I quit reading Stanley Kurtz again after I realized he was going to disappoint me by failing to argue that South Dakota is the state to watch for fabulous new gains in the white population, but I’m thinking I might have to start again after reading what Lindsay caught him saying at the Corner. It’s so insane I had no choice but to footnote it.
Jonah(1), I agree with you that Iraq is no longer having any deterrent effect(2). My point (a variant of your own) is that Iraq does have a deterrent effect as long as the American public sees the venture as worthwhile(3). I agree that the key is for America to perceive Iraq as a success(4). My point is that the quick democratization standard was mistaken. We created a false standard for success, and that is our problem(5). Once we focus on the big picture, and off of the false standard of quick democratization, the public will see Iraq in a new way(6). It will take a debate about Iran to make that change(7), and it won’t be easy, but that is what’s needed. We need to see peace and democracy in Iraq is icing on the cake(8). The real goal is the proof of resolve against Iran and others(9). If the public sees that, it might change its view of what’s important and what success means(10).
Iran and North Korea were working on bombs well before Iraq(11). Iraq didn’t make them get nukes(12). Our problem is that technological advance has intervened to make the nuclear option widely available. That was happening independently(13). It’s just that 9/11 woke us up to the real implications(14).
- This is supposed to remind everyone we’re in the presence of deep thinkers.
- On the Dixie Chicks.
- As long as some redneck is still willing to yell at the long-hairs, we’re still gold.
- One strategy to do this is to show Britney Spears giving Kurtz a blow job in the streets of Baghdad–see, perfectly safe!
- We should have stuck with Bush’s original idea that “success” could be safely defined as “penetrating Iraq deeper and longer than Daddy did”.
- If we just speak a lot of important sounding nonsense for long enough, Americans will give up giving two shits about Iraq.
- By invading a whole new country, we can get Iraq off the news and focus on the new bad guys. There’s a lot of countries in the world to make war on, so this particular strategy has an endless amount of potential.
- Made of corpses, sure, but still, icing!
- Maybe 50% of Americans will think that we must have won in Iraq and pulled out if we invade Iran, due to the fact that only crazy people would invade one country when your military is bogged down in another. Surely 50% of Americans are still pretending that the White House isn’t crazy.
- After they realize they basically let democracy go and don’t have any power over what their Republican tyrants choose to do, they might decide to give up following politics altogether and maybe watch more movies.
- Technically, so were the Hobbits.
- Rove is finding a way to pin it on the Hobbits, though.
- The nuclear option became one during the 2000 election debacle, which was indeed independent of anything Iran, Iraq or Hobbits were doing.
- Voldemort said he’d kill him if he didn’t mention 9/11. (15)
- It’s okay to mix up pop culture references when you’re addressing Jonah Goldberg.
18 Responses to “It’ll also impress his wife, Morgan Fairchild”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
We need to see peace and democracy in Iraq is icing on the cake. The real goal is the proof of resolve against Iran and others. If the public sees that, it might change its view of what’s important and what success means.
So basically, nevermind all that ’spreading democracy’ and ‘freeing the Iraqis’ and all that humanitarian bull, the really important thing about Iraq is proving that, incompetently overseen, ill-led, over-extended and underfunded as it is, the US army can still break a country and then leave it a dangerous, splintered, failed state breeding ground for terrorists?
What an… interesting strategy.
Am I high? Or drunk?
Cause that’s gotta be the only explanation for my interpretation of this, which is that Howard thinks that as long as we continue to send our troops on pointless missions, allow Iraqis to kill one another, and drain our national treasury, we’re showing the world that we have resolve.
It’s kinda like, when you see that crazy homeless person on the street doing something really self-destructive and dangerous, you stay away from him because you don’t want to get drawn in.
Is that our new foreign policy?
1. The title made me laugh before I even read the post.
2. I’m with Lindsay: “Kurtz’s words form grammatical English sentences, but I have absolutely no idea what they mean.” He writes in Manifesto English. Not quite Time-Cube-level nuts, but he sounds like he’d be able to keep up with Lyndon La Rouche.
Not quite Time-Cube-level nuts, but he sounds like he’d be able to keep up with Lyndon La Rouche.
I dunno. I sent him and email when he wrote basically this exact article 6 months ago (although that one had 50 percent more media blaming and 40 percent less backpedalling).
His response: “Goal based foreign policy is stupid and evil. Opposite reactions mean all success comes from failure, and all good from bad. -1X-1=+1 is an evil lie.”
now, what I said there might not be true, but it is funny. and I’ve never been one to let the truth get in the way of good entertainment.
The real goal is the proof of resolve against Iran and others(9)
Oh, yeah - me, I always find that smashing a bottle into the face of the guy sitting next to me at the bar makes other people treat me ,b>real nice…
Iraq didn’t make them get nukes(12).
This isn’t entirely true, as it turns out. Part of the reason Iran wants nukes so bad is that it saw what we did with Iraq, and what we did with North Korea. The country without nukes got invaded; the country with them was ignored. Iran knows that nuclear weapons are protection against invasion, and they want that.
Shorter…who is this asshole wombstain? Stanley krutz? whatever, shorter him: AMERICA MUST SHOVE MIGHTY SOCKS DOWN ITS PANTS TO SHOW THE WORLD WE MEAN BUSINESS.
technological advance has intervened
What the hell does that even Mean!? Have the chinese already sold his brain off as part of a debt reclamation program or something?
Mistah Kurtz … he dead.
Still, I fear this is probably an accurate prediction:
4,6,7,10: It doesn’t matter what the real situation in Iraq is, the key is making the American people think it’s a success.
My brain is hurting. Bad. First Jonah says something vaguely smart and reality-based, for the first time in living memory:
Then one of his colleagues makes him look like a liberal genius with the insane post that Lindsay and Amanda cite. I can’t get over or understand how prevalent the idea on the right (especially the neocon right) is that as tinfoilhattie puts it, what matters isn’t whether operation x in the war on terror is a success, but whether the American people can be persuaded it is. How do these people not grasp that “the American people” aren’t the ones blowing up Americans (or Spaniards or Brits or Indonesians etc). It made sense in an electoral context, but large swathes of the right seem to have internalised the idea so that they actually think the ultimate goal of the war on terror is to make Americans think the war on terror is going well. Which conveniently enough, is exactly what the Cheney wing of the administration thinks the ultimate goal is too.
New foreign policy? What’s “new” about it? It’s the venerable “madman strategy”, most closely associated with R.M. Nixon. They’re trying to recreate everything else about the Nixon era, why not that? (Not that it ever really went away).
Or did you think all those flyspecks St. Ronnie invaded had some strategic value?
It’s really very simple. You beat up someone - anyone - so that everyone else looks at you in fear. That really is how far gone these bozos are.
Don’t you have to pass a literacy test or sanity test to write about foreign policy and if not why not?
Corner Kooks.
Kool-Aid.
Drinking.
Fuck.
Tards.
R. Mildred got to the “shorter” idea first, but here’s mine: Actually democratizing Iraq and giving its people hope for the future is secondary in importance to showing the rest of the world what a monstrous cock we have.
OK, that really wasn’t all that much shorter. How’s this: It really is the size, not how you use it.
What do you think, sirs?
incorrect, doug. it isn’t the size, or how you use it, it’s making sure no one asks the size in the first place.
R. Mildred - You pegged it. Sorry, Doug.
…Iraq does have a deterrent effect as long as the American public sees the venture as worthwhile
Boggle. There are no drugs in this house strong enough to cause me to think that statement makes any sense. I do like this one, however:
The real goal is the proof of resolve against Iran and others. If the public sees that, it might change its view of what’s important and what success means.
I suspect if the public sees what Kurtz intends, then its view of what’s important would be getting batsh*t insane wankers like him out of our government ASAP.
Jesus Christ, this man is a professional writer? His words read like he ran them through an English to Spanish translation tool, and then back again.
Hence the Presidential flight suit codpiece.