Dickerson on the Latest Fraudlent RNC Web Ad

Interesting dissection of the latest cheap Republican political ad: The grinch who doctored photos – The RNC’s fraudulent new ad. From Slate’s John Dickerson.

3 Responses to “Dickerson on the Latest Fraudlent RNC Web Ad”

  1. enkidu Says:

    Personally I love how Murtha’s call to start pulling our troops out and letting the Iraqis fight was morphed into CUT N RUN! retreat and defeat! traitors!

    So the chicken hawks all twitter about how tough they are but have no plan to disengage. So when it becomes expedient to pull back some troops before next year’s elections, I am sure they will all scream the same nastiness. Ooooops! No then it will be the height of wisdom and leadership to start a drawdown of this disasterous boondoggle.

    Anyone who says we will be out of there entirely should think about Germany, Japan, Korea and a dozen other places around the globe. We built permanent bases in Iraq. And who is in charge of their oil wealth? Ahmed Chalabi (a real bald face unapologetic liar) that’s who. With the Iraq laws written to give foreign investors majority stakes in their oil indutry, we can be assured we will be in Iraq for decades to come (them WMDs is in Iran! errr, Syria! yeah! no wait! France! them dam surrender monkeys gots nukes!)

    Honor our troops, lets bring em home!

  2. Craig Says:

    Really, Murtha’s short-sighted statement was a real screw-up in how it was communicated and thought-out:

    * Get EVERYONE out in six months.

    * Have a rapid re-deployment force in the region to deal with terrorist activity.

    * Let our quick exit “incentivize” the Iraqis to get a sufficient, autonomous military force ready to go.

    * Even if they aren’t ready, let them deal with their own civil war.

    An excerpt from his Q & A after his speech:

    So you’re effectively saying that this war should end, beginning as soon as possible and that all these troops can be brought home within six months, or that’s your hope.

    I say, they could be brought back — I’m saying, within — the safety of the troops. But I project it could be six months.

    Six months to start it or six months to have them all back?

    I think, in six months, you could have them all back.

    Truly, how can that all not sound quite reasonably to most Americans (who aren’t already at one or another polar extremes) as a very sudden exit (cut and run) leaving all the work and sacrifices done to this point at the mercy of a wobbly new government, a largely untested and still dependent domestic military/security force? An almost certain power grab and horrific civil war would result from Murtha’s ideal scenario, thus completing the “defeat” part of the “retreat”.

    I think most reasonable people understand that, regardless of whether they agree with the steps that resulted in this war, that it is only sensible to have some kind of logical withdrawal plan in place, tied to certain marker events or measurable results.

    You may not like the way Murtha’s words are being used against the Democrats and/or those simply against the war, but he left the door wide open for such lines of attack.

  3. treehugger Says:

    And you would think that after almost three years they would have some kind of a plan by now, sort of a strategy, er somethin’ like that.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.