Apologize for what?

[Woodmonkey]

by Cal Thomas

April 14, 2004


Can anyone imagine reporters during World War II asking President Franklin Roosevelt if he'd like to apologize for the number of American dead and wounded, or Harry Truman if he'd like to repent for dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which forced Japan to surrender? Those were different times - when "psycho" meant you were crazy and "babble" meant you didn't make any sense.

Both psycho and babble were on display at President Bush's news conference Tuesday night (April 13). Four times, by my count, reporters tried to get the president to admit he had done something wrong. What they really wanted was a huge headline: "President Admits Fault for 9/11" or, even better (from their perspective), "President Admits Mistakes in Iraq War."

Frustrated by their inability to pry such words from the president, Don Gonyea from National Public Radio tried another tactic. Rather than asking a question, Gonyea made an accusation. He charged Bush with being a failure as a communicator because he uses the "same phrases" a lot and his speeches "don't vary from one to the next" and maybe that's a major reason "for your falling support." Reporters' questions don't vary a lot, either. If you didn't know the guy was from NPR, you might have guessed from the tone and ideology behind his question that he works for Al-Jazeera or the John Kerry campaign.

The question may have produced the best and most persuasive response of the evening. The president said ...

For the rest of the story, go to the link below:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/c...20040414.shtml

[AndJusticeForAll]

What they really want to just be able to say is, "Did you lie to the American public about 9/11 and Iraq?" They can't say that. They say what they can and the American public sits at home and goes, "huh?"

Good post.