December 21, 2007 by susan

Clarification of Strib Op-ed

Thanks to all who have written to tell me I've swallowed the kool aid, that I'm Bush's lap dog, or just stupid for thinking that the Surge is Working. Actually, I've had no kool aid, and if I were Bush's lap dog I'd nip his nuts off. (Ewwww) I try to flip the stupid switch to "off" when I write, but sometimes -- you know.
What I am guilty of is sloppy writing.

The piece in the Strib on Thursday was originally around 700 words. (I cobbled together a messy version of that original and posted it here yesterday.) My editor -- who I respect and appreciate -- cut the piece by nearly half, saying that I'd merely recited a lot of old news about the war. He sent me back the version that ran, and although I made a few additions, I signed off.
In truth, I was disappointed, but in a rush and didn't read it carefully. I figured something was better than nothing -- that I couldn't let Clifford May get away with his "why don't you all concede it's working" column of the previous week. And yeah, I hadn't had ink in a while and so that played a part too.

Well, mea culpa. I should have killed it. And then he put a headline on it that really got it wrong. More groveling.

So, to be clear. I don't believe the surge is working for anyone but George Bush, (which was its purpose) by buying him time to get his sorry ass out of office without presiding over the denouement of his tragic and blundered misadventure.

I thought in the original that I was being tongue in cheek -- the surge is working, wink,wink. Obviously, that failed to come across.

So no more letters in the inbox please, I know. But those of you who think I'm an idiot for not understanding how Bush is saving the world with his courageous crusade, keep writing. I need a good laugh.

Posted in


barbara says (not verified) | December 21, 2007 - 1:22pm

Well, crap! Now I have to go back and re-read your earlier post. Somehow I missed on the first pass that you'd gone over to the dark side. And I'm laughin', too, because I'm guessing that your email box must resemble a toxic waste site. (I was going to say repository, but then I couldn't remember if it's repository or depository and I didn't want to illustrate my failure to know. I'd make a great Republican, eh?!)


perhansa (not verified) | December 21, 2007 - 5:03pm

I guess some C-line readers are losing their sense of humor. Seemed pretty clear satire to me. Of course the surge os working--because the minute they continually redefine what "working" is just like they've redefined what "winning" is, just like they've rredefined what a "functioning Iraqi government" is so many times. We thought Bill Clinton was being a prick for trying to argue his way out of what "is" is.

I think you hit the nail on the head, the purpose of the surge was to get the Incompetent-in-Chief through the remaining months of his term and leave the bucket of s*** Iraq has turned into to the next person, whom they'll soundly thrash/trash for every move they make , whether is be stay or go, fast or slow, pay or borrow...It has also helped distract attention from the uncountable scandals, the total useless responses to global warming, the thin as ice economy, torture, Scooter's pardon, the flight of anyone with competence or real values from the Bush administration, and reinforces their belief that might is not right, but everything.

Now that W won the lastest round of the "war on funding the war" it only took Gates 24 hours to start crying to the media that they're going to run out of money (again) early next year...
and why didn't Congress just give up the $200 billion they asked for and be good little boys and girls.

These people would bitch if they were waterboarded with Perrier. Good god.


susan | December 21, 2007 - 6:59pm

Actually Per, the piece in the Strib is very confusing, and it's not clear what I'm saying. That's what's generating the nasty mail, not the version I hung here on the Line. But thanks for your words, as always, and yeah, god. god damn. god damn missing-in-action god. Smite me now.


Lynnell Mickelsen (not verified) | December 22, 2007 - 2:48pm

Hey Susan:

Well, for the record, I caught the satire in the Strib piece and never thought you were saying yea Surge. I thought it was great, but as your fan, I'd rather read the unedited or longer version.

And yikes, the Strib thinks 700 words is too long?!?!? Must we to express everything in slogans and sound points? Does that really make for better discourse and reading?

What a world. What a world. And Merry Christmas too.

What a world. What a world.


susan | December 23, 2007 - 6:21pm

When I first wrote for the Strib I'd get 800 words, and once I think I managed a hefty 900. Then they asked me to keep it to 700, now it's 600. But he cut this not because there were too many words, but because he didn't think they were the right words. He saw it as a counterpoint to Clifford May, thus needed to be more to the point -- well, against the point I guess. And he felt that I simply recounted all the history of what's wrong with this war. And I sort of did. So, I didn't mind the cut as much as the headline.
But yeah, the trend, as they say, is toward short because everyone has the attention span of a gnat these days.
Yeah, what a world. And merry everything.


Pat G (not verified) | December 26, 2007 - 3:25pm

It was clear to me that you did not switch sides.