From the "Did you seriously just say that?" Department:
NEW YORK Surely, at this stage, the White House would be willing to admit that conditions in Iraq following the 2003 invasion haven't gone exactly according to plan? White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked about this today at the daily briefing, following the release of military documents from 2002 that revealed that the U.S. expected that by now a token American force of 5,000 would be able to keep things under control in Iraq -- and the occupation would require only a two or three month "stabilization" period.
"What went wrong?" the reporter reasonably asked.
Snow replied: "I'm not sure anything went wrong."
You know, where I come from, this is what we'd consider "going wrong":
Then again, that's just me.
AFTERSNARK: Out of all of Snow's absurdities, perhaps the most infuriating is:
The President believes that we did the right thing in going into Iraq. The question is, should you saddle any military planner with an expectation that they're going to have perfect insight into what happens five years later? Aand the answer is, of course not.
You might normally cut someone some slack for not predicting everything about a military campaign perfectly; that is, unless they've spent years lecturing you about how absolutely certain they are about everything.
Go on ... read that article and count how many times a member of the Bush administration "knows" something, or how frequently something is a "fact," or how often a Bushie makes a statement, completely undiluted by any qualifier of uncertainty whatsoever. (If you have the stomach, feel free to Google on the combination of "George W. Bush" and the phrase "no doubt" to appreciate the hideously-misplaced confidence Commander Codpiece had in his own abilities.)
No, Tony, you don't get a pass on this. You don't get to play the "Hey, no one can ever be sure" card, not after you've spent the last few years being exactly that sure about absolutely everything, and accusing of treason anyone who tried to present the most minimally-dissenting view.
No, Tony -- you made that bed of complete certainty, now you have to lie in it. Make yourself comfortable.
6 comments:
"anonymous":
If you plan on being this obnoxious and confrontational, then one of my blog rules is that you get a "handle" of some kind. I don't allow anyone to carry on an extended dialogue on my blog under the name "anonymous."
So either register with Blogger or make something up, 'cuz being "anonymous" just won't cut it anymore.
Oh come on CC, you delete that morons comments and leave the rest of hanging. Was everyone a dirty penis today?
did he just stop by to remind your readers that the war in iraq was over years ago?
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=3576
No, zorph, it was still very much a female genitalia world.
The troop-lovers from sda once said that 3,000 dead was inconsequential, when compared with World War II.
Yeah, ... compared to the most titanic struggle in human history, 3,000 is relatively small.
The point is that they're callous, stupid, gutless shits.
Judging from this guy's unhinged behavour and love of the "C" word (which when used Kathy Shaidle is so very very wrong), why do I get the idea that this bozo is a shade of Anonalogue? Same classy style, same eliquent debating mannors. And oh look, we have an election coming up soon, if all the noise from the Hill is right,... Could it be our long lost Goon Troll is back from the dead?
Any Chance his IP is from the Ottawa area?
Post a Comment