War Supporters From the Nth Dimension
War supporters are starting to remind me of Alex Jones fans. They will grasp onto any narrative that supports their position, even if that narrative defies any logic known to man. We have already witnessed Mark Steyn's Tall Tale of the Iraqi Sunni, Iranian Shia, and Al Qaeda working hand-in-hand to embarass Bush and his war. Now, Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe takes the wheel and steers us through the rabbit hole and into the paranoid world of the Middle Earth Lizard People.
Let's join the ride for a little bit:
Jeff starts off with a real tough one here. Let's start off by splitting this sentence at the conjunction. What does it mean to support the troops? Good question. Does support mean that we give the troops adequate armor and language/culture training before sending them to war? Or does it mean that we will totally give a Marine a high five if we see them at the airport? I don't know. Jeff already has me stumped, and we're only half a sentence in. Let's skip this tough one and try the last half of the sentence. What does it mean to oppose the cause they fight for? Well, I guess we need to define what that 'cause' is now. We sent them in to force Saddam to give up his nonexistent weapons program. We're kinda screwed since the 'cause' only existed in the narrative constructed by pro-war Conservatives.
It's easy to support a person and not their cause. Have you ever had a friend attending college as a Communications undergrad? You can love the person, even though they are throwing away resources. Is Jeff really this dense? He must have been a Communications Major, too...
Next Jeff throws out the best line yet regarding the anti-surge resolution:
Yeah, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe is 'tuned in' to the insurgent's hearts and minds. He and Mark Steyn think that Iranian Shia, Iraqi Sunni, Muqtada Al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden, and Kim Jong Il are hanging out at Starbucks slapping each other's backs over the results of the vote in America.
Jeff, wake up. These people aren't sitting around reading the Boston Globe over cappucinos in the morning. They aren't going anywhere. Why the hell do they even care if the US troops stay or go? They are in it for the oil in Iraq. The winning faction in Iraq is going to expand the power of Saudi Arabia or Iran. That's what is at stake here. They aren't going to give two shits whether this war belongs to Bush, Clinton, Murtha, DeLay, Al Qaeda, or MTV. WAKE UP MORON.
Well, the op-ed pages of the Chicago Times and the Boston Globe aren't exactly on the front lines of this battle either. Pious claims of support? The last time I checked, it wasn't Michael Moore who sent a bunch of young Americans to go police rival factions in a hellish sand trap where nobody speaks English. Who is claiming to support the troops by sending an extra 20,000 of them to a pile of sand the size of California?
The pro-war Republicans are slowly realizing that this war is going very, very badly. So now they are spinning the most bizarre narratives possible. They don't want to consider the lack of pre-war planning. They don't want to consider the lack of an exit strategy. They don't want to consider that the mission objectives are ill-defined. They want to blame all of this on the hippies that objected to the Vietnam War. They want to blame Murtha, Kerry, and all other Vietnam Vets that seem to understand the cost of war better than the 101st Keyboard Brigade. At some point, I suspect they will be blaming all of this on Anna Nicole's lawyer. He's a pretty awesome scapegoat these days...
Let's join the ride for a little bit:
WHAT DOES IT mean to support the troops but oppose the cause they fight for?
Jeff starts off with a real tough one here. Let's start off by splitting this sentence at the conjunction. What does it mean to support the troops? Good question. Does support mean that we give the troops adequate armor and language/culture training before sending them to war? Or does it mean that we will totally give a Marine a high five if we see them at the airport? I don't know. Jeff already has me stumped, and we're only half a sentence in. Let's skip this tough one and try the last half of the sentence. What does it mean to oppose the cause they fight for? Well, I guess we need to define what that 'cause' is now. We sent them in to force Saddam to give up his nonexistent weapons program. We're kinda screwed since the 'cause' only existed in the narrative constructed by pro-war Conservatives.
It's easy to support a person and not their cause. Have you ever had a friend attending college as a Communications undergrad? You can love the person, even though they are throwing away resources. Is Jeff really this dense? He must have been a Communications Major, too...
Next Jeff throws out the best line yet regarding the anti-surge resolution:
It was a disgraceful and dishonest resolution, and it must have done wonders for the insurgents' morale.
Yeah, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe is 'tuned in' to the insurgent's hearts and minds. He and Mark Steyn think that Iranian Shia, Iraqi Sunni, Muqtada Al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden, and Kim Jong Il are hanging out at Starbucks slapping each other's backs over the results of the vote in America.
Jeff, wake up. These people aren't sitting around reading the Boston Globe over cappucinos in the morning. They aren't going anywhere. Why the hell do they even care if the US troops stay or go? They are in it for the oil in Iraq. The winning faction in Iraq is going to expand the power of Saudi Arabia or Iran. That's what is at stake here. They aren't going to give two shits whether this war belongs to Bush, Clinton, Murtha, DeLay, Al Qaeda, or MTV. WAKE UP MORON.
America is a free country, but it is not the Michael Moores or the ROTC-banners or the senatorial loudmouths who keep it free. They merely enjoy the freedom that others are prepared to defend with their lives. It is the men and women who volunteer to wear the uniform to whom we owe our liberty. Surely they deserve better than pious claims of "support" from those who are working for their defeat.
Well, the op-ed pages of the Chicago Times and the Boston Globe aren't exactly on the front lines of this battle either. Pious claims of support? The last time I checked, it wasn't Michael Moore who sent a bunch of young Americans to go police rival factions in a hellish sand trap where nobody speaks English. Who is claiming to support the troops by sending an extra 20,000 of them to a pile of sand the size of California?
The pro-war Republicans are slowly realizing that this war is going very, very badly. So now they are spinning the most bizarre narratives possible. They don't want to consider the lack of pre-war planning. They don't want to consider the lack of an exit strategy. They don't want to consider that the mission objectives are ill-defined. They want to blame all of this on the hippies that objected to the Vietnam War. They want to blame Murtha, Kerry, and all other Vietnam Vets that seem to understand the cost of war better than the 101st Keyboard Brigade. At some point, I suspect they will be blaming all of this on Anna Nicole's lawyer. He's a pretty awesome scapegoat these days...
posted by Hot_Tuna at 11:11:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home