"Rep. Joe Knollenberg of Bloomfield Hills offered "conditional support," [to the President's Plan] but without real progress in Iraq "within 90 days," he said, "we really have to evaluate what we're going to do."
Since President Bush generally says that you are either with him or against him, Knollenberg is certainly not against him, so he must be with him. Lockstep.
2 comments:
When has Bush said "you're either with him or against him," let alone "generally"? Evidence is a hard thing to come by, isn't it.
Second, if Bush said that, if Joe's statement is actually "conditional" and requires monitoring of results 90 days out, then one could say "Joe is not with him, so he must be against him." Of course, Joe's statement is conditional and neither with or against, so neither that misstatement or your distortion of logic are true, but so much for logic.
If you're going to do a hit blog, at least stick to the facts.
When did Bush say "you are either with us or against us"?
How about Nov. 6, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/)
(See also, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011106-4.html)
and
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
I could keep going but I don't want to have to do all of your work for you.
This isn't a hit blog. It is a factual blog.
Bush said you are with us or you are against us.
Can you find out what Knollenberg's position is on the troop surge? He won't respond to email. His office doesn't know yet.
How is it possible he doesn't know yet? He must be the only person in the country who hasn't made a decision yet.
Post a Comment