|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| May 2nd, 2005 03:57 PM | |
| mburbank |
I think he's saying; "Since 'we' (the coalition or the U.S. as opposed to the Iraqi army and police force we are trying to build), the question 'are 'we' winning' is irrelivant. That might have come across had he used the word 'us', which would have at least been paralell with his previous sentence. The problem is, even if you unknot it, it's total dodge. The obvious follow up question is, 'okay, fine, is the transitional government of Iraq winning?' But Rummy is different from W. W talks that way because he has a serious communication disability. Rummy talks that way because it throws up a lot of smoke and he thinks it's funny. The subtext is "Like I'd ever answer a question from a fuckwad like you." |
| May 2nd, 2005 03:35 PM | |
| Immortal Goat | Holy shit. At least "Can you define the word 'alone'" was a coherent sentence. That was just wierd. "...not an issue for "we"? What the hell is that? |
| May 2nd, 2005 03:06 PM | |
| mburbank |
Rummy more Clintonesque than Clinton "The United States and the coalition forces, in my personal view, will not be the thing that will defeat the insurgency," he (Reumsfeld) said. "So therefore, winning or losing is not the issue for 'we', in my view, in the traditional, conventional context of using the word winning and losing in a war." -CNN |
