Tuesday, June 20, 2006

"Rules?" There are "rules?"

Talk about an opening for a followup question (emphasis added):

Q On the soldiers, the missing soldiers, have we confirmed that they're, in fact, dead?

MR. HADLEY: We have not confirmed. We believe that the two remains identified are the soldiers. We believe that's what's been announced by MNF-I out of Baghdad. The remains are being shipped home for positive identification, but we can't confirm it at this point. They've announced out of Baghdad that they believe it is the two soldiers, but we can't be sure.

Q I just wonder what, tactically, you make of that? You know, their abduction and their apparent death. Does it say anything about the tactics of the insurgents and terrorist groups at this point that may be changing in any fashion?

MR. HADLEY: No, I think it's a reminder that this is a brutal enemy that does not follow any of the rules. It attacks civilians for political gain, it provokes sectarian violence and it really follows no rules of warfare. It's a very brutal enemy and it's a reminder to all of us about what we're up against. And, obviously, any loss of life is a source of great regret.

And how is it even remotely possible that not a single journalist present had the presence of mind to ask, "Ummmmm ... exactly what 'rules' are we talking about here?"

Oh, man. The hilarity that would have ensued.


famousringo said...

Well, they are more "guidelines" than actual "rules."

But they are there.

Adam said...

Yes, you moron, there are rules:

#1 You can't mistreat good guys, only bad guys.

#2 All of our guys are good guys.

#3 All of our prisoners are bad guys.

The rules are so simple, even the bad guys could follow them. If they weren't such bad guys.