Well, I don’t know about you but Cheney is “dithering”* me out…so what’s his point, “thinking it through” is a bad thing?...as opposed to what? Being “decisive” in jumping in front of a bus (Iraq)? What? Should we tell future generations that they should be “decisive” and cross the street without looking (“left and right”) for upcoming danger first? What then? Having a decisive “W” was not bad enough? So how about “a decisive” Sarah Palin as “commander in chief”? Wow! Not that it’s going to happen but that’s a scary thought isn’t it (like the worst “B” horror or disaster flick that even Hollywood can’t dream up)? Hmmm, some food for thought…how about a Sarah Palin (the dithering queen) and Cheney ticket for 2012 (in that order)?
*Dithering: “Dithering” in graphic artist terms means the “breaking down” of solid colors into dots to represent gradations in color that a computer or printing device cannot handle. Like dissolving the color “wearing” it down (so keep that in mind also when reading).
So after how much blood and treasure is Iraq “manageable” again (if it last)? At the time of the invasion I had argued with my friends on the right that “aside” from ideologies and political views that from a “strictly practical” stand point the invasion seemed like a “stupid” decision…with my friends on the left I’d argue that maybe “we” can’t be that dumb and that there may have been some kind of “think-tank” well understood (but secret) geo-political reason behind it all (like to setup shop to “stop” the Chinese…the real enemy of our way of life). And then it turns out to be that “yes” they were even more stupid that we suspected… and that the universal notion -aside from the very neo-cons that screwed up in the first place- is that the “Iraq invasion” was stupid at best. Heck, even gas prices went up…way up, and then the economy tanked. So was that just stupid, or stupid…and reckless? To be smart and arrogant is bad, but to be stupid and arrogant is a disaster.
Now just for the sake of argument and in response as to how quick “the far right” (and the not so far right) is to make despotic and inflammatory statements even when not factual. So how about this? What does the constitution say about premeditatedly plunging the nation into war under false pretenses? Let’s ask Sarah…hey Sarah, does that sound “constitutionally” to you? Or just “treasony”?
How about the cost “in blood and treasure” (lives and treasure)? So what’s that then, just an “oops and sorry” moment? Or something far more serious…seriously. Sure we all make mistakes but there’s a difference when you have a solemn responsibility. Like as a “responsible” parent I will never tell my own children to just cross the street without looking, nor should any responsible government launch the nation into war without first “thinking it through”, and I mean “all-the-way-through”. Logic will tell you that if you elect someone stupid you’re bound to get stupid decisions… and that by the same token if you elect someone smart you’re bound to get smarter decisions. So no matter what your ideology, aren’t we all better off?
There’s no “dithering” history and history is not going to be kind about this whole mess. Like in the OJ case, whether you thought he was guilty or not the legacy is that he was guilty… no matter how much he denies it, and that he got away with it. Here also Cheney can say anything he wants (the best form of defense is to attack) but the legacy has already taken place… there were no WMD’s and the Iraq war was a stupid and reckless disaster (except for Halyburton and Cheney’s cronies in the oil industry that is).
*Dithering: “Dithering” in graphic artist terms means the “breaking down” of solid colors into dots to represent gradations in color that a computer or printing device cannot handle. Like dissolving the color “wearing” it down (so keep that in mind also when reading).
So after how much blood and treasure is Iraq “manageable” again (if it last)? At the time of the invasion I had argued with my friends on the right that “aside” from ideologies and political views that from a “strictly practical” stand point the invasion seemed like a “stupid” decision…with my friends on the left I’d argue that maybe “we” can’t be that dumb and that there may have been some kind of “think-tank” well understood (but secret) geo-political reason behind it all (like to setup shop to “stop” the Chinese…the real enemy of our way of life). And then it turns out to be that “yes” they were even more stupid that we suspected… and that the universal notion -aside from the very neo-cons that screwed up in the first place- is that the “Iraq invasion” was stupid at best. Heck, even gas prices went up…way up, and then the economy tanked. So was that just stupid, or stupid…and reckless? To be smart and arrogant is bad, but to be stupid and arrogant is a disaster.
Now just for the sake of argument and in response as to how quick “the far right” (and the not so far right) is to make despotic and inflammatory statements even when not factual. So how about this? What does the constitution say about premeditatedly plunging the nation into war under false pretenses? Let’s ask Sarah…hey Sarah, does that sound “constitutionally” to you? Or just “treasony”?
How about the cost “in blood and treasure” (lives and treasure)? So what’s that then, just an “oops and sorry” moment? Or something far more serious…seriously. Sure we all make mistakes but there’s a difference when you have a solemn responsibility. Like as a “responsible” parent I will never tell my own children to just cross the street without looking, nor should any responsible government launch the nation into war without first “thinking it through”, and I mean “all-the-way-through”. Logic will tell you that if you elect someone stupid you’re bound to get stupid decisions… and that by the same token if you elect someone smart you’re bound to get smarter decisions. So no matter what your ideology, aren’t we all better off?
There’s no “dithering” history and history is not going to be kind about this whole mess. Like in the OJ case, whether you thought he was guilty or not the legacy is that he was guilty… no matter how much he denies it, and that he got away with it. Here also Cheney can say anything he wants (the best form of defense is to attack) but the legacy has already taken place… there were no WMD’s and the Iraq war was a stupid and reckless disaster (except for Halyburton and Cheney’s cronies in the oil industry that is).
KW: political humor, comedy, comedians, comics, comic books, cartoons, funny stuff, political cartoons, humor, free stuff, movies, video games, games, free games, download games, PC games, Play Station games, X-box games, PS3, PSP, X Box, online games, entertainment, arts, graphics, fonts, clipart, artist, books, graphic novels, netflix, cinema, animation, anime, new releases.
Posts
I posted this panel on my Facebook. I was amazed at the commentary and the email response! Apparently, the conservatives are offended by the lack of American flag on the lapel. Deeply offended! I am not joking. Are these people for real?!
ReplyDeleteJeeeezzz and he has been wearing one ever since the election. No that it matters that much (the flag on the lapel thingy) but it is the same as the birth place "thingy". it does not matter what reality is, simple minds can't let simple things go. real life is confusing, thinking is scary and reality has too many variables to it . please see "What's A Dino?" and "Friday the 13th". the flag on the lapel thingy happens to be a favorite theme of mine.
ReplyDelete