But he called Barack Obama “clean and articulate”. Oh, the horror! :rolleyes:
Contrast this:
with this:
Well, it’s true, he didn’t say we need “an attack”. He said we need “some attacks”.
I guess we could go back and forth on how many.
I agree with Mr. Moto, here - he’s really not saying that. He’s just an idiot that’s tripping over his tongue. It’s just an unfortunate substitution for an if/then construction.
His intended statement isn’t exactly brilliant, either – but it’s at least clear that he isn’t actually wishing for innocent people to be killed in in order to redeem the administration.
In some parts of the country, including where I grew up, some people will say things like “I think all we need is…” to express a hypothetical, not to actually express a wish, desire or need for something.
The context of the sentence would be the cue here.
Again, I don’t like what the man said, and I wish he had expressed himself better. But this really isn’t a big deal to me.
He’s saying a terrorist attack on American soil would be good for him politically. That’s the plain meaning of his words.
Exactly.
I thought you grew up in Pittsburgh? I can tell you that it isn’t particularly true of Pittsburgh.
Clearly he would like Bush to be vindicated and for the “naysayers” to see the errors of their ways, right? Given that he is elucidating the benefits, in his perspective, of an attack, it is hard to completely set aside the idea that he thinks there’s an upside to an attack.
Ewww.
You know, she’s like totally dead, dude!
Tris
South of Pittsburgh, close to the West Virginia line. Scots-Irish usage of that type isn’t totally unknown there.
No matter how you squint your eyes and look at it, he is saying that an attack on the US would be good for Republicans. I do not understand how a conservative could see this and shrug. “He’s not saying he wants another attack or 5, he’s just saying how swell it would be for his party if there were some.”
It is a fucked up thing to say no matter which way you slice it. In order for Bush’s policy to be revealed as the great policy it is, it has to fail spectacularly. The more spectacular the failure, the better for the Republican Party.
And that’s the generous interpretation of what he said. I repeat: Republicans, your party is coming apart at the seams.
That certainly isn’t the only interpretation of what he said.
I read it as only another attack on the United States will make those naysayers appreciate our policy and the sacrifices of our military men and women.
I don’t think that is true in the least, certainly. For starters, my time here has shown me that there are certain naysayers that cannot ever be swayed. 
Weird. One might think that another attack on the United States will make people see that our policy might not be working after all.
Clearly, we would be fighting them over here so that we don’t have to…
oh wait… um…
Nope, can’t do it. Clearly I don’t have the intellect it takes to be a Republican.
What it reminds me of is the blueprint for this administration’s Middle East policies, Project for a New American Century. The one that recommended going into Iraq back in the mid-1990s, but acknowledged that to make the public willing, they’d probably have to wait on a good ol’ fashioned, Pearl Harbor-esque attack on the U.S.
The Neocons want what they want, and they’re not particularly fussy about using others’ deaths to get it. They won’t necessarily create the tragedy themselves, oh no, but if it happens, they’ll pounce all over it to profit from it.
Yup, and I’m not into necrophilia at all. (Plus, I’d need like a jack hammer to get her out of her crypt.)
What he intends to say is clear, though. He’s saying that Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq, and that the only reason people like you and I think it’s a tremendous balls-up is that we have goldfish memories and don’t remember what happened that day.
It’s circular reasoning, and it’s painfully simple-minded, but it’s not an expression of desire.
He is saying that going to war in Iraq and winning is the only way to prevent another attack. It’s all kinds of stupid, but it’s not monstrous.
If there’s another major attack, then the sacrifices of the soldiers would be a waste, at least as far as the idea of preventing another attack is concerned. This also seems to be ignoring the whole point of what those dirty naysayers are, well, naysaying about. It’s not like they just decided to do it on a lark.
That’s a good quote, though. Multiple levels of stupidity. A dumbion, if you will.
What would another attack on US soil prove? I thought GWB said America was now safer than before, and that’s why there haven’t been any more- wouldn’t this just prove Dubya was wrong again?
Having really stupid people running a nukular capable nation is pretty monstrous.
Tris