Centerfield

I'm glad to see the Bush Administration is maintaining it's normal high level of knowledge about history. Of course, I guess to be press secretary, you don't need to know history--just know how to dissemble and lie.

I would think a good working knowledge of modern US foreign policy would be an asset to a good dissembler. Before I bash Dana, I might add that Democratic Senators have shown outrageous lack of knowledge. Why shouldn’t a spokesperson also devolve along with journalists or editorial boards? I can think of the recent op-ed by the NYT saluting Chavez. I wonder if its all Unionized anyway. At least, Hollywood can pump out those well-versed renditions of reality.

There is no doubt that the administration has both serious script flaws and surreal delivery problems.

I'm glad that Dana understood the Cuban Missile crisis had to do with missiles and Cuba. That's what we call a high confidence assumption. Still, “pretty sure” leaves open the possibility there could be other important references like baseball or the decline of Cuban pornography under Castro. .

OMG does the Bay of Pigs have something to do with Pigs and an inlet of the sea?

An administration of ironies. Certainly, the Bay of Pigs is something to revisit as we ponder a failure this decade to check threats with properly planned regime change. Kennedy took the fall for Cuba. Not something lost on team Putin.

Would I be shocked Dana thought water boarding was an extreme sport?

We've got one of them there Generation Gaps.... The thing we Xers most don't get is why you guys can think Notre Dame is a great team ;-)

Though, MY classes and did happen to mention the it once or twice or even three times. And, the idea that many young adults are too young to have really seen the Cold War seems profoundly strange to me.

Ah, life without duck and cover. Let's see how long that lasts. I can understand the generational thing, but a spokesperson should have some knowledge given the times.

I see an attempt here to dumb down the mouth piece. To comment on the Algerian blast without any knowledge of the French history and current reproachment seems unprofessional. I suggest a good AI bot to replace the spokesperson. It would have a huge data base and programed restrictions about what not to say...LOL

"I cannot lie Tim, my program does not allow me to do that. Next question..."

I just love the idea of an AI mouthpiece for politicians.

People (at least people outside the computer business) have this innocent belief that whatever comes out of a computer must be correct. So you could even get people to believe that statements based on carefully skewed data were actually true in the real world. Sounds perfect. ROTFLMAO

And the current-event level of intelligence seems utterly lacking. I mean, when a reporter frames their question in an almost anti-western way, a smart spokesperson could deflect by saying,
"Well Michael, it would be ashame to accept Iran's word on their democratic intentions and normalize relations. They plan to stone another man to death for cheating on his wife. Do we want to send a signal that we Americans accept such behavior?"

frames a question in an anti-western way?

So a question about waterboarding would be anti-western?

Would a question about the US role in oil politics in the mid east would be anti-west? Or a question about the NIE? or the near hysteria that Cheney was atrying to whip up around Iran's nuclear program?

Pray tell, what would be so anti-western as opposed to a question about reality that might be so discomfiting that you have to give it a Rovian spin?