Notional-Shorter Glenn Reynolds
…Because generally speaking, shortering Reynolds is like trying to rephrase a burp.
- My idea of an honest war reporter is a paid right-wing operative who, whilst in the Air Force, helped stage the phony rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.
Here’s the sort of journalism we can expect from Emanuel, now on his second trip to Iraq as a reporter:
Above: Not a $400 haircut
Everything you’ve heard is true. I’m leaving next Thursday.
[…]
General Petraeus, commander of multinational forces in Iraq, will be testifying before Congress in September regarding the effectiveness to date of his counterinsurgency and security strategy, and the Congressional Democrats have already predetermined what his testimony will be and what it will mean — and, as a result, the majority party in both houses of Congress is (and has been) ready to declare defeat at the earliest possible moment in Iraq, to leave the middle east in chaos (and abandon innocent civilians to the slaughter), and to allow al Qaeda to be victorious in what they claim is the central front in the war on terror, all for the sole purpose of staining the President’s hands with blood and thereby profiting politically from the situation.
Add some gritty, street-level commentary about the ordinary heroism of our Republican armed forces, and this kid could be his generation’s Michael Yon.
Hmm. It’s pretty dangerous, even in the Green Zone these days. What if he gets killed? What’l the ginw-tuns say then?
I mean gniw-tuns, darn it!
Good gosh! I got 1 & 2. Should I… try for a trifecta?
See Glenn Reynolds, re: General Betrayus.
So four years after the invasion is the earliest possible moment? Huh.
“Everything you’ve heard is true” What a statement.
What if he gets killed? What’l the ginw-tuns say then?
I see them writing a rousing song devoted to him, they can sing it at parades and beirhalls and teach it to thier Mittenjungen. It will glorious!
“I will spend time in Anbar, finally seeing the Awakening with my own eyes.”
What?? What is this Awakening to which he refers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Awakening_(novel)
The Awakening is a short novel by Kate Chopin, published in 1899. It is widely considered to be a proto-feminist precursor to American modernism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awakenings
“Awakenings is a 1990 drama film based on Oliver Sacks’ memoir, Awakenings. It tells the true story of a doctor who, in 1969, discovers beneficial effects of the then-new drug L-Dopa. He applied it on catatonic patients who survived the 1917-1928 epidemic of encephalitis lethargica. Leonard Lowe (played by Robert De Niro) and the rest of the patients were awakened after decades of catatonic state and have to deal with a new life in a new time. . . . [The Doctor] revives all of the patients from their immovable state, but as he finds out later in the movie, he cannot stop them from returning once again to that state, no matter how much he increases the L-Dopa doseage. Leonard Lowe, who was the first to “awake”, begins to withdraw first, and all of the patients are forced to witness what will eventually happen to them.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening
“The Great Awakenings refer to several periods of dramatic religious revival in Anglo-American religious history. They have also been described as periodic revolutions in U.S. religious thought.”
” Great Awakenings have been marked by the rise of a multitude of new denominations, sects, or even entirely new religions.”
Okay. Tell me more.
What?? What is this Awakening to which he refers?
The Great Awokkening happens as Chen Kenichi battles the Midgard Serpent with kitchen implements. See also Ragnarwok.
See also Ragnarwok.
Mmmmfffffwawawawawawawawawawa! Ahahahaha!
Cough. Sorry. Furball. [Grooms self industriously]
Hngh hngh hngh…Rangarwok…fwahahaha…
Not a $400 haircut. LMAO! I am so blog rolling ya/
Ragnawank?
Whilst?
Jeff Emanuel: Square jaw, loose ethics, will travel!
and to allow al Qaeda to be victorious in what they claim is the central front in the war on terror, all for the sole purpose of staining the President’s hands with blood and thereby profiting politically from the situation.
Cause I don’t know how we got over there in Iraq, but it sure as hell wasn’t Bush’s fault.
See, if we leave, the President’s hands will be stained with blood, which will never do, but if we STAY, there will be lots MORE blood and he can use that to rinse off the blood that is currently caked on his hands, and then it’ll be like nothing ever happened!
I’m curious, however–what angle do we think he’s going to take? The “al Qaeda is impaling babies and broiling kittens 24/7 and there’s death and carnage everywhere” angle or “things are great and you can walk naked through Anbar with an American flag tied to your nuts waving a Danish cartoon blaspheming against Mohamet and nothing will happen because everybody’s so busy having electricity and painting the shit out of every school in site…seriously some of these schools have like 10 coats of paint…” angle? It’s purely an academic question, of course, because both mean the same thing: the threat is worse than ever but the surge is super-working even though it just started 30 seconds ago but we won’t know the results for 16 more Friedmans.
“and to allow al Qaeda to be victorious in what they claim is the central front in the war on terror, ”
shit, I thought Bush ws the only one who called it “the central front in the war on terror”?
and does al qaeda even use the term “war on terrror” they have better writers than that?
Shorter Goofy-looking Ninny: Why abandon innocent civilians to the slaughter when we can stay & slaughter them ourselves?
I think his $400 would be better spent on punctuation marks, particularly periods. That is my contribution to his coverage.
Jeff Emanuel and Bill Kristol: separated at birth?
Do they get paid by the run-on sentence over there or what?
Hey, if you want something done right, do it yourself.