All of you know, or should know, that when I post, I post with the truth and am backed up by sources or verifiable facts. I don't just go spouting off things that simply aren't true.
However, that bit of journalistic integrity isn't found with Huffington Post blogger Tom Gilroy. Check out this line of bullshit:
Try and sit through a single newscast or reading of the international page without finding a reference to how Iran is the real 'enemy' over there; whether it's the nuclear bomb there's no evidence of them developing, the IEDs there's no evidence of their government smuggling across the border to harm the agents of our benign humanitarian effort in Iraq, or how Ahmadinejad's denial of the facts of the Holocaust means he's ready to wipe out the free world---or at least America, which can't really be called the free world anymore. But I digress.
Well let's start out with Iran's nuclear weapons shall we? "no evidence"? Well then explain to me how the IAEA has found Iranian documents that can only be used for nuclear weapons?
They've denied supporting insurgents in Iraq, but then one of their own admitted it to the Iraqi ambassador?
We've shown time and time again pictures of weapons that were found on insurgents and in raids that definitively came from Iran.
How much more evidence do you need? Or are you too blinded by your hatred to take an unbiased look?
Mel Gibson denies the facts of the Holocaust, too, but unless he's planning on wiping out the free world by boring them to death with shitty movies, I don't really see him as much of a global threat.
He isn't a threat because he isn't the leader of a nation that supports terrorist organizations and doesn't have access to a decent sized military. Using him as an example just shows how much you're grasping at straws to prove your point.
But if you scan any of the news for idiots---The NY Daily News say, or CNN--- you'd think Ahmadinejad had actually flown the planes into the World Trade Center and that he literally walks around Tehran with American blood dripping off his bib. When he spoke at Columbia the other week, the conservatives who run American mainstream media spun it like Hitler had spoken at ACLU headquarters in the middle of the Blitz.
No one claims he's responsible for the terror attacks of 9/11. However, when he spouts off threats and tries to play the "I'm a good guy" routine, you tend to take the guy seriously as to what he says.
Of course, you're the same kind of guy who'll say "why didn't we do more" if we're attacked by Iran or one of it's supported terrorist groups.
Then our new friend Tom goes off on a tangent:
The rebranding of War With Iraq into War With Iran is only Phase I of a multi-phased rebranding strategy that will go on for years, a strategy that is in fact prepping us for the big hand-off to a Democratic White House that needs its own public spin for staying in Iraq until we've met the one and only (private) benchmark we've had all along; a permanent force in the world's largest military base securing the theft of the world's second largest deposit of oil. But don't take it from me--ask Alan Greenspan, that liberal.
If you doubt the existence of this strategy, than you must've missed the emergence of Phase II last week, when all three of the leading presidential candidates from the 'opposition party'--- the party that supposedly has a mandate from the American people to end the war---furrowed their collective brow and professed dismay that it just seemed too darn unrealistic---and no doubt unpresidential--- to get troops out of Iraq any earlier than--are you ready?--2013.
Why not just let Bush stay president? It's what he wanted all along.
Of course the troops the Dems plan to keep there won't be 'combat' troops, because the 'war' will be over---at least rhetorically. They'll be a 'stabilization force'--that's Phase III of the rebranding.
Phase III will last 50 years, and you'll never hear the word 'combat,' only 'stabilization', but on the ground, the facts will be the same they've always been; unwelcome Americans kids getting killed and maimed by a debilitated local populace who hate them. Desperate Iraqis--armed and otherwise--with no water, sanitation, electricity, protection or hope will still be slaughtered in the streets or made into internal or external refugees. And of course there'll be the big cherry on top we've wanted all along; control of the oil.
Yes Tom, that's what it's all about. You caught us. Now only if we hadn't spent more than $600 billion to get that oil huh? So if Iraq has around 112 billion barrels of oil at $80 per barrel, that's roughly 9 trillion dollars worth of oil. You'd think that'd be a bargain right?
Well unfortunately, we could have easily bought out tons of oil from various places and undermined the global price of oil if we really tried.
So that $80 a barrel could have easily been dropped to around $25 a barrel. That seems like an easier way to get at that precious oil doesn't it? Besides, if we were really after the oil, like you said, I think the Iraqi's would notice they weren't making DIME ONE from oil sales.
Oh and your little example of Alan Greenspan is taken out of context. No surprise given you're a liberal. However, let's take a look at the WHOLE comment shall we?
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ’Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
So before you go quoting someone, perhaps if you leave it in the context to what it is, you'd appear to be a more informed, and be better ethically as a journalist.
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment