The MSM at it's finest... This article only made me want to puke ONCE..

[Stephanie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101577.html

For President Under Duress, Body Language Speaks Volumes

By Dana Milbank

Wednesday, October 12, 2005; Page A07

It's only 6:17 a.m. Central time, and President Bush is already facing his second question of the day about Karl Rove's legal troubles.

"Does it worry you," NBC's Matt Lauer is asking him at a construction-site interview in Louisiana, that prosecutors "seem to have such an interest in Mr. Rove?"


Of President Bush's participation in a building project in Covington, La., ABC News said he showed a "cowboy swagger and yuppie self-consciousness." (By Larry Downing -- Reuters)


Bush blinks twice. He touches his tongue to his lips. He blinks twice more. He starts to answer, but he stops himself.

"I'm not going to talk about the case," Bush finally says after a three-second pause that, in television time, feels like a commercial break.

Only the president's closest friends and family know (if anybody does) what he's really thinking these days, during Katrina woes, Iraq violence, conservative anger over Harriet Miers, and legal trouble for Bush's top political aide and two congressional GOP leaders. Bush has not been viewed up close; as he took his eighth post-Katrina trip to the Gulf Coast yesterday, the press corps has accompanied him only once, because the White House says logistics won't permit it. Even the interview on the "Today" show was labeled "closed press."

But this much could be seen watching the tape of NBC's broadcast during Bush's 14-minute pre-sunrise interview, in which he stood unprotected by the usual lectern. The president was a blur of blinks, taps, jiggles shifts,and pivots . Bush has always been an active man, but standing with Lauer and the serene, steady first lady, he had the body language of a man wishing urgently to be elsewhere.

The fidgeting clearly corresponded to the questioning. When Lauer asked if Bush, after a slow response to Katrina, was "trying to get a second chance to make a good first impression," Bush blinked 24 times in his answer. When asked why Gulf Coast residents would have to pay back funds but Iraqis would not, Bush blinked 23 times and hitched his trousers up by the belt.
When the questioning turned to Miers, Bush blinked 37 times in a single answer -- along with a lick of the lips, three weight shifts and some serious foot jiggling. Laura Bush, by contrast, delivered only three blinks and stood still through her entire answer about encouraging volunteerism.
Perhaps the set itself made Bush uncomfortable. He and his wife stood in casual attire, wearing tool belts, in front of a wall frame and some Habitat for Humanity volunteers in hard hats. ABC News noted cheekily of its rival network's exclusive: "He did allow himself to be shown hammering purposefully, with a jejune combination of cowboy swagger and yuppie self-consciousness."

Perhaps, too, the president's body language said nothing about his true state of mind. But the White House gave little other information that might shed light on this. A White House spokesman, Trent Duffy, entered the press cabin on Air Force One to brief reporters at 1:58 p.m. He left two minutes later, after answering the only question by saying, "We don't have anything to announce."

The one newspaper reporter allowed to travel with Bush as part of the White House's "pool" system reported back to her colleagues after the "Today" event: "we were at a distance and could not hear what was being said (a theme of the day)." Other than the "Today" appearance, Bush delivered a one-minute talk to military recovery workers ("I'm incredibly proud of the job you have done") and a two-minute statement outside a school ("out of the rubble here on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi is a rebuilding").

Certainly, Bush retained many of the gestures that work well for him: the purposeful but restrained hand gestures, the head-tilted smile of amusement and the easy laugh. But he seemed to lose control of the timing. He smiled after observing that Iraqis are "paying a serious price" because of terrorism.

As Lauer went through his introduction, the presidential eyes zoomed left, then right, then left and right again, then center, down and up at the interviewer. The presidential fidgeting spiked when Lauer mentioned the Democratic accusation that Bush was performing a "photo op." Bush pushed out his lower front lip, then licked the right corner of his mouth. Lauer's query about whether conservatives "are feeling let down by you" appeared to provoke furious jiggling of the right leg.
Bush joked about his state of mind when Lauer asked Laura Bush about the strain on her husband. "He can barely stand!" the president said, interrupting. "He's about to drop on the spot." But the first lady had a calming influence on the presidential wiggles. When Laura Bush spoke about her husband's "broad shoulders," the president put his arm around her -- and the swaying and shifting subsided.

The president, now on more comfortable terrain, delivered a brief homily about "the decency of others" and "how blessed we are to be an American." Through the entire passage, he blinked only 12 times.


These people are so stupid, that now they've taken to counting how many time's a person blink's. And I would like to as Matty lauer boy how many hair plug's did you have to have installed in that pointy wittle head of yours, Let's see if he start's scratching his head ... :scratch:

 

[KarlMarx]

And the implication is that "W" is guilty of something and therefore, by association, Karl Rove is, too. So much for the concept of "trial by jury" and "innocent until proven guilty".... oh wait, Karl Rove hasn't been accused of any crimes!!!! But... the MSM has already arrested, indicted, tried and convicted the man....

Frankly, the journalists that write such tripe should be ashamed, but then again, some people don't know enough to be embarrassed.

This article reminds me of something that happened when I was in 4th or 5th grade.

Our classroom had a clique of girls who were ,as we used to say back then, really "tight".... i.e. close. A new girl shows up one day (apparently, her parents had moved into the area) and these girls, for whatever reason, instantly disliked her. Nothing that poor girl did was any good. Those girls would pick on her for the slightest thing, her looks, her hair, her clothes, what she said... the poor girl was trying her darnedest to fit in and be accepted by those girls but it was a "no go" from the start.

Sometimes, those girls would dress alike (e.g. they'd all show up at school one day wearing pink blouses)... I guess it was their way of identifying with one another. That poor girl made the mistake one day of showing up at school wearing the same dress as one of the "clique" girls. The clique girl was furious, she stormed up to the teacher, crying, accusing the girl of embarrassing her on purpose.... I think the teacher assured the girl that it wasn't intentional and that she should act grown up.

Shortly thereafter, the girl of that was the object of their scorn disappeared. My guess is that the parents probably had enough of their daughter being taunted and abused and moved her to another school.

"W" suffers from the same problem... no matter what the poor man does, it's wrong.... now he *blinks* too often....

Probably Dana Milbank ought to learn a lesson from this... if he gets on the MSM's wrong side, he'd better not blink too often or lick his lips, either.

 

[Gem]

I just think its funny that they can give Osama bin Laden the right of being innocent till proven guilty, but the Democrats can't seem to give Rove, Frist, or Delay the same right!

 

[sagegirl]

There has been considerable research done on physical responses during questioning......reflecting evasiveness and lying. We are looking at a man who has alot of experience in front of the camera, not some young kid in front of a classroom giving a book report. It is pure idiocy to disregard body laguage as a psychological reaction of what a person is saying, especially when it is in contrast to what they say.....like nodding yes when they say no....and the president's body language is that of a very uncomfortable person who is not forthcoming. Blinking and darting eyes are two of the most obvious reactions. Many of the studies regarding psychological responses to questioning have been done by the military and law enforcement and the think tanks that some of you seem to respect and trust.

 

[musicman]

There has been considerable research done on physical responses during questioning......reflecting evasiveness and lying. We are looking at a man who has alot of experience in front of the camera, not some young kid in front of a classroom giving a book report. It is pure idiocy to disregard body laguage as a psychological reaction of what a person is saying, especially when it is in contrast to what they say.....like nodding yes when they say no....and the president's body language is that of a very uncomfortable person who is not forthcoming. Blinking and darting eyes are two of the most obvious reactions. Many of the studies regarding psychological responses to questioning have been done by the military and law enforcement and the think tanks that some of you seem to respect and trust.

Gerorge Bush is an awkward speaker. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is smooth as a snake. I'll bet he could have denied diddling that poor, deranged little porker in the Oval Office, and passed a polygraph. These are inexact sciences you speak of, sagegirl. It is the subjective and selective way they're being applied that I find objectionable. These people would die in fire if doing so would discredit George Bush - and I think THAT needs to be factored in, as well.

Incidentally, when I speak of inexact science, I'm not just talking out of my hat. I failed a polygraph - MISERABLY - over some money stolen from an office near where I was working. Turns out, merely being ASKED a question like "did you take the money" upset and outraged me so badly that I sent the needle off the charts(happily, they found the real thief). So, I KNOW you've got to take this stuff with a grain of salt.

 

[Psychoblues]

I am a Democrat. I state that right up front. But, I haven't always been a Democrat and I don't to this day always side with the left or the Democrats in general on particular issues. I also want you to know that I never wanted or intended to dislike or disrespect George W. Bush. After all, I voted for his father and I voted for his father's boss, Ronald Reagan. But those were among my formitive years and lessons.

To Bill Clinton's credit, he was never convicted of any of the crimes that he was accused by the conservatives of having committed. Why? He was not guilty by any stretch of legal over reaching to prove him guilty of any crime. He may have gotten a blow-job in the Oval Office? That's pretty much it. I don't suspect he was the first nor do I think he will be the last to have received such treatment in the Oval Office. But, the blow-job finally got Bill Clinton. Everything else he was completely exonerated from.

George W. Bush, on the other hand and in my opinion, has lied repeatedly concerning matters grave to the security of the American peoples. His cronies have done the same and many have done even worse. George W. Bush has sent us into a war that was not accepted well by most of the rest of the World or even most of the citizens of the United States Of America. He had me and most everyone I know in Afganistan and against Al Queda. He lost me and most everyone I know in Iraq.

I don't know or even think that impeachment is the answer to the many questions and problems I have with GWB, but I would expect the same type scrutiny that was afforded Bill Clinton concerning Whitewater and other associated business dealings. Wouldn't you?

After all, a couple thousand of our brethren and sistren have died. Tens of thousands more have been maimed. Billions of dollars have been appropriated largely to the expense of common working Americans and still we meet worldwide resistance to our continuing efforts in Iraq and recent polls suggest that 64% of Americans find the performance of GWB to be lacking in integrity and practically 70% find he falls short in the leadership area.

I don't think the Democrats, and I know that I personally don't find anyone guilty of anything. Let the scrutiny begin. Despite overwhelming evidence that might preclude investigation, none has been forthcoming. I say to our congressional leadership, "Get it on, do your jobs and let's be done with it."

Psychoblues

 

[KarlMarx]

To Bill Clinton's credit, he was never convicted of any of the crimes that he was accused by the conservatives of having committed. Why? He was not guilty by any stretch of legal over reaching to prove him guilty of any crime. He may have gotten a blow-job in the Oval Office? That's pretty much it. I don't suspect he was the first nor do I think he will be the last to have received such treatment in the Oval Office. But, the blow-job finally got Bill Clinton. Everything else he was completely exonerated from.

Bill Clinton escaped being convicted by only a few votes in the Senate. But then, the Teflon Don, John Gotti, repeatedly escaped being convicted of crimes that he committed as well. My opinion is that Clinton is guilty and the reason he walked away from being convicted had everything to do with political lack of will amongst the Republicans..... That doesn't mean he's not guilty of PERJURY, SUBORNATION OF PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.... the charges had nothing to do with sex.

George W. Bush, on the other hand and in my opinion, has lied repeatedly concerning matters grave to the security of the American peoples. His cronies have done the same and many have done even worse. George W. Bush has sent us into a war that was not accepted well by most of the rest of the World or even most of the citizens of the United States Of America. He had me and most everyone I know in Afganistan and against Al Queda. He lost me and most everyone I know in Iraq.

And you're entitled to your opinion. However, the intelligence that was available at the time pointed to an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein and his WMD capabilities. Furthermore, American national interest should not be dictated to by the rest of the world or opinion polls.

After all, a couple thousand of our brethren and sistren have died. Tens of thousands more have been maimed. Billions of dollars have been appropriated largely to the expense of common working Americans and still we meet worldwide resistance to our continuing efforts in Iraq and recent polls suggest that 64% of Americans find the performance of GWB to be lacking in integrity and practically 70% find he falls short in the leadership area.

I don't regard a sharp increase in social spending under the Bush Administration as an appropriation of funds at the expense of common working Americans. The fact that over $6 trillion dollars has been spent so far on the war on poverty over the past 40 years is evidence to me and other conservatives that many government social programs are an abject failure and an appropriation of funds at the expense of common working Americans.

I don't think the Democrats, and I know that I personally don't find anyone guilty of anything. Let the scrutiny begin. Despite overwhelming evidence that might preclude investigation, none has been forthcoming. I say to our congressional leadership, "Get it on, do your jobs and let's be done with it."

If GWB or any member of his Administration is investigated, tried and/or convicted, let it be done by a court of law, not in the newspapers and on TV shows. In this country, the principle of innocence before being proven guilty still applies.

 

[sagegirl]

Bill Clinton escaped being convicted by only a few votes in the Senate. But then, the Teflon Don, John Gotti, repeatedly escaped being convicted of crimes that he committed as well. My opinion is that Clinton is guilty and the reason he walked away from being convicted had everything to do with political lack of will amongst the Republicans..... That doesn't mean he's not guilty of PERJURY, SUBORNATION OF PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.... the charges had nothing to do with sex.


And you're entitled to your opinion. However, the intelligence that was available at the time pointed to an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein and his WMD capabilities. Furthermore, American national interest should not be dictated to by the rest of the world or opinion polls.



I don't regard a sharp increase in social spending under the Bush Administration as an appropriation of funds at the expense of common working Americans. The fact that over $6 trillion dollars has been spent so far on the war on poverty over the past 40 years is evidence to me and other conservatives that many government social programs are an abject failure and an appropriation of funds at the expense of common working Americans.


If GWB or any member of his Administration is investigated, tried and/or convicted, let it be done by a court of law, not in the newspapers and on TV shows. In this country, the principle of innocence before being proven guilty still applies.

The legal issue of guilt or innocence is much different that the actual reality of did he do it .... or didnt he. We have a strange legal system that grands pardons before being convicted of anything (Nixon) that grants immunity, or plea bargains away issues that could have been convincingly prosecuted. Oliver North, John Poindexter, to name a couple, Oliver North you may remember LIED to congress, for their own good, when they were investigating Iran/Contra. Bill Clinton was a dirty rotten scoundrel, but he is also intelligent, well spoken, and gracious, so he became a winner. When we start evaluating our leaders on performance rather than personality we will be better off. I dont think either the dems or the reps have much to be proud of and lots to be questioned about, but thats the blame game and what we really need is to intelligently address more pertinent issues.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

To Bill Clinton's credit, he was never convicted of any of the crimes that he was accused by the conservatives of having committed. Why? He was not guilty by any stretch of legal over reaching to prove him guilty of any crime. He may have gotten a blow-job in the Oval Office? That's pretty much it. I don't suspect he was the first nor do I think he will be the last to have received such treatment in the Oval Office. But, the blow-job finally got Bill Clinton. Everything else he was completely exonerated from.

George W. Bush, on the other hand and in my opinion, has lied repeatedly concerning matters grave to the security of the American peoples. His cronies have done the same and many have done even worse. George W. Bush has sent us into a war that was not accepted well by most of the rest of the World or even most of the citizens of the United States Of America. He had me and most everyone I know in Afganistan and against Al Queda. He lost me and most everyone I know in Iraq.

Oh, so Bush has lied repeatedly but Clinton only lied about a blowjob? What bullshit. Even the most loyal Clinton supporter should be able to admit that he lied about many things. When has Bush "lied repeatedly concerning matters grave to the security of the American peoples" anyway? Also, are you satisfied with what Clinton did regarding terrorism and national security?

 

[musicman]

Also, are you satisfied with what Clinton did regarding terrorism and national security?

You've absolutely hit on the crux of the matter, Tim. Never mind the fact that Sandy Berger stuffed documents down his pants that "somebody" deemed too hot for the 9/11 Commission. Never mind the bodies piled up like cordwood around the Clinton Administration - all of whom shared the common misfortune of being - in life - a danger to the Clintons. Never mind Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, the "Bimbo Eruption Squad", selling out America in exchange for hefty campaign contributions from Indonesia and China, the definition of "is", and Clinton's profusely-documented hatred of the U.S. military. As long as his deranged worshippers can cling to any shred of deniability - no matter how pathetic and laughable - not only does Clinton remain a persecuted saint; his "detractors" are savaged as vengeful, agenda-driven demons.

It's known as "willful blindness".