Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! What the hell is this? NATO is 'unreliable'? What, because they weren't necessarily so giggly about invading Iraq? David Sirota finds this item buried in a UK paper, but nowhere in the US journals:
"The Bush administration says it wants to be able to form 'coalitions of the willing' more efficiently for dealing with future conflicts rather than turning to existing but unreliable institutional alliances such as Nato. 'We ad hoc our way through coalitions of the willing. That's the future,' a senior State Department official said in a briefing this week."
It wasn't oh so long ago that our beloved White House was telling us just how unreliable and obsolete the UN and the Geneva Convention were. So, what's the message here? No matter what the law is we'll find a way around it or just scrap it altogether? No matter what the majority of people and countries believe? If that's the case, then the Bible is way overdue for a burning. But, then, Bush does have God's ear (or the other way around). He's also a horse's ass and a monkey's nephew. Not that even I know what I meant by that. Doesn't relly matter, though. If Bush can read "Pet My Goat" to children I can make shit up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
See, they're still in that "we create our own reality" mode. Members of the reality-based community are invited only to react, and inevitably too late, to their pronouncements and policies.
Please pass me the Vicodin.
Post a Comment