Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Refusing to Talk About Hypotheticals, But Only If You Present Them

It is devastatingly interesting that the W, Rove and Co continues to profess to not wish to speak about "hypotheticals." Is it me or am I the only one who detects the irony that the SOTU was mainly based on such hypotheticals? Here's one:
"In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline."
How the bleep does he know? What makes him so sure? Moreover, it seems like a dangerous and declining time right now, so why would/should we fear more of the same?

No doubt, we can come up with numerous other examples - with links to prove we are not making them up - where members of the W, Rove and Co (who are adamant that others should not ask them to speak about hypotheticals) actually present hypotheticals (and even some that border on hyperbole).

For those of you confused about the term hypothetical, here's a definition that I use:
a) Suppositional; uncertain.
b) Conditional; contingent.
For example, how the bleep does W know that isolationism is what others suggest as well as that it would lead to danger and decline? He's making a supposition and speculating as to the outcome.

The time is now to call this administration on the very political ploy to suggest it's okay for them to use hypotheticals, but only when its them doing the inventing.

No comments: