Yikes! If Bush isn't willing to speak, who will set the record straight?

I don't think that's ever been a concern of this president, especially after revelations of psy-ops, or in layman terms, psyching CNN out with misinformation from the Pentagon about Falluja. But of course the government's lying to the journalists has always been in the public interest.

But in today's Salon, writer Dan Froomkin wonders if Bush will answer all those unanswered questions, or just answer questions from journalists.

"It seems unlikely that Bush, in his second term, will adopt John Kerry's pledge to hold one press conference a month if elected. In fact, it's entirely possible that Bush will try to hold even fewer than he did during his first term. It's not as if there was a voter backlash for avoiding the media's questions -- so why should he subject himself to more than he absolutely has to? There was a hint of this in Bush's obligatory post-election news conference on Nov. 4, when he only half-jokingly suggested that the "will of the people" now entitled him to establish more restrictive rules with the press corps. And you'll note that since then, he's only been seen in short, carefully controlled photo ops and joint sessions with other world leaders, who serve as unwitting foils."

Washington press corps take note! Sam Donaldson offers some advice in the article:

"...become more assertive..."

I admit that phrase has been plucked mid-sentence. Here is some more advice, intact:

"And they should ask better questions."