Mine were just smart-ass, Ari-esque questions, intended to trip up the questioner. The way you phrased it emphasizes the notion that there was miscommunication, which wasn't the case.
The Administration and its camp followers spoke with one voice before the war, saying that it would be quick and easy. Now Ari's doing his thing, seizing on the scraps of qualifying language in the original statements and saying they were the main message. His question about Cheney does two things: embarrasses the reporter and breaks his train of thought, and also creates the impression that the parts of the Cheney transcript the reporter "omitted" are much more significant than they are.
There were several articles in Salon/Slate type-journals praising Ari for such tactics, but they're really just intellectual thuggery, to use a favorite Administration word. The press is apparently sick of it, which is why you see them bursting out laughing more at his shenanigans.
With 20/20 hindsight, the best response by the reporter would have been to trust his instincts and his sense of the Cheney quotes and bluff. When Ari says, "And then what did the Vice President say in the next sentence right after he said that?" the reporter should have said "Nothing but empty qualifying language, but I'm sure you can quote it to me." That way, he's setting up the information to be meaningless the way Ari sets it up to be significant. I know most people aren't that fast on their feet, but by now the regular press corps should be wise to Fleischer's tricks.
|
The Administration and its camp followers spoke with one voice before the war, saying that it would be quick and easy. Now Ari's doing his thing, seizing on the scraps of qualifying language in the original statements and saying they were the main message. His question about Cheney does two things: embarrasses the reporter and breaks his train of thought, and also creates the impression that the parts of the Cheney transcript the reporter "omitted" are much more significant than they are.
There were several articles in Salon/Slate type-journals praising Ari for such tactics, but they're really just intellectual thuggery, to use a favorite Administration word. The press is apparently sick of it, which is why you see them bursting out laughing more at his shenanigans.
With 20/20 hindsight, the best response by the reporter would have been to trust his instincts and his sense of the Cheney quotes and bluff. When Ari says, "And then what did the Vice President say in the next sentence right after he said that?" the reporter should have said "Nothing but empty qualifying language, but I'm sure you can quote it to me." That way, he's setting up the information to be meaningless the way Ari sets it up to be significant. I know most people aren't that fast on their feet, but by now the regular press corps should be wise to Fleischer's tricks.
- tom moody 3-29-2003 8:58 pm