[link|http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20031023/pl_nm/iraq_usa_rumsfeld_dc|And why shouldn't he?]

Excerpt:

Bush defended Rumsfeld on the memo, which some Democrats called a tacit admission the administration had been putting a good face on a very dangerous situation in Iraq.

"What we have done is we've put out a very straight forward, accurate, to the best of our ability, and balanced view of what we see happening, and what we believe to be the case," Rumsfeld said.

"From the very beginning we've said that this global war on terror is a tough one. It's going to take a long time. It's going to take the cooperation of a lot of countries."

He cited a dictionary definition of the word "slog" as "to hit or strike hard, to drive with blows, to assail violently."

"And that's precisely what the U.S. has been doing and intends to continue to do," he said. "It's not only the Oxford dictionary's preferred definition. It's mine."

A reporter cited a definition of slog in another dictionary as "to walk or progress with a slow, heavy pace" or plod.

"I've seen that one. I read the one I liked," Rumsfeld said.

I say:

Rumsfeld stands by what he actually said. How some weaselly politicians and knee-jerk ideologues want to spin it as having meant - that's another matter entirely. Being forthcoming before such as them is like throwing pearls before swine. But they weren't the intended audience. The intended audience was intelligent people.

I think when Churchill used the word "slog" in a comparable context, he meant it both ways.

Better slow, steady progress than none at all. Slog on!

And you went way, way beyond this. The questions Rumsfeld pose are nothing like the sort of bogus objections you raise. He's moderate. You're over the top. That's one difference. Another difference is he looks at both sides, and you don't. Biggest difference of all: he's interested in constructive answers, and you're not.

Rumsfeld knows the difference between legitimate questioning and rhetorical bullshit. You don't. And you don't care, either.

Nice try, passing yourself off as some sort of objective poser of queries. You're not fit to lick Rumsfeld's shoes.

On, that thing I said about pearls before swine? You're one of the swine. As exemplified by what you're trying to do with the pearls.