Let's say there's this guy, a former spokesman of a
terrorist organization responsible for, among other acts,
the bombing of an American embassy. Despite that, though, he has for decades agitated for the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein via American force and it seems he'll do anything to accomplish this. Of course, this makes him popular with President Bush, who meets with him personally (Bush: "I want you to convey this message to Mr. Sistani. Tell him that I pray to the same god he prays to...").
Naturally, he's rewarded. The Coalition Provisional Authority
makes him National Security Advisor.
That in mind, why should we believe that he's capable of giving an objective view of the American occupation? I'm sure you'll be shocked, but Putz thinks he's
just peachy. Check out this mindfuck of
a first sentence:
IN THE AMERICAN media, Iraq's steady progress toward security is frequently overshadowed by news of the latest act of mass terrorism.
No kidding?
No comments:
Post a Comment