On Jul 23, 5:50=A0pm, Taylor <desperatehousewi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 6:21=A0pm, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 4:21=A0pm, z <z...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > znuybv <thowil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
innews:824b437e-d0a2-4d84-acc2-dd2=
555e1f9d7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > On Jul 23, 1:44 pm, z <z...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >> znuybv <thowil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> > > >>
innews:235abfb2-f91d-4a7f-b988-0b561a2ab8e4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> om:
>
> > > >> > On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, mordacpreven...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > > >> >> On Jul 23, 1:14 pm, nj <calcio1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> > You rarely see an interview couch such hopeless inanity in
th=
e
> > > >> >> > pretense of not getting an answer to the question, but, what
=
can
> > > >> >> > I say? Couric's a whiz at this. You see the problems coming
a
> > > >> >> > mile away when Couric frames the discussion as a response to
> > > >> >> > people "scratching their heads," people "asking why," and
peo=
ple
> > > >> >> > whose "eyebrows" are raised.
>
> > > >> >> > Such people, of course, do not exist and cannot be named.
>
> > > >> >> > 'Tis the beginning of a Straw Man argument, which has sadly
> > > >> >> > become the first resort of many in the press.
>
> > > >> >> > From there, the line of interrogation is rivetingly
unconcern=
ed
> > > >> >> > with substantive analysis of Obama's Iraq War position -
it's=
a
> > > >> >> > silly little trap of false logic, in which Couric attempts
to
> > > >> >> > get Obama to admit to the obvious - that 100,000+ troops in
I=
raq
> > > >> >> > have affected the conditions in the country, and hang a
false
> > > >> >> > admission of "Surge" efficicacy around his neck.
>
> > > >> >> > When are you ****ers ever going to learn who the media
really
> > > >> >> > works for?
>
> > > >> >>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/23/katie-couric-to-obama=
-peo
> > > >> >> >_n_ ...
>
> > > >> >> CBS edited an interview Curic had with McSame so that he
wouldn=
't
> > > >> >> look like an idiot when he gave an incomprehensible answer to
a
> > > >> >> simple question.
>
> > > >> > When Obama was asked whether or not he wanted our country to
win=
in
> > > >> > Iraq; he refused to answer yes or no.
>
> > > >> Thats because its a nonsense question. =A0We've already 'won' the
=
war
> > > >> ..
>
> > > > Good. =A0Now tell that to the Black Surrender Monkey.
>
> > > Can you win an occupation?
>
> > No, but your defense contractor buddies can make a killing on it if it
> > gets dragged out long enough. The current state of affairs in Iraq
> > only means the rightards now have to cook up a whole new batch of
> > reasons why we can't leave. Iraq is violent? Can't leave. Iraq is
> > peaceful? Can't leave. Still looking for the WMDs? Can't leave. No
> > WMDs? Can't leave. Factional violence? Can't leave. Sunni and ****a
> > getting along? Can't leave. Al Queda is there? Can't leave. Al Queda
> > has been defeated? Can't leave. Saddam is still at large? Can't leave.
> > Saddam has been captured, tried and executed? Can't leave.- Hide
quoted=
text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Are these the same slackjaw defense contractors who ((killed)) a
> couple of soldiers when they were ((electrocuted)) in the SHOWER at
> the base, due Dick Cheney's shenanigan deal makings and the worker's
> faulty wiring job? Just wondering.
Of course. That's what happens when it's all about money. And, sadly,
Iraq has never really been about anything else.
|
