I know that the comments of Bill Maher have been discussed here, but this story takes the cake.
Excuse me? Somebody who is working for the same president who claimed that “freedom has been attacked”, is cautioning people about what they say? Perhaps my dictionary is out of date, or perhaps my understanding of rights and freedoms in America is out of whack.
Ari Fleischer, please feel to suck the pus out of an infected hemorrhoid from a Tibetan Mountain Yaks’ crusty anus. Freedom means that we can say what we think. And even though you may not agree with what Bill Maher said, he has the right to say what he did. Perhaps your title should be changed from White House press secretary to Minister of (dis)Information.
I would expect a dictatorship or theological oligarchy to tell their citizens what to say or not to say.
This is exactly the time for Americans to say what they think, to show the world what freedom really is, and why it is worth sending young men and women into harms way to protect it.
Funny story: last week at lunch some of us were watching the news. One of my colleagues, a fellow D.C. transplant, said “I had the worst date of my life with Ari Fleischer.”
She went out with him when he was still working on the hill. Apparently the dude would NOT get off his cell phone while they were in the restaurant. He took every call, made calls, etc. Not work, crisis-related calls - silly social “how you doing?” calls. She stood it until the food came and then got up and said “you appear to enjoy dining with your phone so much, I’d hate to come between you” and left.
Yes, you are allowed to make her your personal hero.
Regardless of what you think of his politics (and I, frankly, find them offensive), I don’t think there can be any debate that Ari Fleisher is the single slimiest looking man in America. I mean, Bush could have picked ANYONE to be his PR guy, and they pick this guy? Come on, George. Even you had to be smarter than that.
What the hell is he talking about? Americans need to watch what they say? Coming from our White House? Shit, that is frickin’ dangerous.
We can talk about it, and argue (debate?) each other over the tastefullness of such statements, but to have the government come in and say whatch your language is a bit scary. Maher was not inciting riots, fer cryin’ out loud.
I’ve never cared for the way he handles the press. It is very arrogant. I disagree stongly with Maher’s comments (it’s cowardly to use innocent people to massacre more innocent people particularly when you kill yourself to avoid facing the consequences), but Maher has a right to say them. Why Fleisher cannot say that instead of questioning Maher’s judgment in a way that accuses him of disloyalty is beyond me. I don’t agree with Maher, but I’m not so narrow-minded that I cannot follow his argument.
And his statements about the President’s daughters (Fleisher’s), cutting reporters off from information as retaliation. I generally don’t think that the press should report every detail of Jenna and Barbara’s private life, we get too much, such as where they work, etc. But it is news when the President’s progeny is accused of violating the law and using their status (and secret service protection) to avoid the harsher consequences of a law their father signed. Fine, one or both did it, report it, analyze its relation to justice in the administration and move on. But don’t keep the tawdry details of these women’s lives in the news to the exclusion of its policy implications! Our press has no sense whatsoever. The real story that advances public interests is about the nature of the law in Texas for drinking teenagers, and next about how privilged people avoid it. Leading with headlines and photos of the women and burying the policy discussion is ass-backwards. It demeans the public, the purpose of the law and the women breaking it. Yes, it is a crime, but let’s put it in perspective.
Rant rant rant.
The press is so unbelievably irresponsible. They have barely managed to look dignified in the wake of the 9/11 bombings, and have time to recover. This war is going to be about information, and the press has a chance to redeem itself here. They can report the events and offer real analysis in a way the government cannot here. I hope they do.
The bolded remarks seem to refer back to this exchange:
So, what I think Fleischer was trying to say is that all kinds of people are saying all kinds of boneheaded things, and that they should really engage a filter between their brains and their mouths for the time being.
I would think that the purpose of a letter would be to find out if his comments were truly reprehensible, or if he stuck his foot in his mouth trying to make a broad statement about using tact. Certainly, no one should try to accuse Ari of being reprehensible in the name of all Dopers.
