|
DECEMBER 16, 2003 – If all but
Moderate Independent reporters weren’t bought and sold, this
last Presidential news conference would have gone like this:
“This was part of the War on Terror,
sir?” one reporter asked the President.
“Yes,” said President Bush, “as I told
you repeatedly in my speech on Sunday, the capture of Saddam Hussein
was a great victory in the War on Terror.”
“So,” asked a reporter for
clarification, “Saddam will be tried in The Hague?”
“No.”
“An American court?”
“Uh, uh, Punchy. Saddam will be tried
in Iraq because this is a matter for the Iraqi people."
Another reporter asked, “So this wasn’t
part of the War on Terror, this was just an internal Iraqi matter?”
“No, it was absolutely a great victory
in the War on Terror.”
“But you just said it was an internal
Iraqi matter – that is why it will be tried in Iraq.”
“Is this a trick question?” snapped the
President.
“So in what way was this a part of the
War on Terror?”
“Saddam was a threat to his own people –
used chemical weapons on them.”
“So,” the reporter asked for
clarification, “this wasn’t a part of the War on Terror? It was
just an Iraqi internal matter?”
The President snapped, “Enough of the
trick questions. It was a part of the War on Terror. It is being
tried in Iraq because it is an Iraqi internal matter.”
“Can you provide any example of how this
had anything to do with America at all?”
“How? Saddam is gone.”
“And in what way did he threaten the
American people – with his missiles that could barely reach his own
borders or the helium we found for filling balloons in those two
trailers?”
“Enough with the trick questions. He
was a threat because of the WMD’s.”
“You found WMDs?”
“Yes, he used them before on his own
people.”
“Sorry, Mr. President, let me clarify.
I was asking if you found any evidence of WMDs within the past
decade?”
“Well, no, but he… he slaughtered his
own people.”
“So this was just an internal Iraqi
matter?
Anyone who questions if the press is
anything but Bush-backing puppet, answer why the non-Moderate
Independent press lets him get away with this game? The burden is
on Howard Dean and the people who opposed the war, they say, to
explain why Saddam’s capture doesn’t show the war was worth it and
has made America safer, according to the rest of the media.
Not so fast, cowardly FOX News
wannabes. If the police broke into someone’s house and trashed the
place entirely, killed the pet dog and two of the kids, because they
thought there were drugs in the apartment, but it turned out, after
they searched and searched and searched, that they had been given a
bad tip and there never were drugs to begin with – those police
would have some answering to do and a price to pay.
So since President Bush seems to have
done exactly the equivalent to an entire nation, who should be on
trial, Saddam, or President Bush? And, most importantly, the fact
that no one but us at M/I are putting that obvious, inescapable
question forward shows yet again how useless the rest of the press
is, and how nice it is to be here as a voice for the good people of
America.
|
