That would be the shocker of all time if the NPR Ombuds-gal accepts the invite. More shocking than the US beating Spain today. Ain't gonna happen, he predicted confidently.

Who let her in? No real reporters are supposed to get in. Who is responsible for this breach of security. We can't have any unscripted questions. That would be ANARCHY!

If you are going to be riding the DC Metro anytime soon, it would be a good idea to avoid the front and rear cars. Anyone who is familiar with the system and its operation is not at all surprised.

In this administration

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Helen. That's a different question. (Laughter.)

translates to

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Helen. That's a real question. (Laughter.)

Neither Bush nor (as it now appears) Obama like to answer real questions from journalists.

i just threw up a little in my mouth.

i am so glad you called Obama on this. i was thinking the same thing when he was saying those words yesterday. it truly is disgusting. i am sure he can see the hypocricy, i guess he just doesn't care.

i was fooled. i thought a constitutional law professor would do a better job.

and i am even more disgusted that 1/2 of my fellow citizens think torture is acceptable. shame on you!!!!!

thanks for all you do. you are a must read every day for me. even if it makes me a little sick to read you :)

Glenn,

It's interesting you should point out Helen Thomas' attempt at getting a real question in for your first column today. Once, there was a day when no one would duck her in WH briefings because of the scorching they would then get in print. Apparently she's lost some tooth in her bite.

As I was driving to work this AM, Juan Williams was on NPR offering "expert" commentary on the press confernece. The gist of his schtick was that reporters, now five months into the Presidency, are "comfortable" with Mr. Obama and thus willing to go after him on substantive questions. Mr. Williams then entoned that this had Mr. Obama off his script, and clearly not in masterful control of the WH Press Corps as had previously been the case.

Most interesting to me, both Mr. Williams and David Green (the host), ignored completely the question of why this was different from Mr. Bush (43) and his relationship with the press corps. Same old dog and pony show, and even more evidence that the media is anything but "liberal."

Sad. I'll never send them another dime.

My primary reason is that anyone who presents the voice and opinion of Newt "The Fornicator" Gingrich as if he has something of value to add to the discussion can whither and die as far as I'm concerned.

Those stats are horrifying. As an American, I am ashamed and very glad that my globe-trotting days are over. How sad that our president thinks it's a big joke. What a pitiful excuse for a president he is.

I'm surprised, since I ride both Boston and DC regularly.

There really isn't an inconsistency here. The video made the Iranian government look bad. The photos make us look bad for not pursuing accountability. No more photos, nothing to prosecute. See how that works?

Pretty pathetic.

The question on torture is the longest of the 32.

Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?

I wish they had used the extra words more productively:

Torture is always illegal and does not yield credible information. In addition, the Constitution assumes that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Now, do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?

The results would have been different, especially over time, as people were able to take the additional info into account. The MSM frames no only the question in the poll, but the discussion in general, in such a way as to suggest that there is a question about the legality, humanity and effectiveness of torture. Of course the responses are going to be reflective of eh MSM's presentation of the "facts".

Do I need an NPR account ("Heaven forbid") to read the comments on that article, because I can't see them?

"I-R-A-N. Iran, doesn't ring a bell?" This clip from last night's Daily Show with Jason Jones doing comparison on the street interviews with Iranians and Americans is a perfect example of the willful ignorance Americans show to anything that doesn't directly impact their lives and their day. Out of sight is out of mind, sitting in front of our big screens shamelessly cheering on the beat downs "winners" give "losers" every night on Fight Club we're clueless as to how foolish we're seen by the rest of the world. Torture works because Jack Bauer gets results and my daddy told me so. It also helps to explain why we're willing to outspend the rest of the world on defense while unwilling to give pocket change to a sick child.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231547&title=jason-jones-behind-the-veil

1. I also think that our occasional killing of civilians by airstrikes also make Obama's statements about being 'appalled' kind of hollow.

2. Glenn, don't know if you saw my post in the other thread on the subject, but I believe that NPR's reluctance (cowardice, whatever) to use the term torture probably has a lot to do with liability. Since torture is illegal, yet no one has been convicted, NPR is scared to apply the term. To that end, if you get the chance, ask the NPR Ombudsperson, hypothetically if a high-ranking member of the Bush admin were convicted of committing/approving torture based solely on what we know now, would NPR then refer to it as torture?

3. Damn Helen Thomas is quick!