Tag Archives: PBS

G.W.B. Was Never THIS “Incurious”

by Annie | Leave a comment

“Even if you have only limply functioning neurons and no press-credentials, a human-organism of blob-shape can ascertain, without even jiggling your blob, that two presidents don’t accidentally “run into” each other anywhere.  Ever.”

Remember how 99% of the political class at ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. sniffed at how “incurious” President Bush was?  When, in fact, it turns out his G.P.A was a point higher (not much but it matters!) than John Kerry’s?  And it has later emerged that President Bush is an avid, voracious reader (It’s been reported a book a week, typically, favoring non-fiction, and these are books well over 300 pages & without pictures, for any snot-nosed progressive who might be reading this.)

Well, we’ve reached peak “incurious.”  

And, once again, sadly, it is as it relates to those who cover presidents, and not, predictably, as it relates to the intellectual capacity of a president himself  – with or without a “D” after his name.

The most white-hot story in politics right now is Hillary Clinton’s rogue email server. There’s nothing more important or interesting in political circles right now – off-the-air, that is.  

Oh, there’s been some coverage of this profoundly criminal and dangerous breach of national security on the alphabet networks, and even MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” has had some honest coverage of it (but that’s only because they want another Democrat to win, not Hillary, who is insufficiently radical, to them, which is kind of horrifying all by itself.)

And, to be sure, The New York Times has done extensive reporting on the issue, even “breaking” the story back in March (but that’s only because they were fed all the details by that no-necked-short-furry-Machiavellian-troll Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s handler-consigliare, who also hates Hillary, also because she is insufficiently radical – and other reasons.)  

The New York Times has subsequently done some other reporting, from other reporters there, trying to white-wash the whole mess, and it’s a safe bet the white-wash reporters got expletive-laced, screaming, threatening phone-calls, just like the original March story reporter got, who dutifully changed the text without attribution (You’re supposed to tell your readers when you change the meaning of the text of an original story.  The New York Times didn’t. That’s bad.  It’s “Journalistic Ethics 101.”).  The Washington Post appears to have had the same trajectory.  So while hat-tips are owed to MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, for covering at all, their motives are suspect; cleary, deeply, cynically, suspect.

So here we are.  It’s the dog-days of summer, Obama’s on the Vineyard, and a Clinton is in legal trouble.  All is normal.

Except it’s not.

It’s really, really not.

The two men who have treated Hillary to her two biggest public humiliations, Bill, who serially cheated on her, and Barack, who beat her from her “inevitable” crown in 2008, “ran into each other” on the golf course.  “Accidentally” says the press.

WHAT?

Even if you have only limply functioning neurons and no press-credentials, a human-organism of blob-shape can ascertain, without even jiggling your blob, that two presidents don’t meet “accidentally” anywhere. Ever. Their Secret Service details know.  Are we to believe nobody on the Obama detail called their buddy on the Clinton detail or vice-versa?  Seriously?  That’s silly, childish even.  That’s unicorn territory. No.  This was a purposeful meeting.  And the fact that there are pictures is also no accident.  Obama has proven capable of keeping the overwhelming majority of his time on all his golf outings private – if he wants to. There’s no way a picture of the two presidents would happens unless Obama wanted it to.  No way.  

So!  What are we to believe about this?  Here are some ideas, as curated by Twitchy, that seem right to me, and gave birth to this blog post of mine. How is it POSSIBLE we have such an incurious press?  I can think of a dozen questions, (without jiggling my blob!) I would love to ask, if only to see the looks on their faces, which might be all the answer we need.  Good grief!    

 

   


BOOM! (That’s what I think.)

Share the post "G.W.B. Was Never THIS “Incurious”"