Why won"t John answer Questions?

[GWB]

Senator takes press's questions sparingly (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040908-104357-3415r.htm)

[b]Today marks the one-month point since Sen. John Kerry last answered questions from reporters traveling with him on the campaign trail.

Mr. Bush took questions from reporters at least four times in August

[andyfox]

"Mr. Bush took questions from reporters at least four times in August"

The power of a good example?

[GWB]

http://instapundit.com/images/smkerrymilk.jpg

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Senator takes press's questions sparingly (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040908-104357-3415r.htm)

[b]Today marks the one-month point since Sen. John Kerry last answered questions from reporters traveling with him on the campaign trail.

Mr. Bush took questions from reporters at least four times in August

[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. Here's one for you: "Why won't Bush hold press conferences where reporters can ask questions that are not scripted?"

Bush is the only president in history who refuses to hold unscripted press conferences.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush is the only president in history who refuses to hold unscripted press conferences.


[/ QUOTE ]

And your evidence of this is?

Jimbo

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush is the only president in history who refuses to hold unscripted press conferences.


[/ QUOTE ]

And your evidence of this is?

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]
Do a web search, this is common knowledge.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Do a web search, this is common knowledge.


[/ QUOTE ]

In liberalspeak this translates into: I was only blowing smoke up your a@@ and you know damn well I am lying through my teeth and have no evidence.

Just the answer I expected after I had already done a websearch and found you to be incorrect.


Jimbo

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do a web search, this is common knowledge.


[/ QUOTE ]

In liberalspeak this translates into: I was only blowing smoke up your a@@ and you know damn well I am lying through my teeth and have no evidence.

Just the answer I expected after I had already done a websearch and found you to be incorrect.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, you did not do a web search. Don't try to lie about that. An article about Bush's press conferences from the Toronto Star is below. There are many articles on this, if you think he just answers unscripted unapproved questions (like all other previous presidents) then you have swallowed W's load and nothing will help you to see the truth.


Published on Thursday, March 13, 2003 by the Toronto Star
Why Americans Tune in to Canada
by Antonia Zerbisias

My e-mail inbox overfloweth with missives from our neighbours to the south as, I expect, those of many of my Star colleagues do.


Many Americans seem pathetically grateful for offshore, online sources for news and views of the world.

Not that the Canadian media are perfect. We make our mistakes. We have our biases. But here, at least, there's a vigorous and wide-ranging debate on the looming war.

So who can blame skeptical Americans for resorting to Canadians when their "most trusted" and "most watched'' media are marching in lockstep to the drums of war?

Whether it's showing CNN's Connie Chung accuse actor/activist Jessica Lange of "betraying the troops" or yet another treacly report on how some soldier has "three more reasons to fight for freedom" because his wife gave birth to triplets, U.S. media are a long way from presenting not only the whole picture, but even a fair one.

Here are just a few of the recent omissions:

*** Some major news organizations have misquoted and distorted the record on President George W. Bush's stage-managed news conference last Thursday, altering his slip about how the whole thing was "scripted" to "unscripted."

If you stayed awake, you would have seen Bush at one point look at a list of reporters he planned to call upon while recognizing CNN's John King. When another reporter tried to cut in, Bush said: "This is a scripted —"

Check the official White House transcripts (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news) and you'll see the word "scripted." But go to the online transcripts at The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and the Los Angeles Times and you'll see the reference has either been cut or changed to "unscripted."

A typo? Perhaps. One George Orwell might have appreciated.

*** Many Americans who venture outside their borders for their news are waiting still for their own media to delve into a story broken by the London-based Observer on March 2. It charged the U.S. with spying on the diplomatic delegations from several Security Council nations.

There's been little to no coverage on the affair — and what did get reported was presented as being no big deal, as if spying by the U.S. at such a time was to be expected.

The government has never denied the report, which was based on a leaked memo written by a senior official at the U.S. National Security Agency.

The lack of American media interest in this story indicates, once again, that they can't be critical of their own. What does it say to the rest of the world, which has been intensely interested in this tale?

*** Just as news organizations are firming up their "exit strategies" for their reporters not safely "embedded" with U.S. troops, Kate Adie, who recently quit her job as BBC's chief news correspondent, told Irish radio that Washington's attitude is "entirely hostile to the free spread of information."

Adie, who covered the last Gulf war, also said that a senior officer in the Pentagon told her that any "uplinks" — satellite TV or phone signals — that were detected coming out of Baghdad, would be "targeted down" and "fired down on."

Truth clearly won't be either the first — or only — casualty in this war.

You can hear the interview at http://homepage.eircom.net.

*** Could it be that truth doesn't even have a fighting chance, even before the shooting begins?

A Florida Appeals court ruling last month overturned a jury verdict to award former Fox TV investigative journalist Jane Akre $425,000 under the state's whistleblower law.

Akre, and her journalist husband Steve Wilson, were fired in 1997 after writing, re-writing, and re-writing, some 80 times, a series on how Monsanto's synthetic bovine growth hormone was being used in Florida dairy cattle.

The couple alleged that local supermarkets did little to avoid selling the milk from the hormone-treated cows despite assuring customers otherwise.

The chemical giant complained and Fox killed the series.

Fox then fired the duo after they threatened to tell the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which monitors U.S. broadcasting, that Fox was distorting the news. The reporters subsequently sued Fox.

But the appeals court in Jeb Bush's Florida saw the FCC's stance on "news distortion" as just a policy and not a "law, rule or regulation."

Needless to say, Fox reported this as a "vindication" of its actions.

As for other media, well, I'm still combing the databases for any real mention of this shocking decision.

But I'm not holding my breath.
-Antonia Zerbisias

[Jimbo]

Actually I did a web search for his press conferences, not for biased articles about his press conference.

Jimbo

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Just the answer I expected after I had already done a websearch and found you to be incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jimbo - I assume you know how to use a search engine. In case you don't, here's how it works: Enter the words you would like to search for into the little search box on Yahoo.com. Let's try these words "bush" "scripted" "press" "conferences" (without the quotes). There will be many results. You can choose what you want to read.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I did a web search for his press conferences, not for biased articles about his press conference.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL...if anyone questioned Bush's policy on giving press conferences, then it would be a "biased" source? That's interesting...somehow I don't think you can prove your point by watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Anyway, if you searched for Bush+press+conference you probably got 1,000,000+ documents returned. So you may want to narrow your search somewhat.

[Jimbo]

bush open press conference (http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?FORM=SMCRT&q=bush%20open%20press%20co nference)

Enjoy....

Jimbo

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
bush open press conference (http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?FORM=SMCRT&q=bush%20open%20press%20co nference)

Enjoy....

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]
I like the way you throw the word "open" in the search text. After skimming the first page of results, I see nothing that proves your point or disproves my point.

It is common knowledge that Bush (or his handlers) instituted a new policy for holding press conferences when he took office. All questions must be submitted up-front, so when Bush calls on someone he already knows the question that will be asked. This policy also allows him the benefit of skipping over any reporters who have submitted a difficult question.

The sad thing is that even with these softball press conferences, he still has held fewer than any other modern president.

[Jimbo]

Rooster,

I wasn't going to let you off this easy but you have become boring so here goes.

You wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
Bush is the only president in history who refuses to hold unscripted press conferences.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now you see I only need to show a single press conference by our President that was not scripted in order to prove you incorrect. However you must not only show proof that every single one of his press conferences have been entirely scripted but you must also be able to access at least one unscripted press conference by every other single President of the United States since George Washington.

Now do you see why people cannot take seriously fanatics such as Jokerswild and yourself?

Jimbo

Edited Below:

[ QUOTE ]
It is common knowledge

[/ QUOTE ] For anything to be common knowledge it must first have been proven true and next be known to nearly everyone.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush is the only president in history who refuses to hold unscripted press conferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you see I only need to show a single press conference by our President that was not scripted in order to prove you incorrect. However you must not only show proof that every single one of his press conferences have been entirely scripted but you must also be able to access at least one unscripted press conference by every other single President of the United States since George Washington.

[/ QUOTE ]
So this is your burden of proof? LOL....it's funny to see how logic can be twisted around when a Bushie is trying to defend their leader. And it doesn't even bother you that the leader you are defending is unable to hold press conferences in the same manner as his modern predecessors. Instead of saying something that works to prove your point, you can only resort to saying "you must not only show proof that every single one of his press conferences have been entirely scripted but you must also be able to access at least one unscripted press conference by every other single President of the United States since George Washington." A typical response from a conservative, you tell me how you can prove your point and that I cannot prove mine. But you do not provide anything that even remotely supports your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now do you see why people cannot take seriously fanatics such as Jokerswild and yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I cannot see that. But I can see why you are a Bush supporter.....LOL. Megadittos!

[/ QUOTE ]
Jimbo

Edited Below:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is common knowledge

[/ QUOTE ] For anything to be common knowledge it must first have been proven true and next be known to nearly everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]
I define "common knowledge" as something that is known by a majority of persons who are of average intelligence.

[Senor Choppy]

The irony of this post is off the charts.

[Jimbo]

My last response to you since you are unable to admit when you have made an error.

[ QUOTE ]
I define "common knowledge" as something that is known by a majority of persons who are of average intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then in the 1400's the fact that a majority of the people on earth believed the earth was flat would be common knowledge. Using your logic common knowledge can very well be false as is your contention comparing President Bush to all other past Presidents.

Do you see the problem when you define words to suit yourself? Often the end result does not suit you at all.

Adios,

Jimbo

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
My last response to you since you are unable to admit when you have made an error.

[ QUOTE ]
I define "common knowledge" as something that is known by a majority of persons who are of average intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then in the 1400's the fact that a majority of the people on earth believed the earth was flat would be common knowledge. Using your logic common knowledge can very well be false as is your contention comparing President Bush to all other past Presidents.

Do you see the problem when you define words to suit yourself? Often the end result does not suit you at all.

Adios,

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't defend your position, so you critique my definition of a term. Interesting strategy. My definition of "common knowledge" was flawed, but once again you have succeeded in dodging the original topic at hand. Good job!

Megadittos!

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
My last response to you since you are unable to admit when you have made an error.

[/ QUOTE ]
Made an error? So what? You have yet to even mention the topic at hand (Bush press conferences). Unless you believe the topic at hand is a study on how to belittle someone's line of reasoning without ever actually supporting you own argument. If that's your point, then good job!

Megadittos!

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't defend your position, so you critique my definition of a term. Interesting strategy. My definition of "common knowledge" was flawed, but once again you have succeeded in dodging the original topic at hand. Good job!


[/ QUOTE ]

Ironic since you should say this since I have yet to see anyone answer the question as to why Kerry is avoiding the press.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't defend your position, so you critique my definition of a term. Interesting strategy. My definition of "common knowledge" was flawed, but once again you have succeeded in dodging the original topic at hand. Good job!


[/ QUOTE ]

Ironic since you should say this since I have yet to see anyone answer the question as to why Kerry is avoiding the press.

[/ QUOTE ]
This wasn't what our argument was about. Read the whole thread if you care to know. Jimbo refuses to provide any information, defend any position or basically do anything other than skirt the issue by arguing non-relevant information.

But if you do want my opinion on why Kerry has been avoiding the press, I'd say it is due to all of the crap eminating from the Swift Boat controversy. Kerry would have a hard time time with the press, since he would want to talk about the economy, employment, health care, etc. and the press would just hammer away at what he was doing 35 years ago.

By the way, why do Bush supporters not want to defend his style of press conferences? How would it look if Kerry made all reporters submit their questions up-front and then chose only those questions which he wants to answer? This is the style of press conference instituted by the Bush administration.

[superleeds]

n/m

[Cyrus]

OUCH, Mr President.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif