|
I read that article when it came out, and I have to say that regardless of whoever was in the position to answer those questions by Woodward, it would have been a major trap. I consider Woodward to be a firm, reliable source, but these 22 questions really revealed a trap for the following reasons:
*How many fucking questions within questions is Woodward going to ask here? You want to ask 22 questions, then fucking ask 22 questions Bob! Take question 1, for example:
| quote: | | If a President Kerry wanted to look at war plans pertaining to a particular country or threat, how would he go about it? Who would be included? What would the general war-planning process be in a Kerry administration? Was it reasonable to look at Iraq at that time? |
Now suppose Kerry answered this entire question just in general terms, because we pretty much know what Woodward was getting at - would you have looked at Iraq as quickly as Bush did post-911 and how would you have addressed that? Well Kerry could and likely have answered that, yes, he would have examined the possibility of Saddam being the culprit in due time, just as the President did, and that the President was not wrong in doing so. The details of examination of possible culprits may have been a matter of slight difference, but that's a bit nit picky. Well, he answers this in general terms, great, fine. What do you want to bet that at least someone, anyone from the Right would have come out and said that "he's avoiding answering directly - more 'flip-flopping'"? I'll bet the house on that one.
*Did anyone notice that the timing of Woodward's questions seemed a bit strange? By that I mean it was right before the Republican Convention, which would have been a tremendous amount of extra nit-picky fodder for the Republicans to spin and mislead any which way they chose. Furthermore, a great many of Woodward's questions (and fucking questions within questions) were answered, at least in general, during the debates. Surely Woodward noticed this.
*Furthermore, Kerry and Edwards have, in fact, answered a great many of Woodward's questions already throughout their campaign speeches, interviews, and even during the Democratic primary debates. Now granted, Bob has asked some pointed questions, and some pointed answers would have been interesting to note and compare specifically, but for the most part I think Bob knew damn well where Kerry stood in large part on most of those questions. If he truly did not then I think he was simply not paying much attention to Kerry.
So overall I think Kerry and Edwards avoided those questions for both political reasons as well as the desire to stay away from useless repetition. I think if Bob truly wanted the answers to his questions, it would have been best served for him to give these questions very early on in the campaign, rather than just 2 months away from Nov. 2nd, and 1 month away from the beginning of the debates. I like Bob, and I think he means well, but I also think he should have known better in this instance.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
