Wow. I'm pretty good at seeing other points of view but... ok, let's
ignore the reasons for the war.
He is being asked to address the number of casualties. His answer is
that Saddam cut the hands off of some opponents. Maybe it would have
been better to simply say that casualties are sometimes necessary...
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Pampered Bush meets a real reporter
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you consider the following particularly
> responsive?
Yes actually. People don't like war answers the
question. Then he goes on explain how bad things
were...
What answer would you like? Pretend you can answer for
Bush and lets here what the answer should be.
-sm
>
> Q And they're angry over Iraq, as well, and
> particularly the
> continuing death toll there.
>
> THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can understand that. People
> don't like war. But
> what they should be angry about is the fact that
> there was a brutal
> dictator there that had destroyed lives and put them
> in mass graves
> and had torture rooms. Listen, I wish they could
> have seen the seven
> men that came to see me in the Oval Office -- they
> had their right
> hands cut off by Saddam Hussein because the currency
> had devalued when
> he was the leader. And guess what happened? An
> American saw the fact
> that they had had their hands cut off and crosses --
> or Xs carved in
> their forehead. And he flew them to America. And
> they came to my
> office with a new hand, grateful for the generosity
> of America, and
> with Saddam Hussein's brutality in their mind.
>
> I especially like the reference to torture :) I am
> not answering your
> question about could he or wouldn't he because I am
> not sure I
> undrestand it.
>
> Dana
>
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting, what I consider rude you call a
> serious
> > journalism.
> >
> > They didn't mention this interview was posted on
> the
> > White house Web site.
> >
>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040625-2.html
> > Read the actual interview and tell me if he would
> > answer the questions or couldn't.
> >
> > -sam
> >
> > "I want to say to you liberals out there, 'Don't
> lose
> > heart just because we've turned over sovereignty
> to
> > the Iraqis two days early. A lot can still go
> wrong in
> > Iraq for you liberals.'" - Rush Limbaugh
> >
> >
> > --- Sandy Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> >
>
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/nichols/77302.php
> > >
> > >
> > > See the interview at
> > > http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime.html
> > > (3rd
> > > link down)
> > >
> > > By John Nichols
> > > June 29, 2004
> > >
> > > John Nichols is a native Wisconsinite, who has
> > > written for The Capital Times
> > > for the past decade.
> > >
> > >
> > > On the eve of his recent sojourn in Europe,
> > > President Bush had an unpleasant
> > > run-in with a species of creature he had not
> > > previously encountered often: a
> > > journalist.
> > >
> > > He did not react well to the experience.
> > >
> > > Bush's minders usually leave him in the gentle
> care
> > > of the White House press
> > > corps, which can be counted on to ask him tough
> > > questions about when his
> > > summer vacation starts.
> > >
> > > Apparently under the mistaken assumption that
> > > reporters in the rest of the
> > > world are as ill-informed and pliable as the
> > > stenographers who "cover" the
> > > White House, Bush's aides scheduled a sit-down
> > > interview with Carole
> > > Coleman, Washington correspondent for RTE, the
> Irish
> > > public television
> > > network.
> > >
> > > Coleman is a mainstream European journalist who
> has
> > > conducted interviews
> > > with top officials from a number of countries -
> her
> > > January interview with
> > > Secretary of State Colin Powell was apparently
> solid
> > > enough to merit posting
> > > on the State Department's Web site.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, it appears that Coleman failed to
> > > receive the memo informing
> > > reporters that they are supposed to treat this
> > > president with kid gloves.
> > > Instead, she confronted him as any serious
> > > journalist would a world leader.
> > >
> > > She asked tough questions about the mounting
> death
> > > toll in Iraq, the failure
> > > of U.S. planning, and European opposition to the
> > > invasion and occupation.
> > > And when the president offered the sort of empty
> and
> > > listless "answers" that
> > > satisfy the White House press corps - at one
> point,
> > > he mumbled, "My job is
> > > to do my job" - she tried to get him focused by
> > > asking precise follow-up
> > > questions.
> > >
> > > The president complained five times during the
> > > course of the interview about
> > > the pointed nature of Coleman's questions and
> > > follow-ups - "Please, please,
> > > please, for a minute, OK?" the hapless Bush
> pleaded
> > > at one point, as he
> > > demanded his questioner go easy on him.
> > >
> > > After the interview was done, a Bush aide told
> the
> > > Irish Independent
> > > newspaper that the White House was concerned
> that
> > > Coleman had "overstepped
> > > the bounds of politeness."
> > >
> > > As punishment, the White House canceled an
> exclusive
> > > interview that had been
> > > arranged for RTE with first lady Laura Bush.
> > >
> > > Did Coleman step out of line? Of course not.
> Watch
> > > the interview (it's
> > > available on the www.rte.ie Web site) and you
> will
> > > see that Coleman was
> > > neither impolite nor inappropriate. She was
> merely
> > > treating Bush as European
> > > and Canadian journalists do prominent political
> > > players. In Western
> > > democracies such as Ireland, reporters and
> > > politicians understand that it is
> > > the job of journalists to hold leaders
> accountable.
> > >
> > > The trouble is that accountability is not a
> concept
> > > that resonates with our
> > > president. The chief executive who gleefully
> > > declares that he does not read
> > > newspapers cannot begin to grasp the notion that
> > > journalists might have an
> > > important role to play in a democracy. And, if
> > > anything, the hands-off
> > > approach of the White House press corps has
> > > reinforced Bush's conceits.
> > >
> > > Bush would be well served by tougher questioning
> > > from American journalists,
> > > especially those who work for the television
> > > networks. And it goes without
> > > saying that more and better journalism would be
> a
> > > healthy corrective for our
> > > ailing democracy.
> > >
> > > Come to think of it, maybe one of the American
> > > networks should hire Carole
> > > Coleman and make her its White House
> correspondent.
> > > It would be Ireland's
> > > loss and America's gain.
> > >
> > >
> > >________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
