Let's follow the bouncing ball of illogic in the comments section here, shall we?
[Cindy Sheehan] isn't grieving.
And, of course, who better to know this than a member of the Right-Wing Wankerhood who doesn't know her and has never met her? How utterly predictable. Next.
I'm going to resist using the word I reserve for Belinda Stronach since she did lose her son ...
How compassionately conservative of you. A little more progress and we'll have you using the fine china in no time, I'm sure.
... but today she is calling on the "jews to get out of Palestine" and is threatening to not pay her taxes. This has NOTHING to do with her son and everything to do with lobbying on behalf of every liberal organization in the United States.
Ah, but ferrethouse, my adorable, little persistent vegetable, the current clusterfuck of a military operation in Iraq has a great deal to do with Jews, Israel, Palestine and terrorism since one of the initial rationales for invading Iraq in the first place was to, in fact, defend Israel's security, as U.S. Senator and cleverly-disguised lunatic John McCain let slip back in 2001 (scroll about halfway down the page, to "A McCAIN MOMENT", emphasis added):
... we have only to listen to Senator John McCain – the most belligerent and tireless of the warmongers – going up against a skeptical Chris Matthews, who wanted to know if the Senator thought we should conquer Iraq and set up a military occupation. McCain looked pained, and replied: "I don't pretend to prescribe the exact strategy." Scott McConnell captured this McCain Moment well in a column for Antiwar.com:
"Then he fell back to what he believed to be his Maginot Line, the argument that trumps all arguments. My nightmare – I have several nightmares about Saddam Hussein, but one of them is the that SCUD missile which he has. . . that's in the view of most, aimed at Israel. Aimed at Israel."
Well then, said Matthews, why doesn't Israel take them out?
McCain, stunned, hemmed and hawed for a moment, and finally said:
"Because I'm not sure we should ask the Israelis to do – to take care of a threat to the United States of America."
Matthews: "But you just said it was a threat to Israel."
McCain: "Well to world peace, I think."
Matthews: "No you said it was a threat to Israel. Why should the United States deal with a threat to Israel? Why don't we let Israel – we've been giving them $3 billion a year to defend themselves. Why don't we say, ‘Defend yourselves. You've got a clear fight. Go take Saddam out'?"
McCain: "Because I think it's our job. I think we're the world's leader and I. . ."
Matthews: "Our job is to defend Israel?"
Equating our "national interest" with the defense of Israel, McCain's answer was, essentially, yes.
Unlike "ferrethouse," some of us are still capable of connecting the dots, particularly when the neo-cons are accommodating enough to do it for us on TV.
Wow, thanks for the transcripts of Matthews and McCain. I never knew Matthews had stood up to him like this. Of course, this doesn't make up for all the rah-rahing he does for the Republicans. But so rarely does anyone on cable TV (ever?) question whether it's up to the U.S. to protect Israel.
Post a Comment