Monday, October 23, 2006

So, When The Administration Does It, The Time Line Is Not "Artificial?"

The Whitehouse has said ad nauseum that they were not about to set some kind of "artificial time line," but usually in response to some query from the press. You may ask yourself how do they define "artificial?" A legitimate question given the vagaries of the politicians in charge of our government these days.

It appears that when other folks would wish a time line upon them, it would be politically beneficial to suggest it was "artificial." What exactly are they doing at the Whitehouse today and the next few? Hmmm...set a few "time tables?" What differntiates that from the "artificial" variety they have been balking at for so long?

You be the judge:
Q The Times story reported that top generals and Ambassador Khalilzad were crafting a timetable of sorts for disarming militia. Do you dispute the story --

MR. SNOW: No, the Iraqis themselves have set a timetable for trying to disarm the militia. They want to do so by the end of the year.

Q That's not what the Times is reporting --

MR. SNOW: I know. What the Times was reporting I think reflects the ongoing efforts of the joint committee. But the United States has not said, this is a date.

Q There's no crafting of a timetable going on right now among top generals?

MR. SNOW: I am sure that there is a crafting of timetables going on, drafting of goals --

Q To disarm the militia?

MR. SNOW: To work toward disarming the militia. That is something --

Q Can you give us a sense of what that might be?


1 comment:

Neil Shakespeare said...

So I see now that "timeLINE" is OK, whereas "timeTABLE" is still the dirtiest of "Democrat" words, eh?