Sounds like The Chimpster has been conversing with Abe Lincoln’s portrait.
Q Senator Durbin said that in the meeting the President compared himself to Harry Truman, when talking about Iraq, saying that President Truman dealt with a war that many were against, but eventually had proved right. And the sense that Senator Durbin said he got was that he’s trying to position himself in history. Can you address that?
MR. SNOW: No, that’s — you know, it’s interesting, because Senator Durbin did try to engage on that a little bit. No, I think what the President was pointing out is that Harry Truman had a difficult choice, because coming out of World War II, we began to face something that we had never faced before, which was an ideological enemy with a global ambition and global reach, that had capabilities, and that we were going to have to figure out how to face over an extended period of time. And it required commitments that were unprecedented in American history, and it took 60 years, but we did win the Cold War.
And so I think it’s important to note that the President was really not trying to compare himself to Harry Truman so much as to talk about the duration and nature of the struggle.
The insanity continues…
Chimpy and the Poodle are at odds. Notice how AP’s Terrence Hunt catches Pony in a lie.
Q As far as the reception that the President gave to the Baker commission report, a number of press accounts from a variety of papers said that after the Blair-President news availability yesterday that the President was sort of chilly.
MR. SNOW: That was [Terrence] Hunt. (Laughter.)
Q No, no, it was not just Hunt.
MR. SNOW: It was Hunt. I called him about it.
Q Well, do you disagree —
Q No, I called you.
MR. SNOW: That’s right, you called, and then I complained. That’s right, I guess I got the order wrong.
Q Do you disagree with the characterization?
MR. SNOW: Yes, I do. I mean, I don’t think it was a chilly reception. If you take a look — go back, look at the tape — it didn’t look like the President was being chilly. And, furthermore, having been in the meeting with the Baker commission — Baker-Hamilton commission, and having been in meetings with the President, he understands that it’s a serious document and you give it a serious look. It’s also worth taking a hard look — I mean, frankly, I have a feeling that if you want to apply any sort of climatological metaphors, you might want to think about some of the conversations on Capitol Hill yesterday, because there were critiques on the Democratic and Republican sides, as you would expect.
Oh, my. Pony Blow is having a bad day, and it’s not getting any better.
Q When I was talking with a radio talk show host this morning, it was said to me that it was inappropriate of the President yesterday to laugh after he said that it was bad in Iraq. Could you speak to that please?
MR. SNOW: No. I mean, I don’t remember it, and we appreciate the — look, the fact is, here’s a President, if by this — actually, maybe you can help me, because what I have is a statement of people’s emotional reaction. What exactly — to what did they take umbrage, and what did they think it implied? Did they say?
Q They took umbrage to the fact that a question was asked by the reporter from the BBC that the President had said that it was unsettling. And the President replied that it’s bad in Iraq, and then he laughed. They thought that that lent an air of levity to the proceedings that they didn’t think was appropriate.
MR. SNOW: I see. The BBC question, I think, was in fact — he was parsing and bantering a bit with the President.
Q The bantering hadn’t happened at that point.
MR. SNOW: No, I think if you go back and look at it — in any event, let me put it this way — let me try to soothe the anxieties. Anybody who doubts the President’s seriousness hasn’t been looking or listening, period. This is something where, again, he signs letters of condolence to every family that’s lost a loved one. He is briefed on it on a daily basis. He understands the national security is at stake here. He not only hears about this, but he gets regular briefings on intelligence about ongoing terror efforts to kill American citizens.
Hoo-boy. And now, the good and the bad in Your Daily Les. Bad first.
Q Yesterday, leaders of Islamic Jihad, Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade told WorldNetDaily’s Jerusalem correspondent how very pleased they were with the Iraq Study Group’s suggestion, and proclaimed it as a great victory for them over America. And my question: If we were to remove all our troops from Iraq, how could we prevent these terrorists from moving West and committing a new kind of 9/11 here in the U.S.?
MR. SNOW: There are two pieces to understand. Number one, the report, itself, talks about the importance of going after terror within the region. And it says very explicit things about the roles of Syria and Iran. So I don’t know what — they must not have read the report. They must have watched accounts on al Jazeera or something — sorry if al Jazeera is here.
But the fact is that in this particular case, the President has been pretty clear that the purpose here is not to foment terror or to create vacuums, but to create freedom and also destroy the case for terror.
Now the good.
Q Syndicated talk radio host Michael Savage said yesterday that co-chairman Jim Baker belongs to a law firm that represents Saudi Arabia, which he said major media is refusing to report. Is that true? And, if so, why was Baker made co-chairman with no members from any of our armed forces?
MR. SNOW: Number one, Jim Baker’s legal connections are well known. And, number two, Congress appointed Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton as the co-chairs, so that’s the appropriate place to take it.
the only thing better about blow is he’s coherant, not that is good either.
I guess I missed the memo about the terrorists successfully defeating a major world power and with their enormous military might poised at attention on the borders with our major allies.
Yeah, they suck, but this is like using DDT because there’s a couple flies in the room where you prepare the food. All the war on terror, as executed, does is to poison the well of diplomacy.
From Your Daily Les:
“And my question: If we were to remove all our troops from Iraq, how could we prevent these terrorists from moving West and committing a new kind of 9/11 here in the U.S.?”
And Pony Blow actually answered this question!
Godamnit, when will the media quit framing the “War of Terror” by portraying the United States as a wimpy victim quivering in fear from the big bad boogeyman–the “terrorists”. Why can’t someone just say, “When we leave, the insurgents will be too busy dealing with their own problems rebuilding that region to even be thinking about attacking the United States”, because they mainly just want us out of that region. Besides, the United States is still the most powerful country in the world, isn’t it?
Furthermore, if we were to remove all our troops from Iraq, maybe those same troops can help to improve the nation’s security by being deployed on their own home soil. Without being subjected daily to IEDs and RPGs.
Stupid effing media.
Yeah, let’s keep the legions out of Rome, eh?
National Guard is one thing, domestic deployment is another altogether.
Put down your sandwich.
All comparisons to Truman are meant to signal one thing:
GFH Bush’s willingness, even drive,
to use nuclear weapons before he leaves office.
We’ll just call it the ‘downside’ of a no impeachment strategy.
— Paul in LA
GAG! While reading down the comments and before I got to yours, I was wondering if Shrub may try to satisfy his Freudian issues with a big bomb. Wipe out the area, make it uninhabitable for a couple o’ thousand years. I have a bigger bomb than you do! Daddy never was brave enough to let the big one fly.
Then I see that someone else is questioning the same thing.
AAARGH!