| Page 2 of 5 < > |
Don't Blame Me
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
For instance, in The Washington Post, Peter Baker noted that Bush once again called for a unity government in Iraq -- but this time, a little more bluntly than usual.
"President Bush urged quarreling Iraqi leaders yesterday to set aside disagreements and forge a coalition government that will rein in illegal militias. His comments signaled increased frustration with the political deadlock in Baghdad more than three months after landmark parliamentary elections," Baker wrote.
" 'It's about time you get a unity government going,' Bush said, addressing Iraqi leaders. 'In other words, Americans understand newcomers to the political arena, but pretty soon it's time to shut her down and get governing.' "
In the New York Times, Elisabeth Bumiller picked up on Bush's response when asked what he could to do about the decline of freedom in Russia.
"President Bush said Wednesday that it would be a mistake for the United States to boycott the Group of 8 meeting in Russia this summer.
"He also said he needed a personal relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia so he could walk into a room with him and have him 'not throw me out,' Bumiller wrote.
Rambling Man
Read the text of yesterday's event, and it's clear that while Bush is indeed taking more unscreened questions than ever before, he's not really that interested in answering them. Most of the time, he uses them as launching pads for long, rambling amalgamations of familiar talking points that are only generally related to what he was asked.
For instance, Bush was asked to what degree he thought the insurgency inside Iraq is dependent on foreign support. Good question.
Bush's response was an 872-word rehash of previous statements about the makeup of the Iraqi insurgency, Syrian interference with Lebanon, the multilateral approach to Iranian nuclear ambitions, and the difficulty of negotiating with non-transparent societies.
There was nothing directly responsive to the question, of course.
So what's the point of taking questions, if not to answer them? Could it be to simply appear to be answering questions? Or just to repeat, repeat, repeat?
Yesterday, you almost got the feeling that he was just talking to run down the clock.



