[CLUE-Talk] Another Bush Lie v2.0

[Jeff Cann]

On Thursday 30 October 2003 4:56 pm, Jed S. Baer wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:40:06 -0700
>
> Jeff Cann <j.cann at isuma.org> wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for some Bush fan to explain his quote...
> >
> > "The president concluded, "The best way to get the news is from
> > objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on
> > my staff who tell me what's happening in the world."
>
> Why is it so difficult to accept that Bush might just have hired good
> people? That Bush actually wants to hear the unvarnished truth from his
> staff, and that he picked people who would provide it? How do you know
> what in their daily reports to him?

I don't doubt that Bush hired the best people available to him.

My problem is that by any measure, people whom I choose to work for me cannot 
be truly objective.  Why is that hard to understand?  Why is it hard to 
understand that no matter how 'good' or 'qualified' his staff is, they still 
a) want to keep their prestigious job and b) have their own agendas.  To me, 
a+b = subjective.  

Maybe we can debate to what degree that b is true, but at this level of 
politics - i.e., the Administration's cabinet, I cannot believe that any 
cabinet, for either a Democrat or Republican, brings no agenda to the table 
when they accept the job.

Finally, do you only seek one source to form your opinion?  Logic / common 
sense would suggest that multiple sources = greater ability to weed out 
agenda vs facts.  I personally don't want my President only relying on his 
staff for this process.  Maybe I'm too demanding and should just shut up and 
be happy that the GDP is up?

Jeff

P.S.  I think I'm going to order that Ann Coulter barbie for you for Xmas.