Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
The capture of Saddam Hussein has sent the media into over-drive, pretending that it somehow hurts the campaigns of Democrats running for their party's nomination -- as if managing to capture the tin-pot dictator of Iraq is some enormous accomplishment.
If the United States military couldn't take Iraq and capture Saddam Hussein it would have been a shocking failure. The real question was, and is: was the Iraq war justified, or did the Bush Administration mislead the country to accomplish it?
In other words: what does the capture of Saddam actually mean? And how does it affect the situation on the ground in Iraq, or on the war on terror?
The problem with this question (for the White House) is that you really can't answer it without discussing the overall goals of the mission in Iraq. And they've had some problems with that (not that the press corps has noticed).
But one reporter tried to get at this question in yesterday's press conference with President Bush:
This isn't just a grammatical error. George Bush knows you don't "put a timetable" on "a definition." He deliberately confused the notion of "a timetable" with "the definition of getting the job done."
Forget the dark humor of a Republican saying we can't set a timetable for troop removal -- remember Kosovo? GOP senators and Congressmen demanded to know the EXACT DAY Clinton would bring US troops home -- what the President of the United States said yesterday is that we can't ask him what the definition of the mission is.
And not one member of the White House press corps noticed or objected.
If the United States military couldn't take Iraq and capture Saddam Hussein it would have been a shocking failure. The real question was, and is: was the Iraq war justified, or did the Bush Administration mislead the country to accomplish it?
In other words: what does the capture of Saddam actually mean? And how does it affect the situation on the ground in Iraq, or on the war on terror?
The problem with this question (for the White House) is that you really can't answer it without discussing the overall goals of the mission in Iraq. And they've had some problems with that (not that the press corps has noticed).
But one reporter tried to get at this question in yesterday's press conference with President Bush:
Q Will Saddam's capture accelerate the timetable for pulling U.S. troops out, and increase the likelihood of getting more foreign troops involved?Now we know what you're thinking; you're thinking, "he didn't answer the question." And you're right. But much more important is the cleverly crafted double-talk of the second sentence. What in the world does "put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done" mean?
THE PRESIDENT: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We're just going to stay the course.
This isn't just a grammatical error. George Bush knows you don't "put a timetable" on "a definition." He deliberately confused the notion of "a timetable" with "the definition of getting the job done."
Forget the dark humor of a Republican saying we can't set a timetable for troop removal -- remember Kosovo? GOP senators and Congressmen demanded to know the EXACT DAY Clinton would bring US troops home -- what the President of the United States said yesterday is that we can't ask him what the definition of the mission is.
And not one member of the White House press corps noticed or objected.
Sunday, December 14, 2003
NOW We'll Find Those Strawberries!
Hey, they captured Hussein!
Now he can tell us where he hid the Weapons of Mass Destruction! Hurray!
The White House must be elated.
Now he can tell us where he hid the Weapons of Mass Destruction! Hurray!
The White House must be elated.
