Thursday, February 08, 2007
Sounding the retreat
In front of AQ -- is that something the NYT would be bashful about? Well, maybe yes -- so that's why they must use euphemisms. But why don't they go full French?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Al-Baghdadi spelled out the terms in an earlier speech: "We order you to withdraw your forces immediately. But the withdrawal must be via troop transport trucks and passenger planes whereby each soldier is allowed to carry his own weapon only. They may not withdraw any of the heavy military equipment and the military bases must be handed over to the mujaheddin of the Islamic State and the duration of the withdrawal may not exceed a month."
Sounds like the ultimate pinko wet dream. Will la Pelosi & Co. push for it?
My guess, AI, is that they don't go "Full French" [a phrase worthy of much use] because they calculate that the Yankee public has not yet been sufficiently Pepeized and so FF might well backfire. So we are in 1938, the rubes still think the Maginor line was constructed for a rational purpose, and so subterfuge is the order of the day. Soon, though, the NYT will stand openly, loudly and proudly with such as Chirac, Galloway, Livingston . They are all Petainists now.
Yes, somehow FF came to mind in trying to describe the situation (as in going full hog into CESM mode). And yes, talking about AQ in Iraq is considered a bigger faux-pas among the NYT "reality-based community" than farting at the dinner table, that's absolutely for sure.
the Yankee public has not yet been sufficiently Pepeized
that is true, but despair not - you are getting there.
Post a Comment