Brzzzzzzezzzzzzinski (Yawn) Rants Again

My God. Jimmy Carter was responsible for this mess. His insipidness and ineptness put the Islamist radicals we are fighting into power, and no one carries more of the blame for Carter's position than Zbigniew Brzezinski. Yet who does WaPo turn to to criticize Bush?

You got it. Five points. All drivel.

First, Bush is Islamophobic. Hint: Anything with "phobic" attached signals the end of a liberal's argument: Against gay marriage? Homophobic. Anti-terror? Islamophobic. Interesting that Zbig lead with this; it's usually the closer. Three-quarters of his audience probably stopped reading at this point.

Second, the number of troops being added is "a political gimmick of limited tactical significance and of no strategic benefit." Perhaps Bush is also draftophobic. He is working with the cards on the table, the manpower we have, and explained how they would be pinpoint assigned in just two areas where they are needed most. Sounds tactical and strategic to me. The real political gimmick is saying "redeploy"' instead of "'cut and run."

Third,

The decision to escalate the level of the U.S. military involvement while imposing "benchmarks" on the "sovereign" Iraqi regime, and to emphasize the external threat posed by Syria and Iran, leaves the administration with two options once it becomes clear -- as it almost certainly will -- that the benchmarks are not being met. One option is to adopt the policy of "blame and run": i.e., to withdraw because the Iraqi government failed to deliver. That would not provide a remedy for the dubious "falling dominoes" scenario, which the president so often has outlined as the inevitable, horrific consequence of U.S. withdrawal. The other alternative, perhaps already lurking in the back of Bush's mind, is to widen the conflict by taking military action against Syria or Iran.

Do you think Zbig "hates" Bush or just "loves" "quotation marks?" What makes the "'falling dominoes" theory dubious? Did Zbig miss what happened in Cambodia, Burma and almost in Thailand? Did he fail to notice that when he allowed the Islamists to take hold in Iran, their dogma spread faster than falling dominoes throughout the Islamic world?"

Fourth, Bush refused to set a date for withdrawing or to open the door to talks with Iran and Syria. One thing you can say about libs: When they get their meme, like "set a date," going, they ain't stoppin' for nuthin'. Not even sane military strategy. Not even protecting the troops. And talk to Syria and Iran? Let's see, they criticize Bush for not saying he will, while they criticize him for not saying he'll secure their borders. A better alternative: Don't talk to them, and nail them every time they try to sneak weapons and terrorists into Iraq.

Zbig saves his biggest punch, Bush'es "fatal flaw," until last: Bush is fighting a colonial war in Iraq. Here's what Wikipedia says about colonialism:

Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced. Colonizers generally dominate the resources, labor and markets of the colonial territory and may also impose socio-cultural, religious and linguistic structures on the conquered population.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, there applies even remotely to Iraq. Oh, I get it. "Colonial" is another one of those words that signals the end of a Lib's argument. "Arg! He said 'colonial.' There is no comeback! Rats, another argument lost!"

That the editors of WaPo's editorial page continue to give this horrible man a voice is damning evidence that they are as whacked out and dangerous as Zbig himself is.