quade 4 #1 March 3, 2003 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030303-3.html Ya just can't make stuff like this up. Quote MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said the timetable is weeks, not months. He said that just over a month ago. And nothing has changed that timetable. I don't care if you're left or right -- that's pretty funny. Quote Q Ari, can I try to get clarification on something that came up on Friday? It's the policy of the administration that Saddam has to totally and completely disarm. But regime change is also the policy. So if he were to fully disarm, in the administration's view would that amount to regime change? Or is the policy now full disarmament plus exile, meaning Saddam has to -- MR. FLEISCHER: Well, what we've always said is that if the regime were to have completely have done what the United Nations called on them to do in Resolution 1441 last November, it would, indeed, be a different type of regime. And then people have said does that mean Saddam Hussein could still be the head of it? The point that I have made is, in the event that the President makes a decision that force is used to disarm Saddam Hussein to accomplish disarmament, nobody should think -- not even for a second -- that military action could be possibly taken to disarm Saddam Hussein that would leave Saddam Hussein at the helm for him to rearm up later. No, that's not an option. Later (and I'm not actually blaming Ari on this one) Quote Q Ari, the lead editorial in this morning's Washington Times is headlined, "A War Decision." And it contends, the very act of further delay would tend to undercut the perceived need for urgent action. While this morning's lead editorial in The New York Times is headlined, "The Rush to War." My question to you as the President's media analyst, do you suspect that the New York Times would get -- MR. FLEISCHER: Is that a promotion or a demotion? I'm going to work with this. (Laughter.) Q Well, I think you do pretty well. As the President's media analyst, do you suspect that the New York Times would get behind our war effort if only Iraq were to open a males-only golf club, like Augusta, Georgia? MR. FLEISCHER: This is why I believe in exchange programs among newspaper editorial page editors. (Laughter.) Let them share time with each other. Sometimes the press is just as silly as the press flack.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #2 March 3, 2003 QuoteMR. FLEISCHER: The President has said the timetable is weeks, not months. He said that just over a month ago. And nothing has changed that timetable. QuoteI don't care if you're left or right -- that's pretty funny. Paul, there are 52 weeks in a year. I don't want to make anyone look like an asshole for not rushing to war after all. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 March 3, 2003 Oh, I'm not saying the time table is right or wrong, but Ari is kinda silly for saying "is weeks, not months" and then in the next sentance pointing out that it's already moving toward months not weeks.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mountainman 0 #4 March 4, 2003 Well... 7 weeks isn't months, right ? You need at least 2 months for it to be monthS. Either way... I know I wouldn't want to be in Ari's position and have to answer those run around questions that the white house press ask. They just TRY their damnedest to get him to say something they can splatter on the front page... it's their job. LOL Good quotes.. even though I am republican. http://www.brandonandlaura.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #5 March 4, 2003 See, it is all a matter of perception. The months on my planet have in fact 6 weeks. The week however consists of 8 days, 4 of which are free. Every second month has an incomplete week, shorter by 4 days, but may is aditionaly 3 day shorter. Also our weeks start on a Wednesday. Oh did I mention our year has only 8 months?jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 March 4, 2003 QuoteWell... 7 weeks isn't months, right ? You need at least 2 months for it to be monthS. It's an interesting (well geeky interesting) question of how you define a plural. Some definitions say it's two or more, others say it's more than one. For instance, 1.5 miles. I remember asking an english prof. at UCLA once and he said he didn't have a definitive answer and it could go either way depending on if it sounded "right". Not exactly the answer I was looking for, but I accepted it and moved on.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #7 March 4, 2003 Quote I remember asking an english prof. at UCLA once and he said he didn't have a definitive answer and it could go either way depending on if it sounded "right". That's just asking for some sort of liberal-english teacher type joke... --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #8 March 4, 2003 When you're talking babies' ages (a topic that includes a lot of mention of differently-incremented time), the pluralization of the next time period is actually a pretty common cutoff. I think it had to do with the "necessary" accuracy. E.g. when the kid is 10 days old, most parents say he's 10 days old; not 1 1/2 weeks. He can be 1 1/2 weeks, but 10 days was more common. When he's 6 weeks, likewise it's still weeks. But by 14 weeks, "3 1/2 months" is a little more common. But few people count their age in decades, even after they're 20Note this is purely an individual observation from when my son's age was counted in days, then weeks, then months. It's approaching the count-in-decates mark now Wendy W. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mountainman 0 #9 March 4, 2003 Quote See, it is all a matter of perception. The months on my planet have in fact 6 weeks. The week however consists of 8 days, 4 of which are free. Every second month has an incomplete week, shorter by 4 days, but may is aditionaly 3 day shorter. Also our weeks start on a Wednesday. Oh did I mention our year has only 8 months? I would say less drugs is in order here. Quote It's an interesting (well geeky interesting) question of how you define a plural. Some definitions say it's two or more, others say it's more than one. For instance, 1.5 miles. Eh... I knew I couldn't squeeze anything by you, Quade. LOL Ah well. For the sake of "arguement" today, we'll say 2 or more. http://www.brandonandlaura.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 March 4, 2003 QuoteMR. FLEISCHER: The President has said the timetable is weeks, not months. He said that just over a month ago. And nothing has changed that timetable. The key here is "nothing has changed that timetable". This is a false premise. Much HAS changed the timetable including GWB going back to the U.N. for yet another resolution, Iraq agreeing to destroy their Al Samoud2 missiles, and at least Iraq's facade of co-operation with U.N. Weapons "Inspectors" (actually Detectives would be a better word). Perhaps Saddam is the benefit of an O.J. Simpson defense by France and Germany? "If your cities not hit, you must acquit". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swarley 0 #11 March 4, 2003 QuoteIraq agreeing to destroy their Al Samoud2 missiles, and at least Iraq's facade of co-operation with U.N. Weapons "Inspectors" (actually Detectives would be a better word). Here is how Iraq is cooperating. Saw this on the web (No you won't see this on the liberal media) Saddam 'killed missile chief' to thwart UN team By David Wastell and Julian Coman in Washington (Filed: 02/03/2003) Western intelligence agencies are investigating claims that Saddam Hussein ordered the murder of a senior Iraqi missile engineer to prevent him passing vital information to United Nations weapons inspectors. Gen Muhammad Sa'id al-Darraj, who was in charge of Iraq's mobile Scud missiles until three months ago, died 24 hours after talks with Saddam's officials, according to Arab newspaper reports. The officials wanted to discuss how the general would conceal his knowledge if he were called for interview by the UN. The London-based Al-Zaman newspaper said that Gen al-Darraj told "indignant" relatives shortly before he died that he had been slipped a poisoned drink during the meeting at one of Saddam's presidential palaces. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/02/wirq102.xml My Site Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
