Bush press conference [Archive]

Thanz

7th March 2003, 05:38 AM

I was not impressed by the Bush press conference last night. How did this guy get elected president? He is a horrible public speaker. He seems to lose his train of thought mid-sentence. And he can't answer simple questions (okay, not that rare for a politician).

Example - he was asked whether success in Iraq was dependant on Saddam being killed or captured. He ducked the question by saying that Iraq will be disarmed and that there will be a regime change. Then, later, he said that Saddam could be exiled and that would be fine as long as Iraq disarmed. Why couldn't he just say No - we don't need to capture or kill Saddam, we just need to disarm Iraq and remove him from power?

Also, he completely failed to address why the U.S.A.'s normal allies were not in agreement with the threat of Saddam given that they have the same information. He just kept saying that he thought there was a threat. That much is obvious. But that doesn't make a war against Iraq justified.

America is clearly a threat against Iraq. Does that mean that Saddam would be justified attacking America?

Also, how is NK getting nukes a "regional" issue, but Iraq with some chemical weapons or Anthrax a direct threat on the US?

I think that Bush's plan for war was decided long ago, and he went to the UN expecting a rubber stamp, and is now quite upset that he didn't get it.

headscratcher4

7th March 2003, 06:54 AM

Oddly, Thanz, I disagree.

I have stated on these boards that I am not a supporter of George Bush. I question our rush to war. I believe the Administration has failed to do the diplomatic work necessary to build an international coalition, and that such a coalition is essential to providing the support necessary not only to defeat Iraq and Saddam, but also rebuild Iraq.

I still have many doubts.

However, I thought that last night was one of Bush's better "performances." And, while he didn't answer some questions (what politician does? Has Saddam? Has Chirac?), his sober appearance, his position of resolve and his seriousness, for the most part impressed me (though, I wish some one would help him with his pronunciation of "nuclear".

I found several aspects of his presentation compelling, and not really addressed by those, like me, who have opposed his policies -- and mind you this is not an excuse for the diplomatic failings of the Administration or its projection of unilateralist and arrogance. Specifically, I agree with Bush that the issue of war is in Saddam's control. Saddam has had 12 years to comply with the UN. He has evaded. He has lied. He has played games. He has continued his repression of his people. He has flouted UN resolutions to enrich himself and to punish his people while blaming the west.

Here we are at, figuratively, 11:56 of the clock, and suddenly he is showing weapons and destroying them. He is asking for consultations about weapons destruction. He is arguing that he needs more time. However, the mandate of UN Resolution 1441 (?) that he disarm is no different than the goal of Resolutions over the last 12 years.

To do nothing. To give too much more time. To look away and pretend that Saddam is now honest, or trust-worthy or sincerely interested in peace and reconciliation with his neighbors and the world, is to play into the games of a manifest sociopath.

He is, as Bush noted, a murderer. In civilization, murders are generally not trusted, they don't get to say "Trust me, I won't do it again" and walk away. He will kill again.

And, I guess that is the issue for me. I don't buy all of the elaborate explanations that Iraq is supporting AlQueda, that smells a bit like Ton kin Gulf to me. But, no matter what stupid things our Administration here is doing or saying, it seems to me that there is one truth to this situation. Saddam and his regime are not victims. He has for all intents and purposes caused this crisis...and not in his reaction or provocation of the Bush Administration...by over 12 years of playing the international community for chumps.

I remain doubtful of the course of solution that Bush is suggesting. Of course, I do fear that the resolution of the problem as proposed by Bush may be short sighted and that our resolve to rebuild Iraq may be dangerously optimistic. And yet, it is difficult to conclude that the world should just walk away and pretend (for that is what it would be) that Saddam merits any more chances, excuses or extensions.

Tmy

7th March 2003, 07:02 AM

Does he know the questions before hand? I dont even see why they bother asking them anyway, GW just goes on with his speech no matter whats asked.

I must admit that I am rethinking my war stance. I feel that Im no so against the invasion. I think Im more upset wh GW's smoke and mirror justifications..

I'd have more respect for GW's war push if he just came out and said "hey the mid-east has been a big pain in the worlds ass for to long. were gonna fix things starting with that jerk Saddam."

headscratcher4

7th March 2003, 07:10 AM

Does he know the questions before hand?

No.

However, like any good politician, he is working to be on message. In reality, politicians never answer the question, they answer what they want to get across as their message. Thus, the press conference is an odd dance, when a president has problems (a'la Clinton), the reporters lob questions at the President that they hope will force him -- through embarassment or confusion -- to go off message. The President, generally, has been practicing for hours with every awkward question the staff can think of, to stay on message.

For good or ill, Bush was on message. In addition, US reporters, out of respect, or out of fear that Ari won't talk to them anymore, don't really ask very tough questions. As good a performance as I thought it was, it would be very different had Bush faced reporters from Europe. That might have been quite revealing.

Tmy

7th March 2003, 07:15 AM

I hate how its always the same reporters. BUSH KNOWS THEM BY NAME! Whats up with that. They should have a lottery and pick random reporters. Instead of the same press pool thats in bed with GW. The whole thing is a staged set up. Might as well have his staffers ask the questions.

Thanz

7th March 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
I hate how its always the same reporters. BUSH KNOWS THEM BY NAME! Whats up with that. They should have a lottery and pick random reporters. Instead of the same press pool thats in bed with GW. The whole thing is a staged set up. Might as well have his staffers ask the questions.

I don't know if Bush actually knew them by name. I think that the order of questions was set out in advance, and he was just reading names down the list. At one point, he said it was scripted.

HS4 - I'll get to your post in a bit.

Skeptical Greg

7th March 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
The whole thing is a staged set up. Might as well have his staffers ask the questions.

You think so, huh?

Do you think if the ' right ' questions were asked, we would see Bush tear up his notes, and say:

" Damn, I never thought of that.. O.K., call home the troops.." :rolleyes:

7th March 2003, 07:26 AM

In every Presidential press conference I've seen, the president refers to reporters by name...

If this administration had done the diplomatic work to build a coalition, the way Bush 1 did, we'd be in much better shape. As one columnist put it, this administration's idea of diplomacy is a phone call...

I might be in support of the war had they chosen one reason and stuck with it. Human rights record. But he has given the world the impression he's fishing around for whatever will sell. Not too many buyers, eh?

I don't buy for a second that S.H. is a threat to the US.

RandFan

7th March 2003, 07:37 AM

I thought Bush did a great job. No malapropisms and no shooting from the hip. He was firm and did not hesitate in his answers. I did not see him waver or appear to hesitate because he did not konw what to say. I listened to a couple of his critics after the speech who were really impresed with his perfromance. I guess if you knew he was going to do a bad job then there was nothing he could do to change your opinion.

I was really proud last night.

As to ducking question, yeah all presidents do it. No that does not make it right. I remember Clinton listening to a question, head slightly askew, brows furrowed and listening really intently. After the questions he talked about everything but the question. I always wondered what the hell was he thinking about during the question.

Regan was good at it also. "I'm glad you asked that question" he would say and then talk about something else.

"I know you think you thought you understood what you think I said but what you don't understand is that what I said is not what I meant" --attributed to Nixon but I think the source is actually unknown.

Skeptical Greg

7th March 2003, 07:59 AM

I don't think our President was seeking opinions last night.

It was more of : " Here is what we are going to do... "

Not sure if these are his exct words, but it was something like..

" The U.S. "doesn't need anybody's permission" to take action. "

I think this post by SuperCharts bears reading..

Something to think about (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=369827#post369827)

Charles Livingston

7th March 2003, 08:00 AM

"Example - he was asked whether success in Iraq was dependant on Saddam being killed or captured. He ducked the question by saying that Iraq will be disarmed and that there will be a regime change. Then, later, he said that Saddam could be exiled and that would be fine as long as Iraq disarmed. Why couldn't he just say No - we don't need to capture or kill Saddam, we just need to disarm Iraq and remove him from power?"

I agree that Bush ducked a lot of questions, especially the one relating to vietnam, which you could tell really flutstered him a bit. However, in the example you gave, I think he did answer the question, just not as clearly as you would like. When asked about the 'killed or captured', he answered by saying, look, we want disarmament and a regime change, effectively saying thats what we want and thus if we get that without killing or capturing that is fine. He then later clarified by saying that an exile would be fine as long as disarmament and regime change. YOur quote at the end of "we dont need to capture or kill Saddam, we just need to disarm Iraq and remove him from power" is pretty much exactly what he said, he just didnt (at least in response to the first question) say the first part "no-we dont need to capture or kill saddam" Later, in response to the second question he added that. But I think it was implicit in his first response.

toddjh

7th March 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
I was not impressed by the Bush press conference last night. How did this guy get elected president? He is a horrible public speaker. He seems to lose his train of thought mid-sentence. And he can't answer simple questions (okay, not that rare for a politician).

Example - he was asked whether success in Iraq was dependant on Saddam being killed or captured. He ducked the question by saying that Iraq will be disarmed and that there will be a regime change. Then, later, he said that Saddam could be exiled and that would be fine as long as Iraq disarmed. Why couldn't he just say No - we don't need to capture or kill Saddam, we just need to disarm Iraq and remove him from power?

That really bothered me, too. I thought at first that he didn't answer the question because he didn't want to say anything that would limit his options further down the road, but then when he said that he'd be okay with Saddam's exile later on, I was incredibly confused. That was maybe the one time he could've answered the reporter's question directly, but he chose not to anyway. Old habits die hard, I guess.

Also, how is NK getting nukes a "regional" issue, but Iraq with some chemical weapons or Anthrax a direct threat on the US?

I find it helpful to consider politician-speak a completely separate language. Once you know how to translate it, it's clear what he means.

For example, "regional issue" translates to, "I don't have any good idea how to deal with North Korea right now. I'm mentioning other countries in the region because I'm pinning my hopes on a diplomatic solution right now and I want to score brownie points with South Korea and Japan because I need their help. I'm not going to say anything else because I don't want to jinx it." He can't just come out and say it, obviously, so he phrases it in a way that's clear to people who can read between the lines. I hate the system that requires such dishonesty, but I thought that answer was better than most of his flat-out evasions.

The things that bothered me the most were his constant references to 9/11, as if simply saying "September 11" in the same paragraph as "Iraq" is proof of some kind of link between the two.

Edited to add: my wife said that he looked like a Keebler elf, and now I can't get that image out of my head.

Jeremy

arcticpenguin

7th March 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

Example - he was asked whether success in Iraq was dependant on Saddam being killed or captured. He ducked the question by saying that Iraq will be disarmed and that there will be a regime change. Then, later, he said that Saddam could be exiled and that would be fine as long as Iraq disarmed. Why couldn't he just say No - we don't need to capture or kill Saddam, we just need to disarm Iraq and remove him from power?

I assume this is because of what happened with Osama bin Laden. Before the Afghanistan action, there was a lot of talk about "Osama bin Laden- dead or alive". He hasn't been captured and it's still not clear whether he is dead or alive.

Bush clearly want Hussein dead, but doesn't want to fall into the same trap a second time.

zakur

7th March 2003, 08:19 AM

For anyone who missed it, the transcript can be found here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/06/bush.speech.transcript/). (Note that this transcript lacks the many occurrences of "Umm" that the President used throughout the speech, as well as the awkward moments of silence (dead air) where he, as Thanz noted, completely lost his train of thought mid-sentence.)

Like Thanz, I was not impressed either. I've been a fence-sitter on this issue, and must admit that Bush did nothing to sway my opinion in his direction.

One of the things that really bothered me was how many times he said "I believe" or "I think" without backing up those assertions. This is especially bothersome when he was asked direct questions. That is dodging, plain and simple. I'm not so naive to think that politicians will not dodge questions, or answer questions in a round-about way (as hs4 put it) "to stay on message." But such an important issue as this, when asked questions that need to answered, this is frustrating.

For example, when he was asked:If all of these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now?The President's answer was:... I think the threat is real. And so do a lot of other people in my government. And since I believe the threat is real and since my most important job is to protect the security of the American people, that's precisely what we will do.Why even have a press conference if you're not going to answer the questions the press asks?

Unlike hs4, I was not impressed by the president's air of somberness. In fact, I think it is a deliberate act to counter his usual "cowboy" image that many Europeans have criticized of late. And he did not hold the somber image throughout. He still made reference to "smoking terrorists out of their holes," and his cowboy image certainly peeked through in the above quote in which he essentially says "I don't care what anyone else thinks. This is what I believe, and this is what I'm going to do. So there!"

Another question he not-so-artfully dodged was when he was asked to respond to critics who think this is somehow "personal." Again, a non-answer to a valid question. One reason many people believe the president's stance on Iraq is personal and not political is that recent polls have shown public support for the president's handling of policy on Iraq is softening, particularly among the elderly, whose vote is seen as crucial in the next election. I look forward to seeing if this press conference has changed public thinking on military action against Iraq.

And FWIW, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that "the world should just walk away" from the Iraq situation. But all-out war should be the absolutely last option. I think the president has yet to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that we are in that final stage with no other options.

Thanz

7th March 2003, 08:33 AM

General reply to all:

I think that the biggest problem with Bush's performance is that he didn't address the biggest question: Why does his administration consider Saddam to be such a threat, when so many of his allies do not? He kept saying the catch phrase "weapons of mass destruction", but what are they in particular? He kept mentioning 9/11 and terrorist organizations, but Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. The countries with whom he is sharing information don't think htere is enough there. Why does he? He was asked this point blank several times, in different questions, and could have laid out a much more persuasive argument (if one exists).

As for the death/capture of Saddam question, I thought it was a bit of a softball question. He should have said straight out that it was about removing saddam from power and disarming Iraq (his main message) and not just a hunt for the one evil man. I have no idea why he wouldn't say this.

I can see where he would score points with the American people for re-iterating that his job is to protect America. The problem is, he is not convincing many Americans that there is anything to be protected from.

toddjh

7th March 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
I can see where he would score points with the American people for re-iterating that his job is to protect America. The problem is, he is not convincing many Americans that there is anything to be protected from.

He didn't score any points with me. The oath he took was to protect the Constitution. That takes precedence over the security of the country or the people.

Jeremy

BrianT

8th March 2003, 01:43 AM

Notice he didn't call on Helen Thomas.

zakur

8th March 2003, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by BrianT
Notice he didn't call on Helen Thomas. The Washington Times ran a brief article (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030307-85033093.htm) on this.

And this, from a UPI article (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030307-063527-4656r) on the press conference:Last night's might have been the most controlled presidential news conference in recent memory. Even the president admitted during the news conference that 'this is a scripted' news conference. The president had a list of 17 reporters who he was going to call on. He didn't take any questions from reporters raising their hands. And he refused to call on Helen Thomas, the dean of the White House press corps, who traditionally asks the first question ...Not that I blame hime. Thomas has called Bush "the worst president" in US history, and that he's running an "imperial presidency." As is glaringly apparent, this was not an open press conference, per se, but a publicity appearance. Bush did not want to risk Thomas—who is admittedly hostile to his policies—asking a question that might make him look bad.

zakur

8th March 2003, 07:23 AM

Here is a review of the press conference from The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54629-2003Mar7.html):Occasionally he would stare blankly into space during lengthy pauses between statements -- pauses that once or twice threatened to be endless. There were times when it seemed every sentence Bush spoke was of the same duration and delivered in the same dour monotone, giving his comments a numbing, soporific aura. Watching him was like counting sheep.

..

The contrast between the foggy Bush of last night and the gung-ho Bush who delivered a persuasive State of the Union message to Congress not so long ago was considerable. Maybe Bush thought he was, indeed, coming across as cool and temperate instead of bored and enervated, and this was simply a rhetorical miscalculation. On the other hand, it hardly seems out of order to speculate that, given the particularly heavy burden of being president in this new age of terrorism -- a time in which America has, as Bush said, become a "battlefield" -- the president may have been ever so slightly medicated.Medicated?! :eek:

Sounds like there's another reporter who has an axe to grind with the president? :D

alancarre

8th March 2003, 11:40 AM

Did anyone watch the Ari Fleischer briefing following that?

Q Last night, after the fifth time has looked down at an apparent list of reporters, he smiled and he said, this is scripted.

MR. FLEISCHER: Are you going to complain he didn't call on you?

Q No, no, no. No, no. Which surely suggests that he did not write that script which gave two questions to one network, two questions to one wire service, and one to other vague and wealthy media -- but left all the rest, including Helen Thomas, ruled out in advance of any chance to ask, and left to serve only as window dressing.

...

Q Two quick questions. First of all, without regard to who the President called on last night, what's the reason for working from a prepared list, as opposed to doing it in a more spontaneous --

MR. FLEISCHER: Because, as you know, from many of the people who have covered the President's pool sprays, this is nothing new to you. The President just thinks it is actually a more orderly news conference, rather than to have the usual cacophony of everybody screaming, where the person who gets called on is the person who has the loudest voice. I thought it was actually a very -- it was a long news conference, it was a solid news conference. Reporters were called from all over the place.

Many people rushed out and bought new --

Q Nobody from --

Q No, Ari.

MR. FLEISCHER: Many different outlets. The President noted many people went out and bought new shoes. The President was pleased to have done it.

Q Is that what I did wrong? (Laughter.)

So sad...

- Alan

hammegk

8th March 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
General reply to all:
Why does his administration consider Saddam to be such a threat, when so many of his allies do not?
Have you forgotten 9/11? He hasn't, nor have I. People living on the East coast all have targets on their backs. What next, biowar, dirty nuke, bridges-tunnels-truck bombs, ships & shipping containers unchecked; what would convince you? A signed confession from Saddam detailing his part in the hi-jack training?

The problem is, he is not convincing many Americans that there is anything to be protected from.
Or perhaps the problem is that you are wrong.

If you wish to become Commander-In-Chief, go for it. I wouldn't want the job -- let alone try to even keep up with the information bombard he undergoes every day-- with no-nothing yahoos from all over the map shrilling that everything ever done or suggested by him is "wrong" for some reason or another. :mad:

rikzilla

8th March 2003, 08:00 PM

I did not vote for GWB...and was quite dismayed that he removed the US from the Kyoto treaty. However, let's talk about more immediate concerns.

National Security...

His first test was the China spy plane incident. His administration handled this crisis superbly.

Next was 9/11....his response was restrained. He did not lob a bunch of cruise missiles, ala Clinton, blindly into Afghanistan...he did not bomb out an asprin factory. He build the needed force, got Pakistan on board...and then took out the Taliban using the northern alliance and a measured amount of military force. Millions of Afghans were not bombed or starved. Kids can fly kites, women can drive cars, and al Qaida needs a new base of operations. I can remember the chorus from the left about how it can't be done, or remember the Russians...etc...etc...blah, blah, blah.

I'm hearing alot of the same kinds of things about Iraq now...from the same bunch of discredited ya-hoos as before. Iraq will be a bigger test...but in the end Saddam will fall, and it will be the right thing to have done.

Many may whine about GWB...but under Clinton we were suffering a devastating terror attack from al Qaida about every ten or eleven months. However since 9/11 and the beginning of a comprehensive worldwide WOT we have had little terrorism that can be traced to al Qaida...and zero al Qaida (or any for that matter) terrorism in the USA. It's been 17 months...and all al Qaida has done is shrink.

Results....say what you will about him...you cannot argue with results.

-zilla

Smalso

9th March 2003, 04:29 AM

Let's see now: Those who are supporters of Bush think it was a great press conference and that he performed admirably. Those who do not support Bush think it sucked. Surprise, surprise.:D

Doctor X

9th March 2003, 07:40 AM

Smalso:

Damn . . . beat me to it.

That is, actually, it. The liberal media reports: "looking dazed and confused" whilst the conservative media reports: "with a sense of solemnity and seriousness refreshing after eight years. . . ."

A few things:

Bush apparently makes a point of knowing who people are, particularly the press. This includes "the little people."

Not only do all politicians "duck questions" they do not feel the obligation to tell you things you do not need, in their opinion, to know. Miss Manners writes a funny description of a White House dinner where some business fool tries to ask questions of a major former diplomate who just calmly kept bringing up the weather. To point, Bush understands that the goal is Saddam's removal. He cannot come out an say he would be happy to see him dead, or make that a goal. On the one hand he would be criticised for making the war "personal" whereas the other side would criticise him for "accepting exhile."

Frankly, I do not think he cares provided he gets the regime changed. I do believe that he believes the only solution, now, baring a JREF Bankrupting Miracle, is the removal of Saddam and his Gang.

What he did make clear--which I find interesting that it has not been commented upon much--is that he wants the UNSC members to go on the record in support or against the action. This will come back to haunt them or honor them depending on the outcome.

I regret very much that Saddam has made this necessary.

--J.D.

subgenius

9th March 2003, 02:06 PM

Top 11 unanswered questions from the "press conference."

11. Phenelzine or haloperidol?

10. Why wasn't a question from Helen Thomas in the script?

9. Do we really want to "replace a cancer?"

8. What was Dubya watching on the monitor in his podium?

7. Is it possible to be bored by the sound of one's own voice?

6. Where is Niraq?

5. Does the reporter who draws the short straw ask him the question about his faith?

4. When you look down at the podium and mutter, "let's see whose got an easy one," does it appear on the embedded teleprompter, does it come to you through the receiver in your "hearing aid" or does Jesus tell you?

3. Are the penalties for asking questions about bin Laden and the economy the same?

2. Was the comment, "King, John King. This is a scripted..." actually in the script?

1. Someone else is really running the show, right?

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/index.htm

;)

alancarre

9th March 2003, 10:59 PM

If you think that's bad, listen to this:

GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12713155&method=full&siteid=50143

- Alan

subgenius

9th March 2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by alancarre
If you think that's bad, listen to this:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12713155&method=full&siteid=50143
And snubbing an 82 year old woman because you're afraid of what she might ask you, or what she's written.

A long-running Washington tradition apparently ended last night when, for the first time in memory, the doyenne of the White House press corps was not called on in a presidential press conference.
Syndicated columnist Helen Thomas, who has covered every president since John F. Kennedy, was relegated to the third row in last night's East Room event and — if the memory of press corps veterans is accurate — received her first presidential snub.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-85033093.htm
***********.

- Alan

Thanz

10th March 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Have you forgotten 9/11? He hasn't, nor have I. People living on the East coast all have targets on their backs. What next, biowar, dirty nuke, bridges-tunnels-truck bombs, ships & shipping containers unchecked; what would convince you? A signed confession from Saddam detailing his part in the hi-jack training?

How about SOME evidence, any at all, that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Many Saudis were involved. Why don't you go after them?

9/11 was a horrible tragedy. But it doesn't give the U.S. carte blanche to do whatever the f*** it wants in the world.

Or perhaps the problem is that you are wrong.

If you wish to become Commander-In-Chief, go for it. I wouldn't want the job -- let alone try to even keep up with the information bombard he undergoes every day-- with no-nothing yahoos from all over the map shrilling that everything ever done or suggested by him is "wrong" for some reason or another. :mad:

I am not saying that everything he has done is wrong. I am saying that he is not justifed in invading Iraq. Or, if he has a justification, he hasn't shown it.

Segnosaur

10th March 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by zakur
Not that I blame hime. Thomas has called Bush "the worst president" in US history, and that he's running an "imperial presidency." As is glaringly apparent, this was not an open press conference, per se, but a publicity appearance. Bush did not want to risk Thomas—who is admittedly hostile to his policies—asking a question that might make him look bad.

Its not just the questions he should be worried about. I remember reading about another press conference Thomas was at, where she was saying things like "Why do you want to bomb innocent Iraqis", and suggesting Iraqis choose their own leadership (as if they have a choice right now). Those aren't "serious" questions (Kind of like "when did you stop beating your wife?"); instead, its an attempt to hijack a press conference (which should ideally involve an exchange of information only) with an opinion-based agenda.

Number Six

10th March 2003, 02:03 PM