...we want to pull the troops off the rug.

In that same press conference, Perino refers to the "radicals" in Pakistan. Says Perino, "over 800 people, have been targeted by radicals and extremists, and killed just since the month of July."

MoveOn.org & Code Pink are equal to murderous extremists. Got it.

And Perino on Bhutto and other opposition leaders in Pakistan, "We are supportive of people being allowed to peacefully protest, to assemble, and to express their views."

Supportive? Supportive? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Aside: the word "radical" is getting tossed around far too liberally (pun!). 55% of the country can't be "radical." Quit diluting the word! We'd finally gotten it back after the "radical" and "gnarly" 80s.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071114-6.html

I wonder. Let's imagine a world where Dana Perino had to actually answer questions put to her. I would like to ask her, "So, you say we need to give the troops the time and opportunity to win the war in Iraq. Okay, that sounds fair. How long should we wait, a month, a year, five years, ten, fifty? At what point are we allowed to decide that it isn't working? Give us a date please."

If we had asked Bush or Cheney that question in 2003, and they had to answer it truthfully, I wonder what they would have said. I wonder if they would have said we should give them 4.5 years. I wonder what they would say today.

Why give her the answer by even mentioning Moveon.org? Why not just quote the polling?

The most radical group in the US is the Neo-con bunch around Bush and Cheney. Maybe Dana qualifies as well.

This is what presidents with unpopular policies do. Stop taking it personally.

What about the 55 percent of Americans who think the troops have done what they can and that it's time to bring them home? Perino didn't say.

If Perino didn't say, why wasn't she peppered with questions about it until she did say something? Why hasn't someone asked her, straight out, whether the "radical fringe" is the 55% of Americans who support withdrawal, and ask her, straight out, how the plan to withdraw by the end of 2008 differs from the desire by Americans to pull out by the beginning of 2009?

The problem I see today isn't that politicians lie and stretch the truth in their comments ... thats HARDLY news. The problem today is that reporters seem unable to ask the questions that need to be asked, and refuse to back off until they get an answer. When the reporter asked whether she meant MoveOn et al, or the American people, her response should have been immediately followed up by asking how the administration characterizes those 55% of Americans who want the troops home.

The problem isn't so much that Perino evaded any questions, but rather that she was let out of a corner by a reporter who didn't follow-up with the proper second question. If indeed she thinks a plan to pull US troops out by end of 2008 is "for political posturing and to appease radical groups" then its reasonable to ask her, and expect her to answer, how she characterizes the many Americans who feel the same way. And its fair to force her to make a response as well. Its that last part that we are missing these days. Politicians have always stretched the truth to serve their own purposes, and always will ... the difference between today, and times past (Watergate, for instance) is that reporters are unwilling to force the issues today. Thats a sad commentary on news gathering today ...

Typical Perino answers include:

• That's a hypothetical; I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions.
• I've already answered your question.
• I'll have to get back to you on that.
• I haven't been briefed on that.
• That's a matter under review.
• I'll have to refer you to [WHATEVER] Department.
• I'm not going to answer that question.
• No comment.

I'm not entirely sure why the White House Press Corps continues to show up. Habit, I guess. The press corps has been phoning it in the entire Bush Administration. Still, sadly, they're being more aggressive now than they were a year ago.

But I'd still prefer she had to resort to them as opposed to being given an out.

I prefer the villain grabbing the defenseless as hostage over having the door help open for them by the "hero".

That a group whose simple mission is to end wars is considered "radical" by the government. Could you imagine the reaction to actual radical groups? We've already seen that reaction at Waco Texas. The state murders children in the case of real radical groups. That the reporter made the association between radical, and advocacy groups is questionable even if it was part of a set up.

Meanwhile...in Myanmar...a cruel and brutal dictatorship murders more of its citizens, some of them monks, and incarcerates the opposition. What do we hear from the United States on this? Nothing. I will assume the difference in our "need" to free the middle east from the tyranny of the Saddam Hussein, and our lack of need to act in Burma</>, has something to do with oil.

Everybody's a left-winger to this administration. They're in Fascist Country, where the strong prey on the weak, where the wars never end, and where you absolutely positively cannot question the Leader.

this person is still put up there to answer questions. What a nit. These question periods are excruciating to watch. And yes, what's up with the reporter who furnishes Perino's answer as to who radicals are?

And Perino on Bhutto and other opposition leaders in Pakistan, "We are supportive of people being allowed to peacefully protest, to assemble, and to express their views."

As long as they do it out of sight of the cameras and out of range of the microphones, of course.

Golly gee, why should the Bush White House object to putting Bhutto under house arrest? Musharraf is simply confining her to a free speech zone.