|
so if i understand such logic as there is behind this kinda pathetic exercise in conservative self-justification...
obama accepts the notion of a "war on terror" to the extent that he continued the bush-engagement in afghanistan, where "terror" meant al-qeada i thought but now apparently means the taliban. nearly all of the factoids adduced in this thread follow from that. naturally, they're presented without context and lined up as "evidence" which "demonstrates" the absurd claim that in the end the bush people were justified because obama has ended up doing some of the same thing, maintaining some of the same policy orientations. what's excluded, in addition to the contexts that would rationally be presupposed in a normal conversation, is also the magnitude of what obama has rejected about the bush people's worldview.
but that is to be expected.
more conservative therapy fobbed off as a set of claims about "realism"
funny stuff.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|