Yes, he’s announced a timetable for the very last soldier to be withdrawn. Maybe. Are you going to Pit him if he changes his mind and removes all the armed forces before he leaves office?
What he did was give a vague answer to a reporter trying to trap him into committing to a timetable.
Of course not :rolleyes: , and that comment is something I *once * would have thought beneath you. Seriously, what’s happened to you?
Go back and read it again, then. He said what I said he said.
Hey, not trying to disrespect her, she’s my new hero. I just couldn’t remember her full name.
I really do think that the Mark Felt revelation and the file footage reporters had to dredge up to emphsize its historical significance reminded them just what the hell objective, investigative reporting is.
Her question was one of the type that I’ve rarely heard since 1980 or so. It essentially said:
Look, we’re both realistic adults with access to a lot of information. I know the stated reasons for war were crap, you know they were crap. What’s more, I know you knew they were crap at time, and so do you. So how about you just state openly, here and now, why we really went?
And he showed he was incapable of answering the question honestly.
Even if they were managed and manipulated positives, they were still major positives of the sort that the WH says would like to see covered, and covered they were, to the extent that those two sights are as ingrained in our memories as the man standing down a column of chinese tanks.
In other words, when the positives are out there, they’re covered, Lack of positives means either they’re not there to be reported on, or as the Today reporter noted, they occur in the midst of such overwhelming risk that you may never get out alive to report on them at all.
Absolutely. The headlines should read “2 Million, 457,123 Iraqis still alive and not murdered, blown up, MIA”
SteveG1
Yes, just as the United States has turned the corner on the war on drugs. (Wow, I’m glad that war is over and done with). 
Also for future presidents:
Medicare
Trade deficit
Budget deficit
Social Security
An all too necessary tax hike
Illegal immigration
Renewing friendships with the EU
What am I missing? Other than kick the shit out of two backwards middle eastern countries, without every fully stabilizing them again, what is checked off on his to-do list?
Maybe it has something to do with the president inferring she’s a terrorist sympathizer. I think I’d probably be rather snippy with him, too.
Don’t forget education.
Without trying to be corny and play on all the “could____get elected POTUS” threads, I have to ask, could another Republican win in 2008 without a major withdrawl of troops from Iraq?
You probably meant “implied” rather than “inferred”, but I’m also guessing that the implication is mostly in your mind. Either way, your post had nothing to do with the point I was making. Helen Thomas may once have been a great news reporter, but she ain’t anymore, and it was completely her choice and had absolutely nothing to do with Bush other than she chose to make him the object of her editorializing. Who knows, she may have a great second career as an opinion writer.
At this point I wouldn’t be surprised. The loons that reelected GW still haven’t come around to reality. They are simply better motivated and organized then the non-loons.
Would have been nice if George H.W. had pulled out…
<snerk>
'S funny, I specifically recall Helen being one of the few reporters asking questions like “Why, exactly, are we going to war with Iraq, Mr. President? What does Iraq have to do with Al Qaida?” Way back before the invasion even started. So, no, I don’t think she’s lost it. I think he just doesn’t like her. Very few presidents actually have. She tends to ask embarrassing questions.
Curses to you, too. Damn, that thing is horrible.
I don’t care what kind of questions she asks, if she wants to be a news reporter she can’t editorialize. Period. It’s not a question of her “losing it”-- she abdicated her claim to objectivity. Like I said, there’s nothing wrong with that if she wants to be an editorial writer. More power to her. I’ll probably agree with her more often than not. But she can’t pretend to be a reporter anymore-- she isn’t.
Seems to me she’s still asking toughquestions. And if they were answered instead of sidestepped, maybe she wouldn’t be so free with the commentary. From these, it seems like she’s just trying to pin down what Mclellan is saying, since he keeps skirting the issues. It also occurs while reading this that while Bush probably intensely dislikes Helen, Scott McLellan absolutely loathes her. I almost feel sorry for that man. There’s not enough money on earth to make me take that job.
And if they demand we leave ? Oh, let me guess, we’ll kill whomever’s in power at the moment and put a different puppet in, and call in “democracy”.
First, it’s not our business to be there if they don’t want us. Second, if we would stop threatening them, maybe they wouldn’t be so desperate for the nukes so many people are worried about. There used to be a moderate movement in Iran, but we’ve put paid to that. For that matter, every minute we stay in Iraq we provide more evidence the the ME people that the extremists are right about America.
We don’t “need” to be in the ME; we need to leave.
At this point? I think the Administration would jump at the chance to get out of this while saving face. They’d happily let the place descend into chaos and then strike a deal with the winner if they could do it without admitting defeat.
So why doesn’t Bush do exactly that as soon as the new government is formed? Or, more to the point, why didn’t he already do that after any of the elections that were held? Methinks you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
Or Bush, for that matter.