Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Let's Have A War! And Maybe Another One, Too!

We're sure McArdle fans have seen the ginandtacos item wherein Mlle. McA.'s firm beliefs vis-a-vis the invasion & continuing occupation of Iraq are deservedly mocked.

Settling for scraps, I went to the source, & noted this bit that no one else I've read has yet mentioned.

Thus, Eric Alterman is enabled to claim that the cost to the US taxpayer will be over $2t, even though most of the larger costs cited by Galbraith aren't going to be borne by Americans either directly or indirectly, but by Iraqi oil.6 That's the oil that will be able to flow freely for the first time in ten years because of this war -- and the revenue from which will flow to the Iraqi people for the first time in a decade.
The footnote:
6 Am I suggesting that the Iraqis should pay for occupation expenses? Nope. We can afford it, and there's something repellent about making impoverished Iraqis pay for a war foisted on them by an evil dictator. But most of that $2t, if it is any sort of a real number, will be stuff for Iraqis: roads, schools, hospitals, government buildings, power plants and sewers and all the good stuff that lets us live like citizens of the 21st century. That stuff should come out of Iraqi oil revenues.
Our emphases. She knows from "real" numbers, doesn't she? And how's all that "get the oil money to the Iraqi people" worked out, seven yrs. into the occupation? More electricity, to run all the "good stuff?" Well, no.

What a horrid, awful, fucking bitch. From what dark, disturbed part of her ugly mind did something like: "there's something repellent about making impoverished Iraqis pay for a war foisted on them by an evil dictator" come? Foisted on them? Or is she referring to Bush when she types "evil dictator?" The "foisting" was done by people like her, stenographers for the unelected gov't. of the usurper Bush.

Elements of Style©: How could a graduate of Podunk State Normal School, let alone an English major from Penn, type "stuff" twice, & "good stuff" once, in any context, let alone in two sentences?

And an outro from DougJ at Balloon Juice:
Doubt this will make it into Conor Friedersdorf’s li'l round-up of mistaken Iraq War predictions.
Probably not. Fuck Friedersdorf, & the horse he rode in on. Remember this?
Tell us, Friedersdork (He really shouldn't type under his own name.) how's that True/Slant site where you used to type working out for ya? We still exist. You got fucked by a corporation. Learned anything yet?

If he's still on the "under your own name" thing (What possible difference does it make? Malignant Bouffant isn't anyone else's name, & it bloody well is my own name.) he can shoot me a fucking email, we'll meet somewhere, & just before I cram his teeth down his throat, I'll let him know what my legal name is, & who's a "coward."

(Really, what is he talking about? Should I reveal my legal name, address, 'phone # & other contact info to prove something? Something along the lines of how many hateful lunatics read McArdle & would try something physical if they knew where to find me? What's your address, Conor, if that's your own name? It isn't, of course, it's his parents name for him, & like the pathetic sheep he is, he accepts it, along w/ the conventional wisdom he swallows whole. Asswipe.)


Anonymous said...

Screw all these right-wing retards. Honestly, how many times to I have tell you that "Freedom is the power to say that 2+2=5"?? Therefore, all Muslims are evil terrorists, Saddam Hussein invaded his OWN F'ING COUNTRY and occupied it for almost 10 years, and FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. Orwell is currently rotating in his grave at a speed approaching escape velocity. Also, too, screw Conor Freaksdork.

brad said...

Conor Freihoffer was falling back on an increasingly common trope among wingnuts; the reverse ad hominem. While students of logic are generally taught to separate the argument from the person and deal with each separately, conservatives and pundits have decided that an argument without a person is somehow invalid, primarily because both groups have no valid arguments of their own and thus need to rely on sophistic tricks to try to dismiss their opposition. Making issue of the critic helps them ignore his or her words. Liberals are fascist, Megan's (sometimes) nameless critics are sexist, etc.
The kinda sad thing is Conor is too stupid to know he's doing this, he just can't handle the criticism.

Anonymous said...

Hey, at least, according to McMegan, she learned something from all her cheerleading:
"I'm sure there were other errors I made, but those are the ones that I can identify five years later.

The biggest thing I've learned is simple humility. Almost any set of facts can tell two stories; I will never again be so sure that my story is right."