Woodward criticizes White House press corps' "wrong tack by asking [Bush] general questions"
During a discussion about President Bush's October 11 press conference on the October 15 edition of NBC's The Chris Matthews Show, author and Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward advised White House correspondents to be more "specific" in their questioning of Bush because "so often, they go off on the wrong tack by asking general questions." Woodward stated:
WOODWARD: I understand how difficult it is to be a White House correspondent. I think so often they go off on the wrong tack by asking general questions. What you have to do with Bush is ask very specific questions.
Woodward continued stating: "[T]he question I would have asked" Bush is: "[Donald H.] Rumsfeld, your defense secretary, wrote a secret memo a couple of months ago saying that the government, the system in government is so screwed up that competence is next to impossible. Do you agree?" Woodward presumably was referring to a section of his book, State of Denial: Bush At War, Part III (Simon & Schuster, September 2006), in which Woodward reported that in May, Rumsfeld circulated a secret memo, responding to criticism about the administration's handling of the Iraq war, that argued that "[t]he charge of incompetence against the U.S. government should be easy to rebut if the American people understand the extent to which the current system of government makes competence next to impossible."
As Media Matters for America has previously noted after several press conferences, the assembled press corps has failed repeatedly to follow Bush's vague, often unresponsive answers with specific questions that would require direct responses or expose his evasiveness. Most recently, at an October 11 press conference, Bush engaged in unfounded attacks on his political adversaries and made misleading statements in support of the recently-passed Military Commissions Act of 2006 and in support of legislation to authorize warrantless surveillance of domestic phone calls, any one of which could have elicited pointed follow-up questions.
Additionally, as Media Matters has documented (here, here, and here), reporters have often left Bush's false claims unchallenged during one-on-one interviews and have failed to follow up on assertions Bush made.
From the October 15 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Bob, you wrote in your book something, a great little moment about, in late in 2003, and you put in your new book State of Denial. When, you're interviewing the President, George Bush, who we're talking about here, and you say, well, you're very careful and very respectful, but you get to the point of saying we did find or haven't found weapons of mass destruction yet in Iraq. And you hoped the President would simply say, "Yeah, that's right, Bob." Instead he said, "I don't know anybody who said that. I'm not -- maybe you hang around elite circles, but nobody has ever been in a room with me who's said we haven't found weapons of mass" -- Now, most Americans think that sounds daffy, because everybody in America knows we didn't find weapons of mass destruction.
WOODWARD: Well, I was surprised. It took five minutes and 18 seconds to get him to acknowledge, through about 20 questions, that it was true, true, true, at that point, that we had not found weapons of mass destruction. He even went further and said, "Why is this important? Why is this going in your book?" And I said, "Well, you know, it's the reason or a main reason for war." He finally got it. And, quite frankly, in watching the press conference, I understand how difficult it is to be a White House correspondent. I think so often they go off on the wrong tack by asking general questions. What you have to do with Bush is ask very specific questions. And, the question I would have asked: Rumsfeld, your defense secretary, wrote a secret memo a couple of months ago saying that the government, the system in government is so screwed up that competence is next to impossible. Do you agree?"
... when are you gonna apply for WH press credentials?
I'm sure you've got plenty of free time now that you'll never get into the White House any other way.
By the way MMFA, you really shouldn't use the term "press conferences" to describe what Duhhbya does - they'd be more accurately described as "No-matter-what-you-ask-I'll-answer-a-question-I-make-up conferences."
Just another point of view, Mr. Late-To-The-Party: unless you have (and provide) greater precision than is evident here, my take would be that Rummy's complaint is with OUR system of government. That makes sense for a man who lies as fast as Rummy, and really hates to have to discuss facts or motives. Besides, that would allow him to go to war with the Army he'd like to have!
The very root to any answer from the Republican Party involves deception and or distortion. Take the question regarding is there WMD's in Iraq. Since the question does not include when were they WMDs found in Iraq, the Republican deception squad flat out make the claim "THERE WERE WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION FOUND IN IRAQ."
Simple vs Complex, a dynamic in every political issue of importance, is clearly a factor of consideration we must take into account when trying to address any political problem in our government. The Republican Party uses the "simple vs. complex" to hide important factors within a issue by making a "Simple" assertion "Cut and Run" involves leaving the Iraqi people and our troops "high and dry." Yet, "Complex", as in more than one factor to consider, would mean setting the Iraqi troops up to succeed while positioning our troops withing quick striking distance to any situation Iraqi troops may not be able to deal with.
It is hard to take anyone, who views the answer to our political problems as the next step in their distortion plan, honestly or seriously. It's common sense to take the following stance: If you don't add to the solution of a problem, you should move to the side and let someone who truly wants to problem solve a solution try. November 7 is coming soon, so lets make solutions a priority.
Joseph
the WHPC SHOULD ask Bush some specific questions.
I have a few suggestions:
"Mr. President, only few days after 9/11, you stated that capturing Osama bin Laden was, quote, 'our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.' Yet, in March 2002, you stated, in repsonse to a question about where bin Laden was, that you, quote, 'don't know where he is', and 'I just don't think that much about him. Its not important. Its not our priority.' Mr. President, could you please state clearly whether or not capturing the man who masterminded the 9/11 attacks is still a priority, and, if so, what steps are being taken to do so?"
"Mr. President, one rationale you stated for going to war in Iraq was their imminent possession of, or imminent ability to manufacture, weapons of mass destruction. This was in spite of reports to the contrary by both the UN inspection teams and our own CIA. Furthermore, the White House itself announced in October of last year that WMD's had not been found. That said, how and why do you justify continuing the prescence of American troops in a nation where more than sixty percent of the population have stated that their prescence is unwelcome and bolsters rather than reduces the insurgency?"
"Mr. President, you reasserted after N. Korea recently tested a nuclear weapon your belief that possession of such a weapon or of nuclear technology by N. Korea constitutes a threat to the security of the region and to the US. Sir, may I ask why was it alright for one southeast Asian nation - India - to possess nuclear technology, that we were readily willing to give, but not alright for another southesast Asian nation to have them?"
...or makes GWB look less than presidential will find his or herself outside the WH gates. It's part of the strategery.
we've seen those "specific" questions from a few reporters, and they were generally the last questions heard from those reporters.
Why is it that so-called Democratic Strategists representing the left on TV political shows, pundits, left-leaning bloggers, left-leaning press writers and everyone else still use the WMD example in trying to make their arguments for the misleading info in the lead-up to the war? The GOP has always had a ready answer for that - "Everyone agreed that Iraq had WMD's. John Kerry said so, Hillary Clinton said so, Bill Clinton said so, Saddam even used them on his own people." Hard to argue that, isn't it? Heck, I'm no supporter of the war, but even I was surprised that nothing was found.
The correct argument to make in my opinion has always been the nuclear term. That's what the administration really used to scare the public into supporting the invasion (Cheney, Conde, Bush). It's much harder to support that argument even in hindsight. The adminstration would have had a much toughter time garnering support for an invasion based on anthrax and nerve gas.
No Dems should be using the term WMD anymore. The argument for everyone to make is that they guaranteed us that Iraq had "reconstituted its nuclear weapons program" and that "the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud." That is what really scared the moderates in this country and it turned out that that was completely untrue, and there was evidence at the time to support that it wasn't true. That argument alone should be thrown back at the GOP in this election. It's much harder to dispute and easier for getting the point across to the public at large.
These small points of terminology help to win arguments and change peoples' minds and are badly needed in this election. Our so-called representatives on TV must be told things like this as they don't seem to have figured it out for themselves.
Why is it that so-called Democratic Strategists representing the left on TV political shows, pundits, left-leaning bloggers, left-leaning press writers and everyone else still use the WMD example in trying to make their arguments for the misleading info in the lead-up to the war? The GOP has always had a ready answer for that - "Everyone agreed that Iraq had WMD's. John Kerry said so, Hillary Clinton said so, Bill Clinton said so, Saddam even used them on his own people." Hard to argue that, isn't it? Heck, I'm no supporter of the war, but even I was surprised that nothing was found.
Your example is so easily refuted that is reason enough for Democrats to harp on the WMD issue. First, extreme assertions are almost always a lie. Naming a few Democrats doesn't equal everyone. It equals a few. Second, Saddam's use of WMD was in the 1980s, when he was a sweetheart of the Reagan/Bush administrations, who felt arming him with dual use technologies was just a swell idea. Hardly an era any Republican ought use as a strong argument for taking out Saddam. Finally, the intel Bush presented to Congress and the public was cooked. Half the intel community said Saddam MIGHT have WMD, the other half said Saddam had no WMD. So what did Bush do? Relied on the word of ONE person, codename "curve ball", on which to base the ENTIRE rationale for war. So even if "everyone" thought Saddam had WMD that opinion was based on FALSE INFORMATION. All Democrats need to do is bring up that to date the Republican Congress has refused to investigate how the Bush administration used intel, and assert that this reluctance to investigate is strong evidence they were lied to, strong evidence of another Republican cover-up that will be brought to light once the Democrats control Congress.
Just give Helen Thomas the first five questions in any presidential press confrence.
Problem solved.
HELEN THOMAS IS THE ONLY ONE OUT OF THE LOT TO ASK POINT BLANK QUESTIONS, AND CALL THE PREZ TO TASK ABOUT ISSUES HE HAS LIED ABOUT, OR IS WRONG [ THATS WHY SHE ISN'T CALLED ON ], BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WOODWARD STRATEGY WILL WORK EITHER. NO MATTER WHAT YOU ASK HIM ,OR HOW, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A LIE. SINCE THIS WHOLE ADMINISTRATION IS BUILT ON LIES A TRUTHFUL ANSWER WOULD NOT FIT
Reporter: Pres. Bush, what is one plus one equal? President: The answer is two. Karl Rove(shouting excitedly from the back of the room): That question is unfair, give him another chance. President: I want to change my mind. The answer is terrorism. Reporter: Thank You, Mr. President. President: You are welcome, Mr. Gannon.
The bizarre world of this White House does not know if they can tell the truth. They can only build upon their latest distortion of the truth--LIES. After GeorgeW was installed as president, the rumor was that all the W's were removed from keyboards. what really was removed was a government by and for the people. Once this President leaves office, I believe that this entire mob will finally pay the price for their incompetnece. They always take responsibility but never pay the price for their deadly errors. In the future, we WILL collect the debt they owe to this country and the families of our dead, yes, dead soldiers.
pressing for specific answers to specific questions is the only way for the press to go... it's especially important when dealing with a public official... however, Bush manages to wander and flail around for a few minutes after just about every question asked of him... it may be the best, or most, we can ever expect of him... either he's too ignorant to answer, or he's hiding something... he's not going to help us find out which is true...
The Pres. has a tendancy to only answer the question he wants. Trying to pin him down wouldn't work because he always re-phrases the question. He also doesn't allow reporters to ask follow up questions. As much as I'd love to see someone hit him hard at a press conference, I doubt it will ever happen.
I DON'T WASTE TIME WITH MSM ALL SEVEN ARE OWNED AND CONTROL BY ZIONIST DIRECTING W. IN HIS PLIGHT FOR GLOBAL DOMINANCE, BUT TAKE A LOOK AT THE TALK SHOWS [ USUALLY MADE UP OF SAVVY REBUBLICANS, AND A NOT SO SAVVY DEM. ] WHEN BLITZER,HANNITY,RUSSERT, O'REILLY,AND OTHERS,ESPECIALLY THE NEW CAMPAIGNER TONY SNOW ARE ASKED QUESTIONS, THEIR ANSWERS, TWO PARAGRAGHS LATER, HAVE NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO ADDRESSING THE QUESTION, THEN YOU READ IN THE NEWSPAPER WHERE THEY SAID THIS, OR THAT. I SAW THE DAMN SHOWS, AND THEY DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING LIKE THAT BUT BOY! IT SOUNDS GOOD IN THE PAPER NO MATTER HOW ,WHEN, OR WHY YOU ASK A REPUBLICAN, YOU ARE GOING TO GET A LIE