<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d32483413\x26blogName\x3djunk+and+crap,+amen\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://junkandcrapamen.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://junkandcrapamen.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-8100207821001685458', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Some Thinking Involved

Or "So this is a very thought-out plan."

Well thought out? Poorly thought out? Whatever. These are the words of US Senator Joseph Lieberman, summarizing his explanation of Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. (if you laugh, you'll feel guilty about it). I doubt Joe gave it much thought.

Via the Online Newshour:

GWEN IFILL: Let me ask Senator Lieberman actually to defend the policy that he supports, which is the decision to send these additional troops.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: It has military, 22,000 extra troops, but it also has economic and political components and clear demands on the Iraqis, benchmarks of what they've got to do, to basically deserve our continued involvement to protect them.

Why is that a good idea? Why do I think it will work? And, again, I'm listening to General Petraeus. There is a cycle of sectarian violence in Baghdad. It's not armies of Shia and the Sunni clashing in open civil war.

But until that stops in the capital city, there's not a chance either to create the economic growth that will tell the average Iraqi in Baghdad that they've got a chance to live a better life, nor is there the stability that will allow the Iraqi government to do what they want them to do, to begin to govern.

You know, there's a number of Iraqi government officials that just aren't in Baghdad anymore, and that's just unacceptable. You're not going to be able to build a government if that happens.

There's a second front in Anbar province, to the west of Baghdad. I visited there, as I did in Baghdad, in December. There we're in a different kind of battle. It's not sectarian violence. It is us and the Sunni leadership of that province against al-Qaida in Iraq, which has said that it wants to create the capital of a new Islamic extremist caliphate there in Anbar province.

We're making progress there. An additional 4,000 troops, which is part of the 21,000 that the president is sending, I think will turn that conflict in Anbar in the right direction, and actually it has the potential to achieve a victory for us.

So this is a very thought-out plan.

What a slimy bastard. Self serving, self righteous, self important asshole. "...deserve our continued involvement to protect them."

Fuck right off.

Once you get past his white supremacy, I challenge you to find even the slightest explanation of a plan in his statement, except the 4,000 troops thing. But, if you accept the premise that the US is actually fighting a war on terrorism (which I do not), and the principle enemy group involved is al-Qaida, then wouldn't you send all, or at least most of your troops to fight them? You know, the enemy? Who you're fighting? I'm no Alexander, but...

The best bit is "You know, there's a number of Iraqi government officials that just aren't in Baghdad anymore, and that's just unacceptable. You're not going to be able to build a government if that happens."

Man, that just cracks me up.

I am assuming here that PBS's Newshour attracts viewers, on average, above the age of 3.

Labels: , ,

« Home | Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »

» Post a Comment