George W. Orwell (TM)
Click the link to learn why Dubya cannot answer Cindy Sheehan's question; face to face, or even as a multiple choice.
Shedding unreality, are we? What the hell is this, Lidsville? That studio that HR Pufnshit called home?
From the article:
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
What the FUCK?!? I'd love to know who said this...
Can we get a couple of follow-up questions?
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground."
Follow up:
So, you rushed unprepared, unplanned, into this shit and now it's FUBAR? Is that a reasonable 'interpretation' of that sentence? By the way, why are we 'interpreting' senior officials? Is this supposed to be 'communication?'
"We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
I will need several follow-up's for this one.
Please define 'unreality.' Or is 'UNdefine' more appropriate? I wouldn't want to be construed as double-plus-UN-good.
Would that 'unreality' be, oh, say, the assumption that there were WMP's stockpiled in Iraq?
Is 'unreality' what you get when the intelligence is fixed around policy?
The lies of the Bush administration have a new name. Unreality. It should come to define Dubya as the expression 'Camelot' defined JFK's presidency.
C'mon, I want to hear it. How can you not be upset by, at a minimum, the incredible hubris exhibited here? If this doesn't upset you, either you are a lot more world-weary than I am or you put politics in front of country.
Shedding unreality, are we? What the hell is this, Lidsville? That studio that HR Pufnshit called home?
From the article:
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
What the FUCK?!? I'd love to know who said this...
Can we get a couple of follow-up questions?
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground."
Follow up:
So, you rushed unprepared, unplanned, into this shit and now it's FUBAR? Is that a reasonable 'interpretation' of that sentence? By the way, why are we 'interpreting' senior officials? Is this supposed to be 'communication?'
"We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
I will need several follow-up's for this one.
Please define 'unreality.' Or is 'UNdefine' more appropriate? I wouldn't want to be construed as double-plus-UN-good.
Would that 'unreality' be, oh, say, the assumption that there were WMP's stockpiled in Iraq?
Is 'unreality' what you get when the intelligence is fixed around policy?
The lies of the Bush administration have a new name. Unreality. It should come to define Dubya as the expression 'Camelot' defined JFK's presidency.
C'mon, I want to hear it. How can you not be upset by, at a minimum, the incredible hubris exhibited here? If this doesn't upset you, either you are a lot more world-weary than I am or you put politics in front of country.
posted by TRS at 8/21/2005 01:11:00 AM
2 Comments:
I think if there are any people like you described, who have been opposed to the war since the beginning and don't seem as outraged by this latest development as you think they should be, it could partially be because there is at least a small measure of satisfaction that these kinds of statements coming out of the White House are the kinds of things opponents of the war have been saying all along.
I agree with you, though. Correct and smug only go so far when the end result is "Oops! You were right! I fucked up the world!"
I do believe that there are some good things that have come out of this war, and I am even hopeful that there will be more good things yet to come, but mostly in spite of the actions of this President and his administration, and more atributable to the human spirit.
I also believe that the cost of any of these things has been and will be too dear to justify the criminal actions of this administration. The way in Dubya's administration has repeateadly ignored protocol can be spun as "cowboy" or "maverick," which sound really appealing; but are more like a step closer to the kind of "dictator" that he claims to despise.
Even forgiving the folly of the 2000 election, by the 2004 election, Dubya's shortcomings and mistakes were more than evident, and the major reasons that people cited for voting for Dubya were complete falsehoods. To those people:
Do you *really* feel *safer* now with Dubya in office?
Do you *really* think the world is *safer* after this action in Iraq? (Hint: Think London. For a more fun and speculative challenge, think something like Iran). Also, forgive me if you think I'm way off base on any of these, because I'm relatively uninformed, so I'm really just talking out of my ass... er, I mean "venting" here. (And damn blogger.com for disallowing the strikethrough tag and ruining my gag).
Would you be more inclined or less inclined to vote for Dubya, knowing that a war in a large oil-producing region will affect oil costs adversely and makes a good excuse for gas prices so high that they will slow down the economy?
I can't thnk of any more questions now, being all full of Thai food. Thanks for the thought-provoking lunch read, TRS.
Damn!
That is to say, DAMN!
Nice response! Thanks for taking the time!
Post a Comment
<< Home