Spinning the UK Dropout
The decision by the British Prime Minister to pull some of his troops out of Iraq must have come as a stunning blow to Bush & Bunch, at a moment when the Republicans are fighting hard to justify their decision to send in more troops.
But after less than a moment's thought, they just pulled their rickety war wagons tighter together in their usual slapdash fashion, and they came out with some of their typical black-is-white and up-is-down flipdoodle. With the straightest possible faces that such crooked visages are capable of achieving, they are saying that Blair's move is actually a sign that things are going well, and that to be able to do that, Blair is really confirming the wisdom of Bush's desire to send in thousands more American troops imminently.
Since they obviously feel no need to use the slightest degree of common sense and to speak logically, the Repubs must feel that they are capable of equally fending off the embarrassing questions that their clumsy spin over Blair's move ought to arouse.
The American reinforcements probably haven't gotten to Iraq yet. This means that on or about the same time they arrive, the British troops will be shipping out. How logical is that, if at the same time extra troops are so badly needed to keep the occupation going?
Secondly, what's to keep things at their presently relatively cool level in the southern areas as the British decrease their presence? A hip-hip-hooray and English good will? The British may shake their feet free of the Iraqi bog yet again, as, being slow learners, they already have done a time or two in the past, but the Iraqi points of contention will remain, as they seem fated to do for a long period to come, with and without armed foreign "guests."
The impression exists that British-patrolled Basra and the other southern areas were always less volatile than the northern areas where the Bush forces are active. That's why the British were assigned that region in the first place. You have to keep your junior partners happy, especially in a coaliton that those partners later started abandoning left and right. So how does it follow that the relative quietude in the more or less naturally less explosive South indicates any sort of likelihood of the same being possible in the just as naturally and much more inflamed areas to the north, especially in and around Burning Baghdad?
But after less than a moment's thought, they just pulled their rickety war wagons tighter together in their usual slapdash fashion, and they came out with some of their typical black-is-white and up-is-down flipdoodle. With the straightest possible faces that such crooked visages are capable of achieving, they are saying that Blair's move is actually a sign that things are going well, and that to be able to do that, Blair is really confirming the wisdom of Bush's desire to send in thousands more American troops imminently.
Since they obviously feel no need to use the slightest degree of common sense and to speak logically, the Repubs must feel that they are capable of equally fending off the embarrassing questions that their clumsy spin over Blair's move ought to arouse.
The American reinforcements probably haven't gotten to Iraq yet. This means that on or about the same time they arrive, the British troops will be shipping out. How logical is that, if at the same time extra troops are so badly needed to keep the occupation going?
Secondly, what's to keep things at their presently relatively cool level in the southern areas as the British decrease their presence? A hip-hip-hooray and English good will? The British may shake their feet free of the Iraqi bog yet again, as, being slow learners, they already have done a time or two in the past, but the Iraqi points of contention will remain, as they seem fated to do for a long period to come, with and without armed foreign "guests."
The impression exists that British-patrolled Basra and the other southern areas were always less volatile than the northern areas where the Bush forces are active. That's why the British were assigned that region in the first place. You have to keep your junior partners happy, especially in a coaliton that those partners later started abandoning left and right. So how does it follow that the relative quietude in the more or less naturally less explosive South indicates any sort of likelihood of the same being possible in the just as naturally and much more inflamed areas to the north, especially in and around Burning Baghdad?
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 4:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home