Hear That?


The wingnut troglodyte’s dream. An actual woman amid a sea of Chee-tos.

Hear that? It’s the sound of a million Chee-to bags being rustled in ecstasy. So what has caused this spasm of basement-dwelling joy? What could possibly bring so many sad, semi-tumescent, pathetic little pricks (true in so many ways) to climax all at once?

Senator Hillary Clinton said something that they were waiting to hear.

Democrat Hillary Clinton charged on Monday the Iraq war may end up costing Americans $1 trillion and further strain the economy, asshe made her case for a prompt U.S. troop pullout from a war “we cannot win.”

This week marks the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but voters now say the economy is their top issue in the campaign for the November presidential election.

Clinton, the former first lady who is trying to convince voters she has foreign policy gravitas, criticized both her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, and the Republicans’ choice, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

She said the war has sapped U.S. military and economic strength, damaged U.S. national security, taken the lives of nearly 4,000 Americans and left thousands wounded.

“Our economic security is at stake,” she said. “Taking into consideration the long-term costs of replacing equipment and providing medical care for troops and survivors’ benefits for their families, the war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over $1 trillion.”

So. Wait for it. Democrats are traitors, Democrats are quitters, they hate the troops, etc., etc. Go ahead. Check out Free Republic or Little Green Assholes, if you can stomach it. They’re already at it. (Yo, A–this might be a good time for an installment of your obsession with the Freepi. Just sayin’.)

What will be lost in the inevitablesturm und wank from the Bush worshippers is this: She is absolutely. Fucking. Right.

You cannot ever, ever win an occupation. “Winning” means what, again? Keeping an armed presence there forever? Creating a stable democracy in Iraq (as if that was ever an actual goal)? Eliminating terrorism? 

You just can’t ever accomplish those goals. Eventually, our troops will leave. That’s the nature of occupation. It’s somebody’s home; as such, it will always be more important to the people who live there than the people who are occupying it. 

As for creating a stable democracy, the question is, for how long? Assume a democratic government dropped into Iraq, as sort of a geopoliticaldeus ex machina, tomorrow. If it’s overthrown in 10 years, is that a failure? What about fifty? Is there a scorecard for this sort of thing?

And, finally, what about eliminating terrorism? Well, dipshits, it’s a tactic. You might as well declare war on moving ambushes, or on the classic fire-and-maneuver technique. That was always a stupid bit of rhetoric. Not that it stopped the jagoffs in the national media from running with it, of course. It’s an especially foolish idea when your very presence in a place creates the tactic against which you claim to struggle. 

Now, if only Sen. Clinton had been this aware of these issues in, say, 2002. 

7 thoughts on “Hear That?

  1. pansypoo says:

    but but but we already regime changed and and and we didn’t find any WMD. so we won.
    sure, iraq is a complete mess, and fucked up the region and it could blow up, and georgie took his eye off the al qaeda ball, but…how could this go wrong?

  2. mothra says:

    Well, the Israeli’s have been occupying Palestine since 1967, so I guess occupations can go on for quite some time.

  3. r@d@r says:

    of course, if they were baked beans instead of cheetos…

  4. Interrobang says:

    Well, the Israelis have been occupying Palestine since 1967, so I guess occupations can go on for quite some time.
    Actually, so have the Jordanians, per the original 1948 partitioning agreement that split up the Middle Eastern British Mandate into its various countries. I notice nobody’s ever breathing downtheir necks to give land back to the Palestinians, although they really ought to, by the terms of the original agreement. ‘Course, the British were there for a long time on top of that — the Balfour Declaration was in 1917, and the British Mandate was well established by then.
    Of course, it’s sort of diversionary to pick on Israel for a 40-year occupation when the US hasn’t confined its military garrisons to within its own borders since the early 1800s…

  5. MapleStreet says:

    And of course, Mothra, to use Rove’s logic (see TP), the longer Israel stays in Palestine, the more the Palestininas love the Israelis?///Snark

  6. pansypoo says:

    the romans were in britain for centuries.eventually they gave up.

  7. hoppy says:

    Bravo Jude! I have been insisting on calling the fiasco in Iraq an occupation for some time now, just as the events that started 5 years age were, in reality, an invasion of Iraq, not a war. We invaded a sovereign country on a whim. We destroyed much of its infrastructure. We kicked out all of its government. Now we occupy that country, desperately looking for the magic way to milk it for more money for Republican fat cats. All of that oil! There have to be a few dollars hidden in that muck somewhere.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: