"That must make you slightly below retarded. If you had a feeding tube, we'd disconnect it"

Nice. You're really making it hard to take you seriously at all.

Nimrod, learn to read. The letters form words, the words form sentences, you read them from left to right.

I said that the Press Secretary does indeed work for the public, in the sense that he gets paid by tax dollars. What seems to be confusing you is the fact that, just because he's a public servant, does not mean that his job is to tell you the information you want to hear, without spin, and without withholding what the administration thinks is appropriate.

"Well, I've got news for you, Einstein, all public servants serve at the pleasure of someone else, so by your logic (and I use that term loosely), no public servant works for us."

I've got news for you, Jackass, not every public servant "serves at the pleasure" of someone else. That is a phrase used specifically with the President and his advisors/cabinet.

"My understanding is that you're on the public dole, so you may not understand how the business world works"

My understanding is that you're in the private sector, so you may not understand how the government works.

"The government, right down to the street sweeper, is hired by US, to serve US"

No shit Sherlock, but "serve the US" doesn't always mean they're supposed to tell the unadulterated truth without spin. Sevre the public can mean anything from "fight fires" to "prosecute criminals" to "keep national security secrets" to "articulate the President's message as he sees fit."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Slowguy and el fuser:

There's no need to worry, I just wrote President Bush an email (and CC'd Vice President Cheney) a question regarding the WH Press Secretary's job description and duties. I'm sure they'll get back to me ASAP.

el fuser and Slowguy:

I also wrote Dan Froomkin at The Washington Post who writes the Post's "White House Briefing". He is not aware of any official description available anywhere. But he did provide this:

http://www.americanpresident.org/action/orgchart/administration_units/officeofthepresssecretary/a_index.shtml

It's a review by a (the?) Clinton White House Press Secretary.

hehehe...goddamn you're stupid! Now I know where you get your screen name!

I said that the Press Secretary does indeed work for the public

s l o w guy: The Press Secretary doesn't work for you, he serves at the pleasure of the President.

el fuser: They work for you. They're here to serve you

s l o w guy: Wrong. They are paid by tax dollars to do a specific job.

s l o w guy: I'm basically saying that since he works for the President, he doesn't work for you.

Hey, at least now you're acknowledging that he does indeed work for us!

does not mean that his job is to tell you the information you want to hear, without spin, and without withholding what the administration thinks is appropriate

Hey dipshit! I've never said that! I said we should demand that they tell us the truth. I thought it went w/o saying that they shouldn't divulge national security secrets, but then again I didn't realize how S L O W you were.

not every public servant "serves at the pleasure" of someone else

Fine, let's play semantics. All public servants have a job that they can be fired from.

"serve the US" doesn't always mean they're supposed to tell the unadulterated truth without spin

It should! THEY work for US! We PAY them to SERVE US! (disclaimer for the really stupid: unless we're talking national security or something else where knowing the truth would be harmful to the public).

How old are you,...5? That's about the level of discussion you seem capable of.

"Me - serve the US" doesn't always mean they're supposed to tell the unadulterated truth without spin

You - It should"

Man, that's classic. You sound like a 1st grader. Just because you think something "should be" be a certain way, doesn't mean that's how it is. The White House Press Secretary is not, and is not required to be, an objective source of information. He is the President's spokesman and PR guy, and with that, comes the spin, the level of detail or vagueness, and the amount of information that the Administration thinks is appropriate. Of course he should refrain from telling outright factual lies in most cases, but if the Administration feels it is appropriate to withold certain information, or to lie about certain things, or to present certain issue in a manner favorable to the President, then that is what he is supposed to do. If you bothered with the reading thing, you'd have seen earlier where I said he is held accountable through the press. You'd have seen the multiple times where I acknowledged that he works, in the end, as a public servant. The fact that you don't think being a PR guy for the President constitutes "serving the public" is really a personal problem.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

How old are you,...5? That's about the level of discussion you seem capable of.


What, you upset because I can sling mud right back at you?

Just because you think something "should be" be a certain way, doesn't mean that's how it is.

That's why I said SHOULD, dumbass. Read the question, then the "answer" that was given. We SHOULD demand more for an answer.

"That's why I said SHOULD, dumbass. Read the question, then the "answer" that was given. We SHOULD demand more for an answer"

Read my posts shithead. I didn't reply to your first crap post. You felt the need to start arguing about mine. I said what the Press Secretary's job IS. You don't like that, tough. You want to argue about what "should" happen in your own little perfect fuser world,..that's fine. However, that's not reality. You ought to wake up to the real world. The fact is, the Press Secretary's job is not to tell you what you want to hear, or even to give you the "truth." His job is to deliver the President's message.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I DID read your posts.

s l o w guy: The Press Secretary doesn't work for you, he serves at the pleasure of the President.

el fuser: They work for you. They're here to serve you

s l o w guy: Wrong. They are paid by tax dollars to do a specific job.

s l o w guy: I'm basically saying that since he works for the President, he doesn't work for you.

You've changed your story now, but you're still a moron.

You want to argue about what "should" happen in your own little perfect fuser world,..that's fine. However, that's not reality.

No shit sherlock!! That's why I said SHOULD. SHOULD is a value judgement. Not a statement about how the world IS.

No, you didn't read my posts.

Me - "I'm saying that his obligation is to serve the President. By serving the President, he is serving the public"

I haven't changed my story. The Press Secretary is required to serve the public, but he DOES NOT WORK FOR YOU. You pay him to work for the President.

"No shit sherlock!! That's why I said SHOULD. SHOULD is a value judgement. Not a statement about how the world IS."

That's particularly valuable. I tell you what the Press Secretary's job IS, and then you argue with me that that isn't what you think it should be. Go pick up your Legos and build your own little fuser world where the Press Secretary tells you what you want to hear. The Press Secretary's job is what it is for a reason. The Press do what they can to get information from him, and he does what he can to control the information and message he puts out, just like I said in my very first post.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The Press Secretary is required to serve the public, but he DOES NOT WORK FOR YOU. You pay him to work for the President.


god you're hopeless. why don't you go masturbate some more, before your mom gets home.

then come back and re-read that drivel you wrote. must be weird living in a world where you pay someone that doesn't ultimately work for you.

"god you're hopeless. why don't you go masturbate some more, before your mom gets home"

Nice. You are wasting the air that someone else could be breathing.

"must be weird living in a world where you pay someone that doesn't ultimately work for you. "

It's nice how you use that "ultimately." "Ultimately" he works for the American people, as I said when I said he was a public servant. Maybe "ultimately" he works for God, because everyone is doing God's will. Obviously that doesn't frame the discussion very well. The Press Secretary does not recieve any direction from you. He isn't hired or fired by you. He isn't required to give you any work product. He doesn't suffer any consequences if you don't like his job performance. He works for the President of the United States. If the only way you can win this argument is to frame the situation in as broad terms as possible, then you need to try your hand at a different hobby. In the broadest terms, everyone works for the public good. Companies exist, in part, to advance the economy. Scientists work, in part, to ensure public health and technological advancement. Television stations work, in part, to entertain the public. You pay for cable TV. Does that mean that every single employee of the cable company works for you? Of course not. They work for the cable company, and for their bosses.

Of course, I'm sure you'll just say that "ultimately" each cable company employee works for you. Your ego seems to be too so large that it's encroaching on the tiny part of your brain that governs reason and logic.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

It's too bad that preemtive has a more menacing sound to the ear than prevention. Preemtion sounds like some sort of invasive mechanism while prevention sounds like someone taking a vitamin

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!

It's too bad that preemtive has a more menacing sound to the ear than prevention.

Well, that's kinda true. But the point is, that Kerry had it right when he said in one of the debates that presidents have always had the right to wage war preemptively. The problem is, Iraq wasn't a preemptive war. It was a preventive war, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

I wouldn't mind much if you came up with a menacing sounding term that means preventive war. It's certainly a menacing enough concept.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So your whole hangup during this waste of my time is what does "WORK" mean? You're like Clinton! "What is IS?"

OF COURSE HE DOESN'T DIRECTLY REPORT TO ME YOU IDIOT!!!

<mindless drivel ignored>

You pay for cable TV. Does that mean that every single employee of the cable company works for you? Of course not.

If you've ever been in the private sector, you'd realize how stupid you sound. Just about every company owner will tell you that they work for the customer. But that's neither here nor there, nor relevant to our discussion.

go ahead & have the last word, you're a waste of my time.

How about "Invasive"?

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!

"OF COURSE HE DOESN'T DIRECTLY REPORT TO ME YOU IDIOT!"

Wow, now that you've used all caps AND bold, I'm completely convinced of your opinion. As for your completely unrealistic comment about the cable company, you once again miss the point. Of course every company OWNER will tell you they work for the customer. The Press Secretary isn't equivalent to a company owner, he is closer to one of the employees. Next time you meet someone (you'll need to leave your basement) ask them what they do. I have never gotten "I work for my customers" in response to that type of question. More common is, "I work at the cable company. I work for a dick boss who keeps me late and won't let me put in for overtime."

Here's my argument, take it or leave it, I could give a rat's ass.

The Press Secretary works for the President. His responsibility is to the President to carry out the duties of his office as the Administration sees fit, to include spinning the issues, withholding information, etc. He is, of course, a public servant, and responsible not to break any laws while doing his job, but what person doesn't have the same responsibility? He is not required by his job to tell the press the truth every time he opens his mouth, nor should he be. His ability, and responsibility, to deliver the President's message (the message..not objective news reporting) is important to how our government operates.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I haven't found the definition you speak of yet, but I'll keep looking.

But I did come across this interesting tidbit:

"Certainly Bush used WMD as a reason for preemption in Iraq, among many other reasons."

Guess who wrote that?

Found it finally (and yes, I will use my lunch time to seriously think about why I spent the time on finding this, I think I have a problem).

Slowguy:
According to the DoD dictionary of military terms a "preepmtive attack is defined as:

"An attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent." (imminent meaning likely to occur at any moment)

What I think you're concerned with Vitus, is "preventative war" which is defined as:

"A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk"

It's not clear to most Americans which of these definitions Iraq fits into, because, as has been said many times, the Administration was not clear about whether or not they felt Iraq was an imminent threat, or a gathering/potential/future threat. The time frame in which Iraq was likely to attack the US was never clear, as individual representatives of the administration said imminent, or potential, or whatever. The idea of "prevention" is the one that sticks with most people, because it requires the security establishment to make a best guess determination about threats before incontrovertible evidence is at hand. The reason we are using this type of standard as a possible means for jusifying the use of force is because we may never get that kind of evidence given the types of threat we now face, and Pres Bush is not willing to wait until that evidence is presented in the form of dead Americans.

vitus979 response:

According to the DoD dictionary of military terms a "preepmtive attack is defined as:
"An attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent." (imminent meaning likely to occur at any moment)


"preventative war" which is defined as:
"A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk"

Thank you, commodore, those are excellent definitions, and I move we adopt them.

Of course, I have a problem with the way preventive war is defined, seeing as how one cannot know that war is inevitable if it isn't imminent.

The idea of "prevention" is the one that sticks with most people, because it requires the security establishment to make a best guess determination about threats before incontrovertible evidence is at hand.

Exactly. Which is why I oppose this type of thing. It involves best guesses, which are not- should not- be sufficient grounds for something as serious and harmful as going to war.

The reason we are using this type of standard as a possible means for jusifying the use of force is because we may never get that kind of evidence given the types of threat we now face, and Pres Bush is not willing to wait until that evidence is presented in the form of dead Americans.

Also fundamentally correct. And in contravention to the accepted norms of most of our history.

"Certainly Bush used WMD as a reason for preemption in Iraq, among many other reasons."

Guess who wrote that?

I don't recall. What's the point?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Art Franke - what do I win? ;)

---

_______________________________________________

A gold star!!!!

http://www.rachelleb.com/images/2004_11_07/gold_star.jpg

"classic BS that we've been getting at these briefings for over 13 years."

Or, since they have been saying it for 13 years, it's true.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com