Glad she's fine. Cancer sucks, and now that Pinochet's dead, I wouldn't wish it upon anybody. But she IS a public figure, so the "so there" in quotations seems somewhat obtuse and...idiotic.

She is only a public figure because her husband was elected President.

And public figure or not, it is not her duty to disclose every personal ailment or condition she may have. This is just the press corps trying to stir up a controversy and keep riding the claim that this administration is too secretive.

If the MSM is so interested in Laura Bush's medical treatment, will they now demand that Nancy Pelosi disclose the details of her Botox treatments?

That might fall under the category of "too much information", don't you think, Hermie?

Let's put this in perspective.

Laura Bush has a small skin cancer lesion on her shin. Senator Johnson has emergency brain surgery. The press is more upset because they didn't know about a nickel sized skin cancer than the fact that Senator Johnson's doctors haven't talked about his condition?

The only people that have talked about the condition of Senator Johnson are practiced liars (read politicians here). There has been nary a peep out of the press about this strange situation of no professional knowledgeable people discussing Senator Johnson's condition, situation, and prognosis. Yet they go off on not being told about a band-aid sized boo-boo.

Bias? Yeah...

I would like to know the name of the doctor that operated on the First Lady. Does anyone know?

HERMIE: Don't know all the details, but apparently the Botox was delivered in 55-gallon drums.

As someone so aptly asked on Rush today.....

If a woman elects to have a nonviable mass removed from her body does the public have a "right to know"?

Please allow me to give a HT and credit where due on the "nonviable mass" post. I went back and found the quote and here it is......

Clay in Old Saybrook: It was my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if a woman, after careful consulting perhaps with her physician and her conscience, decided that she needed to have a "nonviable tissue mass" removed, that this was a private matter and should not be open to public criticism or comment.

And the public good is affected by the health of Laura Bush how?

If she is ill does it affect the legislative process in this country? No.

Does it affect the prosecution of the war? No.

Does it affect this country's judicary? No.

Does it affect the various departments of the executive branch that touch our lives? No.

In other words, the only "public" interest served by publicizing this is prurience -- the insatiable desire by some people to obtain entertainment by though vicarously living out other peoples' lives.

Snow: 1

Washington Press Corps: 0

Laura Bush's condition thankfully was probably 'no big deal', but I can't help but remember how Betty Ford's public disclosure of the details of her condition and mastectomy was considered important in the raising of public awareness of breast cancer, at the time.

Crickmore,
But was the press in a tizzy that they weren't told soon enough by the Ford admin?
Ford was breaking new ground, and rose awareness. Bush had what is now a routine outpaitent procedure. The surgery itself is on an order with having a particularly nasty wart removed.