And we would have won, too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids, and that dog of theirs!
Just what we needed. Just when we are winning the war, arresting Iranians daily, and destroying their Sunni and Shi'ite proxies, the appeasement lobby snatches a new defeat from victory's jaws. Probably the deep thinkers at the White House are telling each other how this will deflect any criticism from those who accuse them of planning war with Iran. I hope they enjoy it, because Iran is planning a lot more war with us.
Ah, Michael Ledeen. You never let me down. Still, though I realize it is pointless, this passage makes me wonder about a few things. Is it really the case that Iran is throwing its weight behind both Sunni ultras and their co-religionist Shiite militias, or is that something so stupid that only the US can manage it? Also, in days to come, will people who currently think the war is going badly later decide that, in retrospect we were winning at this point? I mean, clearly the die-hards represented in the conservative blogosphere think we're currently winning, so no mental gymnastics are needed there beyond the astounding plasticity they already show, which compares favorably to that of a Chinese acrobat who has been subjected to a brutal training regimen since infancy. But am I going to have to have deeply irritating conversations years from now with people who know right now that we're frakked six ways to Sunday but who will convince themselves of this stab-in-the-back theory in the future? I fear that I'm going to have to cock-punch some people in the nursing home.
I don't understand why this would be a problem.
Posted by: Jim Henley | July 26, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Why wait until the nursing home, Belle? Why not just go do it now?
Fight tomorrow's war, today! Get them there before we get them here!
Or something. Hell, it's going to be really depressing to be a voter when the next crop of college republicans starts spewing retroactive talking points about the pony brigade and the unicorn corps that eagerly attempted to help us in Mosul and Kirkuk, until we left them behind when we evacuated, and they got genocided.
Posted by: Luke | July 27, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Cock-punch. What is that?
Posted by: davod | July 28, 2007 at 03:16 AM
David, it's, shall we say, a very good thing when applied to the sum total of the 27% of the dead-enders in their last throes. And the College Republicans who are currently, oh, 13. It'll anticipate their attempts to add some new sort of POW flag and their odd revisionist histories about how Michael Moore and War Churchill caused Anne Coulter to lose the war because Michelle Malkin couldn't round up enough Arabs and stash them at Giants' Stadium.
Posted by: Luke | July 28, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Luke:
Was your entry related to my question "What is a cock-punch?"
If so, I am non the wiser.
I did a quick internet check for a dfinition and it seems as if it means punching someone in the cock. Very nice. I suppose the shorthand is supposed to make the term look nicer on paper.
Posted by: davod | July 28, 2007 at 04:40 PM
you saw through my vain attempts to pretty up the term, davod. "cock punch" does indeed mean "punch some dude in the cock."
Posted by: belle waring | July 28, 2007 at 09:36 PM
If you're searching for a euphemism, Belle, I recommend the term I once heard used by a gleeful female pugilist: 'box shot'. The box being the hard plastic thing that we chaps stuff into our jockstraps over the bits we're terribly scared of losing.
Posted by: Dan Hardie | July 30, 2007 at 09:51 PM