And my point wasn't to discredit that, but to educate people about the power that he wielded.
If you note, I pointed out what interested me about the story, not about your post.
The fact that not only did Larry King ask her a question that proved he was either ignorant (don't believe he was) or was promoting political bias, but that Slate continued to promote it, keeping their readers in ignorance, then you again promoted it saying that he had "refused" to grant what he could not grant.
Now that you have given me your answer to that
Now my point is that while you see that he was crass, I see the continued and purposeful spreading of ignorance in order to create a perception of something as "worse". Everybody laughs at crass jokes on occasion, or sometimes they even make them. Bowling jokes come to mind.
Why must you continue to keep people in ignorance in order to attempt to make this point? There is no need. Either you were ignorant and learned something today, or you were perpetuating something you thought would help your "cause". Instead of correcting the implication of his first "rejection" you perpetuate it to make his perceived "joke" even "worse". It is a play at emotional politics that people who pay attention should be above, and if you are here posting it is somewhat assumed that you pay attention. It is the reason we have a "divide" among Americans.
I find it always sad when people continue to promote an ignorant position along with something that could actually be a point, because it takes away from any significant advantage you could have had. It shouldn't be ignored that he hadn't the power to change her fate. Stressing how he had "refused" to grant what he couldn't grant, then made the joke definitely changes the perception of the joke.
Like a dull knife, you just ain't cuttin' . . .
Anyway, my favorite joke of Bush's was the oh so hilarious sketch of him searching for the non-existent weapons of mass destruction.