The President had, "No Comment."...

[King of the Americas]

...asked by Tim Russert, "So do you guys have a pretty good idea where Osama bin Laden is?"

This question after he explains that some are accusing the Administration of using his capture at a pivotal election moment, to get artifical support, and win her term.

I thought Mr. Russert did a good job, and asked some tough questions.

I won't characterize the President remarks, but I will let you make you own decisions about their honesty and accuracy:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

 

[Tmy]

Im shocked he even went on the show. He never faces the public. How many press conferences does GW do? Almost none, and he hardly ever takes questions.

 

[Kodiak]

Im shocked he even went on the show. He never faces the public. How many press conferences does GW do? Almost none, and he hardly ever takes questions.

Yes, he is quite different from the media-whore who held office just before him...

 

[pgwenthold]

Yes, he is quite different from the media-whore who held office just before him...

Of course, Ronald Reagan invented the concept.

 

[Kodiak]

Of course, Ronald Reagan invented the concept.

He was very personable and loved the camera, but I don't think he was a MEDIA-whore...

Besides, technically it was Kennedy who invented the concept...

 

[subgenius]

Yes, he is quite different from the media-whore who held office just before him...

Interesting spin on lack of accessibility. The PM of Great Britain faces questioning every day. So I guess anyone who is accountable is just a media whore.
Guess we're just not through with beating a dead horse. Will GWB ever be judged on his own? What will happen when the Clinton comparisons lose their hate driven motivating power?
I guess it would be too obvious to point out he was elected twice by an actual majority of voters.

 

[hgc]

... he was elected twice by an actual majority of voters.

Ahem. Plurality, not majority. But the fact remains he got more votes than the runner-up both times.

 

[pgwenthold]

He was very personable and loved the camera, but I don't think he was a MEDIA-whore...

He certainly invented the concept of utilizing the media to make one look good. He was the first to push that it was better to look good than to actually be good.

Besides, technically it was Kennedy who invented the concept...

Not FDR?

 

[Kodiak]

Interesting spin on lack of accessibility. The PM of Great Britain faces questioning every day. So I guess anyone who is accountable is just a media whore.
Guess we're just not through with beating a dead horse. Will GWB ever be judged on his own? What will happen when the Clinton comparisons lose their hate driven motivating power?
I guess it would be too obvious to point out he was elected twice by an actual majority of voters.

I disagree with the claim of Bush's "inaccessibility" and instead drew a valid comparison between Bush and his predecessor about how they each viewed the media and their relationship with it.

Who's not judging Bush alone?

I do not, nor ever did "hate" President Clinton.

Also, besides the fact that the Presidency is determined by the college of electors and not the popular vote, Clinton won a plurality (see hgc's post above...), not a majority of the popluar vote...

 

[Kodiak]

He certainly invented the concept of utilizing the media to make one look good. He was the first to push that it was better to look good than to actually be good.

I never said Reagan wasn't clever.

Not FDR?

Not really. The modern media era of national politics is widely considered to have begun with the televised debate between Keddedy and Nixon.

 

[pgwenthold]

Not really. The modern media era of national politics is widely considered to have begun with the televised debate between Keddedy and Nixon.

I don't care what's "widely considered."

FDR's use of the fireside chats was a very effective use of the media. Just because modern people ignore it doesn't mean it wasn't important.

 

[Lemastre]

How many lives should be lost for a lie?

I was surpised that Bush had no prepared answer for Russert's question as to whether the loss of 500 American and allied lives was justified in view of there being no imminent danger from Iraq. It was as if Bush, or his handlers, had never even contemplated that lives were/are being lost as a result of their lies about WMD.

 

[subgenius]

Re: How many lives should be lost for a lie?

I was surpised that Bush had no prepared answer for Russert's question as to whether the loss of 500 American and allied lives was justified in view of there being no imminent danger from Iraq. It was as if Bush, or his handlers, had never even contemplated that lives were/are being lost as a result of their lies about WMD.

This comes from the "blank check" approach to getting what you think you want, an issue I raised here:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33655

(some people here say any price is OK, "less than everything, more than what we've paid so far")

If you can just pass the cost to the American taxpayer, have no idea of what your goal is, much less what you're willing to pay for it, you will, I guarantee, pay too much.
The problem is that we are talking about real lives and real money.
I have a couple of used cars I want to sell these people.

 

[ssibal]

...asked by Tim Russert, "So do you guys have a pretty good idea where Osama bin Laden is?"

This question after he explains that some are accusing the Administration of using his capture at a pivotal election moment, to get artifical support, and win her term.

Uhm, Russert never explained such a thing.

 

[King of the Americas]

I conceed...

...indeed, he never did explain the issue as I said he did.

I don't know why I remembered it that way.

---

Russert: Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican —

President Bush: Yes.

Russert: — said he is absolutely convinced we will capture Osama bin Laden before the election.

President Bush: Well, I appreciate his optimism. I have no idea whether we will capture or bring him to justice, may be the best way to put it. I know we are on the hunt, and Osama bin Laden is a cold-blooded killer, and he represents the nature of the enemy that we face.

These are — these are people that will kill on a moment's notice, and they’ll kill innocent women and children. And he's hiding, and we're trying to find him.

There's a — I know there is a lot of focus on Iraq, and there should be, but we’ve got thousands of troops, agents, allies on the hunt, and we’re doing a pretty good job of dismantling al-Qaida — better than a pretty good job, a very good job. I keep saying in my speeches, two-thirds of known al-Qaida leaders have been captured or killed, and that's the truth.

Russert: Do we have a pretty good idea where Osama is?

President Bush: You know, I'm not going to comment on that.

---

Odd. I thought I remembered Russert explaining WHY some believe they will capture OSB before the election, and THEN asking that question...

I was quite wrong.

Thank you.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: How many lives should be lost for a lie?

It was as if Bush, or his handlers, had never even contemplated that lives were/are being lost as a result of their lies about WMD.

Pure conjecture.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: How many lives should be lost for a lie?

This comes from the "blank check" approach to getting what you think you want, an issue I raised here:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33655

What blank check? Is that what you infer simply because the President does not lay out his risk assessment before you?!?

(some people here say any price is OK, "less than everything, more than what we've paid so far")

"Any" price? Which people here said that? I only said that the specific costs in money and lives is impossible to quantify.

I have a couple of used cars I want to sell these people.

Get over yourself...

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Re: Re: How many lives should be lost for a lie?

Pure conjecture.

Well, yes, seeing as how the first words were It was as if..., indicating conjecture.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: How many lives should be lost for a lie?

Well, yes, seeing as how the first words were It was as if..., indicating conjecture.

Just giving his faulty inference the weight it deserves...

 

[subgenius]

Re: Re: Re: How many lives should be lost for a lie?

What blank check? Is that what you infer simply because the President does not lay out his risk assessment before you?!?



"Any" price? Which people here said that? I only said that the specific costs in money and lives is impossible to quantify.



Get over yourself...

"Impossible to quantify in advance.

Like obscenity, I'll know it when I see it."

"How this for "ballpark":

More money, lives and time than we've currently invested thus far, but less than "any" amount of money, lives and time."
"
---Kodiak

Yes you didn't say "any" price. Up to but not including "any" price.
Sounds like dancing on the point of a pin.
Its not impossible to quantify in advance. Its rather easy actually.