What could be better than bipartisanship?
How about a "bipartisan" call for military action?
And even better, from the boys who put the bi in bipartisan!
Sigh. John McCain and Joe Lieberman have an op-ed in today's edition of The GOP Talking Points Daily Washington Post, basically calling for full-scale perpetual war in Afghanistan until those damned people plow under their opium fields, shave their Talibans, and start buying Wonder Bread and non-bootleg versions of Windows. They say President Obama "must invest the political capital to remind Americans why this fight is necessary."
Not that you need to read this piece of crap. I'm just noting it for the record, especially the closing paragraph …
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama called Afghanistan "the war we must win." He was absolutely right. Now it is time to win it -- and we and many other members of both political parties stand ready to give him our full support in this crucial fight.
… because you just know in a year and three from now, ol' Walnuts and Holy Joe are going to be on every talk show on the dial, speaking oh-so-sorrowfully about "Obama's quagmire." Especially if he follows the stupid advice they're giving today.
(h/t: Attaturk | pic. source)
4 comments:
As if it weren't already clear, another example of the complete incompetence of the American MSN (not to mention most of the political leadership).
I never thought I'd see the day when I called a Conservative prime minister of Canada "reasonable," let alone "knowledgeable," but look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3LOzZ6aJKQ
"Win the war"? What a fucking joke. These wars are not winnable by any Western powers short of a complete annihilation of all Islamic factions (umm... which I'm not in favor of, just to be clear).
Get these old farts off the stage...
Wow. Reasonable sure is the right word. I hope everybody else watches it.
I am reminded, of course, of an earlier post, pointing to Fareed Zakaria's Newsweek article on some of the same topics.
You and I agree completely -- Afghanistan is not a winnable situation in any classical sense of the word, especially given the realities of the American domestic situation. We have neither the resources to sustain the effort nor the stomach to do what, in the abstract, would need to be done.
The second part is an unalloyed Good Thing, of course. And to that end, I would like the first part to become more clear to more of the population. A while back, I made the statement on the BH.tv forums that when contemplating military action we had to consider whether we could afford to do it, which, as you will be unsurprised to hear, produced the expected derision from the expected sources, and which, you will also be unsurprised to hear, did nothing to make me change my belief. The fact is, the US can't solve all of the world's problems, and it certainly can't do that by military force.
Thanks again for the vid link. What do you think of Harper outside of the way he came across in that interview?
What do you think of Harper outside of the way he came across in that interview?
To be honest, I haven't heard him speak much at all. I may have to start listening. The Liberals in Canada are in complete disarray right now, and Canadian "conservatives" would probably seem like commies to a Texan, so Harper might be worth a good look. He's no dummy, that's for sure.
Afghansitan, A.K.A. "The graveyard of empires". Of course, I suppose the idea is a bit of bread and circuses for increasingly helpless Americans.
I wonder increasingly if the voices on the right are pushing for the end of days, even the ones not officially aligned with Evangelicals. I see that in Limbaugh's "I hope he fails". Is it that these people see the ends of their own lives approaching, and want to take the world with them when they go? Everyone a raging King Lear without the language?
Post a Comment