One thing that I couldn't believe during last night's question and answer session was how obnoxious the press questions were. They almost completely ignored a chance to ask the freaking President of the United States actual questions about what is going on right now and what our plans are. They abandoned actual journalism for attempts to squeeze some partisan soundbite out of Bush.

Related to that, I couldn't believe that Bush kept his cool under the onslaught. He maintained his decorum and kept trying to steer things back to topics of actual importance.

I've got news for you. This is going to be very different when the Flying Pig party takes the White House. Trey is most likely going to be way too busy vetoing things to entertain foolish questions from the press so I expect to be tapped for this particular task. Unlike Mr.Bush I will not be overly concerned with pressie feelings when they are obviously attacking me and mine. Oh, I won't come straight out and call them retards like my running mate might but I'll be answering their questions simply and brutally.

Let's review the questions that they unleashed on Bush last night with me at the podium instead of George:

Me: Now, I'll be glad to take your questions. I will start with you.

Newsie: Thank you, Mr.Vice President. Mr.Vice President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

Me: Although we are always interested in the opinions of the American people we do not base policy decisions on polls. That would be the equivalent of mob rule, the slightest majority having control over all of the rest. As far as a Vietnam comparison, there isn't one except perhaps superficially and then only to a marginalized but vocal partisan element.

Newsie: Thank you, Mr.Vice President. What's your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops; is that a fair assessment?

Me: If we need more troops there we will send more troops there. As far as how long and in whhat strength? That's going to depend on Iraq. We will be turning over sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government on June 20. It will then be up to them to determine how much help they need and for what duration and we will be there as they need us.

Newsie: Mr.Vice President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents, who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series a false premises?

Me: I'm pretty sure that "sweets and flowers" is a metaphor. It fairly accurately described the jubilation in Baghdad and elsewhere as the Iraqi people took to the streets to pull down murals and statues of Saddam Hussein. Oil revenue is starting to pay for the Iraqi reconstruction. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein used them on Iranians and on his own citizens. Our intelligence indicated he still had them. The UN inspectors indicated that he still had them. The world as a body knew without any reasonable doubt in their minds that he still had them. To answer your last question, I wouldn't answer them. As their question presumes something that is manifestly false I would look at it as a logical fallacy and an attempt to bait me into an admission that is simply not true. Much like your intent when you asked it.

Newsie: Thank you, Mr.Vice President. To move to the 9/11 Commission. You, yourself, have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. "I was not on point," you told the journalist, Bob Woodward, "I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

Me: Of course not. There are many people who were responsible for 9/11. Nineteen of them died committing the atrocity. Many others have been killed or captured. Osama Bin Laden, the most culpable overall, remains at large. We will find him and bring him to justice. The people responsible for 9/11 will pay for their actions.

Newsie: Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

Me: Must be an echo in here. Next question.

Newsie: Mr.Vice President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

Me: No, it isn't a fair criticism. No, I don't believe that there were any errors in judgment related to any of those topics. That would imply that given the information at the time we evaluated it and made an error interpreting that data at that time. This did not happen. We have made consistently correct decisions based on the information at hand when it was time to make decisions.

Newsie: Mr.Vice President, good evening. You've talked on the -- I'd like to ask you about the August 6th PDB.

Me: Sure.

Newsie: You mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You said -- you pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to, obviously, take hostages and to secure the release of extremists being held by the U.S. Did that trigger some specific actions on your part and the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

Me: As I've explained previously the PDB was a summary document of high level topics. It was not a listing of actionable items. We have been aware of the possibility of planes being hijacked for quite some time. A specific mention that one particular group could perform a well known act was not viewed at that time as an action item.

Newsie: Thank you, Mr.Vice President. You mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70. But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the Acting Director of the FBI at the time says -- now says the FBI tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested the number was exaggerated. Have you learned anything else about that report since that time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI?

Me: If I thought for a moment that we were intentionally given false information there would be heads on pikes on the White House lawn. We will find out how that number got into the report. Accurate information is critical for us to make informed decisions.

Newsie: Has the FBI come back to you, sir?

Me: No, it will likely take them more than a couple of hours to determine what happened there.

Newsie: Thank you, Mr.Vice President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?

Me: Do you understand that you have a rare and precious opportunity right now at this very minute and you are squandering it? You can ask me any question about our current situation, future plans, anything at all. You have an inside glimpse into the workings of the highest level of your government. Instead of asking me an intelligent or at least topical question you are repeating a question that has already been asked twice before in this very interview only a few minutes ago. You are wasting my time and depriving my fellow citizens of the insight that could have been theirs if you could have parted yourself from your agenda long enough to think up something insightful. Shame on you.

Newsie: Mr.Vice President, thank you. You mentioned 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops, then the next largest, perhaps even the second largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors -- literally, hired guns. Your critics, including your Democratic opponent, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden sharing by allies, in terms of security forces?

Me: I doubt I would answer those critics at all. It's not like anything productive would come of it regardless of my answer so why waste the time and effort? I do think that it's a particularly rude slight upon our allies to disparage them for their lower levels of assets and manpower. No, we cannot assure the American people that other countries will bear proportionally larger burdens in Iraq post-sovereignty. We are planning that as the need for absolute manpower decreases we will be able to remove troops at a greater rate in order to show a more equitable distribution of each supporting country's manpower but there are no certainties here.

Newsie: Mr.Vice President, why are you and the President insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 Commission? And, Mr.Vice President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

Me: Because they have requested our presence and we believe we can help the Commission to achieve their objectives. We will be handing sovereignty over to an Iraqi interim government.

Newsie: I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

Me: Because many of our decisions, briefs, discussions, etceteras occur in the framework of an executive team. We can make the most efficient use of our time and the Commission's by appearing together. Most importantly we will be able to give the most accurate and complete information with both of us there to give feedback and this will better assist the 9/11 Commission in achieving their goals.

Newsie: You have been accused of letting the 9/11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism? And, secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in perhaps other situations going forward?

Me: The 9/11 threat wasn't a recognized threat of such a nature until planes started flying into buildings so no, we did not "let that threat mature". I disagree completely that we did not wait long enough before moving against Iraq. On the contrary we waited a decade too long. There is no specific threat level that justifies action in a situation. Each individual situation will need to be evaluated for many factors and a judgemental decision will need to be made.

Newsie: Thank you, Mr.Vice President. Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq. Yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?

Me: Of course it will. Some things are worthwhile regardless of the cost or sacrifice. Defeating terrorism is worth far more than my job. Giving democracy to 29 million Iraqis is worth far more than my job. Stopping the state sanctioned rape and murder of innocents is worth far more than my job. I don't believe I will lose my job, though. I'm pretty sure that when they have a bit of time to think about it without biased lead in questions that the majority of Americans agree with me.

Newsie: Thank you, Mr.Vice President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

Me: My biggest mistake after 9/11? Off the top of my head I don't see that we've made any big ones. Oh, I'm not saying that we're perfect, just that we're doing a right and proper job overall.

Newsie: Looking forward about keeping the United States safe -- a group representing about several thousand FBI agents today wrote to your administration begging you not to split up the law enforcement and the counterterrorism, because they say it ties their hands, it's blinders -- yet, you mentioned yesterday that you think perhaps the time has come for some real intelligence reforms. That can't happen without real leadership from the White House. Will you, and how will you?

Me: Your question is framed to imply that I want to break apart the law enforcement and counterterrorism arms of our intelligence services. That's not at all true and I don't appreciate the attempted disingenuousness. We will certainly be looking at intelligence reforms, in general and with an eye towards the findings of the 9/11 Commission. Whatever leadership and support from the White House is required for these changes will be given. Without knowing what will specifically be changed there is no way to tell you how it will be done.

Newsie: Following on both Judy's and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have -- quite significantly over the past couple of months -- I guess I'd like to know if you feel in any way that you've failed as a communicator on this topic? Because --

Me: Failed as a communicator? What does that mean?

Newsie: Well, you deliver a lot of speeches and a lot of them contain similar phrases, and they vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going -- with the exception of tonight's pretty somber assessment, this evening.

Me: It's a pretty somber assessment today, Don, yes.

Newsie: I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You don't have many of these press conferences, where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

Me: Well Don, I have to say that I truthfully don't understand what you are asking here. I'm also willing to bet that as soon as transcripts of this conference are available you'll have loads of people scratching themselves on the head wondering "Just what the heck was Don asking?". If I figure it out I'll be sure to give you a call with my answer.

Me: Thank you and good evening. I'm outie.