Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Just How Dumb Is He?
As quoted in wsj.com's online column, The Evening Wrap, 14 December edition:
"'I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities,' he said. 'And we're doing just that.' He said the decision was still the right one, that the Iraqi people were better off and that the U.S. was 'helping the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous and an example for the broader Middle East.'"
Well, you know, all the intel before it got torture into utter crap was actually pretty good. Obviously, the problem was actually abuse of the intel apparatus, so to speak, by the administration's aparatchiks.
So, assuming W has a clue what he's talking about -- unlikely, since he doesn't give a damn about the truth -- it's a faith based, not reality based, administration -- he would really feel compelled to resign or at least get a really big chunk of the administration to resign.
And of course showing his fine connection with reality, he fails to note the correct standard: not whether Ira is better of now than it was during sanctions but how it compares to before sanctions. So let's see: a worse infrastructure and violence and de facto anarchy now compared to a functional infrastructure and order before sanctions.
Yup; the Iraqis really are better off thanks to W's fine leadership in going to war for no better reason than he -- or his people -- wanted to.
Lasting democracy?
Well, time, not W's BS, will tell. But really, does anyone doubt that Iraq's headed for a Shiite theocracy a la that exemplar of democracy, Iran, with an independent Kurdistan (if our allies go for it)?
Gosh, that would make it all worthwhile.
And an exemplar to the rest of the Middle East?
He was able to say that base canard (to coin a phrase) with a straight face, right?
And by the by, what does someone who stole at least one election know or respect about democracy in the first place?
"'I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities,' he said. 'And we're doing just that.' He said the decision was still the right one, that the Iraqi people were better off and that the U.S. was 'helping the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous and an example for the broader Middle East.'"
Well, you know, all the intel before it got torture into utter crap was actually pretty good. Obviously, the problem was actually abuse of the intel apparatus, so to speak, by the administration's aparatchiks.
So, assuming W has a clue what he's talking about -- unlikely, since he doesn't give a damn about the truth -- it's a faith based, not reality based, administration -- he would really feel compelled to resign or at least get a really big chunk of the administration to resign.
And of course showing his fine connection with reality, he fails to note the correct standard: not whether Ira is better of now than it was during sanctions but how it compares to before sanctions. So let's see: a worse infrastructure and violence and de facto anarchy now compared to a functional infrastructure and order before sanctions.
Yup; the Iraqis really are better off thanks to W's fine leadership in going to war for no better reason than he -- or his people -- wanted to.
Lasting democracy?
Well, time, not W's BS, will tell. But really, does anyone doubt that Iraq's headed for a Shiite theocracy a la that exemplar of democracy, Iran, with an independent Kurdistan (if our allies go for it)?
Gosh, that would make it all worthwhile.
And an exemplar to the rest of the Middle East?
He was able to say that base canard (to coin a phrase) with a straight face, right?
And by the by, what does someone who stole at least one election know or respect about democracy in the first place?
Website Counters
