Incurious George And The 'No-News Is Good-News' Conference
	found on CNN written by gparizot, edited by Tim (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 8 Mar 6:52am
		"It's a comment!" "It's a story!" [cue Chevy Chase] "It's a comment and a story!" Further reinforcing the point that whenever Bush does anything at all, a pack of goons will queue up to bitch, gparizot writes, "The President of the United States took time out of his war planning on Thursday night to hold his second ever prime time news conference. While many had speculated that he may have some important news to pass along, unfortunately that turned out not to be the case. Whatever the case was, it seems to have been lost on the President himself, who in the eyes of Washington Post columnist Tom Shales, appeared to be, ahem, 'medicated'." No, it's a dessert topping! "Nothing new was presented, and Bush still seems intent on going to war. Questions as to why others think this is a bad decision were glossed over. Questions in general were glossed over. Even press conference diva Helen Thomas was snubbed for the first time ever. Petty retribution for her recent grilling of Ari Fleischer or her calling Bush 'the worst president ever'?" Nuh-uh, the whole thing was scripted, and Ari 'Floor-wax Pate' Fleischer admits it! [Video link loads fairly fast over dial-up. Advance the cursor to 20m, 50s and to 25m, 50s.] "So, what was the point of interrupting my weekly dose of Friends anyway? Well, maybe, just maybe, sometimes timing is everything."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 125 commentsmost: 30 commentsbest: 12 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  I've seen better infomercials.   by MAYORBOB       at Sat 8 Mar 7:15am score of 3.5 astute     Certainly more compelling stuff. What did Bush say exactly? Nothing that he hasn't said a dozen or so times within the previous 24 hours. And, for a scripted affair, it didn't even rise to the level of a daycare class production of "The Fantasticks". Long, pregnant pauses interspersed with a rather glazy-eyed stare from Bush. So let's recap: 1. Saddam Hussein is a turd of a human being. 2. Saddam is a turd who has the habit of murdering his own people. 3. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (over and over, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. 4. Saddam has invaded other countries. 5. Saddam has used chemical agents on his own people. 6. We would like the UN to be relevant, but if they won't do what we want it to do, we will make it irrelevant (stamps foot on floor). 7. Saddam must disarm. 8. Saddam won't disarm. 9. When we go in, we will do two things -- regime change and disarm the Iraqis. That's about it for the meat of the matter, except my recap was much snappier and coherent than Bush's performance. Memo to Laura -- hide the damned Nyquil before hubby goes in front of the American people next time. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: I've seen better infomercials.   by thomp       at Sat 8 Mar 8:36am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 1     The Fantastiks. You are old, Mayor.   Paraphrased from one of my favorite Fantastiks songs:     Why does George Bush want to bomb Iraq? No one can win while bombing Iraq. Why does George Bush want to bomb Iraq? He wants to 'cause we said no!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: I've seen better infomercials.   by bigstevec       at Sat 8 Mar 11:45am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 1     You forgot one: 10. "nookular" "These are my principles. If you do not like them, I have others." Groucho Marx   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   130.  Re: I've seen better infomercials.   by Phaedrus       at Mon 10 Mar 1:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I would also add one more item to the list: 11. Saddam tried to kill my dad! "And what is good, Phaedrus,And what is not good-Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?""   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Story   by mmandell       at Sat 8 Mar 8:07am score of 1 brilliant     Perhaps George W. has been watching too many John Wayne movies lately. Perhaps that silver spoon he was born with became contaminated with the oil that put him in office, and he is suffering from its noxious effects. SOMETHING has to explain his robotic, simplistic, atavistic behavior(s).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: Story   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sat 8 Mar 10:13am score of 1 interesting   in reply to comment 2     Perhaps George W. has been watching too many John Wayne movies lately. He would be W's hero, seeing as they're both draft dodgers. SOMETHING has to explain his robotic, simplistic, atavistic behavior(s). Dubya is a dry alcoholic with a history of drug abuse and a criminal record to match.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Story   by jimmry       at Sat 8 Mar 10:36am score of 2 succinct   in reply to comment 2     Personally, I think he was heavily medicated. And I'm not alone.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Story   by gparizot       at Sat 8 Mar 3:51pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 13     No, you're not alone. I think I remember reading something about this. Oh, yeah, now I remember - it's in the write-up I wrote above. Same link, too! "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Story   by jimmry       at Sat 8 Mar 4:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 48     What? That wasn't there when I read it. What are you people trying to do to me? Why is everyone against me? WHAAA!! Hold on. Sorry. Forget to take my meds today. Apologies.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Slightly OT   by JC65       at Sat 8 Mar 8:10am score of 5 succinct     According to the BBC, Bush's handlers have been trying to get him invited to address the European Parliament. The on caveat being that a standing ovation would have to be guaranteed. (#7 on the list) Sometimes I laugh at these idiots, sometimes I cry for my country and sometimes I do both at the same time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  You Would Think Being President Is Enough   by mischief       at Sat 8 Mar 8:20am score of 2 clever   in reply to comment 3     a standing ovation would have to be guaranteed I have seen an actor president, and Cowboy George, you are no actor. "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: You Would Think Being President Is Enough   by mmandell       at Sat 8 Mar 11:51am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     But George IS an actor, albeit 3rd-rate. (At least RR could ad-lib.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   6.  Re: Slightly OT   by stogie       at Sat 8 Mar 9:06am score of 4 brilliant   in reply to comment 3     I'm wondering what exactly the consequences would be if a standing oavtion was promised and never delivered... "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy." -Tom Waits   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Slightly OT   by Maddog-20_20       at Sat 8 Mar 10:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     You're asking what would ensue if the European Parliament pointedly snubbed Bush on the ovation? Hilarity? Kevin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: Slightly OT   by outlier       at Sat 8 Mar 8:06pm score of 2 clever   in reply to comment 6     I'm wondering what exactly the consequences would be if a standing ovation was promised and never delivered... regime change. -->"You big smarty! ... Do you rub your giant brain with special brain cremes and brain jellies?" - DJGilmore   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   129.  Re: Slightly OT   by brownianmotion       at Mon 10 Mar 12:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     >>You're asking what would ensue if the European >>Parliament pointedly snubbed Bush on the >>ovation? >>Hilarity? i think the 'nation' of europe would be added to the axis of evil, and the EP would 'accidentally' be bombed by a stealth bomber on its way to I-raq.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Standing O'   by n29_w95       at Sat 8 Mar 10:20am score of 3 brilliant   in reply to comment 3     This administration would guarantee itself a standing ovation by not providing chairs. ---Pie is good!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   133.  Re: Standing O'   by Eric Blair       at Mon 10 Mar 3:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     Not providing chairs would guarantee the "standing" part but still would not guarantee the "ovation" part.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Snubbing Helen Thomas   by profwhat       at Sat 8 Mar 9:24am score of 1 obnoxious     I don't know whether Bush intended to snub Helen Thomas, but I'm glad he did. Thomas, no matter what she once may have been, is essentially no longer a journalist, and indeed, no longer even a commentator. I searched Google News and couldn't find any stories she had written. She's syndicated by Hearst, but I couldn't find a thing she's written on a couple of Hearst newspaper websites I searched. Thomas is more of a mascot, or a pet, of the White House press corps. That she's disgraced herself by making stupid, unsupported assertions about the president -- "the worst president in all of American history" (really? Worse than Martin Van Buren?) kind of makes you more glad that she is being slowly removed from the spotlight before she humiliates herself and sullies her career further.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by stogie       at Sat 8 Mar 10:35am score of 3.5 compelling   in reply to comment 7     I searched Google News and couldn't find any stories she had written. Would you accept an opinion column, profwhat? Thomas, no matter what she once may have been, is essentially no longer a journalist, and indeed, no longer even a commentator... Thomas is more of a mascot, or a pet, of the White House press corps. While I'm sure that you'll still be posting incisive and witty commentary on Plastic (or its future equivalent) at the age of 83, could you give poor Helen a break? A person of her age and experience could easily draw no flak for doing a lot less. That she's disgraced herself by making stupid, unsupported assertions about the president -- ...makes you more glad that she is being slowly removed from the spotlight before she humiliates herself and sullies her career further. That she's come out and said what's on her mind without trepidation, unlike many members of the media should be a mark in her favor, even if you don't agree with it. And for the record, I know quite a few people who agree that Bush is the worst president ever, and admire Helen for saying, in effect, that the Emperor has no clothes. "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy." -Tom Waits   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   113.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by eiger       at Sun 9 Mar 6:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     I know he's bad, but for the love of god, worse than Grant? Then again I thought Kerry was going to win. So, what the hell do I know?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   122.  Historical Perspective   by stogie       at Sun 9 Mar 11:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 113     Well, maybe my friends have a better sense of political activism than history. It is, after all, hard to see any effects of executive incompetence or malice that took place before the Great Depression. Maybe it's because our children isn't learning their history. "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy." -Tom Waits   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by MAYORBOB       at Sat 8 Mar 10:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     Well here is a column she inked for Hearst last year. But, you're pretty much correct, because the rest of my Googling really didn't turn up much by Ms. Thomas. Bush's press conference was not your average, ordinary affair. It was blocked out with who Bush would be calling on as he went along. I'm sure that Thomas has not won many friends in the West Wing. But, she doesn't get paid to win friends; right now, apparently she gets paid to punditcize. I have to admit that her claim that Bush is the worst President of all times made me say, "wait a minute, can we wait until he's finished half of his first term?" But, on the other hand, she might be qualified to compare Bush to Martin Van Buren. After all, she and Van Buren went to school together. IMHO, the worst U.S. President would either be Warren Harding, U.S. Grant, or Millard Fillmore, with Harding in the lead. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by Adipic Acid       at Sat 8 Mar 4:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Well to veer totally off-topic, I don't think you can get much worse than James "Secession is illegal, but it's illegal for me to stop it" Buchanan. Harding would be a close second in my book, though. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   79.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by destiny       at Sun 9 Mar 1:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     "wait a minute, can we wait until he's finished half of his first term?" Um, here's a web page you really need to visit... ---   Have you seen the newest Bush clock?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by gparizot       at Sat 8 Mar 5:01pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 54     I don't think you can get much worse than James "Secession is illegal, but it's illegal for me to stop it" Buchanan Listen, bub. Helen Thomas didn't just fall off the turnip truck. She's been around the White House since, well, since the White House has been around. Helen Thomas was there. I reckon she knew Buchanan too, and if she says Bush is the worst, well, who are we to question her? And anybody who tries to rip Air Fleischer a new one deserves our eternal admiration, even if she's becoming a grumpy old bat. "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by ubersoldier       at Sun 9 Mar 1:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 56     I reckon she knew Buchanan too, and if she says Bush is the worst, well, who are we to question her? So because she is old she is beyond reproach? I guess this guy is too then. Oh, and to answer the question, we are plasticians. We can question whoever the hell we want. I thought I died, then I realized I was just in Iraq.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   114.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by eiger       at Sun 9 Mar 6:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     For pure unadulterated sleeze, I would think Grant would take the case. For economic mis-management, maybe Hoover or Jackson. For foreign affairs - Nixon and his realpolitik lackey Kissinger. Then again I thought Kerry was going to win. So, what the hell do I know?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   118.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by throwawayhack       at Sun 9 Mar 8:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 114     From what I've heard, Grant was himself not a corrupt man, but his administration had corrupt men in it. I am never sure if this made a difference (although as President, he was responsible for their actions). If you want blatant unconsitutionality, you can go way back to Adams, for the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticise the administration. Jefferson issued pardons to all those convicted.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   136.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by gparizot       at Mon 10 Mar 8:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 96     Oh, and to answer the question, we are plasticians. We can question whoever the hell we want. Yeah, well, what do you know, bub? (insert smiley emoticon here) "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  On Helen Thomas   by ddp42       at Sat 8 Mar 10:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     As far as I can see from a google search, she is still writing for Hearst, as in this article. She used to be with UPI, but left in 2000 when it was purchased by News World Communications which is affiliated with the Unification Church. Looks like she may be doing more speaking than writing these days. Not all flowers open in the morning.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Hey, lay off Van Buren   by liminal999       at Sat 8 Mar 10:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     I'll have none of your dutch boy bashing on this board, sir. I mean with Coolidge, Harding, Taylor, and Grant stinking up the presidency, The Little Magician doesn't look too bad. ugly design for beautiful people   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by GodSpiral       at Sat 8 Mar 11:43am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 7     "the worst president in all of American history" (really? Worse than Martin Van Buren?) She said the worst that she's covered... she's not that old. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by colinsky       at Sun 9 Mar 6:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     She said the worst that she's covered... she's not that old. Not in the reports I've read...I'm seeing claims that she said "the worst president ever". Such a claim seems rather presumptious to me -- 'ever' would include not only historical presidents, but all potential presidents in the future. Since they haven't served yet, there is no valid basis for such a claim -- it's completely meaningless. On the other hand, if she had actually called him the "worst president she had covered" or even the "worst president to date", then there is a meaningful, decidable claim which we can then discuss with proper evidence.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Simpsons factor   by cargoculture       at Sun 9 Mar 6:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 87     "Worst President... Ever!" makes a better quote though. Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  But for some reason Bush...   by BatGuano       at Sat 8 Mar 11:56am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     ...was too chickenshit to make a nod toward tradition and call on her first. He was too chickenshit to call on her at all. Well, it's likely she wasn't in the script in the first place. your radio friend, Bat Guano   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by superdude       at Sat 8 Mar 7:28pm score of 1 obnoxious   in reply to comment 7     I don't know whether Bush intended to snub Helen Thomas, but I'm glad he did. You don't know. Hm, well, every president since at least Reagan has observed this tradition, including Bush until now. I'm just a regular schmoe who occasionally catches the West Wing and I know that. Thomas, no matter what she once may have been, is essentially no longer a journalist, and indeed, no longer even a commentator. I searched Google News and couldn't find any stories she had written. Most newspapers only offer a week-or-so's content on the Web for free. The rest is archived, and costs $1-$3 an article to access. Thus, it isn't going to show up on Google News. If you had the slightest clue what you are talking about, you'd know that already. It's your opinion that her statements are stupid and unsupported. Gee, that carries a lot of weight, given your complete lack of awareness about almost everything related to US presidents. I value your opinion much more than that of Helen Thomas, who has only covered every president since Kennedy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by Silverback       at Sun 9 Mar 1:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 65     Hm, well, every president since at least Reagan has observed this tradition, including Bush until now. It has also been contemporary tradition to not publicly speak about presidential policy as a former president but the democrats (Carter, and Mr Define-what-"is"-is Clinton) have taken it upon themselves to change that tradition. So if we're going to discuss changing tradition let's apply it to both sides and not infer that only Bush is unique in that manner. Thanks for the discussion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   102.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by captainebo       at Sun 9 Mar 2:01pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 98     It has also been contemporary tradition to not publicly speak about presidential policy as a former president but the democrats (Carter, and Mr Define-what-"is"-is Clinton) have taken it upon themselves to change that tradition. So if we're going to discuss changing tradition let's apply it to both sides and not infer that only Bush is unique in that manner. Let's set aside Clinton for a moment. Ol' Bubba has shown time and again, that, for good or ill, he will dispense with tradition. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, is perhaps our most venerable of elder statesmen. Before Dubya, President Carter lived through 20 years with someone else as Commander-In-Chief, and never broke with this tradition. Even through eight years of America under his nemesis, Ronald Reagan, Carter kept to this tradition of silence, and devoted himself to the great, non-partisan works that earned him his Peace Prize. That Carter now chooses to speak out against George W. Bush is not a testament to Carter's distain for convention, but rather the sheer idiocy of our current President, about whom Mr. Carter can no longer bear to remain silent. Ebo "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   108.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by superdude       at Sun 9 Mar 4:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 98     It has also been contemporary tradition to not publicly speak about presidential policy as a former president but the democrats (Carter, and Mr Define-what-"is"-is Clinton) have taken it upon themselves to change that tradition I don't care that Bush is breaking with tradition. I only brought it up because the poster said he "didn't know" if the snub was intentional. Given the length of the tradition and Bush's past observance of it, it's obvious even to the casual observer that it was.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   111.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by Silverback       at Sun 9 Mar 5:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 102     Let's set aside Clinton for a moment. Let's set aside probably one of the greatest embarrassments for the democratic party (yes, he did great things for the economy) so we can make a strong argument for ourselves. How about we set aside everything that is negative about our party so we can try and make strong arguments? C'mon, get real. No, not because of the greatness of Carter (yes, his Habitat for Humanity efforts rock) did the man speak up, (my assumption, just as your claim is one) but more likely his party pressured him into making a stand for them. Thanks for the discussion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   116.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by superdude       at Sun 9 Mar 6:37pm score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 111     Let's set aside probably one of the greatest embarrassments for the democratic party (yes, he did great things for the economy) Thanks for that in-depth analysis. No, not because of the greatness of Carter (yes, his Habitat for Humanity efforts rock) It hella rocked, dude. Where did you learn so much about presidential history? but more likely his party pressured him into making a stand for them. He's already been president. He's not going to run again, and will probably never hold another elected office. Just how, exactly, is the Democratic Party supposed to pressure Jimmy Carter? Did they kidnap his dog or something?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   128.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by Silverback       at Mon 10 Mar 12:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 116     Boy another up mod for "obnoxious" as "funny" when sarcasm is used in defense of liberals. Nice unbiased approach. Conservative sarcasm = "obnoxious", Liberal sarcasm = "funny." Well at least your bias serves as a consistent element to this forum. Bring on the biased down mods.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   137.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by tdahnsn       at Tue 11 Mar 7:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 128     Here's the guide, which you obviously missed: -1 Obnoxious: Sarcastic post with which I disagree. -1 Modappeal: Begging for mod points for a post with which I disagree. -1 overrated: Un-sarcastic post with which I disagree. -1 disingenuous: Can't be bothered to read posts of people who I am modstalking. +1 Informative: Argument I might have made had I bothered to do any research. +1 Funny: Sarcastic or outright annoying post that I agree with. +1 Interesting: Argument with which I agree that has no actual supporting research. +1 NotSilverback: No, I just made that up. There's no hidden mod category out to get you and hold you down! +1 Brilliant: Ad Hominem attack on person I am modstalking. Does that clear it up? Sure, there's a problem with ideologic moderation, but really just making blanket accusations about us is silly. There is just as much likelihood that conservatives are guilty of it as liberals (though there are more liberals). Instead of whining about one particular direction, why not address the issue that moderation should not be a form of debate instead of pointing fingers at one particular group? Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   138.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by Silverback       at Tue 11 Mar 8:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 137     There is just as much likelihood that conservatives are guilty of it as liberals (though there are more liberals). Instead of whining about one particular direction, why not address the issue that moderation should not be a form of debate instead of pointing fingers at one particular group? I can agree that it probably does work both ways (liberal/conservative). Of course, that doesn't make it right. I didn't take the time to think that it might work both ways, which is my bad, but consider what I am facing and you can probably see why. I joined the board to take part in some intelligent conversation. I, of course, understand that not everything needs to be seriously but even then I can make conservative sarcastic/humorous remarks without being punished/modded down. The part that is most disheartening and that will keep this forum from being taken more than half seriously is that it allows modding by biased individuals to be done anonymously and without basis. Mods do not appear to be done as a genuine evaluation of arguments but rather a way for the majority to punish the minority for a difference of opinion. Sadly, the humorous enumeration you made above seems to be a little too true. I would challenge the weak minded and poorly capable (at debate) to refrain from modding on the basis of bias as opposed to the basis of debating merit. (Yes, I understand that is a futile plea but I'll try anyways) If you really want to learn something, it will not be through one-sided debate. Unfortunately, that's what you'll end up with at Plastic if you maintain the biased modding as those representing a counter argument will eventually fade away. There are some genuinely intelligent people (conservatives, just kidding) on this board but you help to make their points less valuable with your bias. Yes, I will be able to differentiate them based on their argument, but that does not make it any less disheartening to be biasly modded (in either direction).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   140.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by Airbag       at Tue 11 Mar 9:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 138     The part that is most disheartening and that will keep this forum from being taken more than half seriously is that it allows modding by biased individuals to be done anonymously and without basis. Taken seriously by whom? If you can't argue with the one who mods then it is best to ignore moderation. What is this "karma" anyway? I don't want it to be more rigorously handed out. It is ok if it is often careless or unfair or what have you. The only reason it is there is for the sake of this form of discussion. It shouldn't be seen as a rating or validation of the participants. It forces the one who writes to evaluate what is written as separate from the discussion. That intent can be abused without destroying the reason it was put in place. I like things like that.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   141.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by tdahnsn       at Tue 11 Mar 9:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 138     "Of course, that doesn't make it right." Where did I ever say it was right. Let me refresh your memory: "Sure, there's a problem with ideologic moderation . . . moderation should not be a form of debate . . ." So basically, you are worried that ideology skews moderation and that your precious karma will be depleted. I would suggest that you just point out where you think the mods are unfair and give up the notion that you can change it. I still point out where moderation is used in place of an argument, but at the same time I accept the obnoxious mods I get when I am obnoxious. It does balance out in the end, but we can't make people moderate fairly. Or you could just get yourself into flame wars on a weekly or daily basis and learn to appreciate a good "-1 tdahnsn is such an asshole, and a hypocrite, too!". As for the argument that people will fade away if they get too many unfair mods, I just have to reference myself to show that isn't the case. I get tons of fun and completely unwarranted negative mods. I get more that are richly deserved. And sometimes I get the completely inexplicable - positive moderation. I would however, like to point out that some folks get to be the targets of modstalkers. Gordo, who's probably one of the more prolific posters, is not only the target of modstalkers everywhere, but also of my continued obnoxious typewritten abuse. Yet he still keeps posting. Lord only knows why since basically everything he says is crap, but he keeps it up. By the way, don't believe all those people who claim that Karma points are useless. Just the other day I traded in 150 of them for some hershey bars and a third generation copy of Ace's stash of Hot Sluts of Boston University College of Fine Arts videos. You gotta save up at least 200 for anything good, though. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   142.  OT: Re: -1 Modappeal   by Ajax       at Tue 11 Mar 10:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 137     Just one correction... -1 Modappeal: Begging for mod points for a post with which I disagree. Actually "-1 modappeal" is properly reserved for any post in which the word m/der/tion is used. By rights this entire thread is a "-1 modappeal," if anyone was paying attention to it. The first rule of m/der/tion is that there is no m/der/ation. (Alternate phrasing: discussions about m/der/tion are always off-topic.) Never, ever refer to it publicly, in general or in the specific, even if that nasty anonymous liberal and his "-1 obnoxious" attached to your insightful and clever use of the word "honky" makes you want to cry. It eats precious bandwidth and accomplishes nothing. (The exception is the occasional meta-story about m/der/tion that gets published with the intent of letting people get it all out of their system, usually to the tune of 200+ posts, none of which say anything different than the previous 200+ posts on the same topic. On those, m/der/ation can -- in theory -- be discussed without penalty.) "Coca-Cola® and Armageddon® / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   143.  Re: OT: Re: -1 Modappeal   by tdahnsn       at Tue 11 Mar 10:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 142     Oh sure, maybe that's what the mod guides say and all that, but - and you're just gonna have to take my word for it - "-1, Modappeal" is used only when one disagrees. When one agrees, the correct mod is "+1, Insightful". Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   144.  Re: OT: Re: -1 Modappeal   by Airbag       at Tue 11 Mar 1:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 142     Never, ever refer to it publicly, in general or in the specific You are right, of course. Strike my comment from the record.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   145.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by Silverback       at Tue 11 Mar 4:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 141     Where did I ever say it was right. I didn't say you did. I was trying to affirm your assertion that Sure, there's a problem with ideologic moderation... As for the argument that people will fade away if they get too many unfair mods, I just have to reference myself to show that isn't the case. Though I have no scientific basis (none of us do for this subtopic), I am guessing you are an exception. I would guess that more people eventually leave than eventually stay. With that logic and the bias against conservatives, more conservatives would leave than liberals. Thus, instead of having a more even number of differing opinions, the site will continue to be liberally biased. Less opposing discussion equals less chance for any of us to possibly learn something new. If the goal of the webguys here is to maintain a liberally biased site then I guess it's fine. If their goal is to promote intelligent discussion which we can learn from, it's not going to happen. Thanks for the discussion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by deetle1       at Sun 9 Mar 9:36am score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 7     Helen Thomas has more integrity in her little finger than you'll ever comprehend. And check out this excerpt from an exchange with toady Fleischer. before she humiliates herself Helen Thomas has tried to keep presidents honest for decades. It is you who has humiliated himself with your own stupid, unsupported assertions about her. Ah, rock on, George, one time for me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by Silverback       at Sun 9 Mar 2:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 93     Before calling anyone stupid you should take a short course in reading, because apparently you can't read that I wrote that our presidents lack integrity. With that in mind, WHERE DID I EVEN MENTION HER NAME? When your reading skills exceed those of a 3 year-old I'll welcome your comments. Until then please return to your where's Waldo books. Secondly where in the hell do you get off even trying to judge what my comprehension of integrity may or may not be be like? I have much more integrity than half the posters on Plastic. I can admit when I'm wrong and can accept that those I support are not right 100 percent of the time. I don't play these little political games that I must always damn the other side just because they disagree with my political side's view. I can admit when my side is wrong and the other is right.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   107.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by stankow       at Sun 9 Mar 3:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 106     I can admit when I'm wrong... Cue it up, then -- deetle1 was replying to profwhat's post, not yours.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by Silverback       at Sun 9 Mar 6:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 107     Considering it immediately follows mine and I'm the only one to mention the word "integrity", are you certain? I know part of it was. The part after the quote. That's why I made changes to my message. :) It appears to me he is responding to both.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   115.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by stankow       at Sun 9 Mar 6:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 112     Considering it immediately follows mine and I'm the only one to mention the word "integrity", are you certain? Check the part where it says "in reply to" in the header. Note that deetle1's says "in reply to comment 7." Comment 7 is not yours. Also note that comment 7 includes the phrases "before she humiliates herself" and "stupid, unsupported assertions." Which appeared in italics in deetle1's post because they were being quoted.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   127.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by Silverback       at Mon 10 Mar 12:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 115     Well, I have responded to multiple posts in a single post though I did try to make that apparent. Just because I try does not mean others necessarily do. Again, what reference to integrity is he making in this thread? I am the only one to remark about integrity. Can you answer that question or are you going to continue to dodge it? If he isn't addressing me why doesn't he say so and clarify whose integrity he was questioning? One thing I hate about people who like to debate are that some are so caught up in trying to counter an opponent they can't stand up and honestly answer questions directed to them but would rather be evasive or ask questions in return.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   146.  Re: Snubbing Helen Thomas   by profpeach       at Wed 12 Mar 7:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 127     Although I don't believe that profwhat exactly came out with the i-word, he did write: That she's disgraced herself by making stupid, unsupported assertions about the president   The second definition of integrity (the lack in this case)is pretty much covered by his assessment of her writing. Even if you were the only one to use integrity, that doesn't mean that others weren't pointing to Ms. Thomas' lack thereof. You don't need to use the same words to be working the same connotative zone.   No one was dodging your comment, but you don't seem to be paying attention to the content of the responses. I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   119.  Worse than Martin Van Buren?   by Teaser       at Sun 9 Mar 9:02pm score of 2 clever   in reply to comment 7     Just give W time, dammit. Just give him time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Unsurprising   by uncarved block       at Sat 8 Mar 10:32am score of 3 interesting     Several quick points, all with the notion that one shouldn't see malice when simple incompetence will suffice (and no, that's not a reference to the "Bush is stoopid" meme).       Public speaking has never been W's strong point; the post 9/11 speeches were a pleasant surprise, not the capstones on a remarkable career. When Bush announced, the pundits and handlers openly debated whether money and the Bush name would be enough, as he clearly was an inferior speaker. More than one journalist has noted how relaxed he is when a camera isn't around.       Scripted? Well, probably, but one of the curses of the modern presidency is that the campaign never ends-- and Bush's campaign style was 'staying on message', no matter how many times that message had been heard before. Lest we scoff, it was good enough to beat Gore, or at least hang with him long enough for Al to self destruct. Very few people are going to abandon a winning strategy; let's hope this finally demonstrates to Rove that the repetitive bullshit doesn't fly anymore.       Medicated? Shales mentions Nixon, but I've heard that Clinton's allergy shots were so powerful he had to clear out his schedule for at least 24 hours. Presidential health is something we rarely learn about until much later, and there are plenty of drugs that are necessary, but also inhibit performance.       In response to the good Mayor's post, and the reference to Friends: not everyone is a political junky, and despite the importance of the war, not everyone has likely heard the case before. Indeed, one of the repeated criticisms from the right has been how little effort the administration has made to sell this to "the man on the street". Blame Bush for botching this, but not for doing it in the first place.       I heard that Byrd remarked that Bush looked like a man who had stopped listening. I would say instead that he's dropped the pretense of listening, and that war was the course ever since the Taliban fell. But that's another discussion, and I have to get to work. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

50.  Probably not medication   by zanzibar       at Sat 8 Mar 3:56pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 11     Medicated? Shales mentions Nixon, but I've heard that Clinton's allergy shots were so powerful he had to clear out his schedule for at least 24 hours. Presidential health is something we rarely learn about until much later, and there are plenty of drugs that are necessary, but also inhibit performance. Though it's tempting to lay the downbeat performance on something medical, I highly doubt there's anything to it. Remember, this conference was literally announced that same morning, and I doubt that the Administration would have gone ahead with such an important speech if they knew Bush was under the weather. So unless Bush was so keyed up that he had to take a Xanax just to go on, I would tend to assign any slowness just to his style, or to nerves.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  "I think he's on drugs"   by gordon shumway       at Sat 8 Mar 4:04pm score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 11     "I've heard that Clinton's allergy shots were so powerful he had to clear out his schedule for at least 24 hours." Unless it wasn't allergy shots.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  The good old days   by Tashtego       at Sat 8 Mar 4:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     Unless it wasn't allergy shots. Well, I guess Clinton bashing never goes out of style, huh Alf? If these times have taught me anything, it's that I will never again lose sleep over the President getting a hummer. Liberals apparently make huge sweeping generalizations without one iota of evidence to back them up.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: The good old days   by Silverback       at Sun 9 Mar 1:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 55     Getting a hummer is great. Being too weak to admit (read-lie) it is weak. Not that it's really necessary, but integrity would be a nice quality for our presidents to have.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   109.  Re: The good old days   by hedgehog       at Sun 9 Mar 4:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 99     You mean like the ability to tell the truth about whether or not, say, the desire to start a war is actually about perpetuating his cronies' business interests? Or to have actually won an election without using chicanery? How about punishing his own children for drug/alcohol related infractions that other peoples children would go to prison for?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   86.  Re: Unsurprising   by Citizen Erectus       at Sun 9 Mar 4:20am score of 1 clever   in reply to comment 11     Public speaking has never been W's strong point; ...When Bush announced, the pundits and handlers openly debated whether money and the Bush name would be enough, as he clearly was an inferior speaker. More than one journalist has noted how relaxed he is when a camera isn't around. A person without public speaking skills is NOT A LEADER, and had no business being in office. The leader of a country is the figurehead and mouthpiece, and if Bush cannot operate in that manner then he is incompetent. Money wasn't enough but the Bush name, having a republican guard in the supreme court and having another Bush running the contentious state of Florida sure was. By killing people.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Selling out Sept 11   by crail       at Sat 8 Mar 11:09am score of 5 brilliant     What has always bothered me regarding Bush's speeches is all the Sept. 11 references. "The lesson of Sept. 11 is..." Given that the CIA and FBI have said they have found no credible links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, why doesn't this upset more people? Why don't reporters push him harder on this? Certainly if he had said that the lesson of Sept. 11 is that we must populate Antartarctica, or the lesson of Sept. 11 is we must cut dividend taxes, people would be upset by the selling out of a tragedy for political purposes. But on Iraq, far to many people let him get away with it. It politicises the tragedy and runs the risk of trivializing it over time. Certainly Saddam is a bad guy, and there are plenty of good, level headed arguments that lead to an eventual war if you look for them, but this isn't it Mr. Bush. They're all lies, but they're entertaining lies, and in the end, isn't that the real truth?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Re: Selling out Sept 11   by dolohov       at Sat 8 Mar 12:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 18     I think that the issue of Iraq is close enough to the terrorism issue that people don't mind the abuse of the Sept 11 brand. (And yes, I think that it is becoming a brand, slapped on whenever a beaurocrat doesn't feel like giving a real reason for an arbitrary decision) Many Americans are willing to accept the link because the issue in Iraq deals specifically with the kinds of weapons that Americans are afraid might be used against them. Chemical and biological agents really are perfect for terrorists, and when we see group of people A building them, and another group of people B wanting to use them, then a capitalist society is going to assume that A will sell to B, because that's what makes sense to us. The argument that it won't happen that way is nuanced and difficult, neither of which sells well to the American public. "Carthago delenda est" -- Cato (in the world's first .sig)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Re: Selling out Sept 11   by cargoculture       at Sun 9 Mar 3:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     S'right. Even though the terrorists used planes and not chemical or biological weapons the fact remains that they were BROWN and MUSLIM, as are most of the people in Iraq. QED, Ipso Facto, Lorem Ipsum and all that... Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: Selling out Sept 11   by dolohov       at Sun 9 Mar 12:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 83     Even though the terrorists used planes and not chemical or biological weapons the fact remains that they were BROWN and MUSLIM, as are most of the people in Iraq. That's crap and you know it. American targets had been attacked by Al Qaida several times using conventional weapons and explosives before 9/11. In every case they showed a preference for small portable weapons, and when we look at the stock of arms currently available, you don't get much smaller or more portable than biological weapons. Furthermore, until anyone is caught in the anthrax attacks, Americans are going to link that to 9/11, fairly or unfairly. George Carlin notwithstanding, there may actually be a non-racist angle to these fears. "Carthago delenda est" -- Cato (in the world's first .sig)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Selling out Sept 11   by eduardo       at Sat 8 Mar 12:49pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 18     The lesson of 9/11, crail, is that Americans can be killed, where we live, by foreigners, in large numbers. It's a wake up call to the effect that terrorism isn't limited to transatlantic hijackings, embassy bombings, etc. In that light, whether Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons to dole out to parties that are willing and ready to murder Americans is a relevant issue. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Selling out Sept 11   by Victor Lazlo       at Sat 8 Mar 1:09pm score of 2 brilliant   in reply to comment 29     Sept 11th, while a tragedy to most, was the best thing that ever happened to GW Bush and his cronies. It legitimized all their kookie ideas. I admit even I was impressed by his performance in the aftermath, his reaching out, refusing to condemn Isalm for the action of fanatics, promising to reenergize the Israel-Palestinian peace process, etc. Unfortunately it proved to be another scripted performance. The lesson of 9/11 is that a few imaginative fanatics can rattle the self proclaimed most powerful country in the world to the extent we have almost shut down internal dissent and have almost destroyed the two most important postWWII peacekeeping institutions - the UN and NATO. And for all you neo-Imperialists who trash the UN, to paraphase Churchill, the UN may be a bad international organization, but all the others have been so much worse. Also, it's good to have friends who will cover your back because they believe in your ideals and not because you are paying them off.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: Selling out Sept 11   by Smallest       at Sat 8 Mar 1:14pm score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 29     in the last ten years, how many bio/chem terrorist attacks have happened against the US? there were the anthrax letters (widely believed to be the work of a US scientist), and... um, nothing else. on the other hand, look at all of the attacks against the US carried out with your traditional exploding device: WTC I, Atlanta Olympics, OKC, USS Cole, the various embassy bombings, the unibomber, the exploding mailboxes last summer, etc.. and, of course 9/11 was done using technology from the 50th century BC - knives. stopping Saddam from handing out bio/chem is going to stop anyone from carrying out a traditional bomb attack. i'm not saying it would be terrible if someone did carry out a bio-attack, but putting all our defense eggs in the bio/chem basket ignores the real problem: people can still load a truck full of fertilizer and drive it up to an office building, or buy/steal/make dynamite or C4 and plant it somewhere crowded. .sig .sgi .gis .gsi .isg .igs   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Another lesson of 9/11   by zanzibar       at Sat 8 Mar 4:02pm score of 2.5 compelling   in reply to comment 29     The lesson of 9/11, crail, is that Americans can be killed, where we live, by foreigners, in large numbers. A lesson of September 11th is that nations can be made to pay for their actions, while terrorists can't. Unless, of course, the rulers of the nation in question are facing a guaranteed extinction and have nothing to lose by launching a bio/chem attack against Americans. Perversely, we're in far more danger from Iraq now than we would be if we weren't about to invade it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  Let's Bomb Everybody!   by rmurf62       at Sat 8 Mar 11:46pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 29     In that light, whether Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons to dole out to parties that are willing and ready to murder Americans is a relevant issue. And to quote the Swedish kid who argued with Tony Blair on a call-in show this week, "I can make anthrax in my bathroom at home. So when are you going to bomb Sweden?" YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  Re: Selling out Sept 11   by crail       at Sun 9 Mar 7:15am score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 29     The lesson of 9/11, crail, is that Americans can be killed, where we live, by foreigners, in large numbers. Maybe you're right, or maybe we just disagree. But my problem is the frequency and the manner that the tragedy is used as an argumentation point by the president and others in high places, irrespective of whether it's right. Iraq is a divisive issue, any way you look at it. Even New Yorker's can't agree on it! At what point does the Sept. 11 tragedy become the silver bullet? The one weapon that wins the argument in foreign policy debates. Because at that point, the tragedy becomes a utility. Finding a link to Sept. 11, or simply stating one exists, is the winning ticket. You can stamp that ticket on your policy, and it'll fly through any obstacle. The problem is that once you're there and used Sept. 11 so successfully as a policy tool, it'll be hard to turn it back into the tragedy it should have been all along. We're quickly passing my comfort level of using massive loss of life as a foreign policy tool. At what point will we pass the comfort level of Americans as a whole? They're all lies, but they're entertaining lies, and in the end, isn't that the real truth?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Selling out Sept 11   by eduardo       at Sat 8 Mar 1:56pm score of 1 disingenuous   in reply to comment 31     on the other hand, look at all of the attacks against the US carried out with your traditional exploding device: WTC I, Atlanta Olympics, OKC, USS Cole, the various embassy bombings, the unibomber, the exploding mailboxes last summer, etc.. and, of course 9/11 was done using technology from the 50th century BC - knives. In other words, one shouldn't worry about AIDS protection, because mononucleosis is much more common and spreads easier. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: Selling out Sept 11   by Smallest       at Sat 8 Mar 3:28pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 37     i'm afraid in your rush to make a witty remark, you've got your diseases quite backwards. we shouldn't worry much about mono, since very few people actually die of it (unless they already have something like AIDS or cancer at the time). on the other hand, AIDS kills tens of thousands of americans every year - it's a real issue. bio-chem attacks have killed maybe 5 in the last 3 years. explosives and knives wielded by terrorists have killed thousands. .sig .sgi .gis .gsi .isg .igs   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: Selling out Sept 11   by Airbag       at Sun 9 Mar 12:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 90     As a milking session nears the end and flow begins to taper off, the farmer needs to resist the temptation to tug ever more insistently at the teats in the hopes of regaining earlier productivity levels.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: Let's Bomb Everybody!   by ubersoldier       at Sun 9 Mar 1:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 76     "I can make anthrax in my bathroom at home. So when are you going to bomb Sweden?" Not soon enough. I thought I died, then I realized I was just in Iraq.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: Let's Bomb Everybody!   by Clandestino       at Sun 9 Mar 1:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 76     And to quote the Swedish kid who argued with Tony Blair on a call-in show this week, "I can make anthrax in my bathroom at home. So when are you going to bomb Sweden?" Forget Sweden. MTV has had Anthrax for years. Forget white powder, I tell you. It's white noise you ought to be worried about. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Paging Mr. Ugly American   by rmurf62       at Sun 9 Mar 1:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 97     Thank you for a classic knee-jerk reaction from an Ugly American. And thank you for your ignorant, neandrethalic world-view which helps to make the United States a global embarrassment. Thank you. YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   132.  Re: Paging Mr. Ugly American   by ubersoldier       at Mon 10 Mar 1:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 101     Thank you for a classic knee-jerk reaction from an Ugly American I guess the gay population of New York doesn't have a sense of humor? Talk about a knee jerk reaction..... And thank you for your ignorant, neandrethalic world-view which helps to make the United States a global embarrassment. Why do people keep talking about the US as if we are the end all be all of what is wrong with the world? As if without the United States the terrorists, tyrants, hypocrites, corruption, and world hunger would all just become extinct. The cure for cancer and AIDS would just appear and everyone would live happily ever after. Oh, and "Your welcome!" :) I thought I died, then I realized I was just in Iraq.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Selling Sept 11- Misinformation Helps Bush Case   by Philosawyer       at Sat 8 Mar 1:36pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 18     Noted in one the links provided in this submission was that reference to how misinformed large segments of the American public are about Iraq and an alleged connection to 9/11: The shortage of critical challenges from the press (and from intimidated Democrats) assisted the manipulation of public thinking. By relentless repetition, Bush and his team accomplished an audacious feat of propaganda--persuading many Americans to redirect the emotional wounds left by 9/11, their hurt and anger, away from the perpetrators to a different adversary. According to a New York Times-CBS News survey, 42 percent now believe Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. In an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe Saddam provides direct support to Al Qaeda. a www.thenation.com link The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of a direct connection and that to Al Qaeda, Hussein is another infidel. But the false belief held by millions of Americans is politically beneficial the Bush Administration. What amazes me with this kind of misinformation so prevalent is that even more people dont support Bush's approach. IF I believed that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11 and we had proof, I would argue that Bush is moving too slow against Iraq. However, the evidence suggests that there is little or no connection between the two at all. The Bush administrations scare tactics such as references to hypothetical nuclear bombs provided by Saddam to terrorists have only served to increase the level of information held by the American public. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: Selling Sept 11- Misinformation Helps Bush   by profwhat       at Sat 8 Mar 3:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     There is a distinction between being mistaken and having a hunch. ABC didn't poll me, but I count myself inside the 55% of Americans who believes Saddam provides direct support to al Qaeda. No, I can't prove it, but in the absence of evidence either way, I'm going to go with my strong hunch that our biggest enemies will find common cause. What data there is out there supports (but does not prove) this theory.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Re: Selling Sept 11- Misinformation Helps Bush   by fifthcolumnist       at Sun 9 Mar 8:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 34     Wasn't it another Republican president's press secretary that said, "If you tell the same story five times, it's true" ? I lived in the Philippines for six years, through the overthrow of the Marcos regime and numerous coup attempts against the Aquino government. We used used to joke about living in a third-world banana republic. Now it turns out that I am the citizen of one. Oh, the irony.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Selling Sept 11- Misinformation Helps Bush   by lucas_m       at Sat 8 Mar 5:24pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 43     OK, one more time: Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are as far apart politically as is humanly possible within the Arabic political spectre. Osama is a Shia fundamentalist who wants to instate sharia, wipe out the infidels and let Allah rule the world. Saddam is a secular harddrinking Sunni socialist turned dictator, only out to keep himself in power. They have nothing in common, except for a dislike of all things American. As long as that is the only similarity in their political worldview, it's not very likely that they are linked. Remember the latest Osama video in which he spoke out against the United States and the Regime in Bagdad? Moi, j'aime ricocher.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: Selling Sept 11- Misinformation Helps Bush   by Airbag       at Sat 8 Mar 6:17pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 57     Osama is not Shia. He is Sunni. Wahhabbi is Sunni. There is a vast difference of ideology between Osama and Hussein but they are both Sunni.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: Selling Sept 11- Misinformation Helps Bush   by lucas_m       at Sat 8 Mar 6:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 61     My mistake, I meant to write Wahabbi but somehow wrote Shia. While Wahabi is a form of Sunni, Wahabi doesn't equal Sunni. Moi, j'aime ricocher.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: Selling Sept 11- Misinformation Helps Bush   by Really       at Sat 8 Mar 7:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 43     What data there is out there supports (but does not prove) this theory I could get pissy and ask for that assertion to be substantiated (I will accept nothing less than 5,000 words and the bibliography better not be padded) but a hunch is just not good enough. Not by a long shot when so much is at stake.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: Selling Sept 11- Misinformation Helps Bush   by Citizen Erectus       at Sun 9 Mar 4:12am score of 2 helpful   in reply to comment 43     I'm going to go with my strong hunch that our biggest enemies will find common cause. What data there is out there supports (but does not prove) this theory. A hunch? Do you think it's worth killing thousands of people over a hunch? What exactly is a hunch? That nagging feeling in the back of your head? Sounds to me you have fallen victim to the BIG-LIE. Yes, the proven tactics of propaganda have been repeated so many times they have registered in your subconscious, to give you the niggling feeling that there may be a link. Don't be fooled, propaganda works. The techniques have been scientifically calculated to get into your head, they prey on the insecure and weak-minded. Do yourself a favour and turn off the TV immediately. By killing people.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: Selling Sept 11- Misinformation Helps Bush   by marduk_kur       at Sun 9 Mar 8:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 43     I'm going to go with my strong hunch that our biggest enemies will find common cause. I'm going to go with my strong hunch that you either a) don't really believe this or b) are utterly incapable of logical reasoning. What data there is out there supports (but does not prove) this theory. Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: Selling Sept 11- Misinformation Helps Bush   by furryape       at Mon 10 Mar 8:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 43     What relevance does your opinion have? Without any evidence, your opinion is a guess. You might as well flip a coin.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Oscar for Most Presidential Performance Goes To...   by tightlikethis       at Sat 8 Mar 11:43am score of 0.5 irrelevant     How important is the president's ability to perform for the camera? How does it relate to his ability to do his job? Certainly Dubya's relationship with the press has deteriorated in part because he is so uncomfortable in front of them, and his interactions with them have therefore been limited. But Clinton and Reagan's relationship with them also fell apart at times precisely because they were often so persuasive as to be considered manipulative. How slick does a president need to be to be convincing? "Fake is as old as the Eden Tree." - Orson Welles   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Re: Oscar for Most Presidential Performance Goes   by crail       at Sat 8 Mar 1:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Ah, but it's not his performace for the press that counts. After all, the press just asks the questions I would, should I be given the opportunity. It's his performance for Americans that counts, the press is just the vehicle for that communication. Having a president who is uncomfortable with the press makes it look like he is uncomfortable discussing his policies with Americans. And I think that's his problem. Bush hasn't found a way to effectively communicate with Americans, save for his performace after Sept 11. I don't disagree with everything Bush says, but somewhere between his advisors' heads and my TV screen the message all gets messed up, and it comes across as weak. Being slick enough to outfox a manipulative press isn't just for our benifit either. I would imagine it's not too different than a late night phone call to Chirac or Putin over say, vetos in the UN. I'm sure they have some manipulative questions for Mr. Bush, and he has to be fast enough on his feet to dodge the bullets. That's a skill a president definitely needs. They're all lies, but they're entertaining lies, and in the end, isn't that the real truth?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   117.  Re: Oscar for Most Presidential Performance Goes   by tightlikethis       at Sun 9 Mar 8:03pm score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 35     I guess I would disagree that his performance for the press doesn't count- it does, because part of the criteria that the press uses to analyze what sort of job Bush (or whoever) is doing is based on their understanding of how prior Presidents have presented themselves and whether they have lived up to the concept of being "Presidential". Listen to Doris Kearns Goodwin analyze presidential speeches on PBS if you don't think the people covering politics are aware of this. Indeed, Helen Thomas (who has covered every president since JFK) recently called Bush "the worst president ever." Where does this critical language come from? Not from thin air: from a set of expectations that the press has about how the president will communicate with the public through them. "Fake is as old as the Eden Tree." - Orson Welles   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  what's the difference?   by gerrymander       at Sat 8 Mar 12:07pm score of 3 funny     Heavy scripting, a dumb guy, tangential responses and a medicated performance -- save only a gratuitous shot of Jennifer Aniston's breasts, that was an episode of Friends.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

80.  Re: what's the difference?   by A. H. Cretin       at Sun 9 Mar 2:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 25     save only a gratuitous shot of Jennifer Aniston's breasts, that was an episode of Friends But that shot makes all the difference. :) [-1, lowbrow shot at a show I don't watch] -A Humorless Cretin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   134.  Actually, closer to Joe Millionaire...   by JackH       at Mon 10 Mar 3:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     Although I didn't hear anything quite as nuanced, thoughtful and cerebral as this - a www.google.com link I think that was possibly the funniest moment in the history of television. "If you demonstrate a personality deficit in comparison to the likes of John Kerry, you've got major problems" - Anon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  Thoughts   by Nameless Cynic       at Sat 8 Mar 12:10pm score of 2 astute     Well, Shrub isn't the first president to script a press conference. Usually, they just say "No questions." At least he gave the appearance of allowing questions and stuff. Doesn't he get points for that? And he had good reasons for scripting what he did. Even with everything written out for him, Bush either stumbles over his tongue: BUSH: We will. We'll present it in the form of a supplemental to the spenders. We don't get to spend the money; as you know, we have to request the expenditure of money from the Congress, and at the appropriate time we'll request a supplemental. or shows a serious lack of imagination: BUSH: I think, first of all, it's hard to envision more terror on America than September the 11th, 2001. We did nothing to provoke that terrorist attack. I can only hope that, if I do end up deployed, we get clearer instructions than this: (What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?) BUSH: It's a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. In order to disarm, it will mean regime change. I'm confident that we'll be able to achieve that objective in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there's risks with any military operation. I know that. But it's very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won't change. The mission is precisely what I just stated. We've got a plan that will achieve that mission should we need to send forces in. It was that kind of unclear political doubletalk that contributed to our downfall in Viet Nam. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  More troubling than the pre-approved questions   by JC65       at Sat 8 Mar 1:33pm score of 3 astute     Is that not one member of our liberal(sic) media felt compelled to let us know that the questions had been pre-screened by the administration. A simple 'In the interest of full disclosure, we feel compelled to tell you all questions asked tonight were submitted to the administration earlier today' at the end of the broadcast would have been so, so honest. It's too bad most of the media acts like the kid who is so intimidated by the bully that he hands over his lunch money after nothing more than a stern look.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Re: More troubling than the pre-approved questions   by Victor Lazlo       at Sat 8 Mar 1:48pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 33     I agree with you. The main stream American news media has never been that ballsy, but at least in the past they pretended to be journalists. I really find the habit of the network anchors of posing intros to stories in the form of questions to the listeners to be annoying, ala Dan or Peter or Tom saying something like "War in Iraq? What will America do?" Well, guys you tell me, you supposedly have the sources and the access. Anybody who isn't going to the internet, the blogs, and international news sources, has no idea what is going on. And Charles Krauthammer, even though you are in a wheelchair, you need to be slapped up the side of the head.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: More troubling than the pre-approved questions   by eduardo       at Sat 8 Mar 2:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     Umm George W. himself pointed out during the press conference that it was scripted. Anyone who has actually bothered to watch has heard that. I guess you're more interested in putting the (sic) after liberal than in um.. paying attention? J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  That's funny   by JC65       at Sat 8 Mar 3:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 38     Your claim that he admitted the questions to be pre-screened isn't supported by cnn's transcript of the event, unless I'm missing it. And you're right, I didn't watch it because I cannot watch him speak. The longing for a time when the President of the United States could use fully formed sentences to express complex and obviously well formed thoughts forces me to break out in tears. I watched E!'s True Hollywood Story of Ginger Lynn because the people on there were using English. To Bush's credit however, I noticed that he has obviously practiced saying 'nuclear'. This time around he actually pronounced it correctly several times, albeit with a pause before and a satisfied smirk after.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: More troubling than the pre-approved questions   by Techbomb       at Sat 8 Mar 3:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 38     Umm George W. himself pointed out during the press conference that it was scripted. Anyone who has actually bothered to watch has heard that. Personally, when I heard the "this is a scripted" remark, I thought that he merely meant who would be called on and in what order. I couldn't imagine that the questions were known in advance as well. And even knowing the questions ahead of time he was still sub-par-- very sad.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   139.  Anyone who has actually bothered to watch...   by JC65       at Tue 11 Mar 8:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 38     Well, it looks like not 'anyone who... actually botherd to watch' heard him say it was scripted. a www.thememoryhole.com link It looks like a lot of people who were PAID to watch either missed it, misheard it or decided to edit it out.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   84.  Re: That's funny   by cargoculture       at Sun 9 Mar 3:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     Your claim that he admitted the questions to be pre-screened isn't supported by cnn's transcript of the event, unless I'm missing it. Maybe they only got sent an early draft? Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  The lack of substance is enough.   by ignoblus       at Sat 8 Mar 2:50pm score of 1.5 compelling     I hate Bush. As much as anyone here, I'm sure. I've never said he was the worst president in history, but only because there are so many I know so much less about. I have said many time that he is the worst since at least Silent Cal. I think he is the closest thing to evil to exist in this world. I lack no credentials as a Bush basher. But this stuff about medication and scripting is absurd. He's a poor public speaker in front of a hostile press corps. That is more than enough to ruin anyone's performance without so much as a Claratin. I've seen absolutely nothing but conjecture that anything other than the order in which reporters were to be called was scripted. It was a joke. Everyone in the room laughed. His snubbing of reporters who might ask hard questions is a story. This conjecture is just vitriol, about as useful as the distraction of attacking Helen Thomas's credentials above. There is so much about the conference worth criticizing - the lack of substance and the refusal to answer straightforward questions chiefly. We can do better than this. It never was that simple, and it still isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  Re: The lack of substance is enough.   by captainebo       at Sat 8 Mar 3:01pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 39     He's a poor public speaker in front of a hostile press corps. You had me until right here. The whole point of this discussion is that, with the exception of Ms. Thomas, Bush faces a tragically unhostile press corps. Ebo "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: The lack of substance is enough.   by ignoblus       at Sat 8 Mar 3:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 40     They are tragically unhostile when they write about him. Some version of professionalism, I'm sure. The same professionalism that prohibited much important journalism about Ronald Reagan, I'm sure. However, at the present moment, they are hostile and contemptuous, though overly tactful and overly pragmatic. I don't think they come close to the mythical liberal press, but that is no the only source of hostility. And, I'm sure Bush's perception, given his radical black and white thinking, is that they are far more hostile than they truly are. It never was that simple, and it still isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Hostile???   by Smallest       at Sat 8 Mar 3:49pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 41     They are, at best, asking some of the questions that hundreds of millions of Americans want the answers to. And they are, apparently, pre-screened questions. And even then, the monkey won't answer them. It's too bad that demanding accountability from the guy in the Big Chair is now seen as being anti-American. .sig .sgi .gis .gsi .isg .igs   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: The lack of substance is enough.   by Techbomb       at Sat 8 Mar 3:39pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 39     I've seen absolutely nothing but conjecture that anything other than the order in which reporters were to be called was scripted. It was a joke. Everyone in the room laughed. This is from the Washington Post as linked above: Communications director Dan Bartlett said this White House uses news conferences more sparingly than other types of presidential events, because "if you have a message you're trying to deliver, a news conference can go in a different direction." "In this case, we know what the questions are going to be, and those are the ones we want to answer," Bartlett said. "We think the public will see the thought and care and attention he's given to a lot of the different questions that are being asked about the diplomatic side and the military side and the potential post-Iraq issue. These are all legitimate questions that he has answers for and wants to talk about." Sounds like more than conjecture. You need to up the hate level.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: The lack of substance is enough.   by ignoblus       at Sat 8 Mar 3:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 46     Bush was given a memo consisting of about 50 possible topics with suggested answers. Then his most senior aides gathered around his desk in the Oval Office and fired practice questions at him. That's from the same link. I think you misread the statement you quoted. The questions were known ahead of time because everyone has been talking at length about this for a while. It was the context of the conference, not the explicit hand of the administration, which dictated the questions. However, let me set you at ease - I really couldn't hate him more or more personally without first dating him. I could express it differently, but I expect that would be counterproductive. Now, let's get back to the facts missing from the conference, please. I rather don't enjoy defending him. It never was that simple, and it still isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

63.  no surprise   by chasing       at Sat 8 Mar 6:41pm score of 2 astute     Is anyone surprised it was scripted? If you feel cheated it's not because Bush has led you to it, but because you've led yourself. Would you like him to be something other than he is? Yeah sure. And I'd like to win the lottery. Really, people need to learn to manage their expectations better. That having been said, did Bush accomplish what he set out to do? No. Can he? Probably also no. Look, he isn't a very good speaker, and he's not good at fielding questions; of course they scripted it. They successfully avoided playing to their weaknesses, and I for one, can't blame them for it. Neither, however, did they play to their strengths. Now, you and I and the deity of your choice can argue all day about what those strenghts are (or even if he has any), but, regardless, they weren't played to. As for Helen Thomas? Non-issue. So she was snubbed? So what. She wants to play hard-ball, then she can expect them to play hard-ball back. And if she doesn't expect that, then she's one naive journalist - and I don't really think she is. And let us not overdo things here either: while it's true that not much new came out of the conference, it's a lie to say that it wasn't informative in at least some degree. If not to you, then probably to the middle Americans to whom it was actually aimed. I, for one, was interested to hear that he was going to push for a vote even knowing he's likely to not get his (and Blair's and Aznar's) resolution passed. In the end, however, Plastic wasn't his intended audience - and I'm sure he's none to worried that it didn't fly well with us, either.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

64.  Must See TV   by Mule       at Sat 8 Mar 7:12pm score of 4 compelling     Next time, can they just drop leaflets on us and not interrupt my insipid programming with this drivel.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

69.  Can we just forget this ever happened?   by rmurf62       at Sat 8 Mar 8:18pm score of 1.5 astute     Well, now we know exactly why Dubya has no direct contact with the press. I skipped dinner with friends to listen to this on the radio (can't watch President Butch on TV - I break out in a rash). From the transcripts I'd read on plastic between Helen Thomas & Ari Fleischer, I had this false, fleeting hope that she, or some other "journalist", would rip Bush a new one on national TV. What a idiotic fucking non-event. Actually, calling it an informercial hits the rhetorical tone right on the head. "So tell us, President Bush, do you really, truly believe that Saddam Hussein is evil?" "Why, I'm glad you asked that Sam Donaldson, because Saddam Hussein is, in my book, the evilest evildoer in all evildom." AI-generated answering bots could produce more interesting text. And as far as Helen Thomas goes: anybody who can get up this administration's nose is a God/dess in my book. YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

71.  I have to say it, I have to...   by Really       at Sat 8 Mar 9:15pm score of 4 brilliant     I've never understood the fact that the American political system, being so ur-democratic, lacked the features Canadians absolutely love about ours: Question Period and media scrums. We get to see our Prime Minister shimmy and shake in front of Opposition questioning and a usually hostile media (although it's a mixed bag these days) on almost a daily basis to see whether he scores, misses or (insert disappointed groan here) is on vacation in Fort Lauderdale. I can't imagine an event in Canada were the camera would pan back from a stately hallway, remain empty for a bit while we drink in the splendor, and watch in breathless awe as the anointed one himself approaches the podium for what is, not an address to the nation, but a press conference. I watched this thing intently on Thursday, even beyond the point where I should have turned the channel to CBC's 4-part mini-series entitled "Gosh, we Canadians are Great, Aren't We" and couldn't believe how absolutely banal it was. I also can't believe it would be followed up by a thorough and dissecting analysis on whether Helen Thomas is pouting or triumphant, whether Mr. Bush prefers Sudafed over Advil-Cold-and-Flu, or whether he is dumb, smart, or "smart but not bookish".   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

126.  Re: I have to say it, I have to...   by tdahnsn       at Mon 10 Mar 8:24am score of 1   in reply to comment 71     "...couldn't believe how absolutely banal it was." Yeah, ever since the tragic Great White show in Rhode Island everyone's been toning down their stage performances. No more crazy antics, no more out of control front men, and no more fireworks. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

105.  The point of the news conference   by All Seeing Eye       at Sun 9 Mar 2:37pm score of 2 astute     The point of the news conference was to trump Blix. If Bush thinks things aren't going well in the UN arena then it makes political sense to try and draw as much attention away from it as possible. Friendly neighbourhood All Seeing Eye   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]