Would You Walk A Mile In This Man’s Shoes?
by sarabeth at 4:05 pm on July 13th, 2007 in Iraq War, Tony SnowIt really couldn’t have been much fun to be Tony Snow on Friday the 13th in the spanking new White House press briefing room.
First up, Martha Raddatz of ABC News:
Q Is the Iraqi government and the Iraqi parliament taking the month of August off?
MR. SNOW: Probably, yes. Just not –
Q They’re taking the entire month of August off, before the September deadline?
MR. SNOW: It looks like they may, yes. Just like the U.S. Congress is.
Q Have you tried to talk them out of that?
MR. SNOW: You know, it’s 130 degrees in Baghdad in August, I’ll pass on your recommendation.
Q Well, Tony, Tony, I’m sorry, that’s — you know — I mean, there are a lot of things that happen by September and it’s 130 degrees for the U.S. military also on the ground –
MR. SNOW: You know, that’s a good point. And it’s 130 degrees for the Iraqi military. The Iraqis, you know, I’ll let them — my understanding is that at this juncture they’re going to take August off, but, you know, they may change their minds.
Q But have you tried to convince them not to?. Does the U.S. government pressure them not to, because then the September deadline –
MR. SNOW: Again, I’m not going to — you know, I’m just not — I’m not getting into the — the Iraqis understand the importance. It’s not a September deadline, it’s a September report. I think it’s very important, in an age where everybody wants to create a sense of, sort of, finishing up on a deadline — it’s a report, it is not a deadline. It is a report that will, in fact, measure progress –
Q It’s a pretty important report –
MR. SNOW: It is a very — it’s a very important –
Q (Inaudible.) I mean, a month they’re not working.
MR. SNOW: Sheryl, will you let me answer Martha’s questions first? And then Helen is next, and then I’ll call on you.
Now, where were we, because –
Q We were a month off, we have –
MR. SNOW: Okay, so what you’re saying — yes –
Q — 130 degrees for the Iraqi parliament, so they need a month off, even though it’s 130 degrees for U.S. soldiers.
MR. SNOW: Well, you know, you’re assuming that nothing is going on. As I said, there are any number of things going on in Iraq. Let’s see what the parliament does during the course of this month. Let’s also see what happens, because quite often when parliaments do not meet, there are also continuing meetings on the side. And there will be progress, I’m sure, on a number of fronts.
I’m just — I’m not in a position at this point to try to gainsay what the Iraqis are doing. We are working with them and trying to help them succeed. They have a vested interest also in doing this and doing it right, and what they’ve done is they’ve set a higher bar for their legislative accomplishments than we do because they’re trying to operate on a basis not of simple majority, but consensus. It’s probably a wise thing to do at the outset of a country that has been driven by strife for so many years. It is a tough business.
But I would suggest not merely looking at the legislative accomplishments, but also, again, taking a look overall at what’s going on in terms of creating a sense of national unity, dealing with problems of sectarian strife — that certainly were rife last year, but are far less prevalent today, at least according to the trajectory mentioned in the report — and, therefore, take a comprehensive and factual look at all the aspects of what’s going on in Iraq.
He’s got nothing. Hence the enormous quantity of hot air he just expelled.
Martha hands the baton to Helen Thomas. Tony tries to take it like a man (nullus?):
Okay, Helen and then –
Q Do we have one-man rule in this country?
MR. SNOW: No.
Q The President –
MR. SNOW: But thank you for asking.
Q No, no, I’m going on.
MR. SNOW: Oh, I’m sure you are.
Q The President has indicated that public opinion through the polls — (inaudible) the polls means nothing. He’s going to ignore totally whatever Congress lays down in terms of deadlines, time lines and so forth. What is this?
MR. SNOW: It’s the way our democracy works. The fact is, Presidents — you know, it’s interesting, Presidents sometimes will make unpopular decisions because they think that their obligations, in terms of saving lives and providing security to the American people, are paramount. And that’s what this President believes.
Q So do members of Congress and so do the American people.
MR. SNOW: Well, but they’re — you know, the President is the one person who is vested with the constitutional obligation to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
Q He also has to respond to people, doesn’t he?
MR. SNOW: He does. As a matter of fact, I believe he responded to you first yesterday. The President –
Q — very, very, very pleased and very kind, but –
MR. SNOW: But the President — no, the President understands, and I think what you’re going to see is a vigorous debate.
I think also that what the President did yesterday was say to the American people, let us all take a careful look at what’s going on in Iraq; and let’s have a debate about the facts on the ground; and let’s also have a debate about what is in our national interest in the long run. And all of those things are legitimate topics for political debate. A President, of course, listens but he also does what he thinks is right, based on his principles and his understanding. It may not be something that people agree with, but it is what he thinks is right.
And, furthermore, this is a President who I think has demonstrated that he is going to do whatever it takes, in his judgment, to keep this country safe and to keep it — and also to create the tools necessary for fighting a war on terror that began before he entered office and will continue long after he leaves office. It is an ideological battle that is waged in constantly changing ways around the globe and it is going to be a chief concern of anybody — Democrat, Republican or otherwise — who is going to occupy the Oval Office for years to come.
Q It’s also the concern of the American people and Congress.
MR. SNOW: And also –
Q And he should be listening to it.
MR. SNOW: They are.
This man’s reserves of hot air are practically infinite, aren’t they? Or maybe the new briefing room has an outlet in the podium that Tony hooks up to, and it keeps recharging his hot air tanks even as he discharges them?
matt wrote:
i was blissfully away from the internets all day, but seeing this put a stop to that.
a month’s vacation. a month with even less progress to a political solution than now. how many more us soldiers will die in august? how will anyone explain to their families that they will not have died in vain?
no comment jim? waiting for dullard to go to another school and tell you about all the progress?
Posted 13 Jul 2007 at 10:41 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
the guys who have to ring the doorbell and have to do it in person may not be able to. but that’s why we have our Tony. he’ll do a one-size-fits-all explanation from the podium.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 4:01 am ¶
EdfromWis wrote:
It’s depressing to have to school someone in the nuances of homophobic slang, but sarabeth, you wouldn’t say “nullus” under these circumstances, because it’s not “teh ghey” for you to have sex with a man.
In fact, I’m not aware that women have to say “nullus” at all, since, to people who use such language, women having sex with women is not as gross as it is awesome.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 6:46 am ¶
JimC wrote:
No, this is pretty retarded and no one knows for sure but I I’m betting that some intense communications are flowing from our Government to Iraqi Government to work through it but what can we do?
I don’t think we want to lose the momentum we have going on the military front…we should force them (by siege if necessary) to continuous session until the political laws are in place.
You can make fun of Pat Dollard all you want, he’s been blown up in an IED attack, I’m sure he would find it amusing to hear your mockings. Heck, if you ask real nice, he may let you go to Iraq with him next time and so you can take some photos.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 8:29 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Edfromwis, if Tony’s trying to take a baton like a man, then according to house rules that calls for a nullus, regardless of who’s wielding the baton or who’s writing about it.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 9:30 am ¶
J.A.M.E.S. wrote:
i’m no Bush apologist (I’m not even American, ohoho) but that was not “hot air”. you can’[t just rush this shit, and if you want to build a sustainable democracy, in a country thats falling apart, you need consensus.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 11:52 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
We’ve been at it now for more than four years with no visible progress yet, and no realistic hope of any progress in the future.
I would have bet good money that no one except Tony could describe this as rushing it. I stand corrected
And for the record, what Tony said is indeed hot air, because it bears no relationship at all to what is actually happening on the ground.
Judging by their actions, they have a vested interest in doing precisely nothing. And we’re giving them no incentive at all to deviate from that vested interest.
When there is no possible hope of achieving consensus you have to abandon that pipe-dream, and start trying to come up with something that actually works.
To spout blather about how noble it is that they’re striving for consensus, while the country is coming apart at the seams, and a 100 plus Americans are dying each month, and we’re simply not coming any closer to any kind of resolution, is not just hot air, it’s a lot worse, actually.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 2:07 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
A hilarious comment from another blog:
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 2:30 pm ¶
matt wrote:
a hilarious comment from our own blog:
they are a sovereign nation.
you know, i’d go over there to shoot in a second if i could move around freely without military censorship.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 7:19 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
We, we wouldn’t call it a “siege”, but rather a security operation that required them to stay in parliament or whatever it is, and while they are there, might as well hash out some laws, eh!
Let me ask you a direct serious question, would it be more desirable for them to work through August and pass the needed legislation? I think they should and we should pressure them as much as we can to do so.
What would you want to do? Go out on patrols with Marines? I’m sure if you’re serious enough, you could get your photos back uncensored. Pat seems to have internet access when he goes over there, should be easy enough to put up a website that you can upload your files to using HTTP Transfer.
But that assumes the censors don’t take your memory cards from you before coming back in from a patrol.
I’ll email Pat, see what he says about censorship of his stuff.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 9:31 pm ¶
matt wrote:
at gunpoint? probably not.
the problem is, i shoot what’s real. not what people want me to shoot, or where they lead me.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 9:59 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
So you would want to roam the streets of Iraq by yourself?
By the way Pat emailed me back and he has some info and opinions. I’m asking him if I can quote him…I’ll keep you posted.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 10:10 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Not at gunpoint, just in general, is it more desirable for them to work through August and produce the needed legislation, in your opinion.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 10:11 pm ¶
matt wrote:
you suggested a siege, all but by name.
no, and isn’t that the point. that i couldn’t do that, and i would be dependent on a military whose leaders and commander-in-chief i have pilloried here for four years. and even if they didn’t let me get greeted with heat, i’d still see what they wanted me to see, and be subject to whatever rules they felt like implementing. that’s not journalism, and it’s not a story worth telling.
Posted 14 Jul 2007 at 11:57 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Pretend I didn’t, do you think it is desirable for the IRaqi government to work through August to pass the needed laws?
So you’re saying that Matt Cohen from 1115.org is on the military’s black list? Do you think they would just take you to fluff shots? I’m guessing if they didn’t like you, they would stick you right in the thick of it to scare the crap of you.
Posted 15 Jul 2007 at 7:35 am ¶
matt wrote:
of course.
is that honestly what you think i said? please copy/paste where i said this.
yes.
Posted 15 Jul 2007 at 8:17 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Well, explain how they would care or know about you having “pilloried here for four years” their commanders and commander-in-chief and then greet you with heat? That’s what I was referencing. Why do you think they would react this way? I don’t think they would care. Like I said, they’d probably stick right into the hot zone.
well, Pat hasn’t gotten back to me yet about quoting him but I’ll just summarize what he said:
No military censorship, except within rational limits: photographing prisoner faces, sensitive areas of bases, etc. He had 100’s of hours of video footage and no one EVER demanded to review it. He had no problem with shooting whatever he wanted. Then he pretty much summed it up with: cowardice not censorship will keep anyone from shooting Iraq (he used much stronger more colorful words) and then challenged anyone to prove him wrong.
BTW - I didn’t mention you or 1115.org
Posted 15 Jul 2007 at 1:20 pm ¶
matt wrote:
back when i used to check the stats for this site, there would always be .gov and .mil IPs. we’ve also been visited by public affairs officers who left comments on posts that criticized the military, most notably on sarabeth’s pat tillman posts. and this isn’t even counting general fluffer, who is probably a 5-star general of the army by now. omar bradley look out.
cowardice? i’m not sure how that applies to iraq. i’m pretty sure that i couldn’t just book a flight to ramadi or even baghdad and get out and start shooting photos. so being dependent on the military for everything and not being able to just go wherever, to me, isn’t journalism unless i was there specifically to cover the military.
i don’t care if you mention us or not. i don’t feel the need to measure my vocabulary, dick size or level of bravery against anyone, least of all someone who thinks that just because his video hasn’t been censored, no one’s will.
Posted 15 Jul 2007 at 8:37 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
velle est posse.
[where there is a will, there is a way.]
Posted 15 Jul 2007 at 10:53 pm ¶
matt wrote:
then i await your re-enlistment presently.
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 6:38 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I knew you were going to say that. But key part there is “re-” as in have already done that once. However, I’m precluded from re-enlistment due to health reasons and I know this because I have been there before, done it before, went through it, before….
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 9:43 am ¶
matt wrote:
so your stupid little quote in #19 is as full of shit as you are.
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 3:41 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I don’t think so, nice try to make it about me but you are the one who said:
I gave you information from someone who has been to Iraq. has experience with shhoting video there, and flat out denied “military censorship” exists, yet your theory is that you would be singled out as if you were Michael Moore or something. Besides you are working on the assumption that you would be censored but you have no proof to support it. I on the other hand have enlisted before, been through military in-processing health exams and know first hand what will preclude a person from service. So who is full of it?
I like how you try to deflect your own BS by trying to accuse me of not RE-enlisting…lol
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 5:03 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
hey, put a cork in it. your mouth-ass, that is.
it’s the damn reading comprehension thing again.
when someone says
the operative part of that (for any native speaker of the language) is not I’ll be singled out for censorship or mistreatment, the operative part is “i’d still see what they wanted me to see, and be subject to whatever rules they felt like implementing”.
to pick up on the throwaway lead-in, and pick an argument over it is fundamentally dishonest.
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 5:09 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
and the fucking fact remains that just like matt already said your fancy french in #19 is obviously pure tripe.
explaining why you can’t re-enlist, or how you know that you can’t, doesn’t change that.
it was indeed a stupid little quote, exactly as charged.
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 5:11 pm ¶
matt wrote:
which is jim’s middle name.
where there’s a will there’s a way, except when it comes to actually supporting a war rather than just blowing the latest bit of hot air.
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 5:20 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Bull.
It is not French BTW…
.
It was just a nicer way of calling BS on the BS.
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 5:25 pm ¶
matt wrote:
you know what asshole, i’m over this. you think i could go over there, and just go shoot whatever i wanted without the military telling me where i could and couldn’t go? because dullard said so?
this defies even the most basic common sense, further proof that you have none.
right, it’s latin, so what it’s still 100% hypocritical of you to use it and then not re-enlist. or have you no will you pathetic chicken hawk?
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 5:34 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Maybe I’m not getting something here. You know very well that it is not safe for westerners to roam around alone hence you would need to stick close to the military for protection yet that causes you to be “censored” because you have to stick close to them for safety? Seems like you are chastising the military for needing to protect you while you shoot your photos??? It is like getting mad at the SCUBA gear for keeping you alive underwater while you take pictures of fish…
Yes, let’s just be over this one…
Like I explained before, I know what my barriers are to re-enlistment from experience, not theory…
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 5:51 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i’m not chastising anyone jackass. again, please copy/paste where you think i did this so that i can run it by a reading comprehension specialist in order to find out what the fuck is wrong with you.
i didn’t realize our little trip back to 8th grade latin was theoretical rather than real.
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 5:56 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
it will no doubt come as a rude shock and surprise to jimmsey that there are western and other journalists in iraq who are not tied to the military by an umbilical cord. he thinks everyone gets their iraq “news” the way dollard does.
and what part of
didn’t you understand, you moronic imbecile?
Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 6:14 pm ¶