Friday, July 07, 2006
shoe's on the other foot
Was reading the following just the other day:
. . . "How will North Korea perceive an attack on any given day?" asks Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here. "The options tend to be ones of provoking general war."
For Japan and South Korea - both strong US allies and home base to thousands of American troops - this makes the military option a nonstarter...
- from For US military, few options to defang North Korea by Mark Sappenfield (Christian Science Monitor)
Which, of course, reminded me of this Oval Office conversation recently reported in the Onion Radio News:
Rummy: Our metrics show there are too many military unknowns. Until we know more about the unknowns we don't know, we don't know. The more unknowns we know, the more we know there may be more unknowns, you know.
Bush: Vzzzah?
Condi: I think what the Secretary of Defense is saying is that we don't know enough. We need more information before we can act.
Rummy: I like your shoes, Condi.
Condi: And apparently the Secretary likes my shoes.
Bush: Me, too. Nice shoes.
Condi: Thank-you. Found them at the Fifth Avenue Ferragamo last September. They were having a sale.
Bush (snickering): Heh-heh. Fire-sale?
Rummy: That fire-sale was going on a few Septembers back. My guess is this was a flood-sale?
Condi (drily): Very funny, Mr. Secretary. Sir--
Bush: We know each other better than that. You can call me 'Mr. Bush.' Heh-heh.
Condi: Mr. Bush, I need to know your position on North Korea. If military options are out, then we should be negotiating, don't you think?
Bush: Just jokin'. You can call me 'George,' 'Dubya' or even 'Temporary' if you want. But should we really be negotiatin' with this guy? I mean, his hair is funny.
(Yes, this conversation really happened exactly as reported above.) ¶ 12:14 PM
. . . "How will North Korea perceive an attack on any given day?" asks Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here. "The options tend to be ones of provoking general war."
For Japan and South Korea - both strong US allies and home base to thousands of American troops - this makes the military option a nonstarter...
- from For US military, few options to defang North Korea by Mark Sappenfield (Christian Science Monitor)
Which, of course, reminded me of this Oval Office conversation recently reported in the Onion Radio News:
Rummy: Our metrics show there are too many military unknowns. Until we know more about the unknowns we don't know, we don't know. The more unknowns we know, the more we know there may be more unknowns, you know.
Bush: Vzzzah?
Condi: I think what the Secretary of Defense is saying is that we don't know enough. We need more information before we can act.
Rummy: I like your shoes, Condi.
Condi: And apparently the Secretary likes my shoes.
Bush: Me, too. Nice shoes.
Condi: Thank-you. Found them at the Fifth Avenue Ferragamo last September. They were having a sale.
Bush (snickering): Heh-heh. Fire-sale?
Rummy: That fire-sale was going on a few Septembers back. My guess is this was a flood-sale?
Condi (drily): Very funny, Mr. Secretary. Sir--
Bush: We know each other better than that. You can call me 'Mr. Bush.' Heh-heh.
Condi: Mr. Bush, I need to know your position on North Korea. If military options are out, then we should be negotiating, don't you think?
Bush: Just jokin'. You can call me 'George,' 'Dubya' or even 'Temporary' if you want. But should we really be negotiatin' with this guy? I mean, his hair is funny.
(Yes, this conversation really happened exactly as reported above.) ¶ 12:14 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Those lines remind me of a passage in the book Time's Arrow by Martin Amis. It is a story told backwards through time, so the narrative begins with the man rising up from the dead--the table at the morgue and going from there. Many things seem weird and disjointed when regarded in reverse, with the exception of an argument between two lovers.
It is the same going forward or backwards.
Much as it is when Rummy, Condi, or W speak. Same bullshit, same talking points, same complete lack of logic or bearing on the topic at hand. Just as meaningless when read forward or backward.
It is the same going forward or backwards.
Much as it is when Rummy, Condi, or W speak. Same bullshit, same talking points, same complete lack of logic or bearing on the topic at hand. Just as meaningless when read forward or backward.
LitBrit, thanks.
An argument between two lovers the same forward or backwards? You mean bookended by reconciliations which dispense with words? I like that - very beautiful, and very poetic.
Which reminds me...
You may have motivated me to dig up some of the poetry of Donald Rumsfeld to post here. We'll see. As you can see from the frequency of posts (that is, the lack thereof), I am a very bad blogger (& spend way too much time haunting message boards instead).
Anyway, I will try to make that the next item I put up here. I think you'll be entertained. : )
Post a Comment
An argument between two lovers the same forward or backwards? You mean bookended by reconciliations which dispense with words? I like that - very beautiful, and very poetic.
Which reminds me...
You may have motivated me to dig up some of the poetry of Donald Rumsfeld to post here. We'll see. As you can see from the frequency of posts (that is, the lack thereof), I am a very bad blogger (& spend way too much time haunting message boards instead).
Anyway, I will try to make that the next item I put up here. I think you'll be entertained. : )
<< Home
