I don't trust public statements made by public officeholders. Whole lotta empty grammar. Lies. Half truths. Shit, really.
But I do wonder why Graham would argue in such plain language for the tilting of leviathan towards an attack against Iran:
"...not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime."
Well, plain for an elected Republican. I don't expect a politician beating the drum for war to actually say or write, umm: "To kill all their eighteen to twenty year old draftees, to poison their waters, to murder their mothers, to slay them where they sleep and where they eat, to drop so many tons of explosives that they finally knuckle under and accept whatever regime we install as a replacement."
Still...
Why, Lindsay?
To whom do you signal?
Crow's Eye: Maintaining a commitment to Pointless Acrimony™ and Hate Filled Invective™! Also available in corvid mischief and traditional sly dog's mistrust.
The buildup to Operation Liberation From That Antisemitic, Misogynistic and Theocratic Douchebag is back in play. Over at the Post, Ignatius is on it:
ReplyDeleteThe Obama administration hopes that an isolated Iran will eventually seek a compromise on the nuclear issue. But as Karim Sadjadpour argues in Foreign Policy , this regime with a "victimization complex" needs America as an enemy, perhaps more than ever.
With the midterms over, war on Iran is hip again...
Graham's closeted status has him posturing tough, to deflect the tutu-and-slippers image that follows him around. That's because he's only barely closeted -- he's not really, though he thinks he is, and he's always posturing tough to fight off the image many have, that of Paul Lynde or Isaac Mizrahi. Fairly common stuff among the Log Cabin Republicans, really.
ReplyDelete