Well done Tony!!!
I love how honest and blunt he is here...because this is what always happens and everyone just accepts it. Here is what happened:
Snow got into a tussle with Gregory after the NBC journalist told him, in a lengthy remark, that the public may wonder why the president's statement and report today on the war on terror did not admit more failings on the administration's part. Snow observed that he had nicely summarized "the Democratic point of view," and Gregory took exception to this.
Then the liberal journalist went on about how he was speaking "fact" and Tony shut him down with:
No, I'm doing it to you because the second part was factually tendentious, okay? Now, when you were talking about the fact that it failed to adapt, that's just flat wrong. And you will be -- there has been -- there have been repeated attempts to try to adapt to military realities, to diplomatic realities, to development of new weapons and tools on the part of al Qaeda, including the very creative use of the Internet. So the idea that somehow we're staying the course is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong.
Its nice to see someone stick up to the liberal media and shove it right in their face that they are flat out liberals spewing the talking points.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
David Gregory to Tony Snow: 'Don't Point Your Finger at Me!'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
And that's why Snow was such a great pick for the job. If need be, he'll put them in their place. Before anyone gets the wrong idea, that means not taking their crap.
I love the way NewsBlusters does not provide a transcript of what Gregory actually says, but instead paraphrases what they want you to think he said.
From what I read on NewsBlusters, Snow was the DICK. He started it. Gregory asked a legitimate question and Snow accused him of shilling for the Democrats. That's an insult, and Gregory had every right to defend himself. Tony Snow is the press secretary, he's not the fucking president even if he thinks he is.
Furthermore, Snow fell into the same old Bullshit that Bush does everytime someone brings up the subject of strategy. They both answer with tactics. They are in effect blaming the military for problems and failures because when the problems are brought up they tell you that the military is changing their tactics to "adapt to win". There's a big difference between changing military tactics and revising Pentagon strategies.
And furthermore, I love the hypocritical push back from the "stay the course" meme that they have been using for years and now they get insulted if the phrase is used.
What a joke! (Tony Snow, NewsBlusters' article, and the Bush non-strategy)
Jim--
We *are* staying the course. Our goals are clear, and we adapt our tactics to the exigencies of war.
You're smarter than this, Jim.
Typical. jim got it, there is no transript of what the guy actually said. Also typical is a Bush press secretary avoiding a question. Though, without a real transcript, I guess we will never know. There are only two outlets reporting this story, and neither has printed his actual words.
What goals are those, jason? I've never seen anything clearly defined from this administration.
But Jason, Ken Mehlman and other WH shills insist the administration is definitely NOT staying the course. They've been saying the administration is "adapting to win." Which means they are saying it is the military that is failing because they mean adapting tactics instead of revising the strategy. The administration does know the significance or the difference between strategy and tactics.
so glad people who think like Jim are not running the military...we saw what a joke our military looked like under Jim-type rule from 1993 to 2000.
Game said:
we saw what a joke our military looked like under Jim-type rule from 1993 to 2000.
That's a bold assertion. Please back it up with facts. Whose military beat the Iraqi army in 6 weeks? Clinton's military.
By the way, there is no Jim-type rule. I don't rule.
"...we adapt our tactics to the exigencies of war."
This seems to be SOP for all wars. How is this an indictment of the military? It's what they do. And from what I can tell, the difference between strategy and tactics is like macro and micro, but directly related. The overall strategy may be sound, but the tactics used to further that strategy may need refining once the actual battle ensues. In fact, as stated, it's likely to happen in any conflict since Elijah, Samuel, John the Baptist nor any other prophet is amongst the military planners. Certainly you'd LIKE it to be a knock on the military so that you can use that against the admin. Too bad, though.
Marshall, you are not getting my point, which IS:
Any criticism of the Bush strategy which has led to or contributed to the fiasco that is Iraq today is answered by "the military is adapting tactics". The plain implication here is that the fiasco is caused or perpetuated by military TACTICS which are adapted to try to turn things around.
Tactics are military. Strategy is Pentagon and White House. Criticize the Pentagon strategy and the answer you get is well the military is changing tactics. It implies the military is the problem, not the White House strategy.
Get it?
No, Jim. I don't get it. As the Pentagon is the headquarters for the Dept of Defense, how can you say it isn't the military. The Prez is Commander in Chief. Of what? The military. The military adapting tactics implies they are doing what they do in war, which is to adapt to those things which cannot be accounted for in the planning stages at headquarters. Adapting is what the military does due to an enemy that is trying to win the war by doing what is not expected. What don't YOU get?
For Rhyno,
"John the Baptist was a prophet? When the fuck did this happen?"
Around 30AD. (I think in June)From Luke 7:26 "But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet." (NIV)
Post a Comment