...that you open your mouth or put pen to paper (so to speak, probably you type at your computer, in between nibbles on the eclair you swiped from the donut guy on his way to Guantanamo).
But the reason I'm responding this time is that the first sentence in your article, although written in your usual sarcastic, glib style, was actually interesting. It raises a good point; it would be a mistake to prematurely put too much faith in Iran and Syria. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get to know them instead of just rattling sabres back and forth. Talking was eventually helpful with the China and the former USSR, if you recall. I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that we put Iran and Syria in charge of Iraq, so maybe this lesson has already been learned. But it's good to remind us of it. Thank you.
As for the rest of your (not-so) clever maneuvers, e.g. dismissing the use of the word "bipartisan" by putting it in "sarcastic quotes", even though the committee was co-chaired by James Baker, Secretary of State under George Bush I, Chief of Staff and later Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan and so on and so forth; condemning all Democrats and liberals straight to hell (that one never gets tiresome!); insinuating that Guantanamo prisoners are downright pampered and should feel lucky to be there -- oh, just give me a break. And an aspirin. --Ravingmoderate.com
-- In response to Ann Coulter's recent posting on townhall.com, making reference to the Iraq Study Group's conclusions, and entitled "Incoming Congress to Launch Operation Surrender".
great post--thanks...don't know if you've seen this video of Ann Coulter, but it's pretty classic:
ReplyDeletewww.minor-ripper.blogspot.com