Clue Sighted
Tweet
A Democratic ad… on national security? The dickens you say! Its as if some of us have been saying for years and years and years now that we can’t win if we just keep going back to the domestic stuff that makes us feel “safe”. The party of Roosevelt and Truman knows how to fight. Maybe they could start doing so.
14 Responses to “Clue Sighted”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Pretty bad ad, but it’s a long overdue start.
It took less time for us to defeat Hitler than it has taken us to accomplish whatever it is we are trying to accomplish in Iraq.
This ad doesn’t even last 5 seconds before it fails the laugh test. The first criticism is that there “aren’t enough troops”. Why then, pray tell, are the Democrats running on … troop withdrawls?!?
I don’t even have to watch the ad. Just the visible opening card, “Iran developing nuclear weapons,” is a side-splitter.
The “official” Democrat solution to Iran (via John Kerry): give them nuclear fuel and then whine to the UN.
Yeah … problem solved. Maybe the UN will get around to it after they figure out how to disarm Hezbollah.
See now I’m confused, is it:
A – Haha! The lonny leftist liberal elitist leftocratic libbyleftoids have no plan for Iraq whatsoever! Let us Mock them!
B – Haha! The lonny leftist liberal elitist licencious libertine linguistic labia leftshtapo have a plan for Iraq but it doesnt fix the problems Bush created! Let us Mock them!
C – Haha! The lonny leftist liberal elitist lex luthor licks lana lang lustily libroleftocrapumongoloids have a plan, but I’m still obligated to hate them so I get to drastically misrepresent Kerry on something unrelated not addressing the issue even. Let us Mock them!
Oh wait, didnt notice the D- All of the above option. Now it makes sense.
Hmmm, the untried John Kerry solution vs. the Bush solution. I like Kerry’s better. THe Bush ‘ignore it and hope it goes away’ policy that has now blossomed into the ‘getting critical, can’t ignore it, let’s try to rattle the saber and hope someone else bails us out’ policy just doesn’t seem to be effective.
This ad doesn’t even last 5 seconds before it fails the laugh test. The first criticism is that there “aren’t enough troops”. Why then, pray tell, are the Democrats running on … troop withdrawls?!?
Because thanks to Iraq because a total clusterf***, there can’t BE enough troops in Iraq without compromising other areas, due to lack of recruitment. Next.
The “official” Democrat solution to Iran (via John Kerry): give them nuclear fuel and then whine to the UN.
When the hell did Kerry ever say that we should gove nuclear fuel to Iran? Furthermore, how would you know about anything that Kerry said with your head that far up your ass? Besides, giving deadly supplies to brutal dictatorships sounds more like a Reagan thing to me.
Let me get that one for you there Zython before Mike or Farris can incorrectly answer it for you. Iran was looking into Uranium and we knew it, and they knew we knew it. We asked them and they said they were using it to build Nuclear Power Plants (Which is bull, of course). Kerry said “O rly? Well then tell you what, let us help you with that, we’ll provide the uranium and oversee the means by which you apply it to these plants. Otherwise it could look like youre making motions to threaten the US.” That was his plan. Not, as Mike would like you to believe “Hi mr Terrorist who I love like a brother and have much teh gay buttsex with! Take the Uranium please and blow us all to the smithereens!” but rather “You want us to believe its cool? then let us help, let us watch, let us oversee, and let us make sure you dont try anything funny with us.”
More Here
The funny thing about Mike bringing it up though is that early this year, Bush endorsed the same damn plan.
NY Sun: Bush’s Iran Plan Echoes Kerry, Baffles Friends
I tell you what, Rex, with stuff like that going on, we should start seeing some conservative moonbat’s heads exploding sometime in mid-October.
Well, that sucks. From the link, “This video no longer available.”
Wonder why?
A slight correction to Rex’s version. From JK’s website:
So … if we give Iran nuclear fuel and they don’t give it back, then we’ll know what their intentions are.
John Kerry: Sooopah Genius!
Oh for chrissake of course it would be supervised to dumb shit, and other such specifics would be worked out to make sure that we werent just outright giving them something they could use to destroy america. Honestly how fucking stupid do you need to believe we all are that we’ll accept your twisting words around like that? And no response on how, if at all this differs from Bushs nigh identical plan, which by your logic makes Bush as Sooopah Genius as Kerry. God, seriously, please go and dig a hole somewhere to bury your head in so we can all kick your ass, alright?
Supervised?!? Kinda like the Lebanon supervised the disarmament of Hezzbollah in the 1990s, I guess. Look how well that went.
And we have yet another completely unrelated topic! Perhaps this one will finally distract from your inability to form a cogent rebuttal to the pointing out that you have no godsdamn case! Hope against hope, right? Clap for Tinkerbell!
But then no actually, Because Lebanon should not have been trusted to make sure that Hezbollah disarmed themselves when they were fundamentally taking hold of the country. Much in the same way Bush shouldnt simply implicitly trust for instance the Oil industry to regulate itself since it has a vested interest in affecting what those regulations end up being at the expense of the people. Hooray! Now I’m talking about something not directly related! I win!
But yeah though, see the thing is that you know it would be watched over to make sure iran didnt try any funny stuff, not just asking that they make sure they dont. You know that the people doing the watching would have the authority and power to make sure they dont. You know that they would make it clear to Iran what the consequences of such dickery would be to make damn damn damn sure they dont. And yet, here you are pretending that Kerry was advocating a policy for the sake of affecting the exact opposite result that the plan would actually generate, namely providing Iran with a weapon they could use against us. You’re delusional, imbecilic, obsessed with the idea that everyone around you must be as ignorant as you are and that any facts that show contrary are lies, and are so far beneath contempt that you have lost even my morbid fascination in fueling your ignorant babble. I’m done.
Supervised?!? Kinda like the Lebanon supervised the disarmament of Hezzbollah in the 1990s, I guess. Look how well that went.
So you’re comparing the U.S. to Lebanon now. Nice. Real nice.
There you have it folks, the Bush administration is purposfully helping Iranian terrorists.
So now the cons are both pro-terrorism and pro-cancer. How low will you go?