Links
Archives
- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
- 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
- 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
- 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
A tribute to Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush who, despite voluminious evidence to the contrary, said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," adding that "even in retrospect" there was "nothing" to suggest that" and "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," respectively.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
SPECTACULAR! THE BUSH PRESS CONFERENCE
As noted by others, spectacular seems to be the word of the month for the Bush Administration. After watching all I could bear of the press conference yesterday, I had these thoughts:
Why no follow-up questions?
Knowledge of the issue exhausted in the canned answer.
No sense dwelling on statements inconsistent with the facts.
More in depth explanation of an issue may result in Bush debating himself, whatever that means. My guess is it means too much of a chance he'd contradict himself.
Why no pictures from the back or side?
Was there perchance a mysterious bulge, or crease, or wrinkle in his hand-tailored suit?
Is it true that immigrants, legal and illegal, do the work Americans are unwilling to do?
Perhaps another explanation is they’re willing to do the work at a rate of pay unacceptable to “Americans.” If you want to curb illegal immigration, target those who employ them. It’s about market forces, you know.
Who selects the clips to be broadcast?
Both local and national news organizations who played clips of the press conference used clips where he is not stumbling over his words or making some ludicrous circumlocution. One has to marvel at the extent the media protects his image.
Oh, and is the quality of an Ivy League education overrated?
|
As noted by others, spectacular seems to be the word of the month for the Bush Administration. After watching all I could bear of the press conference yesterday, I had these thoughts:
Why no follow-up questions?
Knowledge of the issue exhausted in the canned answer.
No sense dwelling on statements inconsistent with the facts.
More in depth explanation of an issue may result in Bush debating himself, whatever that means. My guess is it means too much of a chance he'd contradict himself.
Why no pictures from the back or side?
Was there perchance a mysterious bulge, or crease, or wrinkle in his hand-tailored suit?
Is it true that immigrants, legal and illegal, do the work Americans are unwilling to do?
Perhaps another explanation is they’re willing to do the work at a rate of pay unacceptable to “Americans.” If you want to curb illegal immigration, target those who employ them. It’s about market forces, you know.
Who selects the clips to be broadcast?
Both local and national news organizations who played clips of the press conference used clips where he is not stumbling over his words or making some ludicrous circumlocution. One has to marvel at the extent the media protects his image.
Oh, and is the quality of an Ivy League education overrated?
