May 17, 2005

Hey, Remember Fiskings?

Man, it's been a long time since I did this. However, some of today's NYT letters need to be made fun of. Let's get started with letter #1:

To the Editor:

Re "Staying What Course?," by Paul Krugman (column, May 16):

The British and the American governments lied to their people and the world about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

Notice the subtle moving of the goalposts? Apparently, the "lies" were now about the reasons for going to war, rather than the existence of WMD. Interesting. And I have yet to see proof that there were any "lies" in either area. As usual, keep in mind that to liberals, lies = disagreement.

Because of these lies...

WHAT? FUCKING? LIES? I don't know about you, but where I come from, arguments need to be supported with proof. You vague son of a bitch.

...Have I mentioned how much I enjoy blogging uncensored?

...more than 1,600 American service members have died, thousands have been maimed or wounded, countless Iraqis have died, and a large portion of Iraq has been reduced to rubble.

Yes, bad things tend to happen in wars. I'm sure the 50 million people who have been freed thanks to Bush's so-called "lies" would appreciate your lack of vision.

Mr. Krugman asks, "So what's the plan?"

Because Mr. Krazyugman is willfully ignorant.

The answer is obvious: the people who started this war under what have been revealed as false pretenses...

I think there's some sort of "false pretenses" quota for these talking points they pass off as letters to the editor. Oh, and by the way...


...should be held accountable for their actions...

They were re-elected, weren't they? That seems like a way to hold them accountable. Heh heh.

...and should not be permitted to bomb one more Iraqi village...

And once again, we get a glimpse of the scary liberal fantasy world, where all military actions involve indiscriminately dropping tons of bombs on poor, innocent foreigners. All those guys on the ground are there for a reason, dumbass.

...or send another American to his or her death.

Have you noticed the large guns most of them have, genius? They're being sent to kill terrorists, not sacrifice themselves. Yet another important aspect of the liberal fantasy world is the idea of American soldiers marching straight to their doom with no way to fight back. Except for when the soldiers are thoughtless rednecks who want to torture brown people. It changes depending on how heavily medicated the liberal in question is at the time. Or something.

An immediate pullout is the only way to achieve some semblance of respect for our disingenuous and increasingly dangerous foreign policy.

Yes, because leaving Iraq to the terrorists before we finish the job would really make us look good to the rest of the world. And it wouldn't embolden other terrorists, either *cough*Mogadishu*cough*.


There's more in the extended entry, if you're into that kind of thing...

Letter #2:

To the Editor:

There seems to be a special kind of irrational fury that overwhelms the leaders of powerful countries when they find their militaries bogged down in foreign wars.

Is it anything like the irrational fury that overwhelms liberals when they don't get their way?

They become unable to accept the possibility that an indigenous resistance movement might have the determination and capacity to prevail against occupiers who have vastly superior weaponry.

When they're capable of killing dozens of the enemy while only suffering a couple casualties, it seems kind of logical to assume that victory is in sight.

Incidentally, I find it funny that the so-called "indigenous resistance movement" is composed largely of terrorists from outside Iraq.

This stubborn refusal to accept the obvious afflicted the French government in both Indochina and Algeria.

Dude...they're the French. Who gives a fuck?

It afflicted the Russians as they were bled year after year in Afghanistan.

Have you not noticed how well Afghanistan has gone?

It afflicted the United States in Vietnam.

No, what afflicted the United States in Vietnam was a government unwilling to take on the enemy with all its resources for fear of upsetting the other Communists.

And it may be what we see in the current administration as it confronts the chaos in Iraq.

You mean the "chaos" that has resulted in a successful election and the rebuilding of a country formerly controlled by a murderous dictator? You have awfully high standards of order.

History offers little comfort to those blinded by such stubborn arrogance.

Case in point: Your asinine letter.

Letter #3:

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman gets it right in his explanation of how we got into the war in Iraq and how it is destroying the United States as well as the lives of the Iraqi people.

Uh, just a suggestion...never start any letter with the phrase "Paul Krugman gets it right." It immediately destroys what little credibility you may have had to begin with.

He even seems to understand the parallels between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War...

Hmmm...both of them were wars...fought by the United States against a foreign enemy...holy crap! It's like they're the exact same thing!!!11!!

(Yes, I know that was a straw man argument. I don't care.)

...but then he goes on to make the same mistake that was made by pundits about Vietnam. He says, "I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself."

Have we not done that already? Even Rumsfeld has said that the "exit strategy" is to get the job done.

No matter when we get out of Iraq - tomorrow, or a year from tomorrow - terrible scenes will unfold.

Especially if it's tomorrow, since as soon as we're gone, a bunch of jihadis will take over and impose an Islamic dictatorship. But hey, at least they won't be eeeeeevil Americans, right?

What is the justification for staying one additional day? How can we permit one more soldier to die; how can we permit one more Iraqi to die?

If you have to ask that question, it's obviously not going to do any good to explain it.

Seriously...just...what is it with these idiots? Why are they incapable of seeing the positive side of the war? What happened to that famous empathy that liberals always claim to have? What happened to humanitarianism?

It's been two years, and I still don't get it. I don't think it's possible to understand without getting inside the mind of a liberal. And frankly, I think I would get crushed to death if I tried to fit into a space that small.

Posted by CD on May 17, 2005 02:07 AM
Category: Fiskings
Semi-Intelligent Comments

No, what afflicted the United States in Vietnam was a government unwilling to take on the enemy with all its resources for fear of upsetting the other Communists.

Amen. This strange idea that the "The heroin-shooting, dope-smoking Army lost Vietnam" is what we here in Realityland™ call a fallacy.

Posted by: Army NCO Guy at May 17, 2005 01:25 PM

Good Fisking CD. Keep it up.

Posted by: Strider at May 18, 2005 05:16 PM
< MTCloseComments old="10" >