At this point, when Commander Chimpy says something that turns out to be hopelessly, jaw-droppingly false, you can ask whether he's technically "lying" or whether he's just criminally stupid. Or you might wonder whether it even makes a difference any more. (Fine, he's not "lying." He's just a moron. Happy now?)
In any event, we have yet another example of Chimpy-generated bullshit:
The training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big "setback" in the last six months, with the army and other forces being increasingly used to settle scores and make other political gains, Iraqi Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer said Monday.
Al-Yawer disputed contentions by U.S. officials, including President Bush, that the training of security forces was gathering speed, resulting in more professional troops.
Oh, yawn. So the Iraqis are nowhere near as ready to fight their own battles as we'd been led to believe. All those who are shocked by this latest development raise your hands. You people are idiots.
But here's the more interesting part, in the next paragraph (emphasis added):
Bush has said the United States will not pull out of Iraq until Iraq's own forces can maintain security. In a speech last week, he said Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of securing the country.
Hello? It was only a few days ago that the Bush administration promised that, if the Iraqis asked the Americans to leave, they would. Now we have Admiral Bunnypants apparently reneging on that promise, stating adamantly that the U.S. will not pull out under certain circumstances.
It should be pretty obvious (well, obvious to everyone but Bill Strong) that these two things can't both be true at the same time. So which is it? Enquiring minds want to know.
5 comments:
Wow, once again I have to commend you on your humour - that "Chimpy" line just cracks me up! You're clearly a comic genius.
I found it quite ironic that, if you just replace "George W." in your title for this post, with "Canadian Cynic" the post would actually be more accurate (instead of more accurate, I should just say accurate.)
Were you not expecting anyone to actually go and read the article you linked to? It quotes one Iraqi official questioning the progress of the building of Iraqi interior ministry forces. That's it. No other evidence or any opinions from any other individuals, either inside or outside Iraq. Wow! How incriminating!!! The article wasn't even about the progress made, it focused on whether the Iraqi forces were becoming too sectarian.
And your whopper about Bush contradicting himself. Wow, again. You really can't see, in light of the scaredy-crats cut-and-run campaign, that Bush was just offering reassurance that, in fact, the U.S. wasn't going to cut-and-run? Even to the most obtuse observer, a category in which, I think we can all agree, you belong, wouldn't interpret this as a refutation of Bush's previous commitment to Iraq. So, I guess the question is, are you dishonest or just stupid?
"sty" writes (without a trace of irony):
Were you not expecting anyone to actually go and read the article you linked to? It quotes one Iraqi official questioning the progress of the building of Iraqi interior ministry forces. That's it. No other evidence or any opinions from any other individuals, either inside or outside Iraq. Wow! How incriminating!!!
Hmmmm ... relying on a single source for critical information. Strange, I remember the good old days when that was pretty standard operating procedure.
Funny how times change, isn't it?
Your point being....?
... just slightly beyond your grasp, apparently.
I guess my sarcasm was too subtle for you. I'll type slowly and use small words so you understand.
I criticized you for taking a news article completely out of context and for pointing to a single (out-of-context) quote as proof positive that Bush lied, and then, as a counter-argument, you point to a previous situation, in which you believe that a single source was used to arrive at an incorrect conclusion. Now, it's clear that you point to the previous situation as a failure case (i.e. the results were BAD because the reliance on one source was FLAWED.) So, in short, you use a previous example of flawed decision making to support your current arguement, which uses the same flawed process?
Did I grasp your point correctly?
I think we're still left with the question of whether you're dishonest or just stupid. I'm betting on a bit of both.
Post a Comment