Of nuisances, Saudi and Texan
So Chimpya and Frankencheney (two more of my many endearing nicknames for the dahlings--collect all 6,000,000) are now grindin' those meagre neurons, trying to make an issue of Kerry's 'nuisance' comment.
And, of course, revealing more and more about themselves which is, frankly, just terrifying.
Yep, apparently aspiring to do anything less than eliminate all terrorism forever is simply unacceptable...
Bein' against war is like bein' against rain. An understandable sentiment. But not a battle you should go on a hunger strike over.
Yep. I'll start eating again when we've achieved world peace.
And we'll elect an actually competent executive branch when there's no more terrorism.
And I bet these chumps would declare war on the rain, too, if they figured it would give them job security.
Yep. And then decry as a traitor anyone who suggested that, realistically rain happens, now and then, and maybe keeping an umbrella around is just how it's gonna be...
And that is how it is. The reality is, there will always be terrorism. You might reduce it substantially, as I've written elsewhere, by shifting the political landscape, so the many grievances of so many bitter young men in the Arab world in particular are a little less bitter, and thus less available for manipulation by certain fanatical sects. But with or without that, there will still always be terrorism. Angry people with a grievance against a state they cannot attack directly will take it out on civilian populations, and will use the ability to inflict that terror as a political pressure point. It's a path of least resistance, and a tempting one, and probably always will be.
So if reducing terrorism to the point where it's in real terms a nuisance (a burden on law enforcement, a constant cost in terms of watching for dangerous nuts with explosives, but usually, you get them, and people don't live their lives hoarding duct tape) isn't 'winning', what is?
Oh. I forgot. That's the point. There is no 'winning'. 'Winning' is a transparently meaningless rhetorical device used by a coupla yutzes trying to hold onto power by scaring people.
When's it won, guys? Huh? When there's no more terrorism? And your poor suffering citizenry are to keep your ugly mugs in the Oval Office until then, right?
No. It's never won. Ask Dear Leader from 1984 how that works. There's always gotta be an enemy. Keep the people scared, keep 'em doing as you say.
Boys, ya know, you're scary freaks, and if you talk too much, more and more folk are gonna start to notice.
So if you wanna have a chance at winning, my recommendation would be: just shut up, smile and wave.
Let's face it, opening your mouths just ain't smart. Too much behind them it doesn't serve you to let your citizenry see.
And, of course, revealing more and more about themselves which is, frankly, just terrifying.
Yep, apparently aspiring to do anything less than eliminate all terrorism forever is simply unacceptable...
Bein' against war is like bein' against rain. An understandable sentiment. But not a battle you should go on a hunger strike over.
Yep. I'll start eating again when we've achieved world peace.
And we'll elect an actually competent executive branch when there's no more terrorism.
And I bet these chumps would declare war on the rain, too, if they figured it would give them job security.
Yep. And then decry as a traitor anyone who suggested that, realistically rain happens, now and then, and maybe keeping an umbrella around is just how it's gonna be...
And that is how it is. The reality is, there will always be terrorism. You might reduce it substantially, as I've written elsewhere, by shifting the political landscape, so the many grievances of so many bitter young men in the Arab world in particular are a little less bitter, and thus less available for manipulation by certain fanatical sects. But with or without that, there will still always be terrorism. Angry people with a grievance against a state they cannot attack directly will take it out on civilian populations, and will use the ability to inflict that terror as a political pressure point. It's a path of least resistance, and a tempting one, and probably always will be.
So if reducing terrorism to the point where it's in real terms a nuisance (a burden on law enforcement, a constant cost in terms of watching for dangerous nuts with explosives, but usually, you get them, and people don't live their lives hoarding duct tape) isn't 'winning', what is?
Oh. I forgot. That's the point. There is no 'winning'. 'Winning' is a transparently meaningless rhetorical device used by a coupla yutzes trying to hold onto power by scaring people.
When's it won, guys? Huh? When there's no more terrorism? And your poor suffering citizenry are to keep your ugly mugs in the Oval Office until then, right?
No. It's never won. Ask Dear Leader from 1984 how that works. There's always gotta be an enemy. Keep the people scared, keep 'em doing as you say.
Boys, ya know, you're scary freaks, and if you talk too much, more and more folk are gonna start to notice.
So if you wanna have a chance at winning, my recommendation would be: just shut up, smile and wave.
Let's face it, opening your mouths just ain't smart. Too much behind them it doesn't serve you to let your citizenry see.
posted by AJM at 8:24 p.m. (Permanent Link)
