In a previous entry we discussed the media, patriotism, responsibility, and the the pathetic job that the press has done since September 11th.

One of the things that has been lost in the post September 11th is the art of the follow-up question. The President does a fair amount of speaking to cameras, but the vast majority of the time he doesn’t take questions. In the rare instance that he conducts press conferences, they produce little if any news. Even rarer are the occasions when he sits for a one-on-one interview, and most of those are with Fox News or other Rupert Murdoch-owned outlets. None of this is an accident. The President’s schedule is carefully managed to avoid having to answer any tough questions.

Tuesday night in an interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, The President faced his most direct and unrelenting questioning since taking office in January 2001.

Sawyer repeatedly asked about conflicts in intelligence and statements made by the administration about WMD. I’m not sure which questions the President was answering, but I can promise you that he wasn’t answering the questions that Sawyer asked.

DIANE SAWYER:   What would it take to convince you he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction?

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.

DIANE SAWYER:   And if he doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] —

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Diane, you can keep asking the question. I’m telling you — I made the right decision for America —

Then, there is this gem:

DIANE SAWYER:   But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

PRESIDENT BUSH:   So what’s the difference?

We’ve grown to expect this kind of evasiveness and word games from Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration, but when the President follows suit, it rises to a level of dishonesty and manipulation that should cause concern.

I was pleasantly surprised with the tenacity of Sawyer‘s questioning. She had to know that forcing the President into a corner and at least partially exposing his lack of a good explanation would probably be the end of her one-on-ones with him. But what’s the point of access if you only repeat the administration line? It has been too long since anyone other than Chris Matthews tried to force someone off of their talking points. It took balls to make that someone the President.

Bravo to Diane Sawyer for doing her job the way it should be done.