|
|
April 7, 2006Bush’s response more than a line…The press has made a rather big deal over the fact that an “unscreened questioner” got to shake an admonishing finger at the president, asking him if he wasn’t “ashamed” of - you know, being George W. Bush. Like nobody named Clinton or Kerry or Gore ever took a “screened” question. But I digress. Anyway, as usual, the press focused on the questioner and how much Bush is hated, but did not bother to tell you much about Bush’s response. In fact, in the article about, Bush’s lengthy answer was condensed to a one-line, “absolutely not…” (the better to label him “arrogant,” I guess, but I digress) - by the gatekeeper press, who have “mediating intelligence.” Fortunately, Gateway Pundit did not rely on the take of the Big-Time Professional Journalist and went to The White House Website to get the actual exchange - part of which he links to at his site, along with some video you must go see. THE PRESIDENT: No, wait a sec — let him speak. Q And I would hope — I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I’m saying to you right now. That is part of what this country is about. THE PRESIDENT: It is, yes. (Applause.) Q: And I know that this doesn’t come welcome to most of the people in this room, but I do appreciate that. THE PRESIDENT: Appreciate – Q: I don’t have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment to you. (Wait - another digression - so…he didn’t actually have a question, he just wanted to shake a finger and be morally superior…what a guy!) THE PRESIDENT: I’m going to start off with what you first said, if you don’t mind, you said that I tap your phones — I think that’s what you said. You tapped your phone — I tapped your phones. Yes. No, that’s right. Yes, no, let me finish. I’d like to describe that decision I made about protecting this country. You can come to whatever conclusion you want. The conclusion is I’m not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program, and I’ll tell you why. We were accused in Washington, D.C. of not connecting the dots, that we didn’t do everything we could to protect you or others from the attack. And so I called in the people responsible for helping to protect the American people and the homeland. I said, is there anything more we could do. And there — out of this national — NSA came the recommendation that it would make sense for us to listen to a call outside the country, inside the country from al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda in order to have real-time information from which to possibly prevent an attack. I thought that made sense, so long as it was constitutional. Now, you may not agree with the constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers — and we’ve got plenty of them in Washington — but they made this assessment that it was constitutional for me to make that decision. I then, sir, took that decision to members of the United States Congress from both political parties and briefed them on the decision that was made in order to protect the American people. ** And so members of both parties, both chambers, were fully aware of a program intended to know whether or not al Qaeda was calling in or calling out of the country. ** Now, you and I have a different — of agreement on what is needed to be protected. But you said, would I apologize for that? The answer — answer is, absolutely not. (Applause.) Quite a different response than “absolutely not…” isn’t it? I apologize to Gateway for lifting so much of his post, but he has a great deal more, so please go read him over there! I can’t help but wonder if Bill Clinton would ever allow himself to be asked if he was “ashamed” of giving technology and weapon information to China for campaign contributions, or if he was “ashamed” of going to other countries to criticize this one? I wonder if Hillary Clinton would ever allow herself to be asked if she was “ashamed” of answering questions about how she made $100,000 in cattle futures (in a week) by essentially answering, “I have no idea how I did that, I’m just a stupid woman sitting here in a pink skirtsuit and I just don’t understand these complicated thinnnngs…”, or if she is “ashamed” to be telling New Yorkers that she is going to be their representative in the Senate for another 6 years when she has no intention of doing any such thing? Meanwhile, Doc Sanity finds more media skewing. And here, too. Tom Maguire calls the press Hopelessly Compromised on the Plame story. Glenn Reynolds writes: The latest “Bush leaked” story — which doesn’t hold up very well when you look at the actual story — is basically a “spoiling attack” by the NYT and other media who fear subpoenas in the Libby case. As with all their efforts on this front, it’s likely to backfire. The more they say that leaks are bad, even as they rely on politically motivated leaks from insiders for their bread and butter , the more vulnerable they become. That’s why the Plame affair has been more damaging for them, long-term, than for Bush. Bush will be leaving in a couple of years, but the Times and other media will be living with the world they’ve created, and I predict that their position in this regard will be no better if a Democrat is elected in 2008. Dan at Gay West Patriot is also wondering why hate means you can’t tell the news right. The press is not listening to our warnings, though. We’re only bloggers, after all. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/04/07/2598/trackback/ 4 Responses to “Bush’s response more than a line…” |
April 7th, 2006 at 11:52 am
THIS is what drives the libs/left/Dems crazy more than anything else — they are constantly insisting that W “apologize” for this or that, and he adamently refuses to do so. In the past, they might have been successful in getting him to be a “deer in the headlights,” stamering and unsure and apologetic, but not anymore, and it is eating them alive.
.
W is now like a man possessed — possessed by fortitude and assurance and, yes, Grace. He knows what needs to be done, not because he wants it, but because it must necessarily be if we are to survive as a nation and as a culture. But, and this frustrates them too, despite their accusations, they know that he is not, like Clintonistas, a man of hubris. He is a man of humility. He is a man who knows he is not perfect, a sinner — a man who needs Christ because he is an inperfect sinner. But endowed with Grace and strength, he is determined to defend and protect us.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
When the GOP wins the next election, conservative bloggers will blamed for the dem loss.
It will never occur to the media that Americans respond to reality.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
I have been criticizing the MSM a lot over the last year, including at this site. But this week has overwhelmed me. The vicious need to demonize the President is on display over his executive authority in the push back against the false claims of Joseph Wilson. It has eclipsed the immigration debate, the budget debate, and today’s outstanding employment report. These things matter to the country and are not being seriously discussed, Instead, they are like a pack of wolves after prey. I love President Bush but that is not why I am so distressed. The damage the media are doing to the country and what their unrestricted, unprincipled, power will do in the future truly frightens me.
April 7th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
The President Declassified
So, what is the breaking news story here? Properly declassified information has been released to the press who have demanded it ad nauseam. And? Equally if the President had not declassified the information the same accusers would be shouting him down …