According to Newtie, the Baker Commission's report needs to be "visionary" and "powerful", and recognize that Iran and Syria are now the "wolves" in the region.
According to Newtie, the presidents of Iran and Venezuela are dictators, although they are actually elected, and are a threat equivalent to that of North Korea.
Congress needs to pass a resolution next March, which will state to the world America's verbal desire to "win", which fortunately will completely stymie and flumox our opponents in Iraq and around the world.
I also learned from Newtie that "winning" is definable--it's ensuring you can protect your friends and threaten your enemies and that your enemies are more afraid of you than you are of them, or something.
I wonder what army Newtie thinks is going to be available to carry out the former Speaker's grand ambitions and satisfy his apocalyptic fears.
I wonder what army Newtie thinks is going to be available to carry out the former Speaker's grand ambitions and satisfy his apocalyptic fears.
Do you think if we give him a whole bunch of little plastic soldiers to play with and tell them they're real, he'll get out of our hair? It's worth a try...
Here's the main problem I have with Newt's (and others of his ilk's) assessment of the situation: We're not in a "war" in Iraq, we're in an occupation. You can't "win" an occupation. Let me say that a little louder, so the 101st Fightin' Keyboarders can hear:
YOU CAN'T WIN AN OCCUPATION!
Sheesh.
"Here's the main problem I have with Newt's (and others of his ilk's) assessment of the situation: We're not in a "war" in Iraq, we're in an occupation. You can't "win" an occupation."
Exactly right.
But of course, until some Responsible, Serious, Sensible Centrist in our government or on the teevee says this, it won't be accepted as a responsible, serious sensible perspective.
Commenting by HaloScan
