doodledee

I had this big thing written up about the insanely predictable "outraged" responses to the insanely predictable answers that Bush gave and/or didn't give at his [now apparently infamous] press conference the other night, but I shelved it after I read this, because it says it better:

... [T]he press seemed inordinately focused on trying to get the president to take blame and admit mistakes -- a line of questioning that struck us as fishing for soundbites rather than addressing real issues. This president is famous for staying relentlessly on message; after he conspicuously passed on his initial opportunity to shoulder some blame for September 11, journalists should have moved on, knowing he wasn't going to change his rhetoric on a whim. They might instead have asked the president to engage specific policy issues, or asked about something other then Iraq or September 11, such as the economy.

And we were disappointed to see journalists fail to press the president about any number of specific on-the-record inconsistencies that they could have pointed to. As we mentioned above, direct questions have a better chance of forcing direct answers, while fishing about for an admission that everyone knows is not forthcoming merely leaves an opening for the recitation of well-worn talking points and rhetorical asides. We don't need press conferences to hear that.

ExACTly.

Attention moron pundits and worked-up bloggers: The reason Bush "didn't answer any questions" is because he was asked the same question over and over and over again. Your outrage is both misplaced and illogical. Shape-up. You do the dissension movement no favors acting like such idiots.

And yes, I know this would have been more topical 72 hours ago, but once softball season starts, I kinda fall behind.

Fishing With the President [cjr]