Brrrraaak!
CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviews a repuke parrot... in... The Situation Room...
BLITZER: When you woke up -- and I don't know if you knew about it last night, but when you woke up this morning, presumably and heard what Pat Robertson said, what was your reaction?
GREG MUELLER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, TOEING THE WH TALKING POINTS TO THE LETTER: Well, my reaction was that was a little off the cuff, a little flippant and a little silly. I don't think anybody's going to...
BLITZER: Just a little bit?
MUELLER: Yes. I mean, it was. I mean, nobody's going to subscribe to that, Wolf, but the real issue here is how...
BLITZER: But he said it in seriousness. He wasn't trying to be cute.
MUELLER: Well, I thought he kind of said it a little flippantly, but we can have that discussion. I think -- Look, nobody is going to subscribe to assassinating any leader of any country, but we are going to have a discussion, I think, where the battle lines are being drawn over the global War on Terror.
GREG MUELLER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, TOEING THE WH TALKING POINTS TO THE LETTER: Well, my reaction was that was a little off the cuff, a little flippant and a little silly. I don't think anybody's going to...
BLITZER: Just a little bit?
MUELLER: Yes. I mean, it was. I mean, nobody's going to subscribe to that, Wolf, but the real issue here is how...
BLITZER: But he said it in seriousness. He wasn't trying to be cute.
MUELLER: Well, I thought he kind of said it a little flippantly, but we can have that discussion. I think -- Look, nobody is going to subscribe to assassinating any leader of any country, but we are going to have a discussion, I think, where the battle lines are being drawn over the global War on Terror.
God, what a patsy. Even Wolf, to his credit, looked gobsmacked.
But then it got worse:
MUELLER: This is another indication of how serious this War on Terror is and where are the parties going to stand strategically? The Republican Party is taking a status of engagement. The Democrat Party, especially in the last weeks with Cindy Sheehan, seems to be the party of retreat and surrender. And I don't think that's going to play out well…
Again, I think it was done in -- it wasn't helpful, it wasn't good, but it does draw attention to this battle in the global war on terror which, I think, is getting more and more serious. And we're going to have two party lines drawn on that role. Where are we going to stand, are we going to be the party to retreat and surrender, the Jimmy Carter approach to terrorism. Or are we going to take the Ronald Reagan approach of engagement to terrorism?
Again, I think it was done in -- it wasn't helpful, it wasn't good, but it does draw attention to this battle in the global war on terror which, I think, is getting more and more serious. And we're going to have two party lines drawn on that role. Where are we going to stand, are we going to be the party to retreat and surrender, the Jimmy Carter approach to terrorism. Or are we going to take the Ronald Reagan approach of engagement to terrorism?
What a smarmy fucking toe-rag.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment