Tony Snow and Jay Leno and "Childrens"

Former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow joined Jay Leno on the Tonight Show on Thursday.

Snow was so well-suited to his job as spokesman for the Bush administration. As a member of the press for so many years, he knew how to handle them. He never seemed flustered during the briefings. He's a sharp, intelligent man, as well as patient.

He would be firm when he had to be, like with the doddering Helen Thomas; but he's so likable that he never came off as combative or cruel.

I didn't see the beginning of the Tonight Show. I missed Leno's monologue and his first guest, Ben Stiller.

However, I got the feeling that Leno had told a joke about a grammatical slip made by President Bush earlier on Thursday. When Leno asked Snow about it, he didn't do much of a set up and the audience seemed to be aware of what Leno was talking about.

Bush's mistake was perfect, albeit terribly predictable, late night fodder.

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Offering a grammar lesson guaranteed to make any English teacher cringe, President George W. Bush told a group of New York school kids on Wednesday: "Childrens do learn."

Bush made his latest grammatical slip-up at a made-for-TV event where he urged Congress to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, the centrepiece of his education policy, as he touted a new national report card on improved test scores.

...During his first presidential campaign, Bush -- who promised to be the "education president" -- once asked: "Is our children learning?"

On Wednesday, Bush seemed to answer his own question with the same kind of grammatical twist.

"As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured," he said.

Leave it to Reuters to publish such ridiculous "news."

Naturally, the crack Reuters research staff was able to whip out a quote from the 2000 election to further mock Bush.He said "childrens" instead of "children."

STOP THE PRESSES!

The White House opted to clean up Bush's diction in the official transcript.

Oooh! A cover-up!

The Bush presidency is based on lies. Lies! All lies!!

"Cleaning up" a transcript isn't the same as altering the Congressional Record like Russ Feingold did when he made his comments in support of infanticide magically disappear.

The chilling exchange between Sen. Rick Santorum and Feingold took place during debate on partial birth abortion, September 26, 1996.

Transcript

Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?

Sen. Feingold: I will.

Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out -- that the baby was completely delivered -- would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

Sen. Santorum: That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you've stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

Why is it that President Bush saying "childrens do learn" is such a newsworthy event?

It's silly. It's rather petty on the part of Reuters.

I'd rather have some mangled words from the President than have the sort of mangling and murdering of babies that Feingold and his comrades support. Every Democrat presidential candidate is pro-abortion.

Moreover, the President making some verbal mistakes is nothing compared to a president making a mockery of his marriage vows in the Oval Office.

Bush is no stranger to verbal gaffes. He often acknowledges he was no more than an average student in school and jokes about his habit of mangling the English language.

Of course, the President jokes about his screw-ups. For all his supposed swagger, he does exhibit humility. And let's remember that average student Bush was a better student at Yale than John Kerry.

Just a day earlier, the White House inadvertently showed how it tries to prevent Bush from making even more slips of the tongue than he already does.

As Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, a marked-up draft of his speech briefly popped up on the U.N. Web site, complete with a phonetic pronunciation guide to get him past troublesome names of countries and world leaders.

Phonetic pronunciations?

Really?

What a revelation!

Are there ever phonetic pronunciations on those teleprompters that the geniuses in the media can't live without? Do they ever rely on such methods to prevent mistakes? Of course they do.

This whole story is so idiotic that naturally Leno found it irresistible. He asked Snow how he as the Press Secretary would react when he'd learn of a verbal slip by the President.

Snow said it was like "biting on foil."

He was very funny, admitting to the various difficulties and headaches he faced as Press Secretary. Nonetheless, still loyal to the President, class act Snow spoke glowingly of Bush and his intelligence, that his verbal missteps are simply verbal missteps.

From the end of the couch, Ben Stiller felt the need to butt in.

When Snow said that there were times when acting as the President's spokeman was like "biting on foil," Stiller snipped that Snow had to do that more often than most Press Secretaries.

Lame.

He should have kept his mouth shut rather than interrupting Snow. Given the tone of the interview, it seemed inappropriate. Although Snow held a position in the Bush administration, the focus of the segment really wasn't very partisan at all.

Snow responded with a simple comment about the Clinton years also having plenty of foil-biting moments.

Stiller took a cheap shot at the President, but Snow didn't let him get away with it. With a quick, good-natured remark, Snow effectively shut Stiller up.

I guess Stiller felt he had to at least needle Bush's man a little bit or he couldn't hold his head up when he would find himself in those Bush-hating Hollywood circles.

I really regret that Snow isn't still serving as the Press Secretary. He was so good at it. He's such a decent, good man. I wish him the best.

President Dick Cheney

The nightmare of nightmare for Lefties will become reality for a few hours tomorrow.

Vice President Dick Cheney will officially have the powers of President of the United States when George W. Bush undergoes a colonoscopy.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush will undergo a routine colonoscopy Saturday and temporarily hand presidential powers over to Vice President Dick Cheney, the White House said.

The same thing happened in June 2002.

The political climate was so different five years ago.

We were at war but we weren't at war in Iraq.

I suppose some of the loons on the Left will come up with weird theories, that Cheney will bomb Iran tomorrow or pardon Scooter Libby.

I think Helen Thomas should be placed on suicide watch.

She did say, "The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself."

Who knows what she'll do when Cheney actually becomes president for a while tomorrow?

I wouldn't be surprised if Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Dems are fantasizing about Cheney having a health problem and becoming incapacitated during his hours as president, forcing powers to be transferred to her.

I'll be praying that President Bush's procedure goes well.

Bush Press Conference on Iraq Benchmarks

This morning, President Bush held a news conference that ran about an hour. He started out with a heartfelt statement on the death of Ladybird Johnson.

Before taking questions, he discussed the war in Iraq and the benchmark report, areas of progress and lack of progress.

The focus of the news conference can be summed in three words --- IRAQ, IRAQ, IRAQ.


Some observations:

---Someone should hold a retirement party for Helen Thomas.

---The press was especially hostile and combative. The first four questions were phrased in a condescending, "Why can't you understand?" manner. I stopped counting after that.

---Was this a news conference with members of the press or a meeting with the Michael Moore fan club?

---Martha Raddatz is a major league whiner, asking Bush to speculate on what David Petraeus' assessment of the situation in Iraq will be.

---Cheerleading for the Dems, Jim Axelrod of CBS asked if Bush was concerned that Congress would take away some of his powers as Commander in Chief by passing legislation. He didn't seem to realize that he was talking about Congress overstepping its powers granted under the Constitution.

---The shameless David Gregory referenced a Washington Post column that called Bush stubborn. In a follow-up, Gregory asked if Bush thinks he's being realistic. What a stupid question!

---Shrill Sheryl Stolberg of The New York Times interrupted Bush while he was in the middle of a sentence. Very inappropriate.

---Mike Abramowitz of The Washington Post was the first and only person to bring up Scooter Libby. He asked about the "morality" of someone in Bush's administration leaking the name of a covert CIA agent. It wasn't a question. It was a sermon.

---Wendell Goler of FOX asked about troop levels. Bush said that the generals all told him they had what they needed.

---Bush is as committed as ever to protecting the homeland and defeating terrorists and tyrants that wish to do us harm. He didn't seem embattled or beaten.

---Mark Silva of The Chicago Tribune asked what Bush's gut is telling him, referencing Michael Chertoff's remark about his gut feeling that a terrorist attack in the U.S. is near. Bush responded by saying that his gut tells him al Qaeda wants to hit us again. Silva's self-serving question gave Bush the opportunity to speak quite eloquently on freedom and the hope for peace in the Middle East.

---Ed Chen of Bloomberg News asked, "How hard is it for you to conduct the war without popular support?" He basically accused Bush of undermining the "essence of Democracy." Bush responded with poise and class.

---Breaking with form, after Bush ended the news conference and was walking out of the room when he actually returned to the podium to respond to a question yelled out by Martha Raddatz. Bush said that al Qaeda is NOT as strong as it was prior to 9/11. They are still a serious threat, but they are weaker today than they were in 2001.

---It doesn't bother me at all when people disagree, and disagree strongly, with President Bush. It bothers me greatly when they paint him as heartless and clueless.

---President Bush is a patient, principled, decent man.

________________________

Transcript

Eleanor Clift's Extremism

I think of Eleanor Clift as one of the media wonder women of the Left.

Helen Thomas, Clift, and Maureen Dowd are the run amok voices of liberal extremism.

Depending on your politics, they can be considered either superheroes or the enemy's useful idiots.

Clift has an interview with Jimmy Carter in the upcoming issue of Newsweek.

There are some excerpts online.

Although Clift questions Carter about Ken Stein's criticism of Carter's new book and the allegations of plagiarism, it seems like Clift isn't being a tough reporter as much as she's serving as an enabler for Carter.

Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters has a stinging account of a column Clift wrote shortly after Tim Johnson suffered his health crisis, "Tim Johnson's health crisis is a reminder of the fragility of the Democratic majority. What the party should do now."

Clift begins her column:

The possibility that the Senate might yet remain in Republican hands is a godsend for President Bush. With his Iraq policy in shambles and the Joint Chiefs of Staff resisting a last call to arms, Bush must have been wondering whether the higher power he consulted before taking the country to war had abandoned him.

Word that South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson had suffered a brain hemorrhage that could leave him unable to serve out his term has repercussions throughout the body politic. On a human level, everybody hopes and prays for Johnson’s recovery. But this is Washington, and with the Senate poised to do real damage to Bush and his war party, not everybody’s prayers will be answered.

Sheppard comments:

I’m not kidding you, folks. That’s really how she started an article that was published roughly 24 hours after the Senator was rushed to the hospital. Frankly, I’m so disgusted that I don’t want to cut-and-paste any more of this disrespectful drivel. Those with a stronger stomach than I should click on the link above, but I’m outtie, for I need to go scrub this filth from my fingertips, hug my children, and imagine a world where people have more concern for their fellow man than Eleanor Clift obviously does.

Here's some more of Clift's "disresepectful drivel":

Just as Wellstone’s untimely death cost the Democrats a key Senate seat, Johnson’s illness should inject a sense of urgency into the Democrats’ agenda. No one would have put the robust-looking Johnson on an endangered list. Democrats have plenty of octogenarians and septuagenarians to worry about making it through to the next election. A health crisis that strikes without warning is a reminder of the fragility of the Democratic majority. With the direction of U.S. policy for the next two years riding on Senate control, Democratic leaders can’t afford to sit around figuring out how to position the party for ’08.

That's beyond bad taste.

She's so callous.

Clift certainly destroys the myth that libs are compassionate.

When I heard of Johnson's health emergency, I didn't think of control of the Senate.

I came to terms with the Dems being in control of Congress weeks ago.

It didn't even cross my mind to do anything other than hope and pray for a speedy recovery for him and wish his family the best at this difficult time.

Clift's fretting over all those Dem octogenarians and septuagenarians is postively ghoulish.

It truly creeps me out.

Politics trumps human decency for some of these libs. Disgusting.

Another disgusting Clift moment came on The McLaughlin Group this weekend.

In a discussion about the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, Clift screeched that the war in Iraq is lost.

She said, "This is about managing defeat."

Why are these Lefties so bent on insisting that the U.S. has suffered a humiliating loss in Iraq?

It's as if victory isn't in the Dems' vocabulary anymore.

Did Truman look at Japan and approach the war in the Pacific as how best to manage defeat?

Clift and her defeatism is nuts.

By studying history, we can learn from mistakes; but we also can learn from triumphs.

The libs don't get that.

Helen Thomas' Excellent Wisconsin Adventure

What can I say about Helen Thomas, White House press secretary heckler-in-chief?

From The Capital Times:

After 45 years of covering the White House, veteran journalist Helen Thomas says the profession she loves is no longer up to snuff.

"We've gone absolutely soft," Thomas said Friday at a meeting with reporters and editors at The Capital Times.

Thomas, 86, was in Wisconsin this weekend to give the keynote address at the Edgerton Book Festival.

Thomas said the Washington press corps failed to hold President George W. Bush and his administration accountable in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq and in the years since.

It is "unconscionable" to fight a war where the factual basis for combat has never been articulated, said Thomas, who this summer published an indictment of the Washington press establishment in her most recent book, "Watchdogs of Democracy? The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public."

I think it's appropriate to show respect for one's elders.

Unfortunately, Helen Thomas makes that very difficult to do.

She's nuts. She makes no sense.

The case for war in Iraq was clearly articulated -- by President Bush, the administration, and the DEMOCRATS.

...In part, she said, reporters failed to ask probing questions because they feared they'd be accused of being unpatriotic or un-American.

"It was a sad day for journalism and our country," she said.

Oh, come on!

Reporters aren't hesitating to undermine the war now. Where did they get this sudden bravery?

They aren't hesitating to leak information that is detrimental to our national security and our troops while they're in harm's way.

Reporters like Thomas don't seem to mind subverting the government and being unpatriotic in 2006. It makes no sense to believe that they cared in 2003.

Thomas claims fears of being labeled unpatriotic caused journalists to clam up before the war in Iraq began. That's just stupid.

When did a Lefty journalist ever care about someone calling him or her unpatriotic? They wear that sort of thing as a badge of honor.

Still, Thomas remains an optimistic -- about her country and vocation.

"It's the greatest profession in the world," she said.

That should read "optimist."

"Thomas remains an optimist -- about her country and vocation."

Well, I'm glad she's feeling positive. Especially at her age, she should make the most of each day.

Thomas said reporters "got their sea legs back" with some good investigative reporting in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

"I think the press has come out of their coma," she said.

If the state of today's press is due to its emergence from a coma, I wish it would lapse back into one.

The coverage of Hurricane Katrina was abysmal.

The lib press reported rumors, not realities. Unverified reports were later dispelled, but the hysteria hampered rescue efforts and added to the suffering.

By any measure, the reporting was horrible.

Remember?

"The New Orleans Times-Picayune on Monday described inflated body counts, unverified "rapes," and unconfirmed sniper attacks as among examples of "scores of myths about the dome and Convention Center treated as fact by evacuees, the media and even some of New Orleans' top officials."

Indeed, Mayor C. Ray Nagin told a national television audience on "Oprah" three weeks ago of people "in that frickin' Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."

Journalists and officials who have reviewed the Katrina disaster blamed the inaccurate reporting in large measure on the breakdown of telephone service, which prevented dissemination of accurate reports to those most in need of the information. Race may have also played a factor.

The wild rumors filled the vacuum and seemed to gain credence with each retelling — that an infant's body had been found in a trash can, that sharks from Lake Pontchartrain were swimming through the business district, that hundreds of bodies had been stacked in the Superdome basement.

Is this really the type of reporting that Thomas wants to tout as the best that journalists have to offer?

I hope not.

I know she's 86-years-old, but her advanced age doesn't give her the right to misrepresent the truth and call garbage good journalism.

Bush Meets the Press

On Tuesday morning, President Bush held his second press conference of 2006.

Overall, the President was very impressive, confident and strong and straight-talking.

The press was true to form. That means some reporters were buffoonish and disrespectful.

Transcript

Something that I want to highlight came in the President's opening statement.

"Here at home, I'm also encouraged by the strength of our economy. Last year our economy grew at a healthy 3.5 percent. Over the past two-and-a-half years, the economy has added nearly 5 million new jobs -- that's more than Japan and the 25 nations of the European Union combined. The national unemployment rate is 4.8 percent -- that's lower than the average rate of the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. Productivity is strong. Inflation is contained. Household net worth is at an all-time high. Real after-tax income is up more than 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001. The growing economy is a result of the hard work of the American people and good policies here in Washington."

Wow. I like that. One more time--

"Here at home, I'm also encouraged by the strength of our economy. Last year our economy grew at a healthy 3.5 percent. Over the past two-and-a-half years, the economy has added nearly 5 million new jobs -- that's more than Japan and the 25 nations of the European Union combined. The national unemployment rate is 4.8 percent -- that's lower than the average rate of the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. Productivity is strong. Inflation is contained. Household net worth is at an all-time high. Real after-tax income is up more than 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001. The growing economy is a result of the hard work of the American people and good policies here in Washington."

If you listen to the Dems or watch the lib media exclusively, this information is no doubt news to you.

As the President responded to the range of questions tossed out by the press, some hardball and some idiotic, I was thinking of how terribly unfair his critics are when they so negatively evaluate Bush's intelligence and his ability to lead.

No, he's not slick, a la Bill Clinton. I view that as a very good thing.

He doesn't drone on and on, a la John Kerry, flip-flopping two or three times before pausing to take a breath.

Bush is clear and concise. I find that refreshing, especially since so many politicians avoid giving direct answers like the plague.

Much has been said about the President's exchange with Helen Thomas, and rightly so. The woman is not a journalist. She's a liberal activist.

Watch the press conference. You have to see and hear it to believe it.

Thomas was the third person to ask a question. Well, she didn't ask a question. She gave a speech AND she kept interrupting the President and talking over him as he tried to respond. It was absolutely disgraceful.

Why must the President and the nation be subjected to this woman?!?

THOMAS DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO CONDUCT HERSELF APPROPRIATELY, AND THEREFORE HER WHITE HOUSE PRESS CREDENTIALS SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN.

Yes, I am calling for the immediate withdrawal of Helen Thomas from the White House press corps AND a resolution of censure.

Speaking of censure, this was the first time the President directly responded to Feingold's lame resolution.

Q -- ...[T]here have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program. The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question. And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation. What, sir, do you think the impact of the discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this office, and to the nation during a time of war, and in the context of the election?

THE PRESIDENT: I think during these difficult times -- and they are difficult when we're at war -- the American people expect there to be a honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate.

I did notice that, at one point in time, they didn't think the Patriot Act ought to be reauthorized -- "they" being at least the Minority Leader in the Senate. He openly said, as I understand -- I don't want to misquote him -- something along the lines that, "We killed the Patriot Act." And if that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give the people on the front line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so. That's a debate I think the country ought to have.

Great answer.

I love this part:

They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program.

...And if that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give the people on the front line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so.

PERFECT.

Round 2

Tuesday's White House Press Briefing picked up where Monday's left off.

Out of about 28 minutes, over half of the briefing was devoted to the Vice President's hunting accident.

Naturally, it was the first issue raised by the reporters. Right out of the chute, egomaniac David Gregory attacked and rehashed the same things that were addressed in Monday's briefing. Obviously, he was still riled up.

Gregory wasn't the only one to behave like a three-year-old in need of a nap.

Carl Cameron, Martha Raddatz, Victoria Jones, Ann Compton were also obsessed with the hunting accident. They were all drawn to it like moths to a bug zapper.

Transcript

David Gregory = Q

Q Scott, I just have two questions to follow up on the accidental shooting by the Vice President. Does the President think that the Vice President should address this publicly, personally, speak to the American people in any fashion to explain what happened and why it took so long to disclose it publicly?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think what happened has been explained. The Vice President's Office has talked about it; I've talked about it. And I represent the President and speak for him. The Vice President's spokeswoman speaks for him, as well. So that information has been provided. We went through this pretty thoroughly yesterday.

Q So the President doesn't think that the Vice President should actually think about it himself, not through intermediaries?

MR. McCLELLAN: You talk to the Vice President on a fairly frequent basis in the past, and I'm sure you will in the future, as well.

Q But he shouldn't really have to address specifically, in your view --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he has, through his office.

Q Okay, let me ask you this -- is the President concerned that the Vice President made decisions about the public disclosure of this incident that are clearly at odds with how you and others advising the President disclose personal information about the President's activities?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me just say this, since there's some follow-up questions that you all have. First of all, I think we went through this pretty thoroughly yesterday and I worked to answer the questions to the best of my ability and in a forthright manner, based on the facts that I knew. There were some very legitimate questions that were asked. As I indicated, I always believe that you can look back and work to do better. I indicated that yesterday. I think today what we're focusing our efforts is on what are the most pressing priorities before the American people. And that's where we're focusing. I understand you still have some --

Q That's fine, and that's appropriate.

MR. McCLELLAN: If you want to continue to spend time on that, that's fine. We're moving on to the priorities of the American people. That's where our focus is.

Q That's fair, and that's your prerogative, and I've got my job to do, which is, try to get you to answer that question. Does the President think it's appropriate for the Vice President to essentially make decisions at odds with the public disclosure process of this White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that I've expressed my views, and we went through this yesterday.

Q But that's a non-answer.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what I was trying to indicate to you --

Q Does the President have a view about how the Vice President has conducted himself?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, that's what I -- I indicated to you yesterday what our views were.

Q No, I don't recall you sharing the President's view.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but can I finish responding? I'm glad to answer your questions.

Q You didn't answer that question. It was very respectful --

MR. McCLELLAN: I was very respectful and responsive to you all --

Q The Vice President basically decided on his own to not disclose this, which is at odds with how you do business and how the President does business, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't want to make this about anything other than what it is. It is what it is, David. I was very respectful and responsive to your questions yesterday. I provided you the information I knew based on the facts that were available, and we've been through this pretty thoroughly.

Q You don't have an answer to this question. All right, one final question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, wait, I'm just not going to go back through it again. I'd appreciate it if you'd let me respond fully before you jump in.

Q All right, but -- well, hold on one second. I've got one final question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Other people in this room have questions, and we've got an event coming up.

Q I understand that, but I'm not getting answers here, Scott, and I'm trying to be forthright with you, but don't tell me that you're giving us complete answers when you're not actually answering the question, because everybody knows what is an answer and what is not an answer.

MR. McCLELLAN: David, now you want to make this about you, and it's not about you, it's about what happened. And that's what I'm trying to --

Q I'm sorry that you feel that way, but that's not what I'm trying to do.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm trying to provide answers to the questions.

Q I have one final question, since that one wasn't answered. Is it appropriate for the Vice President to have waited 14 hours after the incident before he spoke with local law enforcement officials? And do you think that an average citizen would have been accorded that same amount of time before having to answer questions about a shooting incident?

MR. McCLELLAN: That was what was arranged with the local law enforcement authorities. You ought to ask them that question.

How lame!

Gregory seemed to be trying to settle a personal spat with Scott McClellan rather than taking part in a press briefing.

It was very easy to imagine what it would be like to witness a marital spat in the Gregory household. Actually, that creeped me out.

I loved it when Scott McClellan said, "David, now you want to make this about you, and it's not about you, it's about what happened." That's exactly what Gregory was doing.

Without question, Gregory has shown a complete lack of professionalism on this hunting accident matter.

On Monday, I said that Gregory had morphed into the Dan Rather of this century. After his performance on Tuesday, I think it's more fitting to compare him to Helen Thomas. Very unsteady.

The White House Press Corps needs to get a grip.

While the accident is a legitimate story, it is by no means the most important story out there.

The lib media's desire to latch on to anything that they think will do personal damage to the President, the Vice President, or other members of the Administration reveals just how unfair and unbalanced they are in their reporting.

Ironically, the effect of their unabashed bias is not doing nearly as much damage to the Bush Administration as it is to their own credibility as journalists.

I don't want to see Wednesday's briefing, but I know I'll watch it. It's like train wreck. You can't turn away.

Another Briefing, Another Embarrassment

AGAIN, Helen Thomas was disruptive and rude during the White House press briefing, not allowing Scott McClellan to respond.

AGAIN, Terry Moran came to the aid of the old woman, and was also stupid.

Transcript

(Excerpt)

THOMAS: Dispatches from Iraq said that yesterday we killed 70 people in Iraq, near Ramadi, including 18 children. I want to know what the President thinks of that.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, I think you need to talk to the military, because the military --

THOMAS: No, I'm talking here.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and as I'm responding to you, the military has said otherwise at this point. Now, the military has review mechanisms in place and when there are questions raised, they look into those matters, and so that's something that, obviously, they will look into. But, beyond that, you'd have to talk to the military about where that stands. Now --

THOMAS: Eighteen children --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- in terms of our United States military, our military goes out of the way not to target --

THOMAS: Why were 18 children killed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Our military goes out of the way not to target innocent civilians.

THOMAS: I'm not saying they were targeted --

MR. McCLELLAN: Our military goes out of the way to target the enemy, and to --

THOMAS: Why did they say 18 children?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- bring to justice the terrorists and those who are seeking to prevent democracy from taking hold, through violent means, to justice. And that's what our military does. And they do --

THOMAS: Seventy people were killed by an air strike.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, please let me respond, because I think it's important to point this out when you're bringing up a question like this. We fully support our men and women in uniform. They're doing an outstanding job to defend our freedoms and to help the Iraqi people move forward on a free --

THOMAS: I'm not saying -- I'm saying why did they kill 70 people?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- to move forward on a free and peaceful future. I think everybody in this room would like me to have the opportunity to be able to talk to you about this question. And you're assuming things that people have different recollections about right now, or have characterized very differently. And that's why I said the military has review mechanisms in place, when situations like this arise, and they look into those matters. That's why you need to talk to the military, to see where that stands.

THOMAS: Are the figures wrong in all the newspapers?

MR. McCLELLAN: The military is looking into the matter, Helen. I don't have any more information at this point.

You really need to watch the briefing to understand the degree of the unprofessionalism exhibited by Thomas.

It's not as if she was being tough, asking hard-hitting questions. She steps all over McClellan's answers, making it virtually impossible for him to respond without being forced to reprimand Thomas. Of course, he's exceedingly patient and gentle with her.

My patience has run out.

Why is this woman allowed to retain her White Press credentials?

Just as he did last Thursday, Moran felt he had to prop up Thomas and continue with the theme of her babbling.

It's embarrassing that he rephrases her questions, as if he were a foreign language translator.

I wonder if Thomas appreciates Moran’s "good deeds" or if she's angered by his condescension.

MORAN: If I could follow on Helen's question, though. Whatever the facts of this particular situation are, war is an inexact business, and children do get killed. And what I think she's asking is for a response from the President about children who may have been killed as a result of American action.

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, I don't want to assume, because this is an incident that's being looked into.

MORAN: I'm not assuming. I'm not assuming.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I want to also make the point -- and I think you can go back and look at this -- yes, war is always the last resort. It's not something that's pleasant. But it is a decision that sometimes the Commander-in-Chief has to make in order to protect the American people. And he made the decision that we were going to go on the offensive in this global war on terrorism that we're engaged in, and that's exactly what we're doing, and that we're going to work to spread freedom and democracy in a part of the world that is in need of hope. And you have to recognize the struggle that we're engaged in.

And there are people in Iraq, terrorists, who recognized how high the stakes are, and they're seeking to do everything they can to stop the democratic process from advancing. And there are attacks carried out on some of our troops. And when those attacks are carried out on our troops, you have others that respond to that. And we appreciate all that our men and women in uniform are doing when it comes to defending our freedoms abroad.

Now, in terms of any innocent people being killed, we mourn the loss of any innocent life that is lost. We have seen that the terrorists have no regard for innocent human life. That's the difference between the enemy and between those in the civilized world who are committed to spreading freedom and peace. We target the enemy; they target innocent civilians. And there's a stark contrast in how we go about waging this war on terrorism. They carry out cowardly acts against innocent civilians. We go after those who seek to do harm to those innocent civilians.

It seems so obvious. The reporters, Thomas and Moran in particular, should be ashamed of their behavior.

Thomas, in effect, calls our military personnel murderers. She disgracefully accuses our troops of targeting innocents for death. Is Thomas confused? Is she flashing back to the Vietnam era?

"Why were 18 children killed?"

"I want to know what the President thinks of that."

How offensive!

She insinuates that Bush and the U.S. military don't care about the loss of life. It's disgraceful. Thomas depicts the President as cold and detached as she characterizes our troops as baby killers.

Thomas is one of a handful of journalists at the White House press briefing. Her job is not just to ask any idiotic question that pops into her head. It's not to push her own agenda. As a reporter, she should use her position as an opportunity to get the latest news from the President's press secretary. Her function is to inform the public and cut through the spin, not create it.

Thomas and Moran need to think before they talk.

Moran's translation of the babble of Thomas: "And what I think she's asking is for a response from the President about children who may have been killed as a result of American action."

It's a STUPID line of questioning.

I'd expect that kind of talk to come out of a ditch in Crawford, from the Cindy Sheehan gang.

That's Code Pink stuff.

Thomas and Moran sound like they're active in Code Pink's "Mothers don't let your children grow up to be killers" campaign. (Oh, don't forget Code Pink supports the troops.)

I believe that Bush would never be so callous as to not care about the loss of innocent lives in war, especially children.

I hope there is never an American president capable of disregarding the sanctity of human life.

I have some questions for Helen Thomas and Terry Moran:

HOW MANY TIMES DOES McCLELLAN HAVE TO SAY THAT OUR TROOPS TARGET THE ENEMY, NOT CHILDREN?

HOW MANY TIMES DOES HE HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT OUR TROOPS ARE HEROES, NOT BABY KILLERS?

The Thin Skin of Helen Thomas

Helen Thomas is seriously peeved.

Drudge reports:

HELEN THOMAS ANGRY AFTER 'KILL SELF' OVER CHENEY COMMENTS PUBLISHED

White House press doyenne Helen Thomas is plenty peeved at her longtime friend Albert Eisele, editor of THE HILL newspaper in Washington, D.C.

In a column this week headlined "Reporter: Cheney's Not Presidential Material," Eisele quoted Thomas as saying "The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is one more liar."

Thomas also said: "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does," according to Eisele's column.

But Thomas said yesterday at the White House that her comments to Eisele were for his ears only. "I'll never talk to a reporter again!" Thomas was overheard saying.

"We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't right. We all say stuff we don't want printed," Thomas said.

But Eisele said that when he called Thomas, "I assume she knew that we were on the record."

"She's obviously very upset about it, but it was a small item -- until Drudge picked it up and broadcast it across the universe," Eisele said.

Still, he noted that reporters aren't that happy when the tables are turned. "Nobody has thinner skin than reporters," Eisele said with a laugh.

Although Helen Thomas' skin has the texture of a raisin left out in the desert for a month, she is obviously very thin-skinned. Her withered, leathery appearance and tough as nails attitude are misleading.

Albert Eisele seems to have broken a trust when he printed Thomas' proclamation that she would kill herself if Dick Cheney ran for president.

Thomas drives me crazy; but I can understand her feelings about what Eisele did. She didn't think she was on the record.

Nevertheless, in the end, Thomas has herself to blame for making such hateful remarks in the first place.

I think it's interesting that Eisele, and most likely Thomas too, thought nothing of it UNTIL Drudge broadcast it to the universe.

The New Media busted Thomas for being the partisan hack that she is. That was hardly news, but this latest incident is most definitely an embarrassment for such a fabled journalist as Thomas.

The insulated world of the liberal elite is no longer closed territory. What's said by the likes of Helen Thomas gets around very fast, and it's scrutinized by the masses.

Poor Helen. She's actually being held accountable for her despicable remarks.

Boo Hoo.

Helen Thomas

Drudge reports:

REPORTER VOWS TO 'KILL SELF' IF CHENEY RUNS FOR PRESIDENT
Thu Jul 28 2005 15:32:13 ET

Veteran wire reporter Helen Thomas is vowing to 'kill herself' if Dick Cheney announces he is running for president.

The newspaper HILL first reported the startling claim on Thursday.

MORE

"The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself," she told the HILL. "All we need is one more liar."

Thomas added, "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does."

MORE

How is this woman allowed to keep her White House press credentials?

I guess Thomas isn't considered a threat since she vowed to kill herself, not Dick Cheney.

What a tasteless thing for her to say! Not only does she behave in a totally unprofessional manner; she has no class whatsoever.

In addition to calling the Vice President a liar, she also manages to belittle the suffering of families touched by suicide.

The White House should seriously consider taking away her press privileges.

At the very least, Scott McClellan should ignore her; but he's too nice a guy to do that. He shows respect for doddering elders like Thomas, even when they are being relentlessly and unrepentantly obnoxious.

Doddering Thomas

I think Scott McClellan deserves a raise. At yesterday's press briefing, he had to suffer through a classic Helen Thomas inanity.

Q (Thomas) The other day -- in fact, this week, you said that we, the United States, is in Afghanistan and Iraq by invitation. Would you like to correct that incredible distortion of American history --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we are -- that's where we currently --

Q -- in view of your credibility is already mired? How can you say that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I think everyone in this room knows that you're taking that comment out of context. There are two democratically-elected governments in Iraq and --

Q We're we invited into Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are two democratically-elected governments now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments, and we are there today --

Q You mean if they had asked us out, that we would have left?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, I'm talking about today. We are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments --

Q I'm talking about today, too.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are doing all we can to train and equip their security forces so that they can provide for their own security as they move forward on a free and democratic future.

Q Did we invade those countries?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve.

It's time for Thomas to retire. Actually, that time passed long ago.

She could write for the Huffington Post. I'm not sure. Maybe Arianna already has her on board.