"Which pillage they with merry march bring home."
It's impossible to argue with an idiot Heavy Hitter. They are either willfully ignorant or just downright lie to make their case. Case in point: Dawg and his disillusioned dogma that believes every single word spewed out of the WH and Rush's enlarged ass.
Sunni who?
But of course it's the evil and twisted Syria preserving our stay in Iraq by funding tiny groups of sectarian terrorists because that's what G-Dub says, no? They've got a lot to gain, with what, their huge profits (that we can't substantiate to any significant degree in the slightest) from neighboring wars by selling a few guns and bombs. That in no way can compare to the measly profits made by Boeing and GE, can it? Or the profits private military contractors make such as Blackwater, USA who outnumber U.S. soldiers in Iraq! Or that Blackwater's vice chairman Cofer Black has direct ties to both Cheney and Mitt Romney's counterterrorism policy group. I mean, that would be too much of a conspiracy, wouldn't it? War is meant to further an ideological cause rather than to make large sums of money anyway, right? /sarcasm off
Watch Kucinich drill Erik Prince, Dark Lord of Blackwater, from yesterday:
Inevitably, if I pointed out the HH fallacy on the board, if I exposed the complete ignorance for Sunni/Shiite interests, my words would be twisted into hating the troops. Because that is their game. And it's impossible to argue with an idiot.
4 comments:
The point to make is that HoundWeasel is either
1. Falldown stupid
2. A fucking liar
3. Willfully ignorant
I'm going with numba 3 here because, although I've shown him time and time again the error of his ways, he can attribute my facts to the fact that it came from a liberal slime such as myself. But here goes...
He says that "Iran and Syria are funding the insurgents". However, the insurgents are SUNNI's, largely funded by Saudi Arabian's to "jihad" against the American occupation.
Iran is a SHIITE country. They support the Iraqi gov't, which was voted in by the majority SHIITE citizenry of Iraq. From the elections, SHIITE politicians came to dominate the gov't. The SUNNI's were crowded out (which means they had little stake in the oil money). The SUNNI's became the insurgents. The Iranians are in no way shape or form supporting the SUNNI groups that comprise the insurgency. Sure, there are SHIITE separatist groups as well that are killing Americans and Sunni's. However, we are directly funding the Jundalla, a terrorist group inside Iran that has killed Iranians. The enemy of our enemy again....something that has been repeated ad nauseum with Houndweasel...however, he ignores it and would rather trust Rushbo...you know, the same guy that puts an "s" in front of soldier and claims it was just one guy....
The United States government is directly funding many of the terror organizations themselves. But none of that matters in the grand scheme of things.... the question you need to ask is: "who wants perpetual war and who benefits the most from it?"
Nice, thanks for giving me some mention on your blog.
Sunni/Shiite:
Iran is mostly Shiite, Syria is mostly Sunni.
Both support groups vs Israel, both support groups vs the US. If you think trained insurgents and IEDs dont make a difference to our troops then .... well that's your opinion.
I dont even listen to Rush Limbaugh, I listen to Neal Boortz for the most part, and thats pretty much it.
I am also a soldier and know hundreds of soldiers. None I know are upset in the least about Rush's comment because when taken in context they know exactly what he was talking about.
Pretty much all the press coverage of the war is one sided. Soldiers shouldnt have to return from fighting and fight the press too.
[quote]Pretty much all the press coverage of the war is one sided. Soldiers shouldnt have to return from fighting and fight the press too.[/quote]
The only reason the coverage is to one side (i.e. bad) is because, *cough* it is bad. There's no two ways about it. The invasion was a complete and utter disaster and the press have no choice but to report that.
It's no surprise, however, that you fail to note the overwhelmingly GOOD press coverage the run-up to war was getting from 2002 when Bush and Co. began the war drumbeats, all the way through "Shock n' Awe." In fact, it was exceptionally good coverage for at least a year or two into it. Think Valerie Plame and the 2004 Swift Boat of John Kerry. Sure, our army can blow up any country on the map, but could it deal with the aftermath. Uh...nope.
The thing you need take heed on, is that the same war mongerors (like Boortz and Rush) that were beating the drum for war in Iraq are now beating it for Iran. Can we just suddenly trust these idiots? I think not.
Post a Comment