Americans love humility. They love it when great people are humble. Part of what got W. as far as he has is his self-effacing, aw-shucks act.
At tonight’s carefully staged news conference (if I read between the lines correctly, he had a list of reporters, knew the questions they were going to ask, and had answers prepared…like “Hollywood Squares”), one of the last questions he got (and one which I think he didn’t know ahead of time) was that, in 2000, he said the biggest mistake he ever made was trading Sammy Sosa. But now, post 9/11…what would he say was his biggest mistake?
He couldn’t come up with one.
There was so many things he could have said that would have played well, cost him very little politically, and would perhaps have gone a ways to portray him as someone who learns from his miscalculations. Because it’s the lack of learning curve displayed by this administration that is its most alarming tendency.
He could have said, “I made a mistake in underestimating the levels of evil that a bin Laden would sink to. I pledge to my fellow Americans, I will never make that mistake again.”
Or, “I made a mistake in saying that the mission was accomplished. It’s not yet, but we have to finish it.”
Or, “I made a mistake in my estimation as to the intensity of fighting that continued in Iraq, but we have brave soldiers in the field and we will support them.”
Or, “I made a mistake in giving the country the impression for months on end that I was stonewalling the 9/11 commission.”
Something. Anything. In the words of Doctor Evil, throw us a frickin’ bone.
Nothing. Hundreds of Americans, thousands of Iraqis dead, WMDs still MIA, no clean exit strategy, no clear idea who runs Iraq after June 30, intelligence lapses being investigated…
…and he can’t think of anything in three years that falls under the category of, “Ooops. My bad.”
Whatever happened to the buck stopping at the desk where he sits? Or does that buck permanently rest on the Clinton desk, since Clinton continues to be blamed for whatever’s gone wrong in the past few years.
PAD
• 
I understand what you’re saying, but my whole point was, the Reuters headline was based on the President’s response to a question about Iraq, and his reply, read in CONTEXT with the question he was asked, strongly suggests that the President thinks that he’s doing the right thing in Iraq, and that he believes the American people know the stakes, see that, and will re-elect him.
Yeah, the President doesn’t say “I’m staking my re-election bid on Iraq,” that I’ll grant. But IN CONTEXT with the question he was asked, it’s strongly suggested that the President thinks that he will be re-elected BECAUSE the war in Iraq is the right thing to do in furthering the war on terror.
I’ll agree that the headline is poorly worded, but it seems to me that the implication of it is an accurate encapsulation of the question and answer exchange I quoted above.
Could Reuters have worded it better? Yep.
Do I think that headline is necessarily the purest encapsulation of what the President said? Nope.
But I don’t think that Reuters has committed some huge bias in taking the President’s answer to a question about Iraq and re-election and writing a headline based on its natural implications. It certainly does strongly suggest that. The President was asked “Will the war in Iraq have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?” to which the President replied: “I don’t plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I’ve got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they’ll stay with me. They understand the stakes.” That sounds to me like the President is saying that what he’s doing in Iraq is the right thing, and that the American people recognize that and will re-elect him.
I’ll grant that the headline is poorly word choice, but it doesn’t seem to be biased. Biased would be something along the lines of “War-monger President says he’ll win or else the terrorists win.”
*shrugs*
I see your point, and it’s well taken, but I still don’t think Reuters has committed some sin against journalistic integrity. It’s not like they totally made something up. They may have jumped to gun in drawing a conclusory inference, but I don’t think it’s bias.
“I see your point, and it’s well taken, but I still don’t think Reuters has committed some sin against journalistic integrity. It’s not like they totally made something up. They may have jumped to gun in drawing a conclusory inference, but I don’t think it’s bias.”
Disagree completely. Despite your attempt to create a context that plainly is not there, the headline is made up. Bush never said he was putting all of his re-election eggs in the Iraq basket. Basically, what he said was that he believed the American people would support him because he was doing a good job. He didn’t even mention Iraq or the election in his response. The headline was completely false. It was, in your words, “totally made up.”
As for biased against Bush, it was clearly that. It clearly wasn’t a lie that would help his re-election efforts. Now, whether or not the bias was intentional (this reporter could just be an idiot) or whether or not the bias was politically motivated are deeper, more complex questions that I don’t know the answers to.
Bush never said he was putting all of his re-election eggs in the Iraq basket.
He doesn’t have to say it, but he is.
Just as he doesn’t have to say Saddam was in bed with bin Laden, he made enough insinuations to get people to believe it.
“He doesn’t have to say it, but he is.”
Good. We agree that the headline in question wasn’t true.
Good. We agree that the headline in question wasn’t true.
Ahh, see, you are doing the same thing.
I didn’t outright say that the headline in question wasn’t true, but you assume I did.
See how easy that was?
“Ahh, see, you are doing the same thing.
“I didn’t outright say that the headline in question wasn’t true, but you assume I did.
“See how easy that was?”
The headline stated that he said it. I pointed out that he didn’t say it. You said that he didn’t need to say it. Therefore, we agree that he didn’t say it at the press conference and that the headline was in error. Yeah, it’s easy all right. But you’re not getting it.
Yeah, it’s easy all right. But you’re not getting it.
No, you’re not getting it.
If Bush wants to stop suffering from Open Mouth Insert Foot syndrome, he needs to not seek reelection.
Another four years of this and he might end up brain dead.
“No, you’re not getting it.”
No, you’re not getting. Nah nah nah nah-nah nah.
“If Bush wants to stop suffering from Open Mouth Insert Foot syndrome, he needs to not seek reelection.
Another four years of this and he might end up brain dead.”
Non sequitor. Your facts are uncoordinated. (Apologies to Nomad.)
We weren’t discussing your latest gratuitous insult aimed at the President. We were discussing the obvious falsehood of the Reuters headline. Not only are you not getting it, but you’re drifting all over the map as well. Let me repeat when I said previously.
“The headline stated that he said it. I pointed out that he didn’t say it. You said that he didn’t need to say it. Therefore, we agree that he didn’t say it at the press conference and that the headline was in error.”
I had to repeat that because, unfortunately, it’s as simplistic as I can get. If you still aren’t getting it, I’m sorry. I can’t help you.
The horse (the Reuters headline being false) is dead. Go on beating it if you want. I’ve made my point. The Reuters headline was false. Bush made no such statement at the press conference.
Bush made no such statement at the press conference.
Keep on believing that.
PAD,
You read between the lines incorrectly:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_18.php#002862
The headline would have been incorrect if it said:
“Bush states that he stakes his reelection on the war in Iraq”
or:
“Bush: ‘I stake my reelection on the war in Iraq'”
As bush did not explicitly say that.
As it is, “Bush stakes reelection on the war in Iraq” accurately sums up what bush said:
QUESTION: Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?
BUSH: I don’t plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I’ve got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they’ll stay with me. They understand the stakes.”
to wit: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0909/p01s01-woiq.html
In casting Iraq as the ‘central front’ in the war on terror, Bush has acknowledged how difficult that war could be…
By casting Iraq as the “central front” in the war on terror, President Bush has sharply raised the stakes both for success in that effort, and for his own presidency….
In many ways, Bush is staking his presidency on Iraq, says John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron in Ohio. “The risks are simply that the matters on the ground won’t work out as anticipated,” he says. “The situation is highly unpredictable: Six months from now, we may be saying, boy he is a one-term president. Or we might be saying, he’s cruising to reelection.”
In many ways, Professor Green points out, the president’s speech on Sunday reflects that events in Iraq have already not gone as anticipated. Certainly, Bush has come under increasing fire from Democrats and even some Republicans lately for not seeming to have a plan for postwar Iraq and for failing to get the necessary international support beforehand, leaving the US to assume almost all of the burden in the reconstruction effort. In that respect, Bush’s decision to ask the United Nations to assume a greater role marks a significant shift from the administration’s earlier go-it-alone approach…
thats from the christian science monitor.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/10219097?source=Evening
Failure is unthinkable Bush tells America
By James Langton, Evening Standard In New York
14 April 2004
A defiant President Bush today placed Iraq at the heart of his reelection campaign after warning that failure was “unthinkable”.
Referring to November’s election, Mr Bush said: “The American people may decide to change. That’s democracy. I look forward to making my case.”
The headline would have been incorrect if it said:
“Bush states that he stakes his reelection on the war in Iraq”
or:
“Bush: ‘I stake my reelection on the war in Iraq'”
As bush did not explicitly say that.
As it is, “Bush stakes reelection on the war in Iraq” accurately sums up what bush said:
******************************
Okay. Here’s the headline as it appeared on Reuters, which I have already posted earlier in this discussion –
“Bush Says He Will Stake Re-Election on Iraq.”
By your criteria as stated above, the headline is false.
While we’re at it, anyone else want to agree with me?
I stand by my earlier analysis.
The Reuters headline is a fairly accurate description of the President’s answer to a question, and taken in context with that question, it’s not objectionable.
Like I said, it could have been phrased to more accurately reflect the exchange, but I don’t think it’s an outright lie. I don’t think it’s the whole truth either. But in referencing the exchange I quoted earlier, the President DID say that the American people KNEW the stakes of the war on terror, when answering a question about Iraq, and that as a result he didn’t plan on losing his job.
Sounds like he was saying that he was staking his re-election on Iraq in the context of the war on terror.
*shrugs*
I call them like I see them. Wholly accurate and fair description of the exchange? No. But, in context, a reasonably accurate assessment of his statements at the press conference. I think so.
I stand by my earlier analysis.
I’m glad you’re here to word this in a manner that actually reflects what I’m trying to say, but seem to have been unable to. 🙂
With all due respect to Mr. David, none of his suggestions would work. Six months from now, all people would remember are the George Soros headlines with the first four words “I made a mistake.” You would see that commercial every nine seconds. Instead, six months from now people will remember a room full of reporters berating the leader of the free world, a man whom more than half of Americans like and admire. People are starting to ask themselves, if 50% of the country likes President Bush, why does every single person working at the New York Times, the LA Times, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, the Times Magazine, et al hate him? Are these really objective “news” organizations? Or is Bush-Bashing supposed to suffice for journalism these days? People are starting to figure out they’re being played by the media, and people are starting to get sick of it. Look at the ratings for FOX News if you don’t believe me.
I’m praying that America votes Bush OUT of office. The entire world is praying for that. I have no doubt a re-election would spark more terrorist attacks on the US. BIGGER than 9/11- resulting in more civil liberties being taken away. Don’t you think that if a nuclear device is detonated in downtown NYC, that the nation would be put under immediate constraints? Nation-wide curfews. NO foreigners allowed in or out of the country. This is also a clear-cut path to civil war: how much freedom are americans going to lose before they stand up and fight their own dictators. Whether or not Kerry is qualified for the job, he is, at least for now the lesser of two evils. Up here in Canada we have our own circus of contenders to vote for, and we usually vote for people just so “the other guy” doesn’t get in.
It’s sad really. But Canada isn’t a superpower.
Look at the ratings for FOX News if you don’t believe me.
Fox News? The “Fair and Balanced”?
Even their news shows are hosted by people who are columnists rather than journalists.
“I stand by my earlier analysis.”
You’re entitled, even if your earlier analysis was demonstrably wrong.
Bush didn’t say it at the press conference. He didn’t. It’s not in the transcript. It’s not implied by any statement, even when taken in context. It is a fabrication. To say that the headline is accurate is to say that the truth is irrelevant.
That may be your position. It’s not mine.
That may be your position. It’s not mine.
Question: Do you believe Al Gore created the internet? 🙂
Ironic that this entire discussion is being carried out on a thread that was initially created to criticise the president for not copping to errors he alledgedly made.
If President Bush refuses to admit he was wrong, he’s got some company here. Unless you can show me where in the press conference he said that he was staking the election on Iraq. So far, no one’s been able to do that. Given the contortions everyone is going through to try to invent truth behind the headline, I doubt the phrase, “I was wrong,” is in common use here.
“Question: Do you believe Al Gore created the internet? :)”
Sorry it took me a while to answer this question.
No, I don’t.
No, I don’t.
Ahh, well, still, you can see where I’m coming from.
You can also see why, based on that one example alone, that I don’t think the media is as liberal and one-sided as people attempt to make it out to be.
Because that has to be the biggest misquote in the last 10 years, atleast. 🙂
“Ahh, well, still, you can see where I’m coming from.”
No, I don’t have the foggiest notion where you’re coming from with this non sequitor.
“You can also see why, based on that one example alone, that I don’t think the media is as liberal and one-sided as people attempt to make it out to be.
Because that has to be the biggest misquote in the last 10 years, atleast. :)”
I have not said in this discussion that the media was liberal. I said that the media was wrong in this particular instance. I think that a case could be made that liberal = wrong, but I haven’t made that here.
These are two distinctly separate situations. I will be more than happy to discuss the Gore alledged misquote with you. However, until you admit to the fact that Bush did not state at the press conference that he is basing the outcome of the election on Iraq and that the headline is wrong, I don’t see the need to move to another topic of accurate reporting. Bush didn’t make that statement at the press conference, and if you can’t admit that, why move onto another, similar discussion of accuracy in media? I have no reason to believe that you will be more reasonable when discussing Gore. (In other words, looking at what Gore actually said and determining if it was accurately reported without crawling into his head, creating a phony context, and then stating what you think he meant to say.)
No, I don’t have the foggiest notion where you’re coming from with this non sequitor.
Then there’s no point in continuing this line of conversation. It’s been explained to you multiple times, and you still don’t get it.
“Then there’s no point in continuing this line of conversation. It’s been explained to you multiple times, and you still don’t get it.”
This was the first time that the Gore quote has come up, you provide no explanation for bringing it up, and you claim that it has been discussed multiple times.
It seems to me that the Bush press conference isn’t the only thing that you’re making up as you go along.
We do agree on one thing. Further conversation is futile if you insist on debating things that only exist in your imagination.
Craig,
Sorry. I have to agree with Tim here. Bush never said what the headline says he said, and for you to say otherwise, well I just don’t know what else to say that will say with clearer affirmation that what you’re saying the President said – and what the newspaper headline seems to say he said, he simply did not say.
Excuse me while I untwist my tongue:)
Tim and Jerome (I do hope you don’t object to the use of your first names), I think you’re missing part of Craig’s point.
It’s true that Bush did not explicitly state, in so many words, “I’m staking my reelection on this war.” However, what he did say is that he believes that he is right – to the extent that he is confident he will be reelected, because of this issue.
That sounds to me an awful lot like he’s staking most, if not all, of his reelection campaign on Iraq. If things go any more pear-shaped before November, that issue alone could be what costs him the votes of Joe and Jane Average. Had Bush said, “Even if I’m out of office this time next year, I still believe I was correct,” that would indicate a sincere belief in his position. The statement that he actually made, however, tells us that this is going to be the linchpin issue, the one he believes will keep him in his current home for four more years. He is, essentially, thus staking his reelection chances on the Iraq situation (and, more broadly, on the Middle Eastern situation – if, say, the Saudis were to join in a pan-Arabic attack on Israel, that could screw Bush over pretty good too).
Thus, the headline is, relatively speaking, correct. Had it claimed to be a direct quote from Dubya, it would have been a lie. All clear now?
(I’m still working on the relevance of the Gore thing…)
“Thus, the headline is, relatively speaking, correct. Had it claimed to be a direct quote from Dubya, it would have been a lie. All clear now?”
Jonathan, the point is that the headline claimed that it was a direct quote. It said, “Bush Says…” Therefore, I trust that you agree that it was not factually correct.
If you believe that it’s fair game to interpret what someone says and then claim that your interpretation is a direct quote from the person speaking, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Canadian,
I just scrolled upward and read your post.
Having done so, i just have to ask:
“ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND!?!”
You talk about the possibility a nuclear bomb being detonated in downtown Manhattan – and the only thing that would concern you about that is the “loss of civil liberties” like “nationwide curfews”? Are you insane? What about the millions of people that would be dead? Or that would eventually die from radiation poisoning? Or – a distant but important third and fourth – the devastating effect it would have on the national and world economy and our national psyche? And the landmarks gone? And the industries shattered, not to mention the survivors’ lives?
None of that grabs you as much as being in bed early or the path your morbid fantasy takes, which is civil war against our “dictators”.
Yeah, Canada is not a superpower.
If it has many more scary people such as yourself, all I can say is:
THANK GOD!
Jonathan, the point is that the headline claimed that it was a direct quote. It said, “Bush Says…”
Sorry, but that’s not a direct quote. By journalistic convention, a direct quote uses quote marks. Lack of quote marks indicates a paraphrase.
“Sorry, but that’s not a direct quote. By journalistic convention, a direct quote uses quote marks. Lack of quote marks indicates a paraphrase.”
Okay. This has passed into a level of silliness that I’m officially stating is beneath me. It seems that some people will say anything to defend what they consider true even when it is indefensible.
Screw journalistic convention when it’s used to excuse a lie. Which is what that headline was. Bush never said during the press conference that he was staking the election on the outcome in Iraq. He didn’t even imply it. He didn’t even mention Iraq in his response to the question. So the headline is not an accurate quote. Nor was it, to hide behind journalistic convention, an accurate paraphrase. It was shoddy reporting that betrayed a bias against Bush. And I would venture to say that those who continue to defend the headline are apparently suffering from some interesting biases of their own. Their the kind of people who, to borrow a point made by a friend of mine over the weekend, would claim that Bush was responsible for poor nutrition and childhood obesity if he personally went into poor neighborhoods and spoonfed underprivileged children.
The truth doesn’t matter as long as they can take their shot. And to argue about the truth with such people is an exercise in futility and not worth my time. It’s nice to go into a debate holding all of the cards, but when your opponent insists on standing on the table and squaking about how you haven’t won after you’ve shown your winning hand, it stops being amusing after a while. It degenerates into nonsense.
Good day, folks.
You can’t be 23357 serious?!?