DELUSIONAL DICK
The withdrawal of several thousand British troops from Iraq, is, according to Dick Cheinous, naturally an indication that the war in Iraq is going swimmingly. After all, if they're leaving, they must only be doing so if they have "stabilized" the region, right?
Cheney is, quite simply, the most arrogant liar to ever be elected to this high an office in the United States. The putative war on terror has suffered for his glowering.
Both he and Bush, now, have offered the same sterling argument as to how we are "winning" in Iraq. They've even managed to construct this argument so as to make the case that we can NEVER actually be losing! Here's how:
According to them, if violence escalates as a " benchmark date" approaches (such as one of those puppet elections, or the installation of a new faux-Parliament leader who will be gunned down three days hence, to be replaced by al-Qaeda's 500th "#2), the escalation is necessarily an indication that the insurgents are "running scared." (Or, if you will, "In the last throes, if you will." Grrrrrrrr). If the insurgents are running scared, then we are winning, of course.
However, if there is ever a period of de-escalation of violence (I am hard-pressed to identify one that has not been cherry-picked), such de-escalation signifies the "fact" that we are winning as well.
And if there is neither de-escalation nor escalation, then naturally, since this is a (seemingly predefined-as-to-who-the-victor-is) war of attrition, we must be winning as well.
So, then, Lush/Hatey, tell me: under what circumstances might we actually be LOSING this war? Escalation of violence for no particular reason? Lush/Hatey would say that this type of violence, too, is evidence of our winning because irrational violence is an indicum of insurgent despondency. De-escalation of violence when logically there shouldn't be any? Well, such de-escalation is ineluctably the product of our brilliant strategy (never mind that no identifiable portion of that strategy could be connected to such a de-escalation).
In other words, for Shrub and Snarl, we're always winning - ESPECIALLY when we're losing. These two are more concerned with constructing hollow wordgames than defeating the greatest threat of our time.
A certain political commentator put it best with respect to Cheinous:
"I should add that, at this point, the vice-president should have the self-respect to keep his views to himself. He does not realize it but he is a ridiculous figure. The record of his public statements over the last few years, from the idiotic "last throes" comment to the absurd "enormous successes" boast have rendered him a deeply unserious public official. The fact that he is ridiculous does not, alas, make him any the less dangerous to the constitution or to the successful conduct of the war. There is plenty of damage he can still wreak, given the chance."
Cheney is, quite simply, the most arrogant liar to ever be elected to this high an office in the United States. The putative war on terror has suffered for his glowering.
Both he and Bush, now, have offered the same sterling argument as to how we are "winning" in Iraq. They've even managed to construct this argument so as to make the case that we can NEVER actually be losing! Here's how:
According to them, if violence escalates as a " benchmark date" approaches (such as one of those puppet elections, or the installation of a new faux-Parliament leader who will be gunned down three days hence, to be replaced by al-Qaeda's 500th "#2), the escalation is necessarily an indication that the insurgents are "running scared." (Or, if you will, "In the last throes, if you will." Grrrrrrrr). If the insurgents are running scared, then we are winning, of course.
However, if there is ever a period of de-escalation of violence (I am hard-pressed to identify one that has not been cherry-picked), such de-escalation signifies the "fact" that we are winning as well.
And if there is neither de-escalation nor escalation, then naturally, since this is a (seemingly predefined-as-to-who-the-victor-is) war of attrition, we must be winning as well.
So, then, Lush/Hatey, tell me: under what circumstances might we actually be LOSING this war? Escalation of violence for no particular reason? Lush/Hatey would say that this type of violence, too, is evidence of our winning because irrational violence is an indicum of insurgent despondency. De-escalation of violence when logically there shouldn't be any? Well, such de-escalation is ineluctably the product of our brilliant strategy (never mind that no identifiable portion of that strategy could be connected to such a de-escalation).
In other words, for Shrub and Snarl, we're always winning - ESPECIALLY when we're losing. These two are more concerned with constructing hollow wordgames than defeating the greatest threat of our time.
A certain political commentator put it best with respect to Cheinous:
"I should add that, at this point, the vice-president should have the self-respect to keep his views to himself. He does not realize it but he is a ridiculous figure. The record of his public statements over the last few years, from the idiotic "last throes" comment to the absurd "enormous successes" boast have rendered him a deeply unserious public official. The fact that he is ridiculous does not, alas, make him any the less dangerous to the constitution or to the successful conduct of the war. There is plenty of damage he can still wreak, given the chance."
posted by EnterCenter at 12:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home