# Maybe Bush is clueless after all... **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 17, 2001, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154 "2001-06-17T21:40:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/21 "2001-06-21T10:07:01Z")
I’m simply wondering how far out of context that quote, if true, was reported. ---
**Author:** ![Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/22 "2001-06-21T10:47:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > \*\*Ah yes, how nice. An unattributed, unconfirmed, second-party quote, making it abolutely impossible to evaluate its veracity. I’m sorry, but I have to regard this as little more than rumor. And since we all know reporters are paragons of virtue, there’s no chance this report has been “embellished.” Frankly, I’m surprised an editor would even let something like this be published. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw24 \* > \*\*The issue isn’t what the President says or does out in the open. Here we have a topic of great security and someone attending the meeting can’t keep his fool mouth shut about an absolute trivial thing. Plus, he (or she) is such a wuss that that person had to be refered to as a “white house insider” for fear of retribution. \*\* I’m guessing that neither of you knows any reporters, and lives nowhere near Washington. Oh wait, Ender works at a radio station… Anyways. First off, any editor worth his salt will only let a quote like this be published if it is confirmed. The editors and the reporters involved know exactly who they spoke to, and who confirmed it. But getting the quote, and getting the speaker to have his/her name appear in print are two entirely different things. Is the ‘insider’ afraid of retribution? Maybe, but chances are he’s a person who’s been ordered to leak something to the press by his boss. That’s just how Washington works. And we’re not talking some fly-by-night internet reporter writing this. This article appears in Newsweek, a very well established newsmagazine. If you think Newsweek is making up stuff just to prove Bush is a dork, well, you have serious problems. Washington operates entirely on politicos and bureaucrats talking to the press, and not being willing to have their name appear in print. It’s been this way for decades, and it’s part of the unique white house culture. It may not be the best thing, but it’s how it is… And as for Bush’s ignorance about the number of nuclear missiles he controls being ‘an absolutely trivial thing’. :eek: You’re joking, right? The man who wants to build an anti-nuclear missile shield to fight ‘rogue states’ has no idea how much firepower he controls, and this is trivial? ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/23 "2001-06-21T12:48:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scotticher \* > \*\*resist someone flipping their unclothed behind in your face. \*\* Not that I want to hijack this thread or anything, but the Clinton/Lewinsky deal went beyond the “unclothed behind” thing, and went well on into the “You are the POTUS, and I grovel and adore you and how may I serve you” thing. It’s coming around again in the media with Mister Fabulous, the California congressman (Democrat), and Chandra, the Mysteriously Missing Sexy Intern. Maybe we should reserve powerful political positions for eunuchs. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/24 "2001-06-21T13:48:27Z")
I didn’t say I doubted the verocity of the quote, **Barbarian.** I know you were talking to **Unclebeer** when you said it, but you included me in the reply. I believe the quote was real. And while I don’t work near Washington (and actually don’t work at the radio station anymore, but it’s nice to know people remember these things), I have worked as a reporter in the past. I understand the need, in certain situations, to keep someone anonymous. I’m not too interested in knowing who Deep Throat is because, well, it was kinda important he remain hidden. But in many cases, I think it’s the pansy’s way out. I get pissed when every other letter to the editor is written by “Name withheld upon request,” Damn that guy gets published a lot. I think that if you’re going to say something just slightly mabye possibly inflammatory, have the balls to put your name behind it. And yes, the White House does do certain controlled leaks. But I can’t imagine a situation where someone higher up said “Hey Jim. Call the Times and tell them about this bonehead move the Prez did today!” They leak stories and events, not gossip. And perhaps I overstated the idea that it was no big deal. It is a big deal. The President not knowing, five full months into his presidency, how many nuclear weapons he has, is mind boggling. I am concerned that he didn’t know up to that point. But, given that, I find it no big deal that he _asked the question._ How else is he supposed to find out? Think of it as fighting ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/25 "2001-06-21T15:14:27Z")
> [@](#): > > First off, any editor worth his salt will only let a quote like this be published if it is confirmed. Sure, in a perfect world. Unfortunately, it is patently obvious to me that is not the world _I’m_ living in. But if you wanna believe everything you read in the paper is the clear and unvarnished _truth_, and quotes are never taken out of context, it ain’t no skin off my monkey. And yet, I didn’t even really say that I disbelieved it. Or at least I didn’t mean to. I merely tried to convey my disdain for unattributed quotes such as this one. It is simply impossible for me to evaluate the veracity such things. Apparently, unlike you, I do not believe everything I read without qualification. Nor do I believe the press is totally honest in all situations. I do, however, believe many reporters, and their editors, don’t always allow the facts to get in the way of a good story. > [@](#): > > This article appears in Newsweek, a very well established newsmagazine. So? All this means is one publication lifted the story from another. Unless you believe this “Whitehouse insider” is going around telling any reporter who’ll listen the story. And that right there punches a small hole in your claim that “The editors and the reporters involved know exactly who they spoke to, and who confirmed it.” If the story was lifted from another publication, the second reporter/editor probably have no idea who’s quote they are printing. Besides, if the quote was actually confirmed by another party, why did the article not say so? If they had simply made that small statement, it would be far easier for me to believe fully that this event actually transpired as reported. Now, what do y’all think we should do with this thread? It ain’t caustic enough (yet) for the Pit. Nor is it focused enough for GD. Somebody post something that’ll convince me to move to one of those two places. Propose a debate, or call me an asshole. Either way … ---
**Author:** ![Scotticher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Scotticher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scotticher)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/26 "2001-06-21T20:42:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ukulele Ike \* > > “You are the POTUS, and I grovel and adore you and how may I serve you” thing. Sorry, hon…I am ashamed to admit that I don’t have a CLUE…what is a POTUS? > [@](#): > > Maybe we should reserve powerful political positions for eunuchs. Heh…it may yet come to that. And, my apologies for the hijack. It just still steams me that the country wasted millions and zillions of dollars debating the President’s personal life. Particularly since he did an extremely good job running this country. IMHO. Scotti ---
**Author:** ![Scotticher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Scotticher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scotticher)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/27 "2001-06-21T20:46:30Z")
As is generally the way with me, the minute I hit the submit button, “the penny dropped” and I got the POTUS thing. ::sigh:: ---
**Author:** ![Montfort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Montfort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Montfort)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/28 "2001-06-21T21:34:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > **Propose a debate, or call me an asshole.** Someone out there is looking for a new sig, I’m sure. I would like to humbly offer this for their consideration. Not me, however, I’m perfectly happy with my own sig. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/29 "2001-06-21T23:20:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scotticher \* > \*\* > Sorry, hon…I am ashamed to admit that I don’t have a CLUE…what is a POTUS? > > Scotti \*\* **P** resident **O** f **T** he **U** nited **S** tates ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/30 "2001-06-22T04:47:17Z")
“Maybe”? There’s no “maybe” about it. ---
**Author:** ![Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/31 "2001-06-22T08:26:24Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* \*\* > [@](#): > > It is simply impossible for me to evaluate the veracity such things. Apparently, unlike you, I do not believe everything I read without qualification. \*\* Yes, it is impossible for you, and all other citizens, to evaluate the truth behind what actually happens in the corridors of power. You have a choice. Trust no one, or put some faith in people like myself, who do our best to figure out what’s going on and _tell you about it_. Since when does my attempt to explain how political reporting works mean I believe everything I read without qualification? Back that up, hombre… > [@](#): > > Nor do I believe the press is totally honest in all situations. I do, however, believe many reporters, and their editors, don’t always allow the facts to get in the way of a good story. Yep, the press gets bad press. But facts come first. Always. A good reporter should be like a good scientist-- take the facts, then turn them into a good story. It’s unfortunate that bad reporters, and bad scientists, exist. > [@](#): > > So? All this means is one publication lifted the story from another. Unless you believe this “Whitehouse insider” is going around telling any reporter who’ll listen the story. And that right there punches a small hole in your claim that “The editors and the reporters involved know exactly who they spoke to, and who confirmed it.” If the story was lifted from another publication, the second reporter/editor probably have no idea who’s quote they are printing. Did you do any digging before you posted? 'Cause it certainly sounds like you believed everything you read in the OP without qualification. The OP refers to a reuters article posted on Yahoo that was rewritten from an original article in Newsweek. I’ll go out on a limb and guarantee you that if you call Sharon Squassoni, John Barry or Evan Thomas (the original 3 Newsweek reporters) they will tell you how they got the quote, and what steps they took to confirm the quote, will be exactly what I wrote in my first post to this thread. They are the ‘editors and the reporters involved’. The folks at Reuters have no clue who said what… but then you’re coming up against the odd phenomena that occurs when news organizations tell you what other news organizations are doing… > [@](#): > > Besides, if the quote was actually confirmed by another party, why did the article not say so? They should have. I tend to follow the guidelines set down by the folks over at **Brill’s Content**. Their rules about identifying anonymous parties: > [@](#): > > […]we believe that if unnamed sources must be used, they should be labeled in a way that sheds light on the limits and biases of the information they offer. Which means come up with a better description than ‘knowledgeable source’, and say that someone else confirmed it. ---
**Author:** ![White\_Lightning](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@White\_Lightning](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/White_Lightning)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/32 "2001-06-22T08:42:40Z")
> [@](#): > > “What do we need them for?” the president was said to have asked… Sounds like pure wisdom to me. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/33 "2001-06-22T11:15:27Z")
um, 1. Bush cutting down nuclear arsenal 2. Bush hawking the Son of Star Wars Defence System. Which one looks more correct? ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_The\_Younger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d9b06d/32.png) [@Paul\_The\_Younger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_The_Younger)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2001, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/34 "2001-06-23T00:01:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jaimest \* > \*\*I thought it was common knowledge that the US had over 10,000 nuclear warheads. Its not exactly an obscure bit of information. I’d like to think that the president would know BEFOREHAND how many nuclear weapons he is in charge of, and not be startled several months into his administration. \*\* How could he have forgotten this important fact? I find myself… **Envisioning the President’s morning briefing…** Aide 1: “Mr. President, you need to know that the US has over 10,000 nuclear warheads in it’s arsenal.” Bush: “Okay, 10,000 nuclear warheads.” Aide 2: “Mr. President, for lunch today we’re having turkey subs on the patio with members of the Rabbinical Council.” Bush: “Right, turkeys for lunch, and 10,000 nuclear submarines.” Aide 3: “Mr. President, don’t forget your 10 o’clock meeting with Governor Pataki of New York.” Bush: “Uh huh…let’s see…10 o’clock with Governor Pastrami and then lunch on a nuclear sub with 10,000 rabid New Yorkers, got it. Don’t forget to schedule my 3 o’clock nap. OK, gentleman, let’s go to work!” [sup]Oy vey![/sup] :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![clayton\_e](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c57346/32.png) [@clayton\_e](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clayton_e)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2001, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/35 "2001-06-23T04:54:44Z")
Well duh! “Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?” - “Dubya” ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2001, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154/36 "2001-06-23T06:11:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scotticher \* > **It just still steams me that the country wasted millions and zillions of dollars debating (Clinton’s) personal life.** I still maintain that was because the GOP brain trust was jealous that he was the only president in a long time who was even reasonably boinkable (by the ladies). 🙂 I can’t even _begin_ to imagine a nubile young interim wanting to get into bed with walking fossils like Bush Sr., Reagan, or Nixon. (Of course, under Republican logic, getting a blowjob from a consenting adult is worthy of an impeachment trial, but being AWOL from military service and dodging mandatory drug tests are just “youthful indiscretions”… :rolleyes: ) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-bush-is-clueless-after-all/69154.md?page=1)