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

[King of the Americas]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tmy]

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

[Kodiak]

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

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

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Kodiak


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

Of course, Ronald Reagan invented the concept.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Of course, Ronald Reagan invented the concept.

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

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


;)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


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

[hgc]

Originally posted by subgenius

... he was elected twice by an actual majority of voters. Ahem. Plurality, not majority. But the fact remains he got more votes than the runner-up both times.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Kodiak


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


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



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

;)

Not FDR?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

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

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

Who's not judging Bush alone?

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

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

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

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

I never said Reagan wasn't clever. ;)


Originally posted by pgwenthold

Not FDR?

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

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Kodiak



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

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

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

[Lemastre]

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

[subgenius]

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

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

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

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

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

[ssibal]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...asked by Tim Russert, "So do you guys have a pretty good idea where Osama bin Laden is?"

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


Uhm, Russert never explained such a thing.

[King of the Americas]

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

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

---

Russert: Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican —

President Bush: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

I was quite wrong.

Thank you.

[Kodiak]

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

Pure conjecture.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius


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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by subgenius
I have a couple of used cars I want to sell these people.

:rolleyes: Get over yourself...

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Pure conjecture.

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

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by No Answers


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

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

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


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



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



:rolleyes: Get over yourself...

"Impossible to quantify in advance.

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

"How this for "ballpark":

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

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

[Zero]

How about we look at what Bush actually said, which wasn't much...I personally got the feeling from reading the transcript that Bush deftly avoided answering any of the "tough" questions, and Russert allowed him to get away with it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Its not impossible to quantify in advance. Its rather easy actually.

Yeah, easy for someone at the polar extremes, who think the number should be either be zero (like yourself, I think) or infinity.

In Beirut, it took the embassy bombing for the cost to reach that "unknown" level I'm talking about. That level exists for Iraq too, we just haven't reached it yet and there's no way of knowing what it is in advance. Hopefully, we'll extricate ourselves from Iraq without ever reaching that level of cost in either lives or money.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Yeah, easy for someone at the polar extremes, who think the number should be either be zero (like yourself, I think) or infinity.

In Beirut, it took the embassy bombing for the cost to reach that "unknown" level I'm talking about. That level exists for Iraq too, we just haven't reached it yet and there's no way of knowing what it is in advance. Hopefully, we'll extricate ourselves from Iraq without ever reaching that level of cost in either lives or money.

Have you been trying to read my mind again? You must have broken in to the wrong brain.
Is this what the logicians call "strawman"?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius


Have you been trying to read my mind again? You must have broken in to the wrong brain.
Is this what the logicians call "strawman"?

No strawman as I didn't misrepresent any of you positions.

I had to guess (thats why I said "I think") since you said it was easy to quantify but failed to give any numbers.

Care to respond to the pertinent parts of my post?

I'll delete my guess to make it easier. ;)

From Kodiak's post above:

Yeah, easy for someone at the polar extremes, who thinks the number should be either be zero or infinity.

In Beirut, it took the embassy bombing for the cost to reach that "unknown" level I'm talking about. That level exists for Iraq too, we just haven't reached it yet and there's no way of knowing what it is in advance. Hopefully, we'll extricate ourselves from Iraq without ever reaching that level of cost in either lives or money.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


No strawman as I didn't misrepresent any of you positions.

I had to guess (thats why I said "I think") since you said it was easy to quantify but failed to give any numbers.

Care to respond to the pertinent parts of my post?

I'll delete my guess to make it easier. ;)

From Kodiak's post above:

Yeah, easy for someone at the polar extremes, who thinks the number should be either be zero or infinity.

In Beirut, it took the embassy bombing for the cost to reach that "unknown" level I'm talking about. That level exists for Iraq too, we just haven't reached it yet and there's no way of knowing what it is in advance. Hopefully, we'll extricate ourselves from Iraq without ever reaching that level of cost in either lives or money.
So by guessing my position, that's not misstating it. Hmmm.
As far as responding, I don't really see anything to respond to. Frankly I don't really follow the last paragraph.
In any event this portion of the discussion belongs in the other thread.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

So by guessing my position, that's not misstating it. Hmmm.
As far as responding, I don't really see anything to respond to. Frankly I don't really follow the last paragraph.
In any event this portion of the discussion belongs in the other thread.

Guessing your position: I think subgenius likes elevator music.

Misstating your position (strawman): Subgenius said he likes elevator music.

Got it?



Whats not to follow in the last paragraph? The embassy bombing in Beirut was an unforseen cost that went to a level where it was decided by the Reagan Administration that further cost could not be afforded.

As far as which thread the last part of my post belongs in, why don't you paste it to whichever thread you think is appropriate and then respond to it there?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by subgenius

What will happen when the Clinton comparisons lose their hate driven motivating power?


I'd say around 2008. :D Unless Hillary runs that is....

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I'd say around 2008. :D Unless Hillary runs that is....

Actually, I hope "Billary" does run in 2008. I love politics and she might even rival the fun-level I enjoyed when good ol' "lookit this-here pie-chart Laary..." Ross Perot ran for office.

Seriously though, I'd dislike her in office more than I did Bill, but hate? My life doesn't revolve enough around whoever's in office at any one time for me to hate anyone. I guess that could change, though...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Guessing your position: I think subgenius likes elevator music.

Misstating your position (strawman): Subgenius said he likes elevator music.

Got it?



Whats not to follow in the last paragraph? The embassy bombing in Beirut was an unforseen cost that went to a level where it was decided by the Reagan Administration that further cost could not be afforded.

As far as which thread the last part of my post belongs in, why don't you paste it to whichever thread you think is appropriate and then respond to it there?

Nothing to respond to. I understand your position as well as I'm going to.