Depends on the Definition of Relationship
by matt at 4:00 pm on September 12th, 2006 in Depends on the Definition of, Podium Spin
I usually try to keep my personal life private, even from my friends, but it’s time to come clean.
I have been involved in relationships with both Scarlett Johansson and Rosario Dawson. I don’t have any proof, but thanks to a redefinition of the word “relationship,” I don’t really need any.
Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe — does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?
Tony Snow: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.
Q: There was a link –
Tony Snow: Well, and there was a relationship — there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam’s budget? No.
There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That’s the relationship.Q: Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that’s it for the relationship?
Tony Snow: That’s pretty much it.
That’s pretty much it for anyone claiming that there are serious men running this country.
*This post in no way expresses support for Saddam Hussein, Zarqawi, bin Laden, or al Qaeda. It also is not intended to diminish my “relationships” with Jessica Alba, Sienna Miller or Angelina Jolie.
Thanks to John for the tip.
sarabeth wrote:
When were you planning to come clean about your relationships with Dick Cheney, Billy Bob Thornton and John Mark Karr?
Also, don’t look now, but Rick Santorum has had relationships with dogs all his life. And not just of the female variety.
Posted 12 Sep 2006 at 4:48 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I feel the need to point out a weakness in your analogy, but I have to leave for home. It will have to wait until the morrow…
Posted 12 Sep 2006 at 4:59 pm ¶
matt wrote:
you bitch about us being no fun, and then when i post pictures of two epic racks you criticize my analogy. sheesh.
i feel the need to make a personal attack, but i have an infinite amount of time for that.
Posted 12 Sep 2006 at 5:43 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
i feel the need to defend my rack. i realize that as matt is my brother he cannot call my rack epic, anyone care to step in? i can assure you, “they’re real and they’re spectacular.”
Posted 12 Sep 2006 at 6:26 pm ¶
tom wrote:
n00dz or stfu.
BTW, scarlett is mine. all mine. sorry.
Posted 12 Sep 2006 at 7:25 pm ¶
sac wrote:
you bitch about us being no fun, and then when i post pictures of two epic racks you criticize my analogy. sheesh.
Christ, you’re right. What the fuck was I thinking? See what you’ve done to me!?
Posted 13 Sep 2006 at 7:39 am ¶
sac wrote:
This is what is called “entrapment.” I’m once bitten, twice shy.
Posted 13 Sep 2006 at 8:03 am ¶
marc wrote:
i also take issue with your analogy. i mean, come on.. bin Laden is way hotter than Rosario Dawson.
Posted 13 Sep 2006 at 8:25 am ¶
matt wrote:
nullus?
Posted 13 Sep 2006 at 8:34 am ¶
matt tobey wrote:
1115 hasn’t made me this horny since the Alito confirmations.
Posted 13 Sep 2006 at 8:37 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Bush would agree, I’m sure. I don’t think Dawson gets his rocks off.
Posted 13 Sep 2006 at 8:38 am ¶
marc wrote:
i did forget the nullus. thanks for the reminder.
Posted 13 Sep 2006 at 9:26 am ¶