Elections always bring out the asses. Take Michael Moore, for example. No really—take him, please, to Iran, and dress him as a woman—and tell him to continue speaking out as he does, just to see what might happen. After all, we have to test all possibilities and see what might be their outcome, according to some.
Asses aside, if that’s possible with Moore’s, you then read stories that, well, USED TO BE thought of as being from credible sources—but I’m rapidly getting used to treating the old mainstream media as bereft of credible “news” and full of liberal-left completely biased nonsense. It used to be “suspect”—now during this election they’ve obviously given up all pretence.
Take this story from Associated Press. This tripe will appear in all sorts of papers, and you should use it as a lesson on liberal-left idiot-speak, or as a lesson in “how to lose the war on terror”:
By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – For all the talk about Iraq in the presidential campaign, a crucial question largely has gone unanswered: What would it really take for either President Bush or a President Kerry eventually to bring home U.S. troops?
Both candidates say they are committed to defeating the insurgents, building an Iraqi force that can defend the country and putting Iraq on the road to democracy. What is not clear is what either would do in terms of U.S. troops if those conditions were not achieved fully.
Could U.S. troops ever withdraw, if the insurgency were not crushed but only weakened? How good would Iraqi security forces have to be to be good enough to defend their country? Would it be enough to have a stable Iraqi government if it were elected by only part of the country?
One question no candidate would want to touch is what would happen should the violence escalate. Could there come a point when the situation appeared hopeless, U.S. public opinion had turned against it and the president would have at least to consider a withdrawal or redeployment of U.S. forces?
(…)
OK, let’s answer “yes” to that last bunch of pertinent questions about how best to lose this war on terrorism, and see if that calms the savages preventing Iraqi freedom. Might work! I mean it would certainly lead to American withdrawal and a return to Saddam-style threat-politics in Iraq! Is that the point?
It wasn’t enough that it took a year to actually go to war and allow the Saddam savages to move out all the WMD and get prepped for battle. Now we should openly discuss losing and what it would take to lose, so that the insurgents can work according to how we answer the questions.
Is there still a “treason” law? Have all the mainstream media completely given-up on hiring people with common sense? Or is this what they’re condoning now? I suspect the latter.
How about we simply call Osama bin Laden on the satellite phone and have a Whitehouse/cave conference-call and ask him what he’d prefer us to do?
Or, alternatively, we can just talk about winning the war against terrorism and completely absorb ourselves—in a united front—with that effort, as George Bush keeps trying to get us all to do.
The liberal-left seems intent on the planning involved in losing the war. But it’s really pretty easy to lose—just keep asking the stupid question posed in the above story. It seems to me this is the kind of “planning” that John Kerry and his cabinet full of “planners” would be discussing if elected—figuring out the best way for America to lose. And it wouldn’t be the first time for John Kerry.
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Say something. - Friday October 25, 2024 at 6:03 pm
- Keep going, or veer right - Monday August 26, 2024 at 4:30 pm
- Hey Joel, what is “progressive?” - Friday August 2, 2024 at 11:32 am
