By DAVID E. SANGER, NY Times
Oh my... this is one meeting I would just loved to have been a fly on the wall. Admirable that Bush would give any of these folks the time of day. They certainly would not have done the same for him if holding power.
Wish I knew what happened there, but NYT's attempt at what is supposed to be a news report leaves us empty with anything except reporter spin. The bias starts out with the first sentence, and moves on from there.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 - Colin Powell said nothing - a silence that spoke volumes to many in the White House today.
Woof... what drama! Is that fact, or fiction? Wait a minute... am I on the op-ed page??? Nope... On to paragraph two. THat should be the zinger now.
His predecessor, Madeleine Albright, was a bit riled after hearing an exceedingly upbeat 40-minute briefing to 13 living former secretaries of state and defense about how well things are going in Iraq. Saying the war in Iraq was "taking up all the energy" of President Bush's foreign policy team, she asked Mr. Bush whether he had let nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea spin out of control, and Latin America and China policy suffer by benign neglect.
Stop the presses! (Obviously a term very under-utilized in today's newsworld. Deadlines are more important than verification of rumors or opinions, afterall....)
Did I just hear Ms. Albright accuse Bush of sleeping on the job,
not paying attention to such nations as N. Korea?
Uh... would this be the same N. Korea that enjoyed the Clinton/Albright admins blessings, economic benefits and *blind eye* as they developed the very same nuclear weapons about which she is now whining???
Is this crap allowed to stand? Or is it that we have high powered MSM that employs staff journalists who are either biased, or history challenged?
I know the NYTs does expound events with supporting fact. Why take for example, the VP is always identified as "Vice President Dick Cheney, former executive with Halliburton". Surely if they can include Cheney's former employment as supporting data, they can include a tad of Clinton/N. Korea history, right?
Naw... what am I thinking? It would be nigh on impossible to do so in light of historical facts - that the existing nuclear weapons Ms. Albright is so concerned with were manufactured under the very noses of her own employer who was paying more attention to other things in his Oval Office.
Moving on. According to sub-journalist Sanger, Bush did fire back "I can't let this comment stand...". That's as far as we get, folks. The substance of the President's response is reduced to the quote that Bush's admin "can do more than one thing at a time."
Why do I think something's missing here? That's it?
PLEASE someone tell me that Bush, or someone in that room, gave Ms. Albright a refresher history course. Tisn't likely, I know. The Cowboy Prez sometimes lets courtesy, down home Texas manners, and all-purpose respect for a former high placed official get in the way of returning political mud slinging. It is truly Bush's biggest political flaw.
Sanger continues in we recognize now as a distinctive NYT's style... insinuation instead of facts. In this case, the pitch is that Bush put on one face for the cameras, and another in private.
Those who wanted to impart more wisdom to the current occupants of the White House were sent back across the hall to meet again with Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. But, as several of the participants noted, by that time Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had gone on to other meetings.
When cameras were in the room, though, Mr. Bush was appreciative. "I'm most grateful for the suggestions that have been given," he said. "We take the advice, we appreciate your experience and we appreciate you taking the time out of your day."
Hummmm. Let's see. President's a busy guy. Did the meeting thing, then let everyone continue their thoughts with his advisors - who could then relay additional thoughts - while carrying on with schedule.
Or, in the NYTs perspective, President lightly dismisses group as a totally irrelevant press opportunity because they criticized him, and sends them on to subordinates to entertain.
Amazing how truth can be so manipulated, eh? What is also amazing is that such writings can be classified as "journalism", and not pure tarot card reading.