« Uh, Hey Guys. Mind if I Blog Here? | Main | About Those Gas Prices »

Press Conference Snapshots

The press was being delightful, as usual, this morning in separate press conferences with John Bolton and President Bush.

Here's an actual question posed for Bolton. I'm paraphrasing, but it's the gist:

How can we believe anything you say considering you lied to all of our faces in the run-up to the Iraq War? The plan for that war was laid out in 1996 in the Plan for the New American Century. How do you have any credibility at all other than having the biggest guns?

Wow, what a constructive, informative question. The answer to that one is sure to enlighten us all, no?

Bolton's response?

Can I ask what media outlet you're from?

I couldn't hear the response.

Bush got in a zinger on David Gregory today. I can't lie. I enjoy this kind of thing, but I'm glad Tony Snow is coming in to calm the waters. I don't blame Bush for being snarky with them, but I think Snow's approach may actually get Bush more of a fair shake. Um, maybe. But here's the insult, just for fun.

Gregory: Can you tell us how your internal administration changes reflect what you've learned about what you need to do to turn this Presidency around?


Bush: We just keep accomplishin' good things, you know? Givin' good, comprehensive policies to the American people. You know, we got a strong economy....

Gregory: But the internal administration changes have been very public. What do they say about what you've learned? (fingers crossed, mouthing, "say you're wrong, say you're wrong, come on, say it!")

Bush: Thank you for your penetrating question, David. I'm not gonna hire you if that's what you mean. I'd like to, but you wouldn't pass the background check."

Michelle has another statement from the Bush press conference, and wonders why the sentiment isn't reflected on the White House Web site.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Press Conference Snapshots:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Snow Pick May Signal Less Insular White House

Comments (10)

Malkin is an idiot. Just b... (Below threshold)
Pete_Bondurant:

Malkin is an idiot. Just because somebody reads the White House news in Spanish does not mean they cannot or refuse to learn English. God, Malkin is annoying.

Greggy needs to flip His pa... (Below threshold)
frankfucszeroiq:

Greggy needs to flip His part to the other side of His lopsided oversized head.."

Your right, the question ... (Below threshold)
jp:

Your right, the question the journalist asked Bolton was of interest and worthy of a response.
So what news media was this journalist from, since she did respond, anybody ???
And what was Bolton entire response besides the question he asked as to her employer?

Lastly, What is this 1996 Plan for the New American Century she was speaking about? A geo-political group ??

Any reason why the journalist answer to Bolton's response to her question is not

Sorry I should have deleted... (Below threshold)
jp:

Sorry I should have deleted the last half question.

jp -- the journalist lost a... (Below threshold)

jp -- the journalist lost all credibility with the "lied to all of our faces" comment. That indicates a preconceived bias that is not consistent with quality journalism.

At that point, Bolton's question to her became "of interest".

Well Rich -- whether or not... (Below threshold)
jp:

Well Rich -- whether or not the journalist lied or not, is at this point is unknown to, it seems, you as well as I. Can you prove substaincially the journalist lied? Or is that only your opinion?

I think that the journalist mention of the pre-concieved plan for war in Iraq in 1996 is more timely a comment that is worthy of knowing the answer. It seem to me that we are always in fear of and at war with the same "boogie man" because the "old men" that make war are fought by "young men" that are sent to war.

And if the journalist's premiss is correct, then it would substanciate the fabrication for war by the current administration. And it wouldn't be the first time our government lied about war, Vietnam was a creation of the white house policy maker of the day.

So lets get real and stop slinging the bull what do you say Rich? Either you know the answer to my origional questions or not. Journalistic credability is not the issue here, Bolton's credibity is.

[email protected] jp<bl... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

@ jp

Well Rich -- whether or not the journalist lied or not, is at this point is unknown to, it seems, you as well as I. Can you prove substaincially the journalist lied? Or is that only your opinion?

What an amazing inability at reading comprehension.

Re-read and try again.

Is it reading comprehension... (Below threshold)
jp:

Is it reading comprehension your worried about or writing ability.
Either way the point is, you got the point Rich....just answer the question, that is if you can!

I did not say that she</... (Below threshold)

I did not say that she lied ... but thanks anyway, for your assertions (based upon your misreading of my comment) that there was no evidence that she did lie dovetails well into my point ...

That point is, it is ludicrous to say that this Administration "lied", when the entire world and previous Administrations asserted that Saddam had WMD, in similar terms.

With that assertion, jp, the credibility of this reporter's ability to objectively report the truth is called seriously into question, for a bias that is not based in fact is quite evident.

Since her credibility is now in question, reasonable people would want to know who she's reporting for, to assess their credibility along with hers ... especially when they pick up her story and broadcast it all over the place.

Otherwise, you are left vulnerable to the effects of another Big Lie ... which is an irresponsible posistion to be in as a public official in a representative republic, where "we the people" are making important decisions regarding our leaders based on media information.

As for PNAC ... it is not some great conspiracy for neocons to oppress the world for their profit ... it instead is a roadmap for ending the terror and violence perpetrated by those who care NOT ONE WHIT about your rights, by applying the principles that HISTORY (in contrast to that mix of Utopian idealism and hedonistic realpolitik that passes for history in our universities) has PROVEN will reduce both the incentives for fomenting terror, and the suscepibililty of nations to be hijacked for that purpose.

People like you just can't handle the fact that America can actually be in the right while PO'ing our European "betters" and the keepers of the facade of "peace" at the UN ... especially when the man perpetrating truth is a man of faith, who won't promote the Utopian/hedonistic agenda of his critics.

Well Rich, first I wouldn't... (Below threshold)
jp:

Well Rich, first I wouldn't say for a fact that it's "ludicrous" to say that this administration lied about WMD. Lets not forget Rich, it was the assertion of this administration that Saddam had, beyond a shadow of a doubt and for a certainty WDM.

Further, the case for war with Iraq, as indicated by the Downing street memo was a given. WMD was just it seems a smoke screen anolg with "W's" comment, "he tried to kill my Daddy"

Secondly Rich, you also conveniently forget the war on terrorism and retaliation for 9/11 was against Osma Bin Laden.

As far as you explanation of the PNAC's roadmap for solving the world's problems as "PROVEN", you need to take off your blinder guy. Take a good look at American history. Ask the American Indian
about the terror, prepetuating violence and the suscepibililty to have their nation be hyjacked, then ask the Blackman, Yellowman and Brownman formenting incentives when this country was being founded during the so called "manifest destiny" era. Then you might ask the Vietnameese also.

Damn Rich, if it wasn't only for history I'd say you might have an argument, but...naw I've decided...all you are is just a messenger boy that bought into the original lie and like this man of so called faith. Dovetail that!

As to my origional question, the response now becomes is a moot issue. So end of conversation pal !





Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy