Blast From the Past: January 2002
January, 2002: President Bush recites, in the State of the Union Address:
Our cause is just, and it continues. Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depth of our enemies' hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world.
What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan's camps, and so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning.
Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it.
Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.
Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld — including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed — operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.
While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia.
My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf.
But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will.
Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens — leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections — then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch — yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
We can't stop short. If we stop now — leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked — our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight."
Man, oh man. Doesn't anybody remember the "decade" parts of Bush's early speeches? And I thought: Cheez; he knows this is going to go well beyond any administration of his.
The Death of America is mirrored in the complete impatience and panic of my fellow citizens in all things regarding this campaign (true; I call it a "War on Islamic Fascism," at least until we can determine that we have some significant enemies in the mix that are either (a) non-Islamic, or (b) non-Fascist. But I stipulate to Bush's "War on Terror" in the same way I stipulate to the "+" on the "+" end of batteries. It's strictly not right, but it works in practice.)It's a pity G. W. (himself used to being misunderestimated) seems to have greatly underestimated the stunted attention-span and patience of a generation raised on drive-thru restaurants and Starbucks coffee. In his woeful attempt to treat the Average U. S. Citizen as a grown-up, with all the rights, responsibilities and perspectives pertaining thereto, the Bush Administration made a gross error. It seems that only about half of American adults are actually grown-ups.
And, as the grown-ups die off, we'll be left with a dread mix of citizenry either muttering darkly about "grups"
"Bonk! Bonk! On the head!"
or attempting to run down any Ralphs and Piggys left.
Pick your analogy.
And if any problems aren't solved in a year or two, the citizenry — if such it could still be called — will lose focus, convulse again and drop whatever important national business that needs tending like a chimp dropping a radio.
"Oh, no: you fell into the trap. ... Gerald? ... Gerald, you fell into the trap." - Peter Shickele, "What's My Melodic Line?"
Where to start? I'll leave the parsing of this particular GW address for another time. It's late and my insomnia is not quite THAT severe.
As to your commentary, though:
You're misreading the impatience of your fellow citizens, wrymouth. We fully understand and even support our government's efforts to eradicate terrorists; we're just impatient with the generally high-handed, patronizing approach, and in particular, we're impatient with this phase of the eternal global war on terror: the one that involves Iraq.
We're appalled that it has become painfully apparent that the Administration planned for nothing more than defeating an Iraqi army that was about as sophisticated as the Flintstones. We're astonished that, despite dire predictions by senior State Department personnel and uniformed military officers, not one iota of careful thought was given as to what would happen after the lightning war to Baghdad.
We're tired of seeing growing American casualties; hard-earned tax dollars flushed to the tune of $1 billion a week; increased insurgent activity; and an ineffectual, fractious Iraqi government -- all arrayed against the shallow, repetitive platitudes that serve as background muzak to the incompetence: 'we're turning the corner', 'the insurgency is in it's last throes', 'no one could have predicted' and the always popular 'it's hard'.
We're tired of a White House that has been sloganeering conflicting messages for 5 years now:
"It's a war."
"But there's no body armor."
"There's a growing threat."
"But keep spending your money."
"We're safer but not safe."
"But we're fighting over there so we don't have to fight them here."
"We're extending deployments."
"But we won't draft any replacements."
"We're spending $1 billion a week."
"But we're cutting your taxes."
We're not impatient with the "war" on terror; we're impatient with the incompetent way in which it is being waged. We're tired of being told that the only solutions are 1 or 0. We're base-10 beings - we know there are more choices than that.
Simply: we've grown impatient with the bullshit.
Reply to this
but mostly, the opposition seems to be upset that they can't paraphrase Peter Schickele: "... George, you fell into the trap."
Where to start? There are too many places, but I'm guessing it's Wrangle's call for a draft that pisses them off the most. As long as we're using a volunteer army, that pesky Vietnam parallel just doesn't work.
And it's the opposition that clamors for the blood of the conscripted, just as they are the ones who posited a link between Iraq and Al-Queda - and now complain that there never was a link; or Sadaam and 9-11 (another opposition construct now shown to be nonsense).
Can you imagine the campaigning after the installation of an unnecessary draft? I'll bet some of the opposition is wetting itself with anticipation.
Just as some of the support was wetting itself with anticipation about the WWII-style celebrations and parades that never materialized.
The opposition uses inane slogan-building, and uses the same straw-man technique that the radio talk show entertainers use.
The biggest problem is that the opposition betrays simple-minded willing ignorance when they are the ones holding the elected seats.
It's okay to abhor the Iraq war on a thousand legitimate fronts... Cogito brings them up - but the march of the strawmen even find their way into his discourse.
As he advised me once, he too needs to retire some of those tired exaggerations. The Rather test for authenticity doesn't really apply, and it's okay to dismiss out-of-hand the rantings of people you agree with. Particulary when there are myriad places of legitimate contention.
Reply to this
CL, please advise which of my statements are exaggerations and I'll try to dial them down to merely factual.
Also, which of the 'opposition' linked Iraq and Al-qaida? Or Sadaam and 9-11? These links, I think, have GOT to be copyrighted by Dick Cheney, who, in his last interview on 'Meet the Press' in September 2006, STILL WOULD NOT FLATLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN SADAAM AND 9-11.
Q All right, now the President was asked what did Iraq have to do with the attack on the World Trade Center. And he said nothing. Do you agree with that?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do.
Q So it's case closed?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: We've never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Why not just 'Yes'? Always leave the door open, Dick. That's the boy.
Reply to this
Rats. It sounds as though you're among those astonished that the casualty list keeps growing. I myself will be astonished the day the casualty list actually shrinks. Let's now second-draft: parse out (again, looking at the actual words of your worthy opponents, and not the Daily Kos) *your* objections from this general collection of pearls and gew-gaws.
Also, I look forward -- truly -- to seeing how The Next This Administration is going to grapple with this issue. Are the Dems going to be able to run on a platform that's not merely "Hate Bush?" That'd give me something to ponder.
Reply to this
The Next 'This Administration' is screwed no matter who it is.
It will take this country decades to recover from the 'misunderestimating' of the task these guys assigned themselves.
...and the Dems DO have a platform besides 'hate Bush'. Don't you love the way their message is minimized by that pesky 'liberal' media?
Reply to this
"decades to recover"... I'll take that bet, a friendly dinner at the restaurant of the winner's choosing. What's the over/under on "decades?" 14.5 years?
Also, no recovery necessary would count as 0 years, and the under wins. I appeal to "Lurker" (we'll get you a niftier moniker, don't you worry, Cit) to be the referee.
Now about that platform: let's delineate 3 planks that would appeal to moi, the socially conservative voter who could be swayed in either direction. No whining over the 'liberal' media here (I'll look up the only actual study on the subject I've seen, which leaned in the direction of verifying a liberal leaning in the MSM, but that is moot here), since no one on this site (yet) subscribes to the existence of a meaningful tilt in the media, either leftward or rightward. "Narrowcasting" has had the boon, methinks, of providing variously tilted sources of information for all.
But who, amongst the citizenry, actually bothers to look both ways before they cross the Rubicon? Those are the people I refer to above, Dem: "Bonk! Bonk!" It wasn't ever intended to read as a righty slam on the leftocracy.
I don't have to imagine that plenty of people on the right are shocked, shocked! that the casualty count keeps increasing and that the enemy hasn't rolled over yet.
But we should understand that that's the kind of struggle you get when you are The Lousiest Imperialists Ever -- *not* fighting to take over countries, *not* fighting in spite of public opinion, *not* fighting until the *enemy* says you've won overwhelmingly.
The Lousiest Imperialists, much to the chagrin of Howard Zinn types, keeps turning "conquered" countries loose, as soon as they can get a decent government in place. Stupid Imperialists!
And so, it takes time to accomplish the stated goal of actually *stirring up the hornet's nest* in the Middle East, because the Status Quo wasn't. The nutjobs, countryless, allied to none, without portfolio, kept getting wackier and wackier ideas and larger and larger weapons with which to carry out said wacky ideas. Me? I'da tried to go Afghanistan to Iran, but I get the feeling This Admin has always felt that Iran was the Big Dog, and that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the weak spot (and, if one goes by world opinion -- and I'm still waiting for a convincing argument as to why the USA should seriously want to consider the opinions of too many other countries, who have trouble spreading the graft out just to the point where their citizens have enough to eat before skimming the rest -- if one goes by world opinion, Saddam *was* already in dutch with the UN). Well, they didn't ask me. Next time, I'll send 'em a card, because I feel that I can think around things pretty mich as well as the folks in guvmint these days. I'm old enough, and I got the smarts and experience.
So, what to do? Do we try to manage things with legal maneuvers and police actions (I can hear Senator Kennedy now: "thish ish a QUAGMIRE!)? Do we try an all-out assault?
Okay, those two approaches have been/are being tried (see last two This Admins). Am I to blame the Clinton Admin for treading too lightly? Did *you?*
I'll wager that, if recovery is needed, it'll take less than 5 years.
Saying that the jig is up, and the Next Admin is screwed no matter what, betrays a bankruptcy of imagination on your side of the line. I suppose that is to be expected of a Pirates fan ("We're beat no matter what! Why play?"), but where I come from, we play to win, and I presume the next set of fellows in power will try to find a way.
Good posting!
Reply to this
wrymouth, you and citizen_L post in the best jazz tradition: you take a theme and improvise, trading fours until it's barely recognizable - yet the sense of the original melody remains.
OK: You seem to be fixated on my 'increasing casualty' remark, disingenuously wondering how they could decrease (ha! ha!); or pointing out the naivete that one should expect the enemy to 'roll over'. I'll forward your remarks to President 'Mission Accomplished'; and Paul 'Medal of Freedom' Bremer, who thought you could throw 100,000 armed men out of work and expect THEM to 'roll over'.
2) I don't know where your 'Lousy Imperialist' riff came from - and I admit I don't quite understand your point. But yes, the U.S. turns its 'convert' countries loose, but I dispute your assertion that somehow they wait until there are 'decent governments' in place.
C) 'Stirring up the hornet's nest'. Wasn't this one of the President's beloved 'some say' strawmen? I'll look it up.
Here's the thing on that: No one, and I mean NO ONE objected to 'stirring up the hornets nest' in Afghanistan. That's how the President became the most popular one ever, in late 2001 and early 2002. It's the non-sequitur that is Iraq that has us scratching our heads. You posit that perhaps the next logical target was Iran. I think many would agree with you - including Bush's own senior military advisers, State Department staffers and CIA operatives. But the President and his guys and gals were fixated on Iraq, went in with no consideration for the end game, and now options regarding Iran (one of the true nuclear threats) are severely limited.
IV) I hear a lot from the right about their waiting for a convincing argument as to why the USA should seriously want to consider the opinions of too many other countries. Here's one: We can't succeed by ourselves. Our army is active in two theaters and is stretched beyond long-term sustainability. Our bank account is empty. Each unilateral decreases our leverage and the legitmacy of our position, it makes negotiation more transparent and therefore more difficult, if not impossible.
Compare and contrast the Gulf War I model, wherein GHWB and the skilled diplomats such as James Baker assembled a coalition to help fight and finance a total victory. The US taxpayer had almost the entire cost of the war reimbursed, and there was virtually no one Sadaam could turn to for support.
...And 'world opinion' had nothing to do with Sadaam being 'in dutch'. Daily US and UK overflights demonstrated that reality. But that role was largely supported by world opinion, as a byproduct of the international coalition put together during the war.
e.) I happen to think that legal manuevers and police actions ARE vital arrows in the quiver, along with in-depth intelligence. The London airline bombing plots were exposed and prevented this summer by police work and military intelligence, not shock and awe.
Reply to this
Don't forget the other stuff below.
Sorry about the 'jazz' thing. It's a symptom of Shiny Objects Syndrome.
(e) note we concur on this, as I did NOT find fault with Clinton's Admin for trying legal maneuvers, as that was probably the logical tack at the time (I assume the Admin is more informed than I, or anyone in the media). Not everyone is a Reagan, putting a bomb on your doorstep if you pull a Gaddafi. So we cut Clinton some slack. Do we cut him MORE slack, because he was more cautious, and hence, less expensive? Where do we draw the line? Do we applaud Carter's treatment of the Iranian hostage crisis? Or was that TOO cautious?
(IV) I hope it's not just the Right that argues for the superiority of the American system of government. Not everyone not on the Right is Zinn or Chomsky, are they? Are they? But I din't day NO ONE, I said the number of opinions we should consider are LIMITED. Here's a beginning list: England, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, China, So. Korea, India, Australia, Israel, Russia, Brazil. These countries are either whoppingly big, or decently run representative governments, or both.
Compare/contrast coalition Desert Storm to coalition Iraq Invasion. No points for using the word "unilateral."
(C) You can look up the hornet's nest thingy. I was "blue-skying" off the top of my head. Iraq is NOT a non-sequitor. To propound that view puts one in the camp of the thoughtless knee-jerkers. The first thing one learns, as a teacher, is not to say, "you're wrong!", but to ask, "what were you thinking?" The Eevil Admin may not think the same way we do, but they are thinking. Allow yourself to see what they saw; it won't make you any less of a Dem.
(2) Ignore riffs I make, if they are not central to the theme. But I think a consult is in order, with Germans and Japs at least, on how good their governments are, and *when* they became good after WW2 -- how long does it take, even in a more homogenous society, like Japan? No one wants to answer that question for me.
(1) I hope that puts the "increasing casualty" argument back to bed. If This Admin expected a rollover, that's an error the "30-day war" crowd is guilty of, and, curiosly, should excite sympathy among Bush's detractors. My beef would be: what did the ground leaders prosecuting the battle believe, and was This Admin fully supportive of them; does it continue to be fully supportive? Or, has the Admin (like Bush I, in a move that enrages me still, left the Iraqi opponents of Saddam in the lurch) goaded the Iraqi populace into having faith, goaded our troops into having faith, and then BACKED OFF for some unfathomable reason? Timidity is not going to work here. The more we look over our shoulders, the longer this is going to take.
(e) You *will* stipulate that the pre-war intelligence on Iraq -- worldwide -- indicated he was pursuing large-scale weapons? I'm asking only for a stipulation that the preponderance of evidence pointed in the same direction.
Reply to this
Taking my own example, of refining particulars:
Cogito sez:
'We're tired of seeing growing American casualties; hard-earned tax dollars flushed to the tune of $1 billion a week; increased insurgent activity; and an ineffectual, fractious Iraqi government...'
(1) The "growing casualties" argument is empty-headed, as those on the front line accept that casualties *always* increase (even in peacetime; consider how many of our finest are lost to road accidents on the bases).
(2)hard-earned tax dollars being spent was acknowledge up-front by Bush, so His Administration won't give you an argument there. Even reading the States of the Unions speeches will show that. Seems like spending lots of bucks isn't just a Democratic concern.
(3) as to increased insurgent activity, anyone who's ever had to lance an infection, or exterminate a nest of hornets or bees, or even fire ants, knows that when Bad Things are threatened and battled They Fight Back. File "increased insurgent activity" under "Duhhhh." The question is, when the ants try to swarm up your leg, do you run away, or keep spraying?
This is an imperfect analogy. Please do not try to kill it, or you will face "increased analogy activity."
(4) "ineffectual, fractious Iraqi government" ... I suspect that a short study of early American, early post-WW2 German, early post-WW2 Japan, and other fledgling democracies established after years and sometimes generations of monarchy (or worse) is in order.
Setting aside the Semitic tendency to "kvetch" under the best of circumstances ("Am I doing well? My enemies should be doing as badly!"), what are we doing to nurture the government and bring it along? How is this new government -- the first democracy in that area in how long? -- doing in relation to other historical models?
And, in general: are the Worthy Opponents of This Administration *doing* what they can to further the prosecution of the drive to minimize and marginalize terrorist politics? Are they contributing to the efforts of the soldiers, seeking to increase efficiency in spending, expounding from the pulpit on the evils of Islamic Fascism, and searching for ways to more firmly establish the Iraqi democracy?
Or are they just trying to score debate points so that they can get the best (read: most lucrative) seats in the House?
And, yes: I'll be saying the same thing about the Republics if they end up in the Opposition position after the elections. Many of my Dem friends seem mystified, truly, by my ability to support the President while at the same time mocking Mr. Bush. Evidently, I must either love him or loathe him entirely. But I haven't read the memo yet.
Reply to this
(1) No further comment.
(2) The Administration never gave a clear estimate on the cost of the war, pleading 'uncertainties' usually. Economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay was replaced after he went off the reservation and opined that the war might cost as much as $200 billion.
(3) Advisors in State, Defense, CIA and various NGOs certainly knew of the threat of an insurgency. Not so much the WH and Rumsfeld, who disregarded such advice and therefore have seemed mightily surprised and unprepared for the ferocity of the attacks.
(4) The comparison with post-war Germany and Japan is problematic. There were plenty of lessons to be learned, and again the WH seems not to have learned any of them.
Off the top of my head, and by no means comprehensive: in Germany, many civil servants who were Nazis were allowed to keep the day-to-day government and bureaucracy going. Not so de-Baathification. Also, Germany already had experience with a democratic system of government pre-Hitler.
In Japan, MacArthur left the Emperor in place as the unifying leadership symbol of the country. Also, the Japanese are a very homogenous people, unlike Iraq.
Reply to this
um, CDem... this exchange is ambiguous?
"Q All right, now the President was asked what did Iraq have to do with the attack on the World Trade Center. And he said nothing. Do you agree with that?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do."
The President and the Vice President acknowledge that Iraq had "nothing" to do with the attack on the WTC... how much clearer do they need to be?
Oh, keep in mind the Prez/VP never accused Iraq as an actor in the WTC attack.
YES, they did everything to allow people to think that's what they thought and never stopped anyone from saying that. Looking back, they were Clinton-esque* in how carefully they parsed their reasoning, allowing rightwing shills and even apoplectic opponents to supply the 9/11 accusation to justify (or denigrate) "revenge," create visions of "mushroom clouds floating over our cities" to rally the populace around our flag. The germ of the eventual "fight them over there rather than over here" pitch that we listen to today was introduced not by the administration, but by the "discussion" among the true-believers out there in the ether.
This play of blythely allowing (depending on?) people to misconstrue is a deception of sorts, and actually a good basis for Gore's famous "They betrayed us - they played on our fears" statement.
I notice that the lessons of Clinton's "following the polls*" style of leadership is being used by Bush. He watches how the masses respond to these emotional tugs and works them into his repetoire. Our collective memory never pays attention to the source of slogans and platitudes, we just attack them as from our enemies, which affects our ability to respect the leaders of the USA because we allow ourselves to be convinced that the inanity originated with them.
Both Clinton and Bush follow the lead of the general opinion. Both Clinton and Bush counted the media and Hollywood as aggravating juveniles that constantly miss the point. (Wag the Dog? Primary Colors? these ain't love-fests for a sitting president in the 1990s) They are manifestly successful politicians and leaders: they give the people what they want.
(Don't get too caught up in polls - the most recent one that mattered gave Bush another 4 years when other polls indicated less than 50% "job approval")
Clinton defended this country to the best of his ability - and he used the law as his preferred method, but not to the exclusion of military options.
Bush uses the military as his primary option, or is he using intel? FACT: if the intel is working, NO ONE HAS THE CLEARANCE TO KNOW IT. We all have to acknowledge that there are some things the newsies aren't going to know - and we now have to acknowledge that lack of knowledge doesn't stop newsies from publishing: especially on the web.
Bush also uses the law, in a different way (no, he doesn't ignore it, he doesn't think he's above it, he uses different loopholes that his predecessor to achieve the same aim: protection of this country.
Reply to this
* toungue-in-cheek references to right-wing strawman characterizations of our president. for those that read between lines, I DON'T agree with the insults hiding in these assertions.
Reply to this
and to CogitoErgoDem's laundry list.
Bravo! That's what I'm talking about, reasoned, respectful objections.
More Cogito; less Dem... :)
Believe it or not, there is some cogiting on the Rep side - look more to the Sowells or Wills... too bad they don't get the traction the Hannitys or Drudges get.
If the discourse among the masses was more like this, there'd be less division in our country. But then again, do the masses really care? Seriously, if they all invested this much respect and thought into their opinion, how would all that TV get watched and all those PSPs get played?
Reply to this
"Cogito's ... laundry list"
Hey, Lurk: surely not the list in its entirety? He's got some actual laundry, there; but don't you think it's all mixed up with some clean clothes, pieces o' dirt, and some used screwdrivers? I was kinda hoping you'd help me sort it out.
Reply to this
This is what I meant by 'trading fours'. :D
I'm way too square to discern the meaning of these last few exchanges, starting with 'laundry list'.
Reply to this
CL sez: "um, CDem... this exchange is ambiguous?
"Q All right, now the President was asked what did Iraq have to do with the attack on the World Trade Center. And he said nothing. Do you agree with that?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do."
No, that is not ambiguous. I was thrilled when I heard it. It was his re-opening of the door in the follow-up question that made me laugh out loud, shaking my head in disbelief.
Reply to this
You've made my veiled point: This answer doesn't require a follow up question, so why ask it?
*I* feel exasperation with the reporter - the top two officers both answered unambigously, and the reporter has to re-phrase the question as if it needs nailing down?
The parent in me sighs with aggravation as I do with my kids (after they've gotten a difinitive answer from Mom and now they're seeing if Dad will say the same thing).
In the Veep's shoes, might you sense a trap, a "gotcha" moment on the lips of the reporter? Stepping back from the idea that he's hiding something and entertaining the idea that he's suspicious of his questioner's motives... does that soften his suddent hedging a little?
He can't lean forward and say to the guy "I've answered this directly, if you know something I don't, now would be a good time to mention it..." So he says this is the answer we have based on what we know now...
Behold the beginnings of the frustration of dealing with a know-it-all press that doesn't take answers and information as its given - and the press doesn't take sides, they are suspicious of all Presidents... this relationship ends with a truly dignified statesman chastising a reporter with "you sit there with that smirk on your face." President Clinton struck a blow for ALL of us that dispise the lazy, pompous, self-righteous nay saying that our press pool has embraced for EVERY President since the days of Nixon.
Reply to this
Well said, CL.
However, I think it's the role of the press to challenge *any* Administration, and any President who doesn't accept that, and does not have the wherewithal (or inclination) to defend himself on his feet is probably not the fittest for the job.
Reply to this
stop it - my side hurts. "Challenging" is not being contrary - evidence the argument sketch.
No president has to suffer the press when they behave like children. And they behave like children on occasion - being contrary for the sake of being contrary, challenging serious people with unsubstantiated rumors to elicit a response... working innuendo into their questioning and pretending they aren't... but mostly throwing tantrums when serious people finally stop putting up with their nonsense.
CDem, don't lay your reputation out for the press - what you say is true, 100%.
But it doesn't apply 100% of the time, and it's disengenous (sp) to assert it does.
Too often (NOT "all the time") the press gets lazy and undisciplined, and hopefully you agree that any president, especially the fit ones, are free to treat a lazy and ignorant (usually due to lack of clearance coupled with obnoxious cynicism) press (or blogger)appropriately.
Am I saying Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are ALWAYS proper in giving inquisitors the short shrift? no.
But are you saying that they have to entertain all iterations of painfully redundant questioning?
When *is* enough enough, when does someone have to realize that sometimes he won't like or agree with the answer - but that's the answer anyway? And when can a serious person end the conversation?
Reply to this
You'll note I said: "I think it's the *role* of the press to challenge etc etc.
I'm NOT saying that they aren't a mixture of petulant children and sycophantic stenographers. 'Cause they are.
But for that middle group that *are* professionals, if they ask legitimate challenging questions and are given evasive, misleading or flippant responses, it is their DUTY to their fellow citizens to press for an answer. And press. and press.
Reply to this