to have this conference now?
Maybe JC’s right in wondering if this a sign that the WH is worrying.
It’s reasonably obvious why he had the conference. It’s also reasonable obvious that at least someone in the WH was worried.
But I’m guessing that the worry was over the projected image: Situation in Iraq turns to shit, Bush on holiday again, doing nothing useful, “When the going gets tough, Bush goes fishing”, etc. Image advisor says that a press conference is required, to reassure the public that things are on track, etc.
Or did it? I know what I think, and people in this thread know what they think, and the talking heads on TV know what they think … but what about Joe Voter? What about people who don’t follow these stories as closely as people here do, for example? There are millions of people who don’t pay much attention to these weighty matters except during a presidential news conference that preempts American Idol.
This morning, Glenn Beck said that the Pres’s poor performance was the fault of the Media, (I’m sure he capitalized it when I heard it), “trying to trip him up.”