The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Rants and Raves from a proud card-carrying, unilateralist and simplistic American member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Oh, and full-time Emperor and Ruler of All the Known Universe and Every Last Organism in it as well.


Ask Mr. Misha

[Email policy: The content of any and all emails sent to the above address will become the property of the owner of this website and eligible for publication, with the exception of personal details. Such details will not be published unless specific permission is given by the sender.]

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by
Saturday, September 07, 2002
Earth To Hugh White...
War Now put me on the scent of an Ozzie that apparently is completely out of touch with reality. To wit:
This week, George Bush decided not to go it alone and invade Iraq,
He did? When did this happen?
But what died this week is the idea that America - with or without allied support, with or without UN endorsement - would mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq.
It did?

Then what the f*ck is this all about, Mr. White? Which part of "President Bush plans to tell world leaders at the United Nations next week that unless they take quick, unequivocally strong action to disarm Iraq, the United States will be forced to act on its own" do you fail to understand? To be sure, there's some waffling about, mumbling about letting the UN ask Saddam one more time, but if you really think that this is more than passing time until the operation begins, if indeed it hasn't begun already, and that we'll sit on our asses while the UN fumbles around in the dark, then you're really really off your rocker.

But you can dream, can't you?
And what died this week was the idea that after September 11, America's foreign policy was liberated from the old constraints - the idea that henceforth America had the power to do what ever it likes, and the will to use that power anywhere and everywhere it feels threatened.
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you?

It's nice to see that you're swallowing it hook, line and sinker, but I recall that, about a year ago, we were in a similar situation. The President issued an ultimatum, the "world opinion" whined, whimpered and protested, and then we took the bastards out. What makes you think this will be any different?

And then he goes on to gloat about how this will inevitably throw a wrench in the machinery, how the war will never happen and how the UN will manage to delay it ad nauseam (guess why we won't let the UN run the show, numbfuck?)...

Somebody's about to be very surprised, I guess...

Philly "Bogus Dorkus" Slopshire Update...
Poor Philly gets increasingly pathetic as he flounders around, desperately trying to find just an itty-bitty patch of real argument to base his blatherings on. Granted, it's not easy when you've got both feet stuck in your mouth, your head up your rectum and your entire (very butch and bench pressing) body wrapped up tightly in your own self-contradictory nonsense, but still...

Anyways, he now finds himself posting like crazy on the comment boards of various blogs, maybe hoping to avoid the radar of public opinion while he tries to come up with a good reason why he isn't yet packing for Baghdad.

I mean, his cause is just, the ticket's been paid and surely Phil wouldn't be so cowardly, dare I say "chickenhawkish"?, as to argue that the Iraqi population should face hardships that he himself would never endure?

At any rate... take it away, "Slopshire Splasher":
Well, if you had read a little further onward over there on the random rant you would have noticed that 6000 was about my limit.
Phil is referring to the 6,000 that were assumed dead at some point after the WTC/Pentagon attack, when he made the comment that 6,000 dead was "karmic justice" for all of the Evil Deeds™ of the American Hegemon™ (not quite a Pokemon™, more like a Digimon™ with fangs... And Tomahawks...)

It surely is good to know that the "Bogus Dickheadus" has a limit. Had it been 6,001 dead, then Philly would have been really, really mad. However, now that it's "only" 3,000, Philly won't even work up a sweat for at least another 3,000 vaporized Americans.

Well... Far be it from me to insinuate that the renowned Philly "Esophageal Spasm" Slopshire is completely bereft of sense of justice. He does feel that:
...the people who organized the bombings should be caught and prosecuted.
...but when it comes to who is supposed to hand over the subpoena (maybe he can take care of that while he's busy shielding Saddam's "babymilk factories"?), he gets a little blurry:
We have to work diplomatically with those 60 nations. We can't bomb everybody.
...which, in Idiotarian™, means "we can't bomb anybody.

And the diplomacy that Phil puts such an inordinate amount of trust in? The same diplomacy that has been so successful in stopping Saddam from creating WMDs over the last 11 years? The diplomacy that scored such huge successes when trying to get Afghanistan to hand over bin Laden?

What Phil really means is that we should ask nicely. Then, if they refuse, we should send more money and hope that the tribute is large enough that they won't attack again:
the United States should start instituting Marshall Plans for the Third World...
Where this tribute should come from, even Slopshire isn't quite sure about, for
Capitalism can't afford 60 bloody civil wars on 60 nations. We can barely afford Hurricanes and natural disasters... obviously we're in no shape to finance Marshall Plans all over the Third World.

Where Phil gets the number 60 from? I'm glad you asked. You see, according to Phil, we can either use diplomatic or military solutions, we can't use a combination of both. What he really means is, of course, that we can't use military solutions at all, but that should be obvious to most of us.

On to the subject of the people that Phil thought should be prosecuted, if they'd only be nice enough to hand themselves in, that is. Apparently they aren't all that bad after all:
Furthermore, I do not think that the terrorists are crazy bad insane people.
That hardly comes as a surprise to most of us, Philly Boy, but it's very helpful of you to admit it. But if you don't think so, then why do you say:
That doesn’t mean that I like Osama Bin Laden. He’s a theocrat. I hate theocrats.
??? I'm a little confused here... Seeing as how the people we're after (the aforementioned terrorists) are theocrats and you hate theocrats, then how is it that you don't think they're all that crazy bad and insane? I mean, surely the fact that you "hate" them must mean that you at least think they're "bad", and, judging by this piece of your mind:
I hate theocrats because religion allows you to do what science doesn't allow you to do: fool yourself.
, surely one may logically conclude that people who "fool themselves" are, if not "insane", then at least "crazy"?

Well... One of these days he may make up his mind as to whether he hates them or not. For now, all we can say for sure is that the terrorists that Philly don't think are "crazy bad insane people", by his own definitions, are the non-theocratic ones. And to be sure, Philly confirms this:
But if you give me a secular group that attacked property only and targeted multinationals that were working to privatize water in the Third World then, hey, you might see a Shropshire Cell in the Pittsburgh area.
As long as you're secular and as long as you target only private property or multinationals privatizing water in the Third World, then you're quite OK.

Apart from the fact that this characterizes none, no, zilch, nada of the terrorist organizations that we're currently at war with, it is interesting to know that if I decided to blow up, say, a local bank (after hours, of course), based on being secularly pissed off that they turned me down for a loan, then Philly would be happy to endorse my action. Heck, he might even suggest that the bank send me money to make sure that I don't hate them so much.

Finally, Philly has to trot out the poor Arab Street. This isn't really nice of him, considering that they're all currently safe and cozy under the carts at the local Kasbah, but Philly just can't help himself:
You might note that our “Afghan Success Story!” doesn’t seem to be too successful.
The fact that all of our goals in Afghanistan have been accomplished, bar none, seems to have passed by the "Slopshire Snotwit" like the idle wind, which he respects not.[extra credit for spotting the reference]
I mean, if I really hated the United States and I didn't live here, I would encourage the current position of indiscriminate and silly bombing...Every bomb we drop not only creates recruits in the nation that we bomb (Please note the Afghans continue to hide Al Qaeda forces despite our wonderful "liberation" efforts...
What Philly again fails to note is that those hidden al-Qaeda gunnies and snuffies don't seem to be making one Heck of an impact on anything anymore. And I haven't yet seen the hordes of recruits to the Islamofascist cause that Philly babbles on about, as a matter of fact they seem to become less and less effective with every passing day. But maybe we haven't bombed enough yet?

Do go on, my Little Pet:
but radicalizes moslems not only in Europe, but in the United States as well...
But I thought that this had absolutely nothing to do with Islam? At least all of you Lackwits over at Kumbaya HQ keep saying so and, based on my personal knowledge of several very amiable and non-crazy Muslims in my local area, I do tend to agree.

So how can our bombing of terrorists radicalize Muslims, when the two things have nothing whatsoe'er to do with one another? And, if we do "radicalize" them by bombing our enemies, people that would gleefully murder thousands of innocent Americans, should we really give a rat's ass?

I know I haven't seen much "radicalizing" in the US, certainly not enough to worry me, and I also know that I don't give a shit about "radicalization" in Europe, given that particular continent's treatment of us lately...

Well... One more point. Phil has a strategy:
My strategy calls for the United States to be a good global citizen, as opposed to saying "Fuck You" to the world every second or so and then wondering "Why Do They Hate Us?"
Being a "good global citizen" (by the way: Seeing as I'm a citizen of this place you call "global", why haven't I gotten my voter registration card yet?) means, in Slopshirian, to bend over and take it like a good boy. It does most certainly not mean defending yourself when attacked.

And I don't know what it is with all of this "Why Do They Hate Us?" that he keeps going on about, 'coz I sure as Hell don't waste much time pondering that question.

To put it more bluntly, I Don't Give a Good Fuck Why They Hate Us. All I can say is that if they know what's good for them (and I doubt that sometimes), they'd better learn to keep their hatred to themselves before we show them what real hatred can accomplish.

But Philly has given it a thought (or something that can be very loosely compared to a "thought" anyways):
Oh, it must be all that freedom, freedom to be raped by fatcat corporations, freedom to support dictators and junta leaders, freedom to kowtow to the most uncompetitive idealess industrial lobbies in the world...Some Freedom.
So much better to kowtow to every Islamofascist nutcase that shows up on your doorstep with a gun in one hand and a turban in the other.

If anybody can make a lick of sense of what Philly is emitting (other than CO2 which he really ought to stop doing, global warming and all), I'd love to hear from you, 'coz my head is hurting now...

Misha out...

And Another Limerick:
This one not from me, but from alert reader Noel, who has graciously allowed me to publish it, enjoy:

We used to bomb zee McDonald's,
And hated your President Ronald.
Now, our New Masters bomb us
if we don't eat zee hummus,
Sacre Bleu! We've become the colonials!

New Linkage...
Just got a hint to check out a new site called "Whigging Out".

Always curious and eager to stick my nose where it doesn't belong (and, occasionally, where it does belong), I rushed over there and found that it's well worth a regular read. For one thing, he agrees with me that the Dems have put their own ass in the sling by coming out openly against the war. For another... Well, you guys go check it out for yourselves, y'hear?

(One thing, though: You seriously need to put permalinks on your posts, dude, makes it much easier to direct people to the right posts.)

Cry Me a Friggin' River...
OK, so I must be the last in the Blogosphere™ to comment on this, but I just have to.

Alex Jones has a long whine up on Editor & Publisher about how we, the readers and viewers, apparently seem to hate the media and that something needs to be done. He's right so far. Then Alex, par for the course for modern Journaljism™, refuses to look the truth in the eyes and goes on to ignore the real issues:
The newest polls about the press are discouraging enough to make even H.L. Mencken weep. The public, which had admired us in the months after Sept. 11, has turned against us again. Nearly half those responding in the most recent Pew Research Center poll seem to think that we "don't stand up for America," and a majority believe we "don't care about the people we report on." Generally, polling numbers have gone back to pre-9/11 levels.
...mainly because your so-called "reporting" has gone back to pre-9/11 levels of America-bashing and searching for root causes, ignoring the sacrifices of Americans and the very real danger of even more sacrifices that we face, unless we do something right now. But Alex doesn't get it, of course...
This seems undeserved, given the torrent of money that has been spent by news organizations after 9/11 (despite the advertising drought). And it is in spite of the risks run by scores of reporters to cover a war in Afghanistan that was often more dangerous for journalists than for GIs.
Listen, you Idiotarian Imbecile: It's not the quantity of reporting that endears you to us, it's the quality.
So why have we lost the public's high regard? Does the public have our number or does the public misjudge us?
I know what my answer and that of almost every single person I know is. And you wouldn't like it if I told you.
And what should we do now?
Realize what the true answer to that question is and react accordingly. It might be your last chance. Not that I care one whit either way what happens to you illiberal numbskulls.
The public loved us most in November, when flags rippled on the corners of TV screens and from on-camera lapels. Journalists were asking few tough questions regarding civilian bombing casualties and civil liberties
Maybe because there weren't that many civilian bombing casualties, at any rate far fewer than in any previous war, and maybe because no civil liberties were really at stake, unless you're concerned about the liberties of people like Mohammed Atta, of course. And maybe, just maybe, because both of those "concerns", to most Americans, were and are secondary to our concerns about being nuked, gassed or having a civilian jetliners flown into our offices.
Just suggestions, mind you, but you might wanna explore them a little before you find yourself flipping hamburgers at the local Mickey D's.
and the American military was rolling to a stunning victory in Afghanistan. Despite the tragedy of Sept. 11, we had a lot of good news to cover, and even pieces on the tragic aspects of the story seemed to forge a common sense of outrage and purpose. The more thorny elements tended to be put aside until a later day.
..."because, you see, we can't have this horrible jingoistic defense of America and flag-waving go on forever, you know! That would be completely against the proud tradition of the Media. We have to dissent, criticize, scream and whine, 'coz that's what we do. Heaven forbid that we should actually for once find ourselves squarely on the side of the country that we inhabit or the population that buys our rags."

I don't know about the rest of y'all, but these filthy, self-hating, squealing snotweasels make me wanna puke sometimes...
This spring and summer, that day came. The triumphant story ran its course, and the what-really-happened story began to be covered, with disquieting results.
..."finally, we just couldn't stand having to print another article about how just our cause was. We had to come up with something that would show how much we still hate our own country. It's what we do, after all..."

And so the "what really happened" (or what the Always-Looking-For-Stuff-That'll-Make-America-Look-Really-Bad journos would really like to convince us really happened) stories began...
We started to get reports that there were significant civilian casualties,
...from such mathematically challenged Idiotarians as Marc Herold.
and serious questions began to be raised about the wisdom of an invasion of Iraq.
No, they weren't serious. They were bleats from the Usual Suspects, always claiming that dissent in itself is a quality, no matter what the dissent might be all about. And the journos followed their usual M.O. and swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker.
Darkening the news atmosphere further were the stories of Enron Corp., Global Crossing, and the betrayal of shareholders.
...and the disgust with the Mainstream Media was further fuelled by the constant attempt by the Media to run the errands of the DNC by trying to make up a non-existant connection between the crashes and the Administration. Ultimately it bit you in the asses and here you are, whining... [cue world's smallest violin]
The market fell. The news from the Middle East had seldom been worse. These past six months have not been a happy time on the news pages.

So, has the public simply returned to its pre-9/11 attitude when the press returned to its normal adversarial role as the news itself turned bad? When the lapdog turned back into a watchdog?
No. The press returned to its "normal" adversarial role, alright, only this time they found themselves squarely on the opposite side of where the vast majority of the population is hanging out. That's what happened. You're not a "watchdog", you're an annoying little ankle-biting chihuahua and if you don't watch out, you're gonna find yourself being kicked out of the house for good before you take another piss on the rug.

So kindly take off your crown of thorns, it looks retarded on you, you self-righteous pricks...
No doubt that is a big part of the drop in our approval rating. But we would be letting ourselves off the hook too easily to believe that the problem lies entirely with the public's distaste for us whenever we simply do our job.
If you consider your "job" to be constantly telling us that, whatever we do, we're doing the wrong thing, then yes, you're doing an admirable job.

And you're also going to end up with less subscribers than "The Wallamakanka Examiner".
There are some questions that we tend to ignore that we should, instead, take time to ponder.

Is wanting public approval pandering or is public approval something worth trying to win?
Consider this instead: You've got a job because your paper sells copies. Your paper's sales depends on whether anybody wants to listen to you.

Is it worth trying to sell papers, or is it more "admirable" to die a slow death trying to peddle Idiotarian views that nobody wants to listen to?

You decide.
What did the public see in us after 9/11 that is worth struggling to preserve? Were we simply more human and accessible, less confrontational and negative? Can we do our job well and still be human and accessible -- and not so confrontational and negative? Is being overtly American in our reporting wrong?
Nope. It would be a very good idea indeed. But I don't think that you define "overtly American" in quite the same way as the vast majority of your ever-shrinking audience.
What does it mean to be an American journalist, as opposed to being a journalist without a national perspective, such as at the BBC? Where is the line between flag waving and simply reacting as an American?
There you have it. You don't get it. "Flag-waving", as you so derisively call it, is a central part of "reacting as an American", at least to those of us with a modicum of pride and sense of self-preservation. There is no conflict there, that conflict exists only in the minds of self-hating journos.
There are genuine assaults on the press now under way that make these questions especially urgent. The Bush administration is taking unprecedented steps to limit access to public records, and the Freedom of Information Act is in real jeopardy. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has made many Pentagon officials afraid to be seen speaking to journalists, and lately the FBI has been conducting a scorched-earth search for the source of leaks on Capitol Hill.
As much as I, out of curiosity, would like to have unlimited access to the government's files, I, unlike you apparently, also realize that we have a thing called a "war" going on and that it might not be in the nation's best interest to have me spread the details all over the web.

There are, much as I hate to admit it, times when national security is more important than the curiosity of the individual. You obviously fail to see this.
Two recent best-selling books, Bias and Slander, have accused the media of everything except abducting children. Various interest groups have tried to intimidate news organizations into tailoring their reporting to satisfy a particular political perspective.
Oh stop whining, you wussie!

What has been happening is that readers have finally had enough with your slant and are exercising their right not to continue to buy your worthless wastes of pulp unless you start reporting the news in a way fitting for a nation at war with terrorism.

What is it with you Blithering Buffoons? Do you think your papers have a Constitutional right to be bought? Well, welcome to the real world, then. We're not "squashing dissent", we're simply telling you that if you continue to piss us off, you can take your rags and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.
The point is that we need the public's support, now more than ever. We need for the public to understand that it is not unpatriotic to want government officials to leak information.
It is in times of war, you Fuckheaded Fuckwit! Ever heard the saying "Loose Lips Sink Ships?". Obviously you haven't, or you wouldn't still be fumbling around in the eternal darkness of mindnumbing ignorance.
That's how we -- and our readers -- find out about what Washington is really up to. We need the public to care about access to documents. We need them to believe we are acting on their behalf when we fight for such things. And we need the public to understand that while journalism is not often perfect, that doesn't mean that it's calculatedly slanted and biased.

With the problems that we face, we dare not simply shrug and say, "The public's attitude be damned." We need, instead, to spend some time figuring out what we can honorably do to nudge those polling results back up. The stakes for us, and for the public, have never been higher.
As I started out saying: He doesn't get it.

He's right to say that the Mainstream Media can't afford to ignore the polls and falling sales. But he goes around "solving" the problem the wrong way.

Should the Media start listening to what their public wants? Oh no, Heaven forbid! No, the Media should instead "educate" us that they are right and we are wrong, 'coz we dumb yokels don't understand what's good for us.

See you at McDonald's, Alex, and hold the onions on that Big Mac...

Fucking Lackwit...

UPDATE:Susanna Cornett has a thing or two (to put it mildly) to say on the subject, and it's bloody excellent, check it out.
And if you need more Alex-bashing, there are some quite searing opinions on his whine-fest to be found at:
Juan Gato's
DC Thornton
The Instaman and, of course
Laurence Simon.

If there's anything at all left of Alex after this thoroughly enjoyable Fisk-Fest, I'd like to have it on a nice, toasted sammich tomorrow after church.

Oh, and on a completely unrelated note: If you don't go read Laurence's latest Python-Channeling, then you're a French weenie and I hope that your butt may itch and your arms be too short... Or something... Now go read it or I shall taunt you a second time!.

Never Forget, Never Forgive!
Mike Hendrix has an awesome post up about New York, the upcoming anniversary and what must be done.

Go read it, please, it's fantastic.

Well... You Can Always Change Your Mind, Right?
Alert reader Todd sends me this juicy link. Here's a little snippet:
THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein

"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.
[emphasis mine.]

Perhaps somebody should remind the DNC?

Friday, September 06, 2002
All Quiet On the WarWussy Front.
Apart from a post awarding Michael Ledeen the title "Most Dangerous Man In the World" (shit, I thought I had that one cornered!), Kumbaya HQ is as quiet as the dorm of a boarding school after the lights are turned on in the middle of the night...

Maybe they're busy packing, having decided that it's time to put their mouths where the money is, busily preparing for the glorious defense of Saddam Hussein's regime against the Hegemonic Madmen of the West?

Or maybe, just maybe, they've decided that they'd rather not go and thus, by their own logic, forfeited any right to ever criticize the war again?

Nah... They'll be back... Like skeeters to a flame...

UPDATE: Holy Moly! Anyone who decided to pop by because of this link, please make yourselves at home and have a look around. Feel free to lean back, put your feet on the table (but please take your boots off first) and I'll tell my Third World Sweat-Shop Servant to go fetch some cold ones.

Thanks to Glenn for pointing you here and thanks to you guys for coming by. I hope you enjoy your stay and come back often. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a couple of servants I need to beat and a few puppies I need to kick. I am an Evil Conservative, after all, and have a reputation to uphold, no?

Heeeeeeere Goes aaaaaaNOTHER oneeeeee:
(With my sincere apologies to Monty Python).

"The Independent (...of decency)" is busy piling on to the "it was all the Merkins' own fault"-bonfire. Here's another little piece about how we knew all along but refused to listen.

I predict we're going to see a lot of these stories...[Yawn...] Well... Let's have a look-see, shall we?:
Revealed: The Taliban minister, the US envoy and the warning of September 11 that was ignored

By Kate Clark in Kabul
07 September 2002
Well... At least it's not Bobbie Fisk, who has a tendency to attract and buy into every whacky story that the locals dream up around the campfires at night.
Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil.

The warnings were delivered by an aide of Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban Foreign Minister at the time, who was known to be deeply unhappy with the foreign militants in Afghanistan, including Arabs.

Mr Muttawakil, now in American custody, believed the Taliban's protection of Mr bin Laden and the other al-Qa'ida militants would lead to nothing less than the destruction of Afghanistan by the US military. He told his aide: "The guests are going to destroy the guesthouse."

The minister then ordered him to alert the US and the UN about what was going to happen. But in a massive failure of intelligence, the message was disregarded because of what sources describe as "warning fatigue". At the same time, the FBI and the CIA failed to take seriously warnings that Islamic fundamentalist students had enrolled in flight schools across the US.

Mr Muttawakil's aide, who has stayed on in Kabul and who has to remain anonymous for his security...
Ah, but of course...
According to the emissary, Mr Muttawakil emerged from a one-to-one meeting with Mr Yildash [another Afghan Snuffy Leader - ed.] looking shocked and troubled. Until then, the Foreign Minister, who had disapproved of the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Bamian earlier in the year, had no inkling from others in the Taliban leadership of what Mr bin Laden was planning.

"At first Muttawakil wouldn't say why he was so upset," said the aide. "Then it all came out. Yildash had revealed that Osama bin Laden was going to launch an attack on the United States. It would take place on American soil and it was imminent. Yildash said Osama hoped to kill thousands of Americans."
I seem to recall Mr. has-been Laden promising death and destruction to the US about every five minutes or so, but do go on...
The emissary went first to the Americans, travelling across the border to meet the consul general, David Katz, in the Pakistani border town of Peshawar, in the third week of July 2001. They met in a safehouse belonging to an old mujahedin leader who has confirmed to The Independent that the meeting took place.

Another US official was also present ­ possibly from the intelligence services. Mr Katz, who now works at the American embassy in Eritrea, declined to talk about the meeting. But other US sources said the warning was not passed on.

A diplomatic source said: "We were hearing a lot of that kind of stuff. When people keep saying the sky's going to fall in and it doesn't, a kind of warning fatigue sets in. I actually thought it was all an attempt to rattle us in an attempt to please their funders in the Gulf, to try to get more donations for the cause."

The Afghan aide did not reveal that the warning was from Mr Muttawakil, a factor that might have led the Americans to down-grade it.
...after a lot of allegations and unrevealed sources (I believe that's called "hear-say"), we finally get to the meat: "The Independent (...of sanity)" actually believes that not revealing that the message came from the Foreign Minister of the Taliban (and helpfully provide some proof of the fact), thus leaving our people with nothing but the word-of-mouth of a ragged Afghan, fresh across the border claiming that the sky is gonna fall, increased the reliability of the report!

It's pretty obvious to me that Ms. Clark has never been involved in much intelligence-gathering. (And methinks she would benefit from gathering a little) .

True, revealing that it came from a senior Taliban minister might have caused the debriefers to be a little skeptical, but it would still have made the story a Heck of a lot more interesting to the recipients. Some people might actually have set aside some time to look into it. But when you're swamped with snippets of information coming out of everywhere, you're not very likely to devote scarce resources to every rumor the local peasants might come up with. It's simply impossible.

If, and I do mean if, the story is true at all, which it might very well be, I find it hard to blame the local intelligence officers for deep-sixing this and concentrating on other matters. True, it would have been wonderful if this particular tidbit, out of 10,000, had been researched further but, statistically, it's very unlikely.
"As I recall, I thought he was speaking from his own personal perspective," one source said. "It was interesting that he was from the Foreign Affairs Ministry, but he gave no indication this was a message he was carrying."
Exactly. And that's why it went into the "maybe later" file. The following rant from the secret Afghan emissary didn't make things any better either, I'm sure:
Interviewed by The Independent in Kabul, the Afghan emissary said: "I told Mr Katz they should launch a new Desert Storm ­ like the campaign to drive Iraq out of Kuwait ­ but this time they should call it Mountain Storm and they should drive the foreigners out of Afghanistan. They also had to stop the Pakistanis supporting the Taliban."
So we have one refugee who alleges to have connections to the Foreign Affairs Ministry, claiming that the US is going to be attacked, costing thousands of lives, and then he goes on to ask that we start a war to throw out the al-Qaeda?

I correct myself: This one would have gone into the "loony" file. Sadly, this loon (if he exists outside of "The Independent"'s imagination), was right. But then again, how could anyone possibly know?
The Taliban emissary said Mr Katz replied that neither action was possible.
...which it wasn't, at the time. Imagine the screaming, wailing and gnashing of teeth from "world opinion" if we'd invaded Afghanistan based on one lone loon's testimony?

Heck, even I would've balked at that one!
When Mr Muttawakil's emissary returned to Kabul, the Foreign Minister told him to see UN officials. He took the warning to the Kabul offices of UNSMA, the political wing of the UN. These officials heard him out, but again did not report the secret Taliban warning to UN headquarters. A UN official familiar with the warnings said: "He appeared to be speaking in total desperation, asking for a Mountain Storm, he wanted a sort of deus ex machina to solve his country's problems. But before 9/11, there was just not much hope that Washington would become that engaged in Afghanistan."
See the above...

I don't know about this one. "The Independent (...of objectivity)" might very well have made the entire thing up. Then again, they might not.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. We have one solitary Afghan, ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth, calling for the US to invade his country and "throw the foreigners out", throwing in a threat of dire consequences to the US if it doesn't happen. Sounds more like a local with an axe to grind than a worthwhile source to me. Speaking without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and having a bit of knowledge about the volume of intelligence gathered even under peaceful circumstances, I most likely wouldn't have acted any differently in that situation and I cannot find it in myself to blame the guys actually on the ground back then.

It's a guessing game and sometimes you guess wrong, that's the short and the long of it.

But your mileage may vary...

The Donks Are Really Screwed This Time...
And I mean screwed in every which way I can think of. The NYT:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 — Congressional leaders said today that they would undertake weeks of hearings and debate on whether to support military action against Iraq, a move that could delay a final vote until after the November elections.

"I'm more concerned about getting this done right than getting it done quickly," said Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic majority leader, a day after President Bush agreed to seek congressional approval before any invasion.
Dubya's really got their nuts in a firm grip now. They can:

A) Pass a quick resolution giving the "go ahead" before the election, in which case Republicans stand to gain massively or they can...

B) Try to delay the question of whether to react to an imminent threat, setting seats above national security, which will be obvious to the general population in no time, which again means the Dems will get creamed in the election.

The Saddam Files, Part the Third
Indepundit has the third installment in his excellent series, "The Saddam Files", up for your reading pleasure:

The link between Saddam and Osama: Saddama bin Laden.

The Slopshire Challenge.
It seems that Slopshire ("Bogus Dickheadus") and his "chickenhawk" argument (if you're not in active service, you're not entitled to be for the war) are in trouble, at least if he and his Idiotarian Fellowship are to prove that they've got the courage of their own convictions.

By their "reasoning", it would be perfectly reasonable to demand that any and all pacifists should be more than willing to take a trip to Baghdad to act as human shields for Soddy, right? I mean, otherwise they, by their own argument, wouldn't be entitled to be against the war, right? Doctor Weevil thinks so and I agree.

Now I know full well that the combined guts of the Kumbaya Crowd of WBW wouldn't be enough to fill the World's Smallest Haggis™ and that they're now going to complain about what a thankless and penniless job it is to be a true-blue pacifist, so they simply can't come up with the funds etc. etc. rant, rave, blather [cue sound of violins]... But of course our very own Dr. Weevil has foreseen that too.

A one-way trip to Amman would, including the last leg of the journey, not run into much more than about $1,000 per Wussie, so the kind Doc has suggested that we warbloggers pony up so that the brave idealists at WBW can show us the courage of their convictions and finally do something worthy of their brave dissenting opinions.

So go ahead, go to this post and pledge... Pledges will only become final in the event that Philly and his Merry Morons turn out to actually be as brave as they claim to be, which is about as likely as hearing a Senator, any Senator, proposing a cut in pork for his home State.

Naturally, should the WarPansies decide not to take us up on our generous offer, they, by their own logic, immediately forfeit any right to argue against the war and will kindly keep their orifices shut for the duration.

What He Said...
The inimitable Lileks is just as fed up with kvetching Idiotarians trying to get attention as I am:
We’ll get to that later. Right now we have a little problem with a thing called Militant Religious Fascism, and I want to see its teeth kicked down its throat so hard that shattered molars shoot out the end when it dies.
Now why didn't I say that?

Because he's Lileks, and I'm not.

The rest is just as good, so go read it now, unless you have already. If you have, go read it again.

You've Probably Read This Already...
...but if you haven't, go do so now.

9 easy steps to being a good Anti-American.

(Well, that's not exactly true. Becoming a truly good Anti American only involves two steps: 1) Insert barrel in mouth, pointing backwards and about 40 degrees upwards from horizontal. 2) Without moving gun, pull trigger. But I digress... Just go read it, dammit!)

Yes, Yes, Yes, YES!!!
Richard Dimwit Cohen is finally back!

Now, before you start wondering why on Earth your Idiotarian-Bashing Canine Friend would be happy about the return of one of the most annoying and prominent Idiotarians in the Moronosphere a.k.a. "Mainstream Media", let me explain:

His return means that the Scourges are back too!

Fisking™ at its very best!

Please Send John "Balloon Juice" Cole Some Strong Get Well Wishes.
He's apparently come down with something and is feeling crappy. So, considering his contribution to my continued sanity in a world gone completely crazy by maintaining a most excellent blog, please join me in a Blogospheric Telekinetic:

"Get Well, 'Grumpy'!"

If You Read Nothing Else Today...
...while I struggle like mad to find out what the Hell has gotten into the Web since yesterday (probably just my shitty ISP acting up again), please go read this delightful Fisking™ of Philly "Biggus Dickus" Slopshire.

And "Random Nuclear Strikes"... Welcome to "the Pack".

Thursday, September 05, 2002
And One More Strange Search Query:
how to wear a sari exposing the navel ...

Erm... I have to admit that I haven't got the first clue there, Ms. (Dear God, I hope it's a "Ms."!)

What I do know is that it's a conundrum that has been baffling Indians for centuries, yet they seem to have been unable to come up with an answer.

But I wouldn't be the lovable "Rottweiler" if I didn't at least try to help you, so here goes: Try making your sari out of, say, Saran Wrap™. (And, if you do, please send pics for, erm..., scientific purposes... Yep, that's it... Science)

Will the Archbishop Please Go F*ck Himself
Alert reader Randolph points me helpfully towards an article that has already been thoroughly beaten to a pulp by the very very accomplished Fisker™ Christopher Johnson, but that won't keep me from taking a short look at it.

The Libertarian part of me just cannot abide rules, unless there's a very good reason for them, yet there are a few rules that have been passed down through the generations in my family and one of them goes roughly like this:

"If my car won't start, I don't haul it to the nearest Synagogue, if the air conditioning dies on me, I don't call the local Bishop and ask him for advice, if my TV blows up, I don't call on the local Baptist community to send somebody out to repair it and if my country is attacked and I'm wondering whether we should go to war to prevent another attack, I sure as Hell don't go calling on the Archbishop of Westminster".

After reading this inane drivel, I fully realize the wisdom of my ancestors when they came up with that rule...
Church leaders speak against 'wicked' war
by ruth gledhill and phillip webster

BRITAIN’S two most senior churchmen have launched separate impassioned initiatives aimed at preventing war against Iraq.
I would be so much more appreciative of their efforts if they would instead go "launch" themselves from the tallest spire they can find.
In an article in The Times today the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, writes that a war would have grave consequences,
Myyyy Goodness! "Grave consequences of war"?

It has to be divine inspiration.

Listen, Mr. Idiotarian in the funny hat, a vast majority of us are a little bit more concerned about the grave consequences of not having one. But do go on...
possibly setting the Arab world against the West.
[Ripping off funny hat and beating Idiotarian repeatedly over the head with a clue stick]

HELLOOOOOOO!!! Anybody in there? All the lights are on in the house, but it seems to me like there's nobody home...

"Possibly setting the Arab world against the West."? I don't know which universe you live in, Mr. ArchIdiot Cormac-McMurphy O'McDonald in a White Wine Sauce, but I have a strong feeling that it has little, if any, relation to this one. You see, in this universe, we've been dealing with the animosity of the Arab world since, oh, about the 12th 7th century...
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, has also raised his concerns in a private letter to the Prime Minister.

Their interventions are the latest in a number by bishops opposed to action against Iraq — and their comments are increasingly irritating the Government and its advisers.
...not to mention everybody else with even the remotest bit of clue... Let's jump a bit, before I break my keyboard by banging my head against it.
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor writes that unless the evidence is both persuasive and incontrovertible, concerns in this country and abroad are unlikely to be allayed.
You know what you can do with your "concerns", Mr. Murphy-McDingDong? The only "concerns" I give a flying patootie about in relation to this issue is those belonging to Soddy Hussein, and I like him really, really concerned... And dead... In that order...

But let's assume that the evidence is indeed persuasive and incontrovertible (which we already know it won't be, according to The Clueless Cardinals of Colchester or wherever the heck it is they nest, seeing as how the piles of evidence already readily accessible to anyone who cares enough to look still don't seem to be enough.), let's just assume that for a second. Surely the Brainless Bishops of Bullockshire will be satisfied then?

Of course not...
Even with such evidence, important questions remained to be addressed, including the effect on international law and how well it would be respected in future if military action were not endorsed by the UN.
And I can answer it right now: It won't have much effect on "international law", since no such law exists and, consequently, it won't have much effect on the respect for that same non-existant "law" whether it's endorsed by UN, Amnesia International or the Upper Bogglesbury Bridge Association.

There, that was easy. Now let's roll...
The Cardinal received swift backing from Catholic bishops and theologians both here and abroad.
...I'm sure he did... All I wanna know is whether they were considerate enough to at least use KY-Gel™ during the "backing".
The Right Rev Thomas McMahon, one of four Catholic bishops who signed a Pax Christi petition handed to Mr Blair last month, said a strike against Iraq would be “wicked and foolhardy”.
"Wicked" is the word used to describe what you're doing with the choir boys after practice, Mr. McMahon.
Bishop McMahon said: “It would be wicked in the sense that it goes against Article 2 of the UN Charter.
Odd... I seem to remember a time when preachers founded their arguments on Scripture. Could anybody point me to the "Book of UN Charter", 'coz I cannot for the life of me find it anywhere in my New International Version.
No matter how evil Iraq’s armaments are, unless and until the Iraqi Government itself launches an attack it is wrong for us to do so.”
Well... That means that I won't have to listen to the conspiracy wingnuts that claim that FDR knew all about Pearl Harbor, yet refused to act.

I mean, if he had, say, launched an attack on the Japanese 1st Fleet on December 6th, he'd have been "wicked and wrong".

Would somebody please send this particular Holy Cow off to pasture, 'coz his moo'ing is getting on my nerves?
Dr Eamon Duffy, Fellow and President of Magdalen College, Oxford, and president of the Catholic Theological Association, urged Mr Blair and President Bush to take heed of the Cardinal’s comments, which he described as a shrewd counsel of prudence and an urgent call to moraliy.

They're Idiotarian Bleats of the worst caliber, coming from Idiotarians who should really learn their roles and shut their holes.

And where, in all of this, is "the separation of Church and State?" I thought that was a big issue nowadays, but apparently only when it comes to forbidding kids to recite the Pledge, not when it comes to telling the Administration what to do or not to do in a national emergency. Silly me...
“If the democratic West is to retain moral credibility and if we are to avoid a murderous confrontation with an Islamic world radicalised by poverty and resentment of Western imperialism
Heck, I thought that the "radicalization" only kicked in if we attacked? And now it turns out that they've hated us all along (thank you for telling me, I was under the impression that 9/11 was just a slightly awkward Islamic way of saying "Merry Christmas" a few months too early... Moron...) and, of course, that it's all our fault for being so horribly successful and rich.

And yes, "avoiding a murderous confrontation" is what this war is all about, because we've had quite enough of that, thankyouverymuchly.
then we have to move beyond defending our interests and punishing our enemies. We need to demonstrate our desire to share the freedoms and prosperities we enjoy with the world’s poor.”
Is it OK if we get rid of the filthy rich bastards that are trying to kill us before we start the "embracing the poor" bit? I mean, for one thing, the rich dictators in that part of the world are more than a little against us coming over there and embracing their poor. But hey, if you wanna go embrace the poor Soddies, go right ahead, don't let me stop you. And don't forget to wear your holy garb when you're there. The Soddies really like that.
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, said Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor did not go far enough in questioning the validity of a pre-emptive strike. He said going to war had to be a response to an attack. To strike first would be an unjustifiable act of terrorism and must be condemned outright.
I guess FDR would not only have been "wicked and wrong", he'd also have been an "unjustified terrorist" if he'd known about the Jap plans and attacked them before Pearl. I'm so relieved that he didn't... I mean, what's a few thousand dead Americans compared with having a deranged preacher call you a "terrorist"?

Nope, I couldn't care less either...

Thanks for the tip, Randy!

UPDATE: Alert reader "Infidel" tells me that our "troubled relations" with the Turbanosphere™ started more around 632 A.D. He is, of course, correct and I've altered my post according to his fact checking. Thanks, Infidel.

UPDATE the 2nd: The Cranky Hermit has a thing or two to tell the Holy Halfwits as well. If you like watching Idiotarians being dissected carefully and thoroughly, I suggest you go check it out right now. If you don't, then what are you doing here in the first place?

Trust me, it's well worth the trip over there and I'll still be right here when you come back.

OK, I've HAD It!!!
Haloscan's latest "trick" seems to be making my site take hours to load and asking for passwords (or maybe that's some idgit's idea of a "joke")???, so it's gone now.

Sorry 'bout the hassle. When Haloscan gets its act back together, when YACCS starts taking on new members or when some other comment system pops up (this would be somewhere between when pigs fly and Hell freezes over), we'll have comments again.

Once more, nobody's sorrier about this than I am, I miss your comments!

UPDATE: I did some "research". The domain that kept popping up asking for "passwords" was "", which turns out to be identical with "". Obviously somebody barfed in the code at "Blogger" again... [sigh]

Feeling's Very Mutual...
Alert reader Mike sends me this little wonderful snippet from an otherwise mundane piece of Journaljism (look Ma! I just coined a term!):
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., just back from Europe, said she detected growing opposition to the United States among America's allies. "The driver of a lot of this animus," she said, "is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To leave this unresolved and to attack an Arab country is going to be viewed as an attack on the Arab world."

She said the anti-American sentiment was so strong that she felt it personally.

"As an American, I have always been proud," Feinstein said. "I have a (U.S. flag) pin. I was embarrassed to wear it."
That's nothing compared to the shame I, as an American, feel by even thinking about you prancing all over the Grand EUrinal with Old Glory adorning your worthless carcass.

Thanks, Mike.

Oh, And Lest I Forget
The Indepundit (who is now on my perma-list, most likely wondering what the f... took me so long? I, for one, have no idea) probes even deeper into the sick, depraved personality that is known to the world as Saddam Hussein.

Go take a peek at Saddam and the Bomb, then come back and tell me why the Indepundit isn't making ridiculous amounts of cash writing for the major newspapers...

My Apologies...
...for the extremely light Bloggage today (not to mention the failings of the infamous "Haloscan" commentary system), but it's been a downright Gawdawful day and I just can't seem to find a few spare minutes to sit down and write anything.

I have had time, though, to notice the behavior of a cowardly, snivelling lackwit who apparently took offense at a link that our very own Emily posted at her site. So much so that he, in accordance with the M.O. of cowardly, zit-faced Idiotarians everywhere, decided to send her some threatening and abusive email. Anonymously, of course.

If you're as thoroughly pissed off at this as I am, I'm sure you're more than welcome to pop by Em's place so that you can tell "GG" (or "Gigi", as we like to call the limpwristed little twerp) exactly what you think about him.

Oh and the link that caused him to blow his last fuse? I'm so glad you asked. It's

The Portadown News

Wednesday, September 04, 2002
The Instaman Is Entirely Too Nice
Whereas he might mean it when he says "no offense to Eric Alterman" (although I do detect a strong whiff of sarcasm in there), I have no such compunctions when describing that flaming, incandescent heap of Idiotarian Suckitude™ that, dressed in what almost passes for a human rubber suit, goes under the name "Eric Alterman".

Spurred on by curiosity, I followed the Instaman's link to this unworthy pile of human refuse's webpage and found, with a surprise only comparable to that of a man who, upon pouring molten lead on his Willy, discovers that it wasn't such a good idea to begin with, a Dictionary of Dimwits, "cleverly" disguised as a "blogroll".

The Imbecilic Cardinal of Idiots a.k.a. Eric Alterman had decided to "embrace" the world of 'blogs and, in trying to decide which ones to link to, asked JeraLyn of Talkleft to compile a list for him.

Kinda like asking Adolf Hitler to come up with a list of Jews to invite to your next book burning.

Not surprisingly, what JeraLyn came up with was a list of Idiotarians Par Excellence, the majority of which wouldn't even qualify as "blogs" in the first place, in spite of Idiotarian Alterman's claim that These are all Web logs.He continues:

"...which means I have had to cut loose some of my friends’ Web sites."

Shit, that means I'll have to go elsewhere to find Soddy Hussein and Bobby Mugabe's websites!

"...I’ve done this in the hopes of demonstrating my embrace of this whole Blogistan notion and format"...

You might wanna check up on what a "blog" is. Not to mention trying to include a few blogs that aren't mouthpieces of Osama bin Laden and Joseph Stalin.

The only positive thing I can say about Eric's "brave" attempt is that at last I have a comprehensive list of targets for good ol'-fashioned Fisking™

Other than that, Eric, you are, have always been and shall remain a Lefty Loon with a strong Idiotarian bent.

The Daily Limerick
The EUnuchs are whining as usual,
Saying "a war on Saddam will be futile".
"We don't need those damn Yanks,
Their jets or their tanks".
Well, EUnuchs, the feeling is mutual!

Paleo Gets Kicked In Butt, Usual Suspects Whine:
Palestinians vow to avenge court ruling on expulsions

By Phil Reeves in Jerusalem
04 September 2002

Indignation and vows of revenge rippled across the occupied territories yesterday after Israel's Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing the expulsion from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip of two relatives of a murderous Paleostinian thug suspected militant.
"We're angry... We're very very angry... 'Coz that's what we are... Angry... Ph33r Uz!"
Indignation and vows of revenge rippled across the occupied territories yesterday after Israel's Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing the expulsion from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip of two relatives of a wannabe splodeydope suspected militant.
"I swear! I din't do it! I don't even know how to sew! What? You didn't mention anything about sewing? Erm... Well I don't know anything about that either, your honor!"
The Israeli armed forces said the expulsions would go ahead today.
Buh-bye now... Don't let the door hit you in the butt, y'hear?
There was outrage among human rights organisations, which saw the ruling as an endorsement of Israel's use of collective punishment, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Funny how they always seem to dig up that Convention whenever they think it helps their purpose, then ignore it completely when, for instance, a mother is murdered after having been tortured to confess. It's even more funny how the morons always seem to get the same Convention wrong.
Amnesty International said in a statement that under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Palestinians living in the territories, which have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967, are classified as protected persons. "The unlawful forcible transfer of protected persons constitutes a war crime under both the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court," it said. "Under the Rome Statute such violations may also constitute crimes against humanity."
One flaw in that "argument" is that the territories, as Amnesia International likes to call 'em, aren't "occupied territories". Another is that people once caught helping wannabe terrorists are a clear and present threat in the future too.
Hamas, which has launched dozens of suicide bombings against Israel, said it was a "grave escalation" of the situation, and vowed to respond.
So what else is new? You try it, and more of your snuffies and gunnies are gonna get waxed and even more of their helpers are gonna find themselves on the next train to Merry Gaza.
The former peace negotiator Saeb Erekat called it a "black day for human rights", and said that Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority was considering filing a complaint to the UN Security Council.
Go ahead. See if it gets anywhere from there [waving veto in front of Paleostinian Idiotarian]

You guys are so dim it hurts...

This from a "former special ops soldier" by the name of "James Adams":
More stories

Please give the public more stories about President Bush's push to enter into Iraq. I am a former Army special operations soldier and have a 12-year-old son whom I don't want to see drafted because of a dumb war. There will be no way to end this war if it is started.
If you are, indeed, a "former Army spec ops soldier", then it is truly sad to see how your guts seem to have left you. It's just as sad to see that you haven't noticed that we haven't got a draft, not to mention the fact that it would be five years before your son got eligible for that non-existant draft.

But, based on your immense knowledge of all things military, there'll be "no way to end it", so you might be right... Or not...
This potential war will also leave the U.S. too weak to fight anywhere else. If other countries, such as North Korea or China, decide to exploit our weaknesses, we will be too small a force to fight a bi-global war unless a mandatory draft is instated.
Ahh... So that's where your mythical draft is supposed to come from. The North Koreans and Chinese are simply chomping at the bit to get at us once Saddam gets pounced?

I strongly suggest that the Chinese, not to mention the North Koreans, who are more than busy enough trying to feed themselves, think twice before embarking on a ridiculous adventure such as that. The results, should they attack us at a "weak" moment and become a real threat, would not be pretty. But I forget, you're the military "expert" here, right?
President Bush is presenting himself as politically correct but we are already deploying personnel and equipment to the theater of operations. In the past month I have personally seen 10 friends and family members called to active duty from area National Guard units that will be deployed to the Southeast Asia theater and have missions to support future actions in Iraq.
And this is where you completely lose your ability to suspend even my easily suspendable disbelief, Mr. "Adams".

If you were really a "former special ops soldier" and if you really had friends relocated into harm's way, you'd do well to sleep with a gun under your pillow from now on. Not that any real soldier would go about bleating out information that even a boot camp whelp knows is dangerously close to being classified.
As I write this, an Egyptian national newspaper is also predicting an invasion of Iraq by late November.
And, as we all know, Egyptian newspapers are known for their veracity and ability to dig up news, right?
Are we being kept in the dark purposely?

James Adams, Lancaster
Again, if you were a "former special ops soldier", you wouldn't have to even think about asking that question.

Bloody Idiot... Do you dress up as a soldier when you go out on the weekend as well?

Still Not Sure How Stable Haloscan Is Yet...
But here goes...

Gaspadin Kapitan, natchnitje kommentarij!

Gawd I Love That Woman!
Rachel Lucas has a thing or two to say to Idiotarians who think that women shouldn't have an opinion, especially not if it's a smarter one than their own.

There's no permalink for it, so you better hurry here before it scrolls away.

The only thing I'd like to add is that I like hatemail, especially if it's written by somebody with an IQ above room temperature.

Unfortunately, that excludes most Idiotarians.

UPDATE: There is a permalink now, and it's right here.

Ever Felt the Slightest Twinge of Doubt As To Whether Eco-Freaks Ought to be Shot?
If so, go read this.

When you come back, we'll load the clips and go a-huntin'...

(Sample Pearl of "Wisdom" From Eco-Nut: "We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last! -- Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)")

Osama would've been proud, you twisted, sick freak...

Now Tell Us How You REALLY Feel...
Andrea Harris is pissed off... Really really pissed off.

And she's completely right on the money too. One heck of a rant.

Saddam... Godzilla or NOT Godzilla?
Kidding, of course.

But the "Indepundit" has an interesting point-by-point analysis of Saddam's personality.

If you've ever considered yourself quite the armchair analyst, you should go read it.

Tuesday, September 03, 2002
Comments Are Still Fuxored
I don't know how many of their 10 thumbs a piece "Haloscan" have got up their butts, but it seems to be enough to keep them from effectively fixing the problem right now.

I'll let you know when commenting functions normally again...


UPDATE: It seems that it is working on an on-and-off kind of basis, but I won't turn them back on until I'm at least reasonably convinced that they're stable again. I don't want to lose any of y'all's comments, you see. Please feel free to use the email instead.

How to Prove You're an Idiotarian With One Single Column:
This week's contributor, Matthew Engel of The al-Guardian:
Bush runs out of credit

Matthew Engel
Tuesday September 3, 2002
The Guardian

America floats on an ocean of credit. After a couple of months' good behaviour, you get overwhelmed by junk mail and calls from organisations desperate to lend you money. It is common for families to run themselves up to the maximum on a stack of different cards. It is easy to assume it will last for ever. Then comes the reckoning.
Now the government has been seduced in just the same way. A year ago, sympathy for the United States was close to unanimous across the planet.
As long as the sympathy doesn't involve actually doing anything.
The murderous attacks raised the country's moral credit rating sky-high. But it was not limitless. And the Bush administration dissipated it all on a spending spree of ideological indulgences and hubris.

Leave aside the question of whether its Iraq policy - whatever it actually is this morning - might possibly be right. What is indisputable is that the US government has wrecked, possibly beyond repair, its hopes of persuading any other country to that effect by simple, arrogant incompetence. It is terrifying to watch. It could be the next bestseller: How to Lose Friends and Influence No One, by George W Bush.
I may be alone in this (though I doubt it), but I'd one heck of a lot rather lose "Friends and Influence" coming from a bunch of impotent EUroweenies with the combined military might to (maybe) subdue Podunk MS, than I'd lose another 3,000 of my fellow citizens.
Much of the process has been public and obvious: over issues such as the environment and the Middle East.
Yep, we're not willing to shackle ourselves based on junk science and we still tend to believe that it's worthwhile to support the only democracy in the Middle East.

I'm positively horrified at our arrogance...
We have also had the humiliation of Russia over nukes and the volte-face over steel tariffs, when years of free trade principles were tossed aside for a few steelworkers' votes in the Midwest. Bush is now being forced to backtrack, hacking off the steelworkers as well.
So the admittedly Idiotarian steel tariff is why every EUnuch alive is busy sucking Soddem Hussy's Willy? No points for coherence there, morons.
Some of it has been semi-secret. The letters ICC do occasionally get headlines in the Washington papers but only because they stand for the Inter-County Connector, a projected road designed to blast through some of the last patches of greenery in the suburbs. (Forget about those of us who think they stand for the International Cricket Council or the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.) No one bothers much here about the International Criminal Court and the Americans' efforts to sabotage it all.
We're not "sabotaging" a damn thing! If the rest of y'all can't wait to throw your sovereignty at some ridiculous gathering of dictators then, by all means, go ahead! Just don't expect us to throw our Constitution out the window and join the suicide pact.
But diplomats have been amazed by the huge amount of political capital the Americans have expended on their objections to it and demands for exemptions
"Funny", not to mention "amazing", how you seem to forget to mention that your very own UK and a dozen of other EUnuch countries beat us to it by making "special" arrangements covering the conflict in Afghanistan. "For thee, but not for me"?
covering situations that everyone else regards as so improbable and theoretical as to be absurd. Overall, the US's list of wholehearted allies, as opposed to mutinous vassals, is now apparently down to Israel (provided it keeps getting its own way), Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.
It's not quantity, but quality that matters. And if you think that I wouldn't be more than happy to sell all of the EU down the river if it would save just one of our true allies, then you're deluding yourself, you maggot.
This is the kind of point oppositions are meant to pick up. But the official opposition is inaudible. In 2000 a plurality of Americans voted to put into the White House a man whose knowledge of, and commitment to, environmental issues was unparalleled in presidential history.
He had somebody ghost-write a book for him while he was out canoeing on rivers flooded by letting out water for his photo-op. Big deal. And you EUrinals still don't get the Electoral College, do you? I'm not surprised.
Yet out of funk, Al Gore spent the campaign pretending he knew nothing, and cared less. The planet? Oh, that old thing!
Pretended he knew nothing??? Give the man an Oscar™!!!
The Democrats are now worse than ever.
Infathomable, but true...
They have almost a dozen possible candidates for the presidency in 2004. One of them, Joe Lieberman, has tried to out-hawk the Pentagon over Iraq; nearly all the others, Gore included, have just squirmed.
That's what worms do, you know...
The leadership of the opposition appears to have reverted to the president's father, acting through his surrogates. It is easier to fathom the workings of the Tikriti clan. The informed scepticism has come from unelected quasi-politicians (including three of the last four secretaries of state) and a regiment of ex-generals. Among them is Anthony Zinni, last heard of a few months ago when he had the thankless task of being Bush's envoy to the Middle East. "We need to quit making enemies that we don't need to make enemies out of," he said. Well, yes, that was an old rule of diplomacy.
...and we need to stop worrying about making enemies of countries that don't matter one tinker's cuss in the grand scheme... Yup, EUnuchs, I'm looking at you.
The Democrats, of course, are terrified that their patriotism will be impugned;
...that would be like "impugning" the "masculinity" of a transgendered female mouse.
that some nasty old rightwinger like Bill O'Reilly of Fox News will say horrid things about them. Someone needs to tell the American people the truth: that whether or not the Iraq policy is right, the government's methods of making its case have been staggeringly inept.
Odd how the American people seem to be behind their C-in-C. But that's most likely because they're just Ignorant 'Merkins, right? You EUroweenie Raisin Scraped From a Camel's Behind...
Bush says he will "consult". But he is so deeply committed rhetorically that he can only pull back from here with extreme loss of face. If he is faced with a choice between starting an unnecessary war and looking an indecisive prat, we can guess which way Bush will jump.
That is, of course, assuming that wiping out the most vociferous terrorist regimes on Earth is an "unnecessary war".
Let me suggest a possible message for the Democrats that might be worth mentioning to the electorate. The last Gulf war cost $60bn, spread globally. Say this one runs to $100bn. Trusting Gordon Brown to ensure that not a single NHS aspirin is jeopardised for this adventure, that would leave the US taxpayer with a bill of $2,000 per household (minus a few cents from the Micronesians).

Never mind. Perhaps they'll stick it all on their credit cards and forget about it.
I'd personally be more than happy to pay that price if it saved one innocent American life. And I'd pay it up cash... Why? Because I can and it's my duty to my fellow citizens.

I give up... Let's just pull our troops out and let the EUroShits wipe each other out.

I'll pay top dollar for a seat on the bleeches.

How Many Times Do We Have To Say "F*ck You, Aziz"?
Also from "The Independent" (...of clue)":
Iraq sets conditions for return of UN inspectors
...well... that's it then... LAUNCH!
Iraq said today it was ready to discuss a return of United Nations weapons inspectors, but only in a broader context of ending sanctions and restoring Iraqi sovereignty over all its territory.

"If you want to find a solution, you have to find a solution for all these matters, not only pick up one certain aspect of it," Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said after meeting UN Secretary–General Kofi Annan at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg. "We are ready to find such a solution."

Tell you what... We'll have the inspectors in by tomorrow at noon...
Iraq has made similar proposals in the past. Mr Annan has said the return of inspectors must be unconditional.
Mr. Annan has finally discovered which side of the bread is buttered...
Mr Aziz described the meeting as an exchange of views. "We are ready to cooperate with the United Nations," he said.

But he said such talks must include not only the return of inspectors, but the lifting of sanctions, the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty in the north and south of the country, and the end to US threats of invasion and "changing our political system."
Tell you another thing, you filthy little sand crab: You're in no position to set conditions. You either comply fully and unreservedly this instant, or you're toast. Get it? Thought not... What's the GPS co-ordinates for Baghdad again?
Noting the last team of UN inspectors stayed formore than seven years, Mr Aziz said new ones would only be welcome "if they come for a special mission," but not "if they send people who drag their feet for years."
Would sure help if you morons would stop harrassing them all the time and actually let them do their job.
He reiterated Baghdad's invitation last month for US Congress members and experts of their choice to search sites in Iraq where they suspect weapons are hidden. The White House has dismissed the offer as a stunt.
...and it is...
Mr Aziz accused Washington of being uninterested in dialogue. "If the question of so–called weapons of mass destruction is a genuine concern by the United States, this matter could be dealt with reasonably and equitably,"
...and it can. Now where are those damn co-ordinates? And the fallout calculations, dammit! I asked for those several weeks ago!
"In the end they will use whatever pretext remains in their hands to attack us. We are preparing ourselves to defend our country," he said.
OK, how's this for a "pretext", Tariq?

You've been refusing to comply with the conditions that you yourselves agreed to to avoid being beaten into falafel for 11 effing years!

Guess what?

I don't think you'll make it to 12...

Goodbye, Planet of the Apes
"The Independent (...of connection with Planet Earth)" has this to offer on the subject of Apishness:
UN says 90 per cent of great apes' habitat will be destroyed
By Geoffrey Lean
04 September 2002

...Orang-utans and gorillas share about 97 per cent of their DNA with humans; bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) share 98.4 per cent.
Greenies and other Idiotarians, on the other hand, share less than 75%.
Dr Klaus Töpfer, Unep's executive director, said: "Roads are being built in the few remaining pristine forests of Africa and South-east Asia to extract timber, minerals and oil.
...not to mention the mundane, but necessary task of getting from point A to point B without hiring 50 Coolies...
"By conserving the great apes we will also protect the livelihoods of the many people that rely on the forests for food, medicine and clean water."
...and these people would be?

[sounds of Bunny Boinkers scratching their heads]

Thought so...

OK, So These Illegal Immigrants Break Our Laws By Entering, But At Least They Don't Turn on Red...
I swear I'm not making this up:
Law-abiding, eh?

Re: "The wrong attitude," by Anthony Brewer, Letters, Aug. 17.
Mr. Brewer wrote that José Gastón Ramírez's dream to live in the United States didn't include any deference to our laws and institutions. Mr. Brewer must never leave his house, or he would know that thousands of native Dallasites don't include any deference to many of our laws, either. The Dallas North Tollway is a very good example. On Aug. 17, at 10:30 a.m., where the posted speed limit is 55 mph, 80 percent or more of the traffic was traveling between 70 and 85 miles an hour.

The more expensive the car ... excuse me ... the SUV in most cases, the higher the speed. These same folks ignore stop lights, stop signs, no turn on red, pulling over for emergency vehicles, just to name a few of the laws they break with no regard for others.

I would rather have some of the illegal immigrants here than some of our "solid upright citizens" who thumb their noses at our laws that are meant to reduce accidents and save lives.

Paul Davis, Dallas
OK... Breaking immigration laws and making it even harder for law-abiding, hard-working foreigners to enter maybe bad, but it's not nearly as bad as the idiot who cut in front of me without using his blinker?

Paul, you're an idiot...

OK, Now I'm Confused Again...
This fresh in from a local Idiotarian:
Must be a better way

I am a registered Republican, but I can't lock step with George the Second and his go-it-alone policy toward Iraq. There must be a better way to take out factories suspected of producing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons than going in with a land invasion without the support of the neighboring Arab states.
I think he is just trying to make up for the terrific blunder that George the First made when he didn't take just two or three days more to finish the job in 1991 and hand Saddam Hussein over to the Kurds for punishment.

Because of that, he lost my vote in 1992 to Ross Perot. The trouble with that, it resulted in eight years of Bill Clinton.

A.E. Highsmith, Grand Prairie
So let's see, Mr. or Ms. Highsmith:

You're righteously pissed off that Bush 41 didn't finish the job. I'm with you there, even though hindsight is always 20/20 and I, personally, wouldn't have bet much money on Soddy staying in power after the Mother of All Humiliations.

You were so pissed off that you voted for Ross Perot, thus helping in handing the Presidency to the Grand Insinkerator. I'm with you so far as well. Sometimes you just have to do something to register your disapproval, even if it does come back to bite you in the @ss...

But this is where you lose me: You're now pissed off that Bush 43 seems to be willing and able to finish the job and get rid of Soddy?

Can you make up your ever-loving mind for long enough to explain that one to me?

I didn't think so either...

No Sir, We're Fresh Out of Those
Today's weirdest query courtesy of "Yahoo": "Pics Of Women Humping Wooden Chairs"...

I have one word for you, son, other than "counseling", which I definitely see in your future...

"Splinters"... Ouch...

UPDATE:Thanks to alert reader Neal my curiosity was tickled enough to try and find out just where I ranked on the list for Yahoo-searches for that particular string...

YIKES! I'm #2!

"The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler"... For all your furniture-humping needs...

I think I'll retire now...

Well... It HAS to Happen From Time to Time...
And this is one such time when somebody I normally agree a whole lot with gets it all the wrong way 'round...

Andrew Sullivan is all gung-ho to take Soddem "Who's in?" and his sockpuppet Tariq Aziz up on their latest attempt at dragging out the inevitable by saying, for the 653rd time, that they're "ready to discuss a return of weapons inspectors".

His argument? I'm glad you asked:
Why not ask Cheney to come up with a rigorous weapons inspection regime that could actually do the job - dozens of inspectors, random visits, no limits on what they can investigate and look at, and so on? Then ask Powell to endorse it and demand instant compliance from Baghdad.

WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE? I'm not sure there is one. If the U.N. balks at the stringent conditions for new inspections, then we tried. If the U.N. complies and Iraq balks, then we have added yet another justification for the war. Either way, our international position is strengthened. What if Saddam says yes to genuine inspections? He won't. If he says yes and then tries to wriggle out as he has so often in the past, then we can invoke U.N. resolutions, and have a mighty force in the region with which to destroy his regime. And both parts of the strategy help each other. Our military buildup can be the force behind the inspections regime and its insurance policy. And our last-ditch diplomatic effort can help justify our action in the minds of those few world leaders who can swallow their America-envy and see what's best for the entire planet.
The "downside", as you should know Andrew, is that there's no such thing as "instant compliance" in politics. The drawing up of demands alone would take weeks, then weeks of scheduling talks, then weeks of getting ready, then a few months of Soddem balking, then more weeks of talking in the UN etc. etc., blah, blah, blah...

In the meantime, Soddem and his mad professors are working like crazy to come up with a plan to blow major American cities to Kingdom Come and, given the glacial speed that "negotiations" normally work at, it's one heck of a lot more likely that we have a nuclear suitcase in New York before we have as much as one blue-helmet in Baghdad.

I suppose it's alright with you to risk American lives just so we'll look "better" in the history books, but I couldn't care fucking less.

Or how 'bout the many, many Israeli children that will have to die while you and people like you are out there busy earning brownie points that don't matter diddly anyways, seeing as none of the countries you want to suck up to are capable of supporting us in any real way? Thought about that? I have!

How many kids like this little girl:

(Her name is, or was, Gal Aizenman, by the way)

...are you willing to sacrifice to suck up to idiots who don't give a f*ck about us or Gal, Andy?

She was ripped to shreds by poisoned nails placed by Paleostinian Neanderthals while your heroes were busy scoring points with "world opinion", rather than going in there and fixing the problem.

Take a good, long look into her big, innocent eyes, then tell me that it's more important to lick the nutsacks of impotent EUrocrats than to save children like her from a similar fate...

You want more of her kind?

Just asking...

Add that to the fact that the "good-will" you seek to drum up is non-existant. There is no way in a frozen Hell that this Administration can ever do enough to make the impotent, whining EUnuchs stop whining, the Islamofascists stop hating us and all that we stand for and the Loony Left stop undermining the war effort. Not even if Laura Bush dresses up in a burqa and Dubya himself converts to Islam, signs every UN treaty ever conceived and crumples up the US Constitution and throws it out the window.



Let them hate us all they want while we do what we have to do, I don't give a royal fuck! What're they gonna do? Fucking BLEED on us???

They'll be back at the teat once the dust settles and those that aren't won't be here for very long.

So by all means, Andrew, go ahead and try to make the sick jerks "like us", if'n you don't mind that the rest of us make sure that our children will be alive to enjoy that new-found "love"...

I ain't buying.

Lead, Follow or GET THE HECK OUT OF THE WAY!!!

Let's ROLL, already!!!!!!

[rant over]

Idiotarians Down Under:
Thanks to Ozzie-Blogger par Excellence, Tim Blair, it has been brought to my attention that Greenpeace "if it's good for anything, we're against it" has now launched a campaign to Stop the Trees.

Southern Pacific Petroleum, in an attempt to help reabsorbing CO2 emissions from its projected shale oil plant, has planned to plant 160,000ha of trees, one of the biggest forestation projects in Australian history.

Greenpeace, much to nobody's surprise, are not happy.
"It does not go far enough. The plant is so vast it will still contribute to a gigantic amount of carbon burning," Greenpeace climate campaigner Gareth Walton said.

"That means more climate change, more floods, more drought and maybe the death of the Great Barrier Reef.
...not to mention shorter Sunday afternoons, more vicious attacks by deranged koalas roaming the new eucalyptus forests and The End of the World As We Know It™...

And that's not all, oh no... The positively Apocalyptic consequences of planting trees go even further, according to this Greenpeace Spokesidiot:
And if SPP goes down the gurgler, someone will be left with a carbon time bomb because if those trees are killed by fires, droughts or pests, they will release all that carbon stored inside them."
..."so let's chop down all of those nasty green things and pave the whole country over, lest they catch fire and bring the World to an End™"
The Wilderness Society's land clearing campaigner Louise Matthiesson said 160,000ha was a third of the area Queensland farmers were clearing every year.
..."and if it isn't enough, we shouldn't do anything at all!".

This is what passes for "logic" in the deranged Idiotarian minds of Greenpeacers...

If'n y'all will have me excused now... I have to go outside before my head explodes...

(thanks to Tim Blair for the link)

Another Site Worth Checking:
Fellow blogger (and a bona fide Norwegian too, and therefore in a unique position to examine the problem), Vegard Valberg, has a thing or two to say about Tranzis.

For one thing, he doesn't believe it's a growing movement. As a matter of fact, it's at its very zenith of power and about to take a horrible (at least according to the Tranzies) fall. Europeans (real Europeans, not the chattering bungholes that always get quoted in the media) are simply sick and tired of 'em. One little appetizer quote:
Lots of people will think that their power is growing because they are so loud, but in fact they are loud for the same reason as a big or a chicken being taken to the chopping block is loud, they hope that by screeching loud enough they can escape their fate. They are going down, screeching, but they are going down.
...and now I recommend going there and reading the whole thing.

I hope Vegard's right and he makes a pretty good point that he just might be.

Monday, September 02, 2002
And Now, Before I Hit the Sack, Some Strange Search Queries:
"lahoud funny pics": Trust me, if I had any of those, I'd most certainly share. What is a "Lahoud", by the way, and do I want to know?

"mugabe zimbabwe hatemail": Sadly, I haven't gotten any yet, but I expect quite a bit, once he comes across my site...

"german rotts vs american rotts": Merkin Rotts - 10, German Rotts - 0.

"erekat screw": Even if this was a dating service, you most certainly wouldn't find that piece of sh*t in my database. But I suggest you hurry, that item is about to go on back order.

"erekat shit": Nope... Look in his pants in a few weeks. You should find an ample supply there.

"villepin sciolino": Sounds like some kind of disease to me, but maybe it isn't.

"qatar al udeid comms": Try the Yellow Pages™

And that was all for this week, at least those were the funniest ones...

Pregnant Bjork Burgled...
...perpetrators made good their escape carrying the fetus in a cardboard box...

Erm... Nope... It was actually some electronic equipment:
Bjork, the Icelandic singer who is seven months pregnant, has been burgled while she slept at her west London home.
The house, however, was left untouched.
The eccentric pop singer and her boyfriend, the artist Matthew Barney, are thought to have been asleep in her basement flat in Maida Vale when the burglars struck, taking valuable recording equipment.
...and so was her boyfriend.

Bjork, however, was thoroughly burgled.
Wearing a blue-and-white checked maternity dress, she spent almost an hour in the back garden of the Georgian building speaking to two officers.

When asked about the break-in, the diminutive singer, whose hits include It's Oh So Quiet and Violently Happy, said: "I don't want to make any comment about the burglary. It's a private matter."
...and harsh comments about this "most likely limiting the effectiveness of the investigation" will certainly not be coming from me.

I mean, give the girl a break! She's just been very personally burgled and had valuable recording equipment taken from her possession, the location of which, pre-burgling, I don't even want to know about!
Her next-door-neighbour Jan Archibald said: "Bjork must be terrified, especially as she is so pregnant. It is just awful. Burglaries and crime generally in this area is getting worse and worse. It seems noone can avoid it."

The incident comes as many celebrities who have been victims of crime are speaking out about London's unsafe streets. Liz Hurley has spoken of feeling very nervous at the lack of police officers on patrol and said London was far less safe than New York.
To which allegation the Scotland Yard expressed shock, shock!, I tell you! After all of these draconian gun laws? Why, there oughtn't be a single armed criminal on the streets anymore!

(Thanks again to John Cole for the link!)