Do you not possess the ability to see a sentence in context and view it as sarcasm?
I can be about as sarcastic as they come, but your attempt missed me.
Okay…then would you take my word that what you took to be a serious statement was, in fact, me taking a facetious swipe at an elected official’s attempt to downplay a very serious issue? Hyperbole, one might even say?
I see the tactic of merely calling the incident “troubling” and then quickly moving on to some boilerplate cheerleading for the war as dismissive and borderline evasive but I don’t see it as a positive spin. It was more like an attempt to simply change the subject and avoid talking about something that can’t help but be bad PR for the Iraq campaign. This is a technique that all politicians are practiced at. They give a token one or two word response and then change the subject in the next breath. Usually they try to fillibuster the change of topic long enough so that the viewers (and hopefully the interviewer) will forget what the actual question was. It’s extremely aggravating to me as a viewer. It always pisses me off that so many interviewers allow them to do it and won’t drag them back on topic.
It begins to look like it may be more than just a PR disaster:
Iraq says to ask U.N. to end US immunity
It’s my understanding that the soldier(s) involved have been arrested, are facing trial, and if found guilty could be sentenced to death. Is this a new definition of “turning a blind eye” that I am not familiar with?
Not that I agree with KGS entirely, but seeing as how the soldiers concerned will be tried by a military court for breaking a military-based rule, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that members of government are attempting to ignore it. That the soldiers are to be tried has absolutely nothing to do with the government, beyond the setting of laws in the first place.
That’s perfectly legitimate, as long as the judicial body remains apolitical. As soon as they start charging US soldiers willy-nilly simply for being in Iraq with war crimes I will again voice my objection.
That’s what the objection was in the first place, after all.
Congressman Lugar (who has no involvement with the prosecutions) is the one turning a blind eye.
Sorry, Senator Lugar. (Not “Luger.”)
Thing is, if our troops weren’t over there in the first place, this incident never would have happened. The gov’t know it, and that’s why they’re so mealy-mouthed about it. Lucky for them, most of the American public is too apathetic and brainwashed to give a shit…but if our nightly news entertainment starts pushing aside the Duke Rapists for the Iraq Rapists, people will start to give a shit. And the election’s in four months.
Frankly, I’d love to see these child-raping motherfucks tried under Iraqi law. Don’t they still hold public beheadings? Or stonings? I’d love to watch the executions live on Al-Jazeera. Hell, make it a PPV event.
That might actually be an improvement . . .
Yea, he’s a pistol all right.
Oops! :eek: Thanks for the correction.
Jailhouse tip, guys: “Saddam the Slug” has the best cigarettes! 
That’s the good news. The bad news is…he prefers jelly.