Can you tell the difference between truth and clever bullshit?

With Bush (i.e. the Neocon's public face), it's always clever arguments.

Take for example his clever response to the shoe throwing incident: that it's a sign of a healthy democracy at work.

Right. Sounded good, didn't it?

But how about the brutal beating that the healthy democracy administered to the shoe thrower, i.e. the reality of the "healthy democracy" our troops have killed and died for?

It's all silver-tongue, highly clever, lawyer-speak bullshit.

When American troops pull out of Iraq, an Iran influenced/controlled Shiite controlled theocracy will take over, period. And all that death and destruction will have been for naught. One thing you can bet on, though: our information supply will be burning more clever words repeated over and over until it's burned into our already-numb unconscious minds to convince us of the righteousness of our great cause in invading and destroying so many lives in Iraq and the ME.

The invasion of Iraq wasn't an invasion of Iraq in the first place, it was a Neocon planned gambit to seize authority in the region, starting with Iraq.

From When Neocons Ruled Washington: "Why Iraq? Going back to the origins of the Likud Party in the early 1970s, Sniegoski shows how the Israeli right has consistently advocated destabilising the Middle East so as to leave its opponents powerless and ensure Israeli security"

There was no plan for withdrawal because there wasn't going to be a withdrawal - that is what the permanent bases and the largest embassy in the world where really all about. This plain and simple truth is written all over the wall - but it's obfuscated by clever bullshit administered by clever bullshiters.


Bill