Scott McClellan: "Timetables send the wrong message to the terrorists"

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

Q: Does the high turnout suggest that it will be easier for the United States to withdraw troops?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, when you talk about withdrawing troops or timetables, we look to our commanders on the -- the President looks to the commanders on the ground to make determinations about what our force configuration should look like. Those are also discussions we have with the government that is in place in Iraq. Right now it's the interim government, and soon it will be the transitional government. And we'll continue to discuss those matters with them. And you also look at how the -- how progress is being made to train and equip Iraqi security forces, and that will determine the force configuration, as well. And we are committed to accelerating that process for training and equipping Iraqi security forces and making sure that they're ready to defend the country.

But in terms of setting timetables, I think the President has previously talked about timetables send the wrong message to the terrorists, because all terrorists have to do is wait, and then they can plan and coordinate and prepare attacks around those timetables. The timetable is based on completing the mission, and part of completing the mission is training and equipping Iraqi security forces and making sure that they have the command structure so that they're fully ready to defend their country.

Q Even without a timetable, though, Democrats are calling for an exit strategy. Is the President prepared --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has made it clear -- and it's important to -- first of all, we congratulate the Iraqi people in yesterday's election. It was an historic day. The election is a victory for the Iraqi people. It's a significant step forward for freedom and it is a defeat for the terrorists and their ideology. It marks a turning point in Iraq's history and a great advance toward a brighter future for all Iraqis, one that stands in stark contrast to the brutality and oppression of the past. The election also represents a body blow to the terrorists and their ideology of hatred and oppression. And we must continue to do everything we can to support them moving forward.

That means completing the mission. And the mission is to help put Iraq on a path to a democratic future, and make sure that they have the security forces to defend themselves and to defeat the terrorists themselves. That's what we will continue to do. But we will be there. And it's important for the Iraqi people to know -- we will be there to help them as they move forward on putting in place the institutions for democracy to emerge -- full democracy to emerge, and as they move forward on the upcoming elections for the constitution, as well as the permanent representative government. And we will do our part to make sure that their security forces are trained and equipped and ready to defend the country.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050131-6.html

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

What a SNARFY PUTZ he is

Agreeing with Kerry, Rummy dear? Closet liberal Democrat, are we? Hmm?

That strategy usually breeds terrorists.

terrorists were threatening Ir** before the 'liberation' invasion?

Seems the WH thinks an awful lot of things 'send the wrong message' to the 'terrorists'. Exactly what is the RIGHT message?
"Bring It On"?

It all makes perfect sense .. maybe to the brain dead.

While Scott makes a great White House Liar in Chief, his brother is the one who really should be watched. Mark? He's been put in charge of one of the BFEE's hobbies, scamming Medicare & Medicaid and promoting Big Pharma as the FDA Commissioner. This is a little outdated, but gives you a rough idea of who he is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McClellan

There is a revolution/resistance movement in Iraq. That does not make them terrorists. We would do the same thing here. Would we be terrorists or would we be patriots? The Iraqi resistance is made up of patriots trying to expel the occupying forces.

Thank you for beating me to this. The "terrorists" are not terrorists, for the most part. Nor are the "insurgents" insurgents. They are Iraqis defending their home and country from the evil invaders, much like you and I would do if we were invaded.

because they're trying to expel an occupying country. They, BY DEFINITION, are patriots.

this guess is such a tool it's beyond words.

First of all, I agree that "The Terrorists" has become a phrase they apply to anybody who fights us.

But moreover, what he's saying makes no logical sense.

We can't give a timetable for exit, or else "the terrorists" will wait and attack others in Iraq as soon as we leave.

By that logic, would it work to sneak out one night and go "suprise! We left!" and get a different result?

No, we can't leave because we have to "complete the mission," says Scottie.

Which begs the question, why can't we set a goal or timetable for completing the mission?

Because then "the terrorists" will hang around and fight after we've completed the mission and left.

But if the mission is complete and stability is in place and there's security, why and how would they attack and what would the timetable have to do with it?

Am I missing something?