TeeWee: "As America weighs its options in Syria, we'll examine the potential costs..."
Me: "Jesus wept! You've barely finished goading the administration into a war and now you're hand-wringing over the 'potential costs'?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
It's important to prove to the other girls that your boyfriend is as tough as theirs, without spending so much money at the gym that he can't buy you this years new Coach purse.
No "goading" required. This is full-on dog-waggin.
Can't help but compare contrast Mr "Constitutional Law Instructor" sending in warships after relieving the Task Group RADM over Benghazi. We're poised to commit traqgic-scale idiocy on LOUSY Intel when we wouldn't even protect American lives and American soil...
Speaking of compare and contrast,I saw yesterday on the net a video of 'Senator' obama chastising the (then) administration for wanting to go to Iraq,vs 'President'obama explaining how we morally have to go bomb Syria.
Short memory.
Back a coward into a corner and you will be surprised.
We all know the democrats go to ware reluctantly. Just another case of the left lying.
So, when a drunk in a bar asks you for $50 so he continue to drink and get even more drunk, you smile and give it to him with no expectation to get it back anytime soon, right?
Oh, and because you gave him the $50, you have less to spend on essentials for you and your family, like food, clothing and shelter.
The important thing is to keep that drunk happy, right? Otherwise, he may get nasty and belligerent. Can't let that happen.
We need to go to war...as long as there are no great costs....as long as nobody is hurt....but we need to go to war.
Benteen
Come On. Big Village.
Be Quick. Bring Packs.
P.S. Bring packs. W.W. Cooke
Well played Kristophr. As I said before, Remember the Maine!
Don't know what everyone is complaining about. We are getting to watch the WH policy thinkers in action. I'm sure .gov is just waiting for their insightful tactical analysis before proceeding. /end sarcasm
Matt Inman nailed my perception of the Syrian sitch.
We want to have a war on terrorists, but we want to bomb a country full of desperate, oppressed people, so that they can turn their aggressions on us, instead of their own government? It would logically seem that the best way to fight terrorism would be to STAY THE EFF OUT OF THIS ONE.
Talk about your cost/benefit study.
Considering that there is no entity in the Mideast (other than Israel), that one can support without also supporting their allies, who are your enemies, one can logically either decide that they are all our enemies, or none are, and all are our allies.
Since both propositions are preposterous, I'd suggest supporting more internecine strife without getting involved in it might be the way to go.
I recall the now-exiled John Derbyshire, writing for National Review a year after 9/11, saying that he had expected the Saudis to be dying in their own civil war by the 12 month anniversary of the attack, with US-occupied smoking ruins of capitals in countries from to Algeria to Pakistan.
While his vision can still come true, I certainly hope it need not do so.
Post a Comment