PDA

View Full Version : Wow... I always thought Tony Snow was a very good PR guy for this administration...


jAZ
06-14-2007, 12:59 PM
:shake:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lbBT7JSztZg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lbBT7JSztZg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Donger
06-14-2007, 02:25 PM
Actually, that was a pretty good answer. I would of told the old witch to "f*ck off, next question?"

Radar Chief
06-14-2007, 02:41 PM
Actually, that was a pretty good answer. I would of told the old witch to "f*ck off, next question?"

Is Helen Thomas supposed to be a journalist, or a wrinkle necked baboon trying to sling poo?

Boyceofsummer
06-14-2007, 02:46 PM
didnt 'W' serve in Vietnam? ROFL

go bowe
06-14-2007, 03:05 PM
Is Helen Thomas supposed to be a journalist, or a wrinkle necked baboon trying to sling poo?she was the dean of the wh press corps and was always the first to ask a question at news conferences for like a thousand years...

i don't recall why she doesn't get the first question any more...

btw, did you see her in the steven colbert video that he played at some dinner or whatever?

she was almost funnier than colbert...

HolmeZz
06-14-2007, 03:21 PM
She said front lines, not coke lines. :o

Taco John
06-14-2007, 03:26 PM
So apparently the answer is no.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-14-2007, 03:37 PM
i don't recall why she doesn't get the first question any more....

Because Bush felt threatened by the questions that she asked. He only plays slow pitch.

Donger
06-14-2007, 03:42 PM
i don't recall why she doesn't get the first question any more...

IIRC, she doesn't represent any wire service any longer.

Radar Chief
06-14-2007, 03:46 PM
Because Bush felt threatened by the questions that she asked. He only plays slow pitch.

She doesn’t ask questions. She uses the platform as a segue into a partisan diatribe of rhetoric and hatefull :BS:.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-14-2007, 03:46 PM
When I was a freshman in college, my gf of the time and I had our picture taken with her.

It was not good ROFL

jAZ
06-14-2007, 03:46 PM
IIRC, she doesn't represent any wire service any longer.
That's wrong.

She is WH correspondent for Hearst Corporation's King Features Syndicate.

Radar Chief
06-14-2007, 03:49 PM
When I was a freshman in college, my gf of the time and I had our picture taken with her.

It was not good ROFL

Since you’ve met her maybe you know, is her day job distracting bulls from fallen riders at the rodeo? ;)

Radar Chief
06-14-2007, 04:17 PM
she was the dean of the wh press corps and was always the first to ask a question at news conferences for like a thousand years...

i don't recall why she doesn't get the first question any more...

btw, did you see her in the steven colbert video that he played at some dinner or whatever?

she was almost funnier than colbert...

No, I didn’t see it. I think I know the one you’re talking about though.

go bowe
06-14-2007, 04:19 PM
That's wrong.

She is WH correspondent for Hearst Corporation's King Features Syndicate.i think she used to be with upi or one of the other wire services...

jAZ
06-14-2007, 04:21 PM
i think she used to be with upi or one of the other wire services...
She was with UPI until the moonies bought it. Then it fell off the face of the earth. I guess I don't know which came first. But regardless, UPI stopped being UPI or anything substantial for a while now.

jAZ
06-14-2007, 04:24 PM
Can you imagine the media avalanche if a Dem tried to make this argument about Clinton during a war where 3000 soldiers have been killed on the "front lines"?

"Shit storm" isn't remotely big enough to cover the outrage.

Joe Seahawk
06-14-2007, 04:26 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3313894#post3313894


:p

Pitt Gorilla
06-14-2007, 04:32 PM
Can you imagine the media avalanche if a Dem tried to make this argument about Clinton during a war where 3000 soldiers have been killed on the "front lines"?

"Shit storm" isn't remotely big enough to cover the outrage.That's a good point. When I watched the video, I thought he answered the question ok because W is the commander in chief. However, if Clinton's press sec answered the question this way, there would have been incredible outrage.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-14-2007, 04:50 PM
Since you’ve met her maybe you know, is her day job distracting bulls from fallen riders at the rodeo? ;)

It's easy to bash her, but the woman has been around since the Kennedy administration. She got along well with Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. It's not like she's the inverse of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh...she just happens to have been ostracized by Bush because the administration isn't interested in answering any types of critical questions or acknowledging dissent.

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 08:30 AM
It's easy to bash her, but the woman has been around since the Kennedy administration. She got along well with Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. It's not like she's the inverse of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh...she just happens to have been ostracized by Bush because the administration isn't interested in answering any types of critical questions or acknowledging dissent.

Have you actually listened to the leading “questions” she asks?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2007, 08:38 AM
Have you actually listened to the leading “questions” she asks?

Like this one:

I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 08:43 AM
Like this one:

I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?


Yes, do you honestly feel that’s a real question or a predetermination of guilt based on false partisan talking points?

She doesn’t ask questions. She uses the platform as a segue into a partisan diatribe of rhetoric and hatefull :BS:.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2007, 08:48 AM
Yes, do you honestly feel that’s a real question or a predetermination of guilt based on false partisan talking points?

What is incorrect and partisan about that assessment?

Have thousands of Americans and Iraqis not died?

Have the reasons for war been truthful?

Have people not been wounded in droves?


There is a difference between someone asking a partisan question, and someone not wanting to answer a question or not liking the question because they are the ones ascribing to partisan hackery.

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 08:55 AM
What is incorrect and partisan about that assessment?

Have thousands of Americans and Iraqis not died?

Have the reasons for war been truthful?

Have people not been wounded in droves?


That’s not quite what she said, per your quote.

Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true.

That’s a lie and you should know it. I’ve pointed it out and posted the evidence here repeatedly.

There is a difference between someone asking a partisan question, and someone not wanting to answer a question or not liking the question because they are the ones ascribing to partisan hackery.

Looks more to me like they are just playing the “partisan hackery” game as presented by people just like Helen Thomas. :shrug: Really, would you expect a substantive answer to a partisan hack attack like that?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2007, 09:01 AM
That’s a lie and you should know it. I’ve pointed it out and posted the evidence here repeatedly.


You mean like the ridiculous and wholly unsubstantiated claims you've made that we've found WMDs??? :spock:

And FWIW, there is a difference between saying that we're going to war b/c Iraq is a threat to the US and has ties to Al Qaeda and then 8 months into the mission saying that we're going it to liberate the country.

It's called revisionist history.



Looks more to me like they are just playing the “partisan hackery” game as presented by people just like Helen Thomas. :shrug: Really, would you expect a substantive answer to a partisan hack attack like that?

The only thing that question asks is why did we go to war and what are the reasons. Since all of the publicly-given reasons have been debunked, what are they?

They didn't answer it, because they can't admit the answer to the quesiton:

"We were predetermined to go into Iraq from Day 1 and were looking for any excuse to do so. 9/11 gave us carte blanche."

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 09:16 AM
You mean like the ridiculous and wholly unsubstantiated claims you've made that we've found WMDs??? :spock:

:LOL: “Wholly unsubstantiated”?! :eek:
Are pictures and reports from documented experts showing chemical munitions not enough “substantiation” for you?

And FWIW, there is a difference between saying that we're going to war b/c Iraq is a threat to the US and has ties to Al Qaeda and then 8 months into the mission saying that we're going it to liberate the country.

It's called revisionist history.

And had it not been included in the reasons presented before invasion you’d have a point.
Again, I’ve posted this all here before.

The only thing that question asks is why did we go to war and what are the reasons. Since all of the publicly-given reasons have been debunked, what are they?

They didn't answer it, because they can't admit the answer to the quesiton:

"We were predetermined to go into Iraq from Day 1 and were looking for any excuse to do so. 9/11 gave us carte blanche."

The question is false on its face, since the publicly given reasons most certainly have not been “debunked”.

She isn’t asking a question. She’s going on a partisan rant then needling for the particular response she wants.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2007, 09:25 AM
:LOL: “Wholly unsubstantiated”?! :eek:
Are pictures and reports from documented experts showing chemical munitions not enough “substantiation” for you?

A

There is a difference between a pesticide and chemical weapons.


The reason for the high false positive rates is that field tests using the ICAM (Improved Chemical Agent Monitor) are very inaccurate, and even the more time consuming field tests have shown themselves to be poor at determining whether something is a chemical weapon. According to Donald Rumsfeld, ""Almost all first reports we get turn out to be wrong," he said. "We don't do first reports and we don't speculate."[1] Many chemicals used in explosives, such as phosphorus, show up as blister agents. Other chemicals, such as pesticides (especially organophosphates such as malathion), routinely show up as nerve agents. Chemically, they are quite similar — the main difference is that some organophosphates kill only insects, and are consequently used as insecticides.


Don't let that dissuade you from what you want to believe, though.

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 09:32 AM
There is a difference between a pesticide and chemical weapons.

Indeed there is. In fact, chemical weapons are nothing more than highly refined pesticides, many derived from the castor bean. But that’s why I mentioned “munitions” not pesticides.

Don't let that dissuade you from what you want to believe, though.

Back at’cha bud. ;)

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2007, 09:36 AM
Indeed there is. In fact, chemical weapons are nothing more than highly refined pesticides, many derived from the castor bean. But that’s why I mentioned “munitions” not pesticides.



Back at’cha bud. ;)

After the invasion, despite an exhaustive search led by the Iraq Survey Group involving a more than 1,400 member team, no evidence of Iraqi weapons programs was found. On the contrary, the investigation concluded that Iraq had destroyed all major stockpiles of WMDs and ceased production in 1991 when sanctions were imposed.[21] [22][23] The failure to find evidence of Iraqi weapons programs following the invasion led to considerable controversy in the United States and worldwide, including claims by critics of the war that the Bush and Blair Administrations deliberately manipulated and misused intelligence to push for an invasion.

I can't believe I'm even having this conversation :shake:

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 09:43 AM
After the invasion, despite an exhaustive search led by the Iraq Survey Group involving a more than 1,400 member team, no evidence of Iraqi weapons programs was found. On the contrary, the investigation concluded that Iraq had destroyed all major stockpiles of WMDs and ceased production in 1991 when sanctions were imposed.[21] [22][23] The failure to find evidence of Iraqi weapons programs following the invasion led to considerable controversy in the United States and worldwide, including claims by critics of the war that the Bush and Blair Administrations deliberately manipulated and misused intelligence to push for an invasion.

So, we’ve moved from “munitions” to “pesticides” to “programs”?

I can't believe I'm even having this conversation :shake:

Me neither.
I’m talking about “munitions”, which have been found and are clear proof that Saddam hadn’t completely “disarmed” as claimed.
Since you apparently prefer not to address that, can I assume you agree with that statement?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2007, 09:48 AM
So, we’ve moved from “munitions” to “pesticides” to “programs”?



Me neither.
I’m talking about “munitions”, which have been found and are clear proof that Saddam hadn’t completely “disarmed” as claimed.
Since you apparently prefer not to address that, can I assume you agree with that statement?

What part of this is incomprehensible:

the investigation concluded that Iraq had destroyed all major stockpiles of WMDs

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 09:51 AM
What part of this is incomprehensible:

the investigation concluded that Iraq had destroyed all major stockpiles of WMDs

So you still prefer not to answer my question?

jAZ
06-15-2007, 09:58 AM
So you still prefer not to answer my question?
Are you saying that Bush made the case for war on Iraq so that we could disarm them of a handful of lost (and expired) chem bombs left over from the Iran war 20 years ago?

jAZ
06-15-2007, 10:03 AM
I'd just like to point out that this is EXACTLY the sort of behavior that we've been referencing.

The ENDLESS degree to which Republicans will go to avoid even reasonable criticism of their actions.

Radar Chief is trying to convince us that a "reason given, publicly" for preemptive invasion of Iraq was these chemical munitions he's refering to.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2007, 10:06 AM
So you still prefer not to answer my question?

A handful of lost chemical weapons that have degraded and been buried in the dirt since Ronald Reagan remembered his name is not a weapons program, nor are they valid proof of WMDs.

It's among the most infantile and degrading of cop outs that you could use. I'm wondering if you decided to bury any remaining credibility you had along with those expired shells.

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 10:20 AM
A handful of lost chemical weapons that have degraded and been buried in the dirt since Ronald Reagan remembered his name is not a weapons program, nor are they valid proof of WMDs.

It's among the most infantile and degrading of cop outs that you could use. I'm wondering if you decided to bury any remaining credibility you had along with those expired shells.

Chemical munitions have been found. That is a fact. Why you now try to go personal with your assertions rather than just admit the truth is not unexpected but disappointing since I know you’re smarter than this.

jAZ
06-15-2007, 10:23 AM
A handful of lost chemical weapons that have degraded and been buried in the dirt since Ronald Reagan remembered his name is not a weapons program, nor are they valid proof of WMDs.

It's among the most infantile and degrading of cop outs that you could use. I'm wondering if you decided to bury any remaining credibility you had along with those expired shells.
We might have gotten too far away from the original comments.

It might be unfair to assume this to be RC's views.

I'll ask specifically.

Radar... are you trying to say that a "reason given, publicly" for preemptive invasion of Iraq was these chemical munitions you are mentioning here?

It's one thing to try to have the discussion that Bush said WMD and a chem bomb might be WMD. But it's a wholly different thing to assert that these bombs were the reason we went to war.

Even the Bush Administration themselves aren't asserting what you seem to be trying to do.

So let's give you a chance to clarify before we condem you as completely out of touch and an example of the problem with Republicans. That seems only fair.

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 10:26 AM
Are you saying that Bush made the case for war on Iraq so that we could disarm them of a handful of lost (and expired) chem bombs left over from the Iran war 20 years ago?

I'd just like to point out that this is EXACTLY the sort of behavior that we've been referencing.

The ENDLESS degree to which Republicans will go to avoid even reasonable criticism of their actions.

Ironic, since what started this particular line of conversation was Helen Thomas’ propensity to make false assertions based on partisan rhetoric then needling for the particular response she’s leading too with her “question”.

Radar Chief is trying to convince us that a "reason given, publicly" for preemptive invasion of Iraq was these chemical munitions he's refering to.

Example: you can believe whatever you want. I’m simpley pointing out facts, you seem to be having trouble accepting that. :hmmm:

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 10:34 AM
We might have gotten too far away from the original comments.

It might be unfair to assume this to be RC's views.

I'll ask specifically.

Radar... are you trying to say that a "reason given, publicly" for preemptive invasion of Iraq was these chemical munitions you are mentioning here?

It's one thing to try to have the discussion that Bush said WMD and a chem bomb might be WMD. But it's a wholly different thing to assert that these bombs were the reason we went to war.

Even the Bush Administration themselves aren't asserting what you seem to be trying to do.

So let's give you a chance to clarify before we condem you as completely out of touch and an example of the problem with Republicans. That seems only fair.

This is part of the problem, you’re trying to nail down a single justification when multiple were given.
One of several given was WMD. That can then be broken down into possession of weapons, manufacturing of more and development of different ones.
Chemical shells found in Iraq are not proof of the later two, i.e. manufacturing or development, but it certainly is proof that he hadn’t gotten rid of all he had.

jAZ
06-15-2007, 10:41 AM
This is part of the problem, you’re trying to nail down a single justification when multiple were given.
One of several given was WMD. That can then be broken down into possession of weapons, manufacturing of more and development of different ones.
Chemical shells found in Iraq are not proof of the later two, i.e. manufacturing or development, but it certainly is proof that he hadn’t gotten rid of all he had.
First, I'd like credit for my gesture.

Second, you and I both know that Bush tried to go with the give-every-reason-imaginable and hope that one of them gives after-the-fact cover.

But at the same time... you need to consider that only a handful of those reasons moved the public to support. And those reasons are the only relevenat ones given at the time and now.

And none of those reasons that moved the public to (barely) support the idea were these lost chem bombs from the Iran war.

You have to be willing to acknowledge this fact.

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 11:53 AM
First, I'd like credit for my gesture.

:LOL: Credit for attempting to be reasonable? :hmmm:
Ok, if that’s what tickles you’re giggle spot, you did at least try. :thumb:

Second, you and I both know that Bush tried to go with the give-every-reason-imaginable and hope that one of them gives after-the-fact cover.

That is your characterization and not representative of the facts.

But at the same time... you need to consider that only a handful of those reasons moved the public to support. And those reasons are the only relevenat ones given at the time and now.

They’re only “relevant” because they’ve been picked out of the reasons given as something that can be argued to reach the predetermined conclusion that Bush lied us into war.
It looks a lot more to me like shifting justifications for bitching. The prior line of discussion with Hamas is a prime example.
I post that chemical munitions have been found in Iraq. This is a fact, but rather than address that he moves to “pesticides” then to “programs”, none of which refutes the fact that chemical munitions have been found, then attempts to paint me as some mindless zealot for not buying into his particular line of rhetoric.
I mean, isn’t that the same kind of thing you were complaining about with this post?

I'd just like to point out that this is EXACTLY the sort of behavior that we've been referencing.

The ENDLESS degree to which Republicans will go to avoid even reasonable criticism of their actions.

:shrug:

And none of those reasons that moved the public to (barely) support the idea were these lost chem bombs from the Iran war.

You have to be willing to acknowledge this fact.

No, I don’t “have to acknowledge” what is assumptions as to others opinions. I can only speak to my opinions. And my opinion going in was that we should’ve done it 13 years ago. All we did was leave a problem to fester into a bigger one, and if we’d have had a POTUS with an iota of sack it would’ve been taken care of. This includes Bush I, BTW.
But that’s my opinion, you’re welcome to yours.

jAZ
06-15-2007, 12:07 PM
They’re only “relevant” because they’ve been picked out of the reasons given as something that can be argued to reach the predetermined conclusion that Bush lied us into war.
It looks a lot more to me like shifting justifications for bitching. The prior line of discussion with Hamas is a prime example.
I post that chemical munitions have been found in Iraq. This is a fact, but rather than address that he moves to “pesticides” then to “programs”, none of which refutes the fact that chemical munitions have been found, then attempts to paint me as some mindless zealot for not buying into his particular line of rhetoric.
I mean, isn’t that the same kind of thing you were complaining about with this post?
They are relevant because support for the war war tenous at best, and Bush had to play up the threats... play down the costs... and CYA his ass for the uncertainty.

The outcome was the WMD term.

It's so broad as to cover both the played up threats (nukes, mushroom clouds) and the CYA (chem warheads from Iran war).
No, I don’t “have to acknowledge” what is assumptions as to others opinions. I can only speak to my opinions. And my opinion going in was that we should’ve done it 13 years ago. All we did was leave a problem to fester into a bigger one, and if we’d have had a POTUS with an iota of sack it would’ve been taken care of. This includes Bush I, BTW.
But that’s my opinion, you’re welcome to yours.
Had Bush put forward the "we should have done this 13 years ago" as his only justification for going to war... would he have gained Congress's support? Honestly.

What if he said that we needed to invade in order to clean up any remaining chem weapons from the Iran war? Would have have gained authority with that?

You don't want to think about those things, but they are highly relevant to the discussion... whether you like it or not.

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 01:16 PM
They are relevant because support for the war war tenous at best, and Bush had to play up the threats... play down the costs... and CYA his ass for the uncertainty.

The outcome was the WMD term.

It's so broad as to cover both the played up threats (nukes, mushroom clouds) and the CYA (chem warheads from Iran war).

This is your characterization and not representative of the facts.
Though, if that is all you got out of it that’s a shame since there was plenty of talk on different reasons.

Had Bush put forward the "we should have done this 13 years ago" as his only justification for going to war... would he have gained Congress's support? Honestly.

What if he said that we needed to invade in order to clean up any remaining chem weapons from the Iran war? Would have have gained authority with that?

You don't want to think about those things, but they are highly relevant to the discussion... whether you like it or not.

They’re only relevant as your and my opinions. That’s it, as they have little to do with Helen Thomas pressing a false assertion then needling for the response she had predicted by her partisan diatribe barely disguised as a “question”.

Also, on this assertion that chemical munitions found were only from Iran-Iraq war, I was not aware that Iraq had “binary chemical shells” during that conflict. Regardless, do you know the purpose of a “binary chemical shell”?
And, Mustard is one of the many chemical agents that Saddam possessed, claimed to have destroyed, and has been found post invasion. I bring this up because, every great once in a while a farmer plowing his field in France will kick up undetonated chemical ordinance from WWI, i.e. mustard gas, that’s as deadly today as the day it was loaded. That’s why Mustard was an early chemical agent; it is comparatively easy to stabilize.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2007, 02:16 PM
This is your characterization and not representative of the facts.
Though, if that is all you got out of it that’s a shame since there was plenty of talk on different reasons.



Ted, claimed to have destroyed, and has been found post invasion. I bring this up because, every great once in a while a farmer plowing his field in France will kick up undetonated chemical ordinance from WWI, i.e. mustard gas, that’s as deadly today as the day it was loaded. That’s why Mustard was an early chemical agent; it is comparatively easy to stabilize.

Then obviously we should topple the government of Germany because they still possess WMDs.

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 03:10 PM
Then obviously we should topple the government of Germany because they still possess WMDs.

Ok, since you’ve volunteered to lead the charge, I’ll sit back and watch. ;)

jAZ
06-15-2007, 03:15 PM
They’re only relevant as your and my opinions.
So I ask your opinion again.

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 03:27 PM
So I ask your opinion again.

You’re asking my opinion on opinions? :spock:
Ok, they’re like assholes. Everyone has one and they typically stink. That help?

jAZ
06-15-2007, 03:46 PM
You’re asking my opinion on opinions? :spock:
Ok, they’re like assholes. Everyone has one and they typically stink. That help?
Wow... you really don't want to get into this area of discussion. I can understand why, but it doesn't reflect highly on you.

I'll try one last time.

Had Bush put forward the "we should have done this 13 years ago" as his only justification for going to war... would he have gained Congress's support? Honestly.

What if he said that we needed to invade in order to clean up any remaining chem weapons from the Iran war? Would have have gained authority with that?

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 03:54 PM
Wow... you really don't want to get into this area of discussion. I can understand why, but it doesn't reflect highly on you.

Why is it that every time someone tries to imply that something is “damaging” to my “credibility” they’re FOS?
You’re attempting to project intent into my opinion that isn’t even remotely implied then wondering why I don’t take the bait? That’s pretty weak, jAZ, but if you really want to play this game, what if Bush simpley repeated the rhetoric of the prior administration, would you still perceive it as “lies”?

jAZ
06-15-2007, 04:35 PM
Why is it that every time someone tries to imply that something is “damaging” to my “credibility” they’re FOS?
You’re attempting to project intent into my opinion that isn’t even remotely implied then wondering why I don’t take the bait? That’s pretty weak, jAZ, but if you really want to play this game, what if Bush simpley repeated the rhetoric of the prior administration, would you still perceive it as “lies”?
You can't or won't even offer an answer to my question.

That fact stands alone for all to judge.

jAZ
06-16-2007, 12:41 PM
What was I thinking? Tony Snow sucks at this. Maybe the job is just impossible with these clowns.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014650.php

(June 16, 2007 -- 01:24 PM EST // link)
Tony Snow stuck to the White House line on March 15 when describing the U.S. Attorney purge:

"[W]hat the President has -- the Department of Justice has made recommendations, they've been approved. And it's pretty clear that these things are based on performance and not on sort of attempts to do political retaliation, if you will."


As The Daily Show's Jon Stewart explained this week (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=88632), after showing a clip of Snow's quote, "That was three months ago. Three months later, a dozen subpoenas, six hearings ... thousands of released e-mails, it turns out that their performances were actually pretty good. And all signs are now pointing to political motivations. I wonder how the White House is going to reconcile this apparent discrepancy?"

Which leads us to Snow's spin from this week:

Q: Okay, but at the beginning of this story, the President, you, Dan Bartlett, others said on camera that politics was not involved, this was performance-based.

MR. SNOW: That is something -- we have never said that.

Snow does realize that people record these press briefings, right? He understands how easy it is to check when he insists "we have never said that," doesn't he?

It's almost as funny as when White House officials tried to convince reporters that the administration has "never" had "a stay-the-course strategy."

I can almost understand the Bush gang lying; I just wish they were better at it.

-- Steve Benen

jAZ
06-16-2007, 12:43 PM
Here's the video...

<embed FlashVars='config=http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/xml/data_synd.jhtml?vid=88632%26myspace=false' src='http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/syndicated_player/index.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#006699' width='340' height='325' name='comedy_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

Direckshun
06-17-2007, 02:56 PM
Tony Snow's been a poor PS.

I always thought Dan Barlet was a great PR guy for this administration and would have done far better as PS than the three guys under the Bush administration.

In order of competence:

1. Fleischer - Was incredibly cool under pressure. Had unprecedented access to the POTUS inner circle, so never conflicted with Bush's public statements (which happens quite a bit with a PS). Condescending, but treated every issue importantly, and could talk circles around the press pool.
2. McClellan - Personality-deprived but handled the toughest questions as solidly as anyone. He had to handle PR during the Iraq War's decline so I give him credit for that. Treats everything importantly. Sometimes gave obtuse answers, but never talked down to his audience.
3. Snow - Cannot handle the toughest questions. Exhibits an inappropriate demeanor at all times. Condescending to a fault. Chronic tongue-in-cheek syndrome.

Pitt Gorilla
06-17-2007, 03:43 PM
Tony Snow's been a poor PS.

I always thought Dan Barlet was a great PR guy for this administration and would have done far better as PS than the three guys under the Bush administration.

In order of competence:

1. Fleischer - Was incredibly cool under pressure. Had unprecedented access to the POTUS inner circle, so never conflicted with Bush's public statements (which happens quite a bit with a PS). Condescending, but treated every issue importantly, and could talk circles around the press pool.
2. McClellan - Personality-deprived but handled the toughest questions as solidly as anyone. He had to handle PR during the Iraq War's decline so I give him credit for that. Treats everything importantly. Sometimes gave obtuse answers, but never talked down to his audience.
3. Snow - Cannot handle the toughest questions. Exhibits an inappropriate demeanor at all times. Condescending to a fault. Chronic tongue-in-cheek syndrome.I always thought Fleischer was very good. He always seemed somewhat sincere.

go bowe
06-17-2007, 03:48 PM
She doesn’t ask questions. She uses the platform as a segue into a partisan diatribe of rhetoric and hatefull :BS:.partisan diatribe?

during a news conference?

no way she would ever get enough time during a news conference to launch much of a diatribe...

now, ann coulter would only take about 90 seconds to do a one hour diatribe of partisan rhetoric and hateful bs...

she talks faster than the old lady and, frankly, is more entertaining by far...

and couldter still looks relatively good, while helen is way past her prime, way past...

Adept Havelock
06-17-2007, 04:29 PM
while helen is way past her prime, way past...

Damn, GB! You remember Helen's prime? :eek:










I'm surprised to learn she had one.....

go bowe
06-17-2007, 04:32 PM
Here's the video...

i love it when public officials get caught lying...

i should watch the daily show more often...

go bowe
06-17-2007, 04:38 PM
Damn, GB! You remember Helen's prime? :eek:










I'm surprised to learn she had one.....yes, back, way back in the day, helen thomas was already old and cantankerous...

and even when she was in her prime she was still butt ugly...

Adept Havelock
06-17-2007, 04:44 PM
yes, back, way back in the day, helen thomas was already old and cantankerous...

and even when she was in her prime she was still butt ugly...


Ah-ha! So that's what folks mean when they say someone was "born old".

Logical
06-18-2007, 02:15 AM
She doesn’t ask questions. She uses the platform as a segue into a partisan diatribe of rhetoric and hatefull :BS:.I saw her treat the Clinton administration unmercifully so I cannot go along with this statement. She just likes to ask the really tough questions that no administration wants to answer.

go bowe
06-22-2007, 12:56 PM
Damn, GB! You remember Helen's prime? :eek:










I'm surprised to learn she had one.....sure i remember helen when she was in her prime...

of course, i was born in 1918...

Logical
06-22-2007, 01:05 PM
Ironic, since what started this particular line of conversation was Helen Thomas’ propensity to make false assertions based on partisan rhetoric then needling for the particular response she’s leading too with her “question”.



Example: you can believe whatever you want. I’m simpley pointing out facts, you seem to be having trouble accepting that. :hmmm:

OK as an outsider and not a part of this argument I am asking you to answer a simple question. Do you Radar Chief believe the Chem Weapons you are citing constituted WMDs the Bush administration said it was going into Iraq to find?

go bowe
06-22-2007, 01:05 PM
Chemical munitions have been found. That is a fact. Why you now try to go personal with your assertions rather than just admit the truth is not unexpected but disappointing since I know you’re smarter than this.personal?

did you know that radar doesn't show our stealth fighers/bombers?

so there, take that! :p :p :p

go bowe
06-22-2007, 01:18 PM
* * *
I'm wondering if you decided to bury any remaining credibility you had along with those expired shells.buried credibility?

sounds kinky...

fwiw, i'm of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with radar chief's credibility...

even when i don't agree with him, i've always thought he has integrity and is willing to discuss things in a rational manner...

of course, he's totally wrong about the munitions thingy, but that doesn't affect his credibility...

and furthermore, although i understand his reasoning, i don't agree that some old artillery shells with a residue of chemicals constitute "finding" wmd's...

but his analysis is eminently reasonable, every time...

(us vets have to stick together, you know...)