100 monkeys typing.

fetid fecunduncy

Which one of these is not like the other?

During a tense Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Army Gen. John Abizaid, who as head of Central Command is the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, declined to endorse Vice President Dick Cheney's assessment that Iraq's insurgency was in its "last throes."

Abizaid said the insurgents' strength had not diminished and that more foreign fighters were coming into Iraq than six months ago. "There's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency," Abizaid said, adding, "I'm sure you'll forgive me from criticizing the vice president."

"This war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged," Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat, told Rumsfeld. "And we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire."

"Our troops are dying. And there really is no end in sight. And the American people, I believe, deserve leadership worthy of the sacrifices that our fighting forces have made, and they deserve the real facts. And I regret to say that I don't believe that you have provided either," Kennedy added.

"Well, that is quite a statement," Rumsfeld, flanked by top U.S. commanders, responded. "First let me say that there isn't a person at this table who agrees with you that we're in a quagmire and that there's no end in sight."

"The suggestion by you that people -- me or others -- are painting a rosy picture is false," Rumsfeld.

yeah, "catastrophic success" isn't exactly *rosy*.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday defended his recent comment that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes," insisting that progress being made in setting up a new Iraqi government and establishing democracy there will indeed end the violence -- eventually.

(...)

"If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period, the throes of a revolution," he said. "The point would be that the conflict will be intense, but it's intense because the terrorists understand that if we're successful at accomplishing our objective -- standing up a democracy in Iraq -- that that's a huge defeat for them.

"We will succeed in Iraq, just like we did in Afghanistan. We will stand up a new government under an Iraqi-drafted constitution. We will defeat that insurgency, and, in fact, it will be an enormous success story."

Not getting a warm and fuzzy from the administration these days. Wonder what the rest of the White House is making of all this?

MCCLELLAN: We have a clear strategy for success that the President has outlined and that our commanders on the ground are now briefing Congress about today. It is vital, as they are pointing out, that we succeed. We are working to train and equip Iraqi security forces so that they will be able to defend themselves.

(...)

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think you have to look at the context of the Vice President's comments.

Q I did, I looked.

MR. McCLELLAN: And you don't point them out. What did he talk about?

Q He said there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we can selectively quote people or we can look at the context of the comments, and I think that's what is important to do. That's why I was stepping back and pointing out to you what the Vice President was talking about.

Q So he was talking about the political process moving forward, not -- let me ask you this. What is the Vice President basing his -- where is he getting his evidence? What is he basing his claim on, if the commanders on the ground are saying --

MR. McCLELLAN: It doesn't appear that you've looked at the context of his comments, and I would encourage you to do that. And I just addressed this question when you asked it.

Q I was there in this -- when he said, "in the throes of," --

MR. McCLELLAN: You were in the interview?

Q He did not mean political, he meant the whole situation in Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: You were in the interview? I think you should look --

Q You can't change his meaning. You guys are trying to step back now, and I don't blame you.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree with you.

Go ahead though, Jessica.

Ow! My head! Make it STOP!

Those who want the troops out of the way of unnecessary harm and... ironically *also* think the war's going badly, that the insurgency is growing and that we need a successful exit plan but,... just happen to be say, Democrats or... dare I say it, Liberals... get this warm fuzzy noogie.

NEW YORK - Speaking in a Manhattan ballroom just a few miles north of ground zero, Karl Rove said on Wednesday night that the Democratic party did not understand the consequences of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Rove, President Bush's chief political advisor, spoke at the state Conservative Party's annual dinner. He praised the conservative movement's success, calling it "the guiding philosophy for the White House, the Senate, the House."

Rove said the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.

"Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies."

He's partly right, I didn't see Iraq as a 9/11 consequence and didn't think we'd have *as* much of an issue with the insurgency if we "understood" our enemies

At least he didn't call us obstructionists.

Posted by kerry at June 23, 2005 08:34 PM | TrackBack