It's amusing to see Glenn Reynolds breathlessly linking to this Bill Stuntz piece calling for more troops in Iraq. Back in the day, of course, Reynolds was busily carrying water for Rumsfeld and tut-tutting that more troops weren't the answer . Glenn Reynolds: against troop increases in Iraq before he was for them! Anyway, it's good to know that the 'more rubble, less trouble' crowd is re-appraising its stance on our troop posture in Mesopotamia--a good 2-3 years late. Good show, Glenn!Ouch.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Against troop increases before he was for them.
This is what's known as a beatdown.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You do a great job of smacking down the Putz. But others also do the same, and thanks for linking to them. I just hope Putz is reading them, but I doubt he is. Right now the emphasis should be "Bush has all the authority he needs to increase troop levels. Do not blame the Dems if Iraq fails" (it probably has already). Putz and the others are getting their ducks in a row, to blame the Dems.
The money quote in Instarube's earlier post supporting Rumself has to be, "I remain unconvinced that we need more troops in Iraq." Does he have any idea how much of a moron he is, and that he is simply pulling things out of his ass when he says things like this? The really, really satisfying answer to that question is no, of course he doesn't!
Instaputz does another - "the United States and the Coalition have an obligation under Security Council resolutions to maintain security in Iraq until Iraqi security forces can take over." This from a guy that trashes the UN all the time, BUT, now that he needs the UN, he ducks for cover. Which is it, Putz? Do we piss on the UN, or commit our resources (read dead soldiers) to uphold their resolutions? This is why we call you the Putz.
Post a Comment