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 Such details will not be published unless specific permission is given by the sender.]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 28, 2002
Grady Makes a Promise That He'll Soon Retract...
Grady Olivier of Kumbaya HQ "fame" restates his promise that he'll prove himself not a "chickenblogger" by going to Iraq as a human shield. Of course, being the Lefty Loon that he is, there are conditions attached, said conditions being that an equal number of "chickenhawk" warbloggers accompany him to the sandy wastelands of Iraq.

I'm in. I've stated this from the very beginning of the war that I'd be happy to jump back into my fatigues if only the Gov't would ease up on their demand that re-enlisters be under the age of 35, a demand that I cannot meet.

There are many reasons why my government should show some leniency on my behalf. For one thing, I've got something that most of the kids currently in uniform don't have, namely experience. Now I'm not belittling their sacrifice, far from it. I was one of them once and they will get experience with time and, no matter what, I salute each and every one of them for putting themselves on the line for the country that they love. They've all got more worth in their individual little fingers than all of the civilian chickens combined.

But one thing I will say is that, whereas they're currently in their prime, at the very beginning of their lives, I've already enjoyed the fruits of life more than they have. I have a wonderful wife, a great job and two awesomely adorable little boys. To put it bluntly, I could go to my grave right now and don't feel cheated, 'coz I've had it all. I would love to enjoy it until I'm at least a hundred, but if I had to choose between a kid of 19 and myself, I'd punch the ticket myself immediately.

So I'm not afraid to die. I don't want to, there's too much left for me to experience, but I'm not afraid. I've been blessed with everything I've ever hoped for and more and I'd be happy to give whatever remains of my life to ensure that my sons have the same opportunities that I've had.

I love my wife, I love my children and it's because of that unconditional love, not in spite of it, that I'd gladly lay down my life to protect them.

Your move, Grady, you cowardly fuck...

UPDATE: I have just filed an additional request for re-enlistment with the U.S. Army, hoping for a positive reply this time. I'll keep you updated. See you in Baghdad, Grady!

More Linky Love
Yeah, I know, but there's so much good stuff out there that I haven't linked to, so I'm playing catch up here.

(This has nothing to do with the fact that my mind keeps drawing blanks today, just know that at least I'm considerate enough to give you pointers to great stuff while you're waiting for your favorite Ranting Rottie to come up with new stuff)

Kieran Lyons is kind enough to rip Idiotarian Anatol Lieven a fresh one (don't worry, I don't know Anatol from Adam either, but that doesn't detract from the amusement of watching him being torn to shreds in the least bit) and the results make me reach the conclusion that Kieran is another one on the list of people I'd rather not end up on the wrong side of.

And wait, there's MORE:

This is the most brilliant Fisking™ I've ever seen of the useless tripe that "The Mirror" published a while ago.

Big S Blog uses no words, only pictures, and in so doing produces one of the most stunning rebuttals that I've ever seen.

You earned yourself a permanent spot on my blogroll for that one, buddy!

Not to be outdone, my favorite Berkeley Anti-Idiotarian (for all that I know, he may be the only one, but the quality of his blog more than makes up for that) savages Barbara "I Love Dictators" Lee and leaves her bloodied carcass steaming in the California sun.

Now I have a few things to say about this particular traitor bitch: I'd dearly love to shoot her several times through her skull, pound her body into a fine paste, let it dry and then pour gasoline over it and set fire to it. Afterwards, I'd take a refreshing piss on the ashes, pour salt on the ground and plow it several times.

But that's the nice part of me speaking, so please don't make me angry, Babs...

The Presidential Campaign For 2004 is Heating Up
...and, for once, it's got a candidate I can endorse, the one and only Laurence Simon.

I know, I know... I must be the last person in the Blogosphere™ to post about this, but that's your Rottie for you: Always last with the first or something along those lines.

As a matter of fact, the reason that I haven't yet trumpeted my support all over this place is that I've been busy sulking and feeling slighted that he didn't nominate me for any positions in his cabinet. Luckily for me, I realized that this behavior was turning me into a right wing version of the whiny brat Al Gore, and I decided to pull myself out of the swamp by my proverbial bootstraps, wake up and smell the coffee and come out of the closet (and quit using senseless metaphors, but I had to scratch that one. After all, senseless metaphors are my raison d'etre).

However, the talented and erudite Lynn Sislo immediately saw my stellar potential and promptly nominated me for Secretary of State.

She's right, you know, I'm definitely the right man (or dog) for that position.

Foreign Relations might not improve a whole lot with me as Chief of Foggy Bottom, but lets face it: They aren't to great to begin with and we mostly don't give a sh*t anyways. What I can promise is that, during the Simon Administration, the EUnuchs will learn to know their roles and shut their holes and any and all tin pot dictators who dare call my office will be promptly redirected to the speaking clock of Nuuk, so they'd better start brushing up on their Esquimeaux right now!

Furthermore, I promise that every time a whiny Fuckwit from some third grade socialist shithole of Idiotarianism calls me and threatens us with some sort of backlash in "international opinion", I'll promptly answer "and we should care about this because?"

So there you have it: Misha for Sec-of-State, finally somebody who knows how to say "sod off" in several foreign languages...

From the Department of "Too Much Information", or "TMI":
The lovely Shell finally opens up and lets us menfolks in on the mysteries of what's going on behind that door with "Women" stamped on it.

I guess it's just as well that I never bothered to invest in one of those wireless miniature cameras... (I'm KIDDING, dammit!)

I Love Short and Pithy Comments...
...and I wish that I could do it myself, but instead I tend to go off on long-winded rants containing pretty much anything that happens to trip somewhere in my mind and fall out my mouth...

Random Nuclear Strikes, however, seems to have it down to a fine art in his observations about Kumbaya HQ:
Now, I have lurked at WBW quite a bit, and posted a few times. Today, for the first time, I noticed their slogan (right below the hidden faced terrorist guy who is apparently their mascot), which reads:

Ideas are also weapons

In that case, these guys are definitely going into battle unarmed.
Short, accurate and to the point.

I'm taking notes here.

Looks Like We're Finally Getting Ready to Roll...
As you all know by now, the Turks apprehended a cabbie trucking around 33lbs of weapons-grade uranium some 155 miles away from the border of Iraq.

I can already hear the entire Loony Left going into deep denial and trying to come up with a link to oiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllll for this one.

Sure, this one was caught, but that doesn't mean very much, really. What his sashaying around the Turkish countryside with this lethal load does imply is that it's far from paranoid to assume that Saddam's gotten his hands on some already or, at the very least, will eventually.

It's in your hands now, Dubya: Either we roll, RIGHT FUCKING NOW, or you'll live on in infamy as the impotent limp-wrister who sat by and listened to world opinion while the slaughter of millions of Americans was being planned.

Your choice.

UPDATE: From the "tee-hee" Dept.: I'm sure that the fat old alkie and cowardly fuck Ted Kennedy is beginning to wish that it was his girlfriend and not he who made it out of the icy Chappaqua waters, having made this statement just hours before the Turks made the arrest.

UPDATE the 2nd: So now there's much less of the stuff than originally reported, just a few grams, actually. Hmm... First it's 33 lbs, then it's not weapons-grade after all, now it's only a few ounces and it's still supposedly worth $5 million? And the Turkish authorities are "still investigating whether it was destined for a neighboring country". True, we may not know that yet, but I find it highly unlikely that the cab driver was just taking a local nuclear plant's uranium rods for a ride 'round the countryside. I may not be an engineer, but I haven't ever heard of that being standard practice.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. What this incident proves is that there is uranium floating around on the black market and this particular batch happened to be "floating around" uncomfortably close to a country run by a certified genocidal lunatic. What I'm left wondering is how much of the stuff hasn't been intercepted by authorities and how much of it is still on its way to Iraq.

And rather than sitting around waiting to find out, I suggest we go in immediately and render the question moot by pounding Saddam and his acolytes into a fine paste.

Friday, September 27, 2002
Ann Coulter, Hot or Not?
...and no, I'm not going to be talking about her looks, because they matter as little to me as her shoe size.

All the Cool Kids are talking 'bout her, so I thought I'd finally come around and offer my silly 2 cents on the matter too. Peer pressure, running dog lackey, you name it, I'm it.

It seems to have become quite fashionable in the Right Wing Blogosphere to single Ann out for derision. I'm not quite sure if it's because of her language or if it's because some Right Wingers aren't quite comfortable in their Right Wing skins and would like some scapegoat that they can take out their anger on so's to be able to say "look, I don't agree with everything the Righties say" (in which case they can just hobble on back to the Left where they rightfully (pun intended) belong, as far as I'm concerned), or if it's because they're really, honestly upset by her use of invective, in which case they can do the same.

Now let it be known that I sometimes find Ann crude in her remarks (such as the remark about wishing that Timothy McVeigh had hit the NYT instead, a remark she herself immediately acknowledged was out of line), but I am not going to use her as a whipping-gal to satisfy a vain urge to be accepted among the PC crowd.

I'm not PC, I never have been and I never will, and I steadfastly refuse to be lured into the snare of moderating my language to sound "reasonable". If I'm pissed off, I'm pissed off and I want whoever's listening to me to know that I'm pissed off! I offer no apologies, no moderation, no "well that wasn't nice". If that's what you're looking for, go talk to a professional pol who depends on his use of PC language for a living, 'coz I ain't offering.

I will be happy to go on the record as saying "that remark about the NYT was awful and I certainly wouldn't want the fate of the WTC visited upon anybody (with Islamofascists as the possible exception), no matter how much I disagree with them", but I will not go through an idiotic song and dance about denouncing her in general because of a few heated remarks just to appease the Leftie Loons who keep claiming that we approve of anything a Conservative says.

I wouldn't cross the street to piss on a Leftie Loon if his pants were on fire, so I certainly won't smear one of the most intelligent, erudite Conservatives that we have as a sacrificial lamb to people that I respect less than the crap I scrape off the soles of my shoes on a daily basis.

And I won't be a condescending prick towards my fellow conservatives in assuming that anybody with an IQ above room temperature doesn't know that Ann didn't literally wish for a jet liner to crash into Pravda on the Hudson.

And that brings me to the fresh controversy about Fisking™ as a legitimate form of argument.

Bargarz brought it up (at least that's where I caught the whiff of it) and he referred to a post by the Brothers Volokh where they (or he, being Eugene) debate the effectiveness or legitimacy of the method.

Now I like the Volokhs, but if the point they're trying to get at is that you can't use invective in criticism, as in "Queensbury Rules" for dissent, then they can go heartily screw themselves. I do agree that critique that never rises above the level of "you're stupid" is useless, but I refuse vehemently to abide by a set of arbitrary PC "rules" for what words I can use to criticize my opponents.

If they're, in my opinion, ass-licking, boot-kissing sons of bitches, I reserve the right to say that they are. If it hurts their sensitive feelings, then so be it. I don't give an Islamofascist fuck.

I make sure, just as any other "Fisker™" that I know of, that I link to the original that I'm Fisking™, so's my readers can jump to it and decide for themselves whether I've crossed the line or not. If they think that I'm being too rough on the Fiskee™, then they can go read Mr. Rogers for all that I care, I won't miss 'em.

I hate "PC" with a passion and if I don't accomplish anything else in this life than to let my readers know that I mean what I say and that I say what I mean, then I'll be satisfied, PC be damned.

If you don't like it, then piss off, and don't let the door kick you in your hypersensitive butts on the way out.

And that's all I have to say on that subject, at least for now...

"Squashing of Dissent" at Kumbaya HQ?
Question for today, or something.

I was alerted a while ago to the fact that a faithful reader and fellow Anti-Idiotarian of mine who goes by the handle "Infidel" seemingly had his posts deleted at Kumbaya HQ, one of the most notorious Fisking Pools™ on the web.

At first I didn't think all that much of it. Kumbaya HQ, after all, has the same commenting system that I do, "Haloscan", and they were having some problems which caused posts to disappear and re-appear pretty much like the al-BoreBot's political views or lack thereof, so I honestly thought that that was the explanation.

I did make a mental note of it, however, and, once Haloscan's trouble were over, "Infidel"'s posts continued to disappear for no good reason at all.

"Infidel" inquired about this with the Kumbaya head honchos and they assured him that they'd never resort to a thing as vile as that, but the fact remains: His posts are disappearing. Thus I was left with the following logical possibilities:

  1. They were lying through their teeth when they denied "censoring" his posts.

    Why they would be is a mystery to me. For one thing, it's their website and they most certainly have every right in the book to edit and/or delete any posts they want to. I still reserve that right myself. I haven't yet seen anybody push the envelope far enough to convince me that I should (and it would take some doing) and I hope I never will. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, in fact I welcome it, and I certainly don't mind people using the invective that I'm so fond of using myself against me. But it's still their right, as it is mine, and I would definitely tell people if I did use that right.

    Another thing is: If they're really "censoring" his posts, then how come I'm not being "censored" too, not to mention the horde of other commentors publically Fisking™ them on a public basis?

    That leaves me with option

  2. They are not "censoring" anybody, but someone is. In that case, I'd suggest that they look into who that might be.

After all, it's not exactly helpful for a site that keeps yammering about "squashing of dissent" if it looks like they're doing just that themselves.

It's Official At Last:
The blithering blister of bovine bloviations, Ramsey Clark, has finally lost the last two remaining cracked marbles:
July 29, 2002

Dear Ambassador,

Any remaining hope the peoples of the United Nations have to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war through the United Nations would be crushed by another United States attack on Iraq.
...That has to be the most horrible attempt at mangling the English language that I've seen in a long time, not to mention that it makes no sense at all.

So the future of World Peace (which is, reportedly, good for Children and Other Living Things™) hinges upon whether or not the US goes to war against Saddam or not? Impressive. Amazing that he couldn't find it in himself to get Global Warming™ in there too, but maybe that's due to him being the main cause of it with all the hot air that he's blowing...

What about the hopes of succeeding generations of Americans, such as hoping that they might never again have to witness a 9/11 or worse? These are, of course, irrelevant, especially to a former Attorney General of a Democrap administration. Well, at least this one is not directly responsible of burning American children.
Threats to attack, invade and overthrow the government of Iraq by President George Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, various cabinet officers and Pentagon officials have been routine for a year.
...and a sizable portion of the American population, who are all just itching to go...
The psychological warfare is itself a crime against peace and violates the U.N. Charter.
It is? Well, in that case, Saddam should perhaps reconsider his numerous threats against the US and her allies. Perhaps he should reconsider the wisdom of trying to assassinate a former President, perhaps he should reconsider the genius in being involved with bombing the WTC...
Today's front-page headline story in the New York Times, "U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike As Iraq Option," is typical of the in terrorem intention of the threats. The danger to civilian life in Baghdad from such a strike would be enormous.
Apart from the fact that the only ones likely to hear of this in Iraq are the members of Saddams junta, and I most certainly don't have a problem with them shitting their pants, I don't see why the allegedly "terrified" Iraqi population aren't leaving Baghdad in droves, then.
I think so too. Because it would be the last act ever of that odious body of dictators.
If the United Nations is unable to restrain the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council, from committing crimes against peace and humanity as well as war crimes against a nation that has already been violated by the U.S. beyond endurance, mandated by the UN itself, one should add.
then what is the United Nations worth?
Don't get me started on what the UN is worth, please, I'm fresh out of vitriol... At any rate, I happen to have the total amount stuffed somewhere behind the back seat of my car. Let me go get it.
At the very least, opposition to any attack or attempt to overthrow the government of Iraq by force must be publicly expressed by the United Nations.
Oh NO! Not the Furious Scowl™!!! Please! Will nobody think of The Children™?

I think that you just got a demonstration of the UN's "worth".
Well, guess what, Ramsey-boy? Wars aren't being fought by Queensbury Rules. We don't have to sit by until the enemy has built up a force equal to our own before pummeling the shit out of them.

Besides, the "defenseless" Iraqis would've been a whole lot less "defenseless" if their jet jockeys hadn't taken off to hide in Iran and if their troops hadn't been preoccupied with performing a "French Advance" along the Highway of Death. The ones that weren't busy surrendering to army cooks and CNN news crews, that is.
The U.S. led and glorified the massive assault on Iraq in January and February 1991. The Pentagon announced it conducted 110,000 aerial sorties against the defenseless "cradle of civilization,"
For once the sneer quotes are highly appropriate.

The baby has grown up, left the cradle, moved out and never calls anymore.
dropping 88,500 tons of bombs. The widespread bombing destroyed the economic viability of the civilian society throughout the nation.
More importantly, it destroyed the military viability of the Butcher of Baghdad.
It killed tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and others. A major part of the bombing was directed at civilians and civilian facilities.
Sure it was, Ramsey. I remember clearly how everybody was briefed on how to avoid wasting munitions on military target so's not to let one single "baby milk factory" go untouched.
It was less accurate than the recent indiscriminate attacks in Afghanistan.
That would make it... lemme see... "hyper-indiscriminate"? "super-indiscriminate"? "extra-plus-grand-indiscriminate With Cheese!"?
U.S. bombs destroyed Iraqi water systems, electric power transmission, communications, transportation, manufacturing, commerce, agriculture, poultry and livestock, food storage facilities, markets, fertilizer and insecticide production, business centers, archeological and historical treasures, apartment houses, residential areas, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches and synagogues.
Ahhh... I remember that too... The world famous Jewish Quarter of Baghdad with its towering synagogues, sadly no more thanks to the Evil Mairkins precision-bombing anybody spotted wearing a yarmulke.

As to the civilian facilities that really were hit, I've got a hint for Saddam, Ramsey and Scott Ritter, the goat-felching menages-a-trois of Tikrit and burbs:

Sticking your military facilities smack in the middle of residential areas is a very bad idea. It's also against the 4th Geneva Convention, a document that Ramsey and the rest of the Loony Left studiously avoid mentioning, except for the odd out-of-context excerpt. It's an actual War Crime, you know.
The Pentagon stated its casualties were 156. One third were from "friendly fire"; the rest were accidental. The U.S. had no combat casualties.
Damn good job, if you ask me.

Of course, the friendly fire incidents were nothing short of tragedies and I wish dearly that they'd never happened, but it says a lot about the capabilities of your own Army, compared to that of the enemy, when your likelihood of being shot by the enemy is infinitely smaller than of being shot by mistake by your own.
Of course we did. We positively had to shove the sanctions down the throats of the UN, ignoring vetoes and cries of outrage left, right and center.

I often find myself wondering what color the sky is in Ramsey and his fellow Idiotarians' world?
The U.S. crafted economic sanctions against Iraq which the Security Council approved on August 6, 1990, the 45th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima.
This coincidence is significant because... erm... well it IS, dammit!
Those sanctions are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people.
Nope. The direct cause of those deaths (that aren't even approaching "more than a million") is Saddam's unwillingness to use the more than 30 billion dollars that have been flowing into Iraq since the Gulf War for anything except palaces, weapons of mass destruction and race horses for his retarded hell-spawn Uday.
This is the greatest crime against humanity, in the last decade of the most violent century in history.
It certainly is a crime, but oddly enough you seem hell-bent on protecting the criminal... Well, birds of a feather, I suppose...
Each painful death of an individual wasting away--from malnutrition; Kwashiorkor; the rush of dehydration from contaminated water and from diseases was preventable.
And yet the UN chose to sit on its hands for a decade while Saddam was starving his own people (the ones he weren't gassing).
The sanctions continue to this time to cause hundreds of deaths each day.
That's the, let's see, the third time you say that. It still isn't true, Ramsey. Have you been channeling the ghost of Goebbels again? Bad boy, I told you not to do that! Now go to your room and sulk with Scott and don't let me hear that nonsense again!
Every United Nations agency dealing with food, health and children--including FAO, WFP, WHO, UNICEF--has proclaimed the horror, magnitude and responsibility for this human catastrophe.

The great majority of the deaths caused by the sanctions...
...I HEARD THAT, Ramsey! Don't MAKE me come up there!... Sheesh... Kids nowadays...
...are infants, children, the elderly, the chronically ill and emergency medical cases. These are the people most vulnerable to polluted water, malnutrition, and the lack of medicines and medical equipment and supplies.

U.S. claims that it is the Iraqi government that is responsible for deaths from shortages of food and medicine are false.
(Sneaky little brat!) LISTEN, Ramsey! Rephrasing it won't do it either! It's STILL nonsense!
The U.S. blocked oil sales by Iraq for six years before appearing to yield to humanitarian pleas to permit oil sales to purchase food and medicine. Since 1997, when sales began, it has effectively frustrated and delayed the Oil for Food program, which does not provide sufficient income at the levels approved to stop the daily deterioration of health and growing death rates in Iraq.
It's provided $34 billion. I'd say that's a lot of Medicaid and Meals on Wheels right there, but of course, when you have to deduct necessary expenses such as nuclear reactors, biolabs and palaces, there's not a whole lot left.
Before sanctions there was virtually no malnutrition in Iraq and free hospital, health services and medicines were a model for the region. Its present system of government distribution of available food staples is a model of fairness and efficiency, lacking only in quantity and variety of food.
"He's a sadistic, child-murdering son of a bitch, but he's a fair sadistic, child-murdering son of a bitch!"

I feel so bad about wanting his head now on a spike now.

The U.S. has engaged in air strikes against Iraq at will since March 1991, when the massive attacks averaging one aerial sortie every 30 seconds ended.
The air strikes would have been much fewer and further between if Saddam's trigger-happy serfs would have abstained from lobbing SAMs against our boys every once and again.
Without losing a single plane, U.S. attacks have killed: cleaning personnel at the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad in a failed attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein; scores of people each year in attacks on radar stations in or near the U.S.-imposed no-fly zones; all the persons aboard a U.N. helicopter shot down by U.S. aircraft; and civilians from all walks of life,
Damn those unfair Mairkins! Not losing a single plane! If they'd only hold still while Uday aims the sling shot!
...including the internationally famous artist and Director of Iraqis' National Center for Arts, Leila al Attar.
Leila al... who? Hopefully it's not the "artist" responsible for those hideous over-sized murals of the Chief Executor, because then I can only regret that it wasn't done much sooner.

The U.S. has falsely claimed that Iraq is working to develop weapons of mass destruction to attack the U.S., Israel, its neighbors and others.
I'm sure the Kuwaitis, the Soddies (if they weren't too afraid of their own population to speak) and the Israelis would beg to differ. Somehow I don't think that the Iranis staged a phony war with Iraq just to keep attention away from domestic problems, somehow I don't think that the Kuwaitis just pretended to have been occupied by the Iraqi army and somehow I don't think that the Soddies would've invited our Armed Forces to sleep over if there hadn't been a threat.
The U.S. claimed its 1991 attacks destroyed 80% of Iraq's military capacity. The U.N. inspection efforts claimed to discover and dismantle 90% of Iraq's post-1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction.
...and the Finns claim that Santa Claus comes from Finland.

No matter what, even 10% is 11% too much and I don't even want to think about what has happened to that number since Iraq, in blatant defiance of the UN, kicked the inspectors out in '98.
Iraq, its peoples and resources are exhausted. It has a "stunted" generation of children under age 10 and a debilitated population at all ages. It is the victim of the worst crime against humanity in recent decades.
Now I need that damn violin again.

Wouldn't you say that it's about time that we cleaned up the pig sty so that the Iraqi people might rejoin the human race? Of course you don't.

Two of the highest U.N. officials responsible for U.N. weapons inspection within Iraq and a principle U.S. citizen participating in the inspections have resigned, denounced the sanctions and denied that there is a threat that Iraq will develop weapons of mass destruction.
It's a good thing you don't name names, Ramsey, because if you'd used the words "Ritter" and "principled" in the same sentence, I'd have come to your room and beat the stuffing out of you with a marinated halibut!
The U.S. has more nuclear weapons than all other nations combined as well as the most sophisticated and numerous systems for the delivery of nuclear weapons, including the Trident II submarine fleet. It possesses the greatest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and the most advanced and extensive research in mass destruction weaponry in the world. Military spending by the U.S. exceeds that of the nine next largest budgets for war combined. President Bush has repeatedly declared the right to strike first. The U.S. attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs and continues to justify those acts.
You just made a fine case for crawling into the nearest corner and mewling "please don't hit me", didn't you?

Isn't it odd, given all of this massive weaponry and our alleged Dreams of Empire, that the Star Spangled Banner isn't flying from Casablanca to Kandahar?

You go ahead and connect the dots now, Ramsey. Here's a crayon.
The U.S. has renounced treaties controlling nuclear weapons and their proliferation; voted against the protocol enabling enforcement of the Biological Weapons Conventions; and rejected the treaty banning land mines, the International Criminal Court and virtually every other international effort to control and limit war.
Nope. We've rejected each and every effort by international unelected bodies to exert influence over our national sovereignty, for the very good reason that it would be unconstitutional.
The U.S. War Against Terrorism is a declaration of right by the U.S. to attack first--anyone, anywhere, on mere suspicion, or without excuse, unilaterally.
Actually, that right is inherent in our status as a sovereign nation and not dependent on any War on Terror.

Again, have you ever wondered why the entire world isn't a colony of the US if we're all that mean, considering our awesome power? Could it be that we don't want one shitty acre of the rest of the world? Could it be that we tend to only use power when people mess with us? Well, punk... Could it?
The U.S. wants to overthrow the government of Iraq and many others in violation of law. Unless restrained the chance for peace and global equality of economic, social, cultural and political opportunity among nations will be lost. Which government presents the greater threat to peace globally or for Mesopotamia and its neighbors--the U.S. or Iraq?
Well.. Given that we only go to war when provoked and that Iraq goes to war whenever Saddam thinks he can get away with it...

Do you have any hard questions, Ramsey dear?

If, as promised so many times, the U.S. does attack Iraq to overthrow its government, it will be the most notorious, arrogant and contemptuous violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the Nuremberg Charter and international law yet experienced, or likely hereafter.
...except perhaps for the overthrow of the Japanese and German governments back in '45, overthrows that Ramsey, presumably, also violently opposes.

Well, your friends Adolf and Tojo got themselves killed, Ramsey, and it seems that you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to come up with new playmates these days.
Only absolute power unrestrained by any rule of law or standard of human decency openly taunts an intended victim as President Bush has taunted Iraq.
Is this where we're supposed to feel sorry for poor, "taunted" Saddam?
Because the U.S. has committed historic injustices against Iraq, most during his father's presidency, and still seeks dominion in the region, President Bush, his Vice President and others in his administration hate Iraq and want finally to destroy it.

I am writing this letter to you; to each U.N. Representative of a Security Council Member; the President of the General Assembly; and President Bush. This is one of a series of letters describing and protesting U.S. and UN wrongs against Iraq.
If you keep up the unintended humorous qualities of your Inane Idiocies, they might actually be read before they're sent to the shredder too.
The threatened wrong addressed here is the worst. If twelve years after its devastating aerial assault and after twelve years of genocidal sanctions, the omnipresent risk and frequent fact of random attack with the ever present stalking by U.S. aircraft and endless threats against its helpless victim, the U.S. commits its coup d'grace on the people of Iraq to the silence of the U.N. and wealthy nations of the world, human shame and impotence will doom us to ever greater violence.
Pop a Viagra™, Ramsey, that'll take care of your impotence.

As to your shame... Well, just keep the lights turned off, OK?

I urge you to immediately activate the United Nations, the General Assembly, the Security Council and all its agencies...
The UN's been deactivated? Is English really your first language, Ramsey? denounce the continuing threats by the United States against Iraq, to demand immediate cessation of the threats and to warn the United States that an attack by it on Iraq will violate the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the friendship of all who seek peace and respect the dignity of humanity.
...not to mention the plague of frogs, don't forget the frogs!
OK, this is where I just couldn't stand it anymore...

This guy used to be Attorney-friggin'-GENERAL???
An attack on Iraq by the United States would also violate the Constitution and laws of the United States and expose President Bush to impeachment by the House of Representatives under the Constitution of the United States for the highest of crimes, those against peace and humanity, to judgment by the United States Senate and trial in federal court for crimes charged.

Unfortunately in recent years our Constitution has been more honored in the breach than in faithful observance of the rights it is intended to protect for all. But the effort to hold accountable any U.S. authority who participates in an assault against Iraq will be made here by those who love their country and for that reason insist that its acts be just.

Sincerely, Ramsey Clark
Your assignment for tomorrow, Ramsey:

Read the Constitution, ALL of it, then sit down in a dark corner and hit yourself over the head with it until you pass out.

Repeat as necessary.

(Link courtesy of Midwest Conservative Journal)

Laughing My @ss Off
...and surfing through the undiluted goodness that is one of the latest additions to my blogroll, the Berkeley Anti-Idiotarian Mean Mr. Mustard .

I wanted to link something from there, but it's all good so I don't know what to pick out. I'll do so anyway: This one made me snortle coffee all over my keyboard for the 245th time, so I suggest you go check it out too.

Just remember to swallow before you click on the link, in case you're currently drinking something!

My assignment for the weekend? Reading through all of this guy's archives...

Thursday, September 26, 2002
Common Nightmares
I just found me my own well of Idiotarian Fisking that no one, inexplicably, have yet claimed for themselves.

Of course, it's equally inexplicable why I haven't yet pounded my claim into the ground there, considering that I've known about the site's existence for quite some time...

Anyhoo, let's get down to business, shall we? The site, of course, is the dungheap of Idiotarianism known as Common Dreams, a sewer so chock-full of Unabashed Idiocy™ that it'd take an army of Anti-Idiotarians to just browse through the emissions that issue forth from there.

The article in question is about an issue near and dear to my heart: The drive to let Idiotarians go waste their useless lives protecting one of the most notorious mass murderers of our times, Saddam Hussein.

American Pacifists Descend on Baghdad

They Hope Presence Will Forestall War
by Greg Barrett

WASHINGTON -- For $2,000, you can risk your life in Baghdad.
Of course, if you sign up for Dr. Weevil's drive to pour Clorox™ into the gene pool, you can do it for free.

If you want additional perks, and if you want to be on the winning side and not end up as putrid remains on tank treads, you can go here instead. Not only will you gain the admiration and the gratitude of all Americans with more than two synapses to fire, you'll also be (Wait! There's MORE!) the last word on whether or not to use military force, at least according to Philip Snotshire and his al-Aqsa "Kick Us" Brigades, seeing as you're no longer a "chickenhawk".
Included in that price: round-trip airfare from the United States, ground transportation from Jordan to Iraq, and lodging in a $10-a-night hotel where rats gnaw on the floorboards and a cluttered basement doubles as a bomb shelter.
Not only that, you'll also be granted the right to be interred in a far off and forgotten piece of Iraq!
While the Middle East braces for war, about three dozen self-described peaceniks will rotate into Iraq on renewable 10-day visas for as long as a threat exists.
Three dozen??? That's the number of peaceniks actually willing to put their mouths where their welfare checks are?
The pacifists range in age from 25 to 77 and will put themselves in harm's way if the United States attacks Iraq.

"It is important for people serious about peace to take it as seriously as the people who engage in warfare," said Claire Evans, a delegation coordinator for Christian Peacemaker Teams, one of at least two peace groups sending volunteers to Baghdad. "We should be as willing as the soldiers to risk our lives."
I hate to say this but, misguided as they are, every one of these folks have more guts than the entire Peacenik Crowd at, say, WBW, put together.
The pacifists hope their presence in Iraq as international witnesses to record the damage -- and possibly be counted among the injured -- will persuade military planners not to bomb civilian infrastructure, a target in the rush to disable Iraq's military during the Persian Gulf War.
Of course, this is assuming that one of the foremost goals of the US Army is to pound innocent civilians into dust, which is blatantly absurd. If it was true, the entire Middle East would be radioactive glass by now. Another flawed assumption is that Saddam will use these useful idiots to protect civilian targets only, whereas we all know that he'll be placing them outside "baby milk factories" devoted to the production of Ebola or worse.
Retirees have been particularly recruited and about a dozen have agreed to go.

"It has some moral weight to have a group of people there like grandmothers and grandfathers," Evans said.
It does? I suppose it's less money we need to worry about vis-a-vis the "Social Security Lock Box".
The volunteers will work in Iraq with humanitarian agencies such as UNICEF and the Red Crescent Society. In the event of a U.S. bombing, they will try to be near likely targets such as electric plants, roads and bridges, said Kathy Kelly, co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness, a nonprofit organization sending three peacekeeping groups to Baghdad.

Kelly, who has made 16 trips to Iraq, sounds unflinching. She is driven by the tremendous collateral damage inflicted by today's weapons.
...collateral damage at a minimal level. Indeed at a level that was unheard of a mere 10 years ago. I suppose she'd much prefer if we'd go back to fire bombing.
"You can't be a vegetarian only between meals," said Kelly, 49. "And you can't be a pacifist only between wars."

She has been blunt when recruiting volunteers for this trip: "We are asking people to be able to say they have had a good life and this could be their last year."
More likely: It will be.
Retired U.S. Air Force Col. John A. Warden III, architect of the Desert Storm air campaign in 1991, calls the peace effort noble but extraordinarily naive.

"It represents a gross misunderstanding of modern war," he said.
Of course, he's a "chickenhawk"... Wait, no he's not... Erm... Wait a minnit, what's the peacenik comeback to this one?
If U.S. military officials decide that demolishing Iraqi transportation, electricity and communication is the best way to limit combat casualties, pacifists are not likely to thwart that strategy.
Which, surprise surprise, is one of the cornerstones in any strategy designed with actually winning in mind.
Still, Warden sounded awed by their effort. The closet thing to it he could recall was actress and activist Jane Fonda visiting prisoner-of-war camps in Hanoi during the Vietnam War and "making common cause with North Vietnamese communists."
This is ArmySpeak for "they're bitches that we'll give not one tiny little shit about wiping off of the face of the planet", in case you're in doubts.
But like Fonda, Warden said, Kelly and her entourages are "intruding in something they don't understand."

"It strikes me as pretty bizarre," Warden said, "that you would have Americans going to protect one of the evilest guys in the world from getting his just desserts."
...and it strikes me as pretty appropriate that we get those morons weeded out of the gene pool, even though it seems that the Saddam-felching peaceniks are doing their damndest to ensure that only non-fertile individuals are recruited.
Pacifist Tom Nagy, a professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., does not doubt Saddam's menace. He is not choosing sides. He only wants to stanch the suffering of innocent Iraqis who were caught in Desert Storm's crossfire, he said.

Nagy, 58, a Quaker-turned-Buddhist and father of one, leaves for Baghdad on Friday. His usual lighthearted manner is brooding today, and he admits he is afraid. He is preparing his will and has bought emergency medical evacuation insurance that could help expedite his rescue from Iraq.
Hey! I thought you were prepared to die for The Cause™? And I hate to be the one to piss on your parade, moron, but I somehow doubt it that your insurance company is going to parachute in a bunch of paramedics to rescue you from the glowing ruins of Baghdad.
After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Americans and other foreigners in Iraq and Kuwait were held hostage by Saddam and used as shields against an attack threatened by U.S.-led allied forces.
Nowadays, they sign up themselves. Another proof that Homo Sapiens is devolving.
Under international pressure, Saddam freed the civilians one month before the gulf war.

This time, the human shields are volunteers who know the dangers that lie ahead.

"The only thing that stands in the way of evil prevailing are good-hearted people that refuse to remain quiet and indifferent," said Bill Rose, 69, a retired postal worker from Tampa, Fla., and a father of two.

He leaves for Baghdad on Oct. 23.

"I am a Christian," he said. "I am a Quaker. I have had a good life."
And you're gonna end it a traitor to your people, your children and your grandchildren.

Bravo, Fuckwit.

UPDATE: Reader Michael Burris suggests, in the comments, that I lay off the poor Quakers, because "As you said, each one has more guts than the entire WBW peacenik crowd."

Well, Michael. I agree and I don't. I most certainly agree that the people in question has the courage of their opinions and you won't ever find me accusing them of cowardice.

That being said, I also have to say that having the courage of your opinions is not a "get out of jail free"-card, especially not when dealing with traitors. And there's no way that anybody can argue that they're not wilfully aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States by their actions, no matter how ineffective and deluded these actions may be. And that used to be called "treason" in this country and is something that I have no intentions of letting go unnoticed, even though it seems that everybody in the Administration couldn't care less about it (see the John Walker Lindh case for an example of the limp-wristed handling of bona fide traitors by our current Admin.)

It's Link Time In the Blogosphere
...and it gives me great pleasure to introduce a new one to the lot of you, the "Sharp Knife".

Just landed, he's hit the ground running and the Rottweiler staff (me, my dog and the voices in my head) wish him a long and happy stay in this weird and wacky part of the web.

In other linkagery, I'm alerted to the existence of another blogger, Peter Salomon, who's taken it upon himself to Fisk the unintentionally hilarious "letters to the editor" of Arab News. The Rottie would like to utter his appreciation of this selfless act, but he's currently chewing on a bone (half an ox, to be precise) and couldn't be reached for comment. Check it out! (The blog, NOT the Rottie with the bone!)

And finally, there's "Kesher Talk", a blog so fine that I'm ashamed to not have linked it earlier. But it's a big blogiverse out there...

Good Questions All
Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury has prepared a helpful list of questions to throw at the next Idiotarian you meet, should the conversation meander its way towards the War on Terror and Saddam Hussein.

Of course, your average Idiotarian will be unable and/or unwilling to answer any of these truthfully, but you still owe it to yourself to try them out. If for nothing else, then for the sheer fun of watching your pet Idiot turn all blue in the face while he/she sputters: "Zeeble bop fickle fackle, bush Bush BUSH!"

Watching the Train Of History Disappearing in the Distance
Another blog makes the move to Movable Type. Damn, I need to get working on that too, lest I become one of those sad blogosauruses that all of the cool kids point their fingers at. (Not to mention that Blogger seems to be constipated again today).

Anyways: If you, like me, are a regular reader of "Random Nuclear Strikes", I'm sure you'll like to know that he's moved to:

This address.

You should adjust your links accordingly.

Wednesday, September 25, 2002
More Nigerian Goodness...
Just got another one of those wonderful business opportunities from the Scam-ridden nation of Nigeria:
Dear Sir,


After due deliberation with my colleagues, we have decided to forward to you this business proposal. We want a reliable person who could assists in the transfer the sum of Twenty Million, Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars ($20,500,000).
Knowing me, methinks you should have deliberated a little more...
Via International Bank Draft Cashable in any First World Countries.
Hardly a surprise, seeing as the combined capital of Third World Countries comes to, roughly, $4.37 give or take a penny.
This fund resulted from an over-invoiced bill from contracts awarded by us under the budget allocation to our Ministry. This bill has been approved for payment by the other concerned Ministries.
I'm sure they'll be even more "concerned" when they find out what you did with the moulah.
The contract has since been executed...
...along with the guy who drew it up...
...commissioned and the contractor was paid the actual cost of the contract. We are left with the balance US$20.5M as part of the over-invoiced amount which we have deliberated over estimated for our own use.
If this made any sense whatsoe'er, I'd be commenting on it. But it doesn't, so I won't.
But under our protocol division, we as civil servants are forbidden to operate or own foreign accounts.
Common practice all over the world, or so I'm told...
This is why we are soliciting your assistance in this manner and regard. As you may want to know and to make you less curious, I got your address from adverts in the business directory.
You did? The "Rottweiler" has ads in the Nigerian Business Directory™? Wow! I'm... so... NOT fooled...
I am the Chief Accountant/Internal Auditor of the Contract Award Committee (CAC) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). This transaction is very much free from all sorts of RISKS and TROUBLE from my Government.
...which, presumably, is why you're taking such great trouble contacting complete strangers from all over the world...
We the N.N.P.C. Officials involved in this deal have put in many years in service to this Ministry. We have been exercising patience for this opportunity for so long and to most of us this is a lifetime opportunity we cannot afford to miss.
...a lifetime that I, being the sadistic little bastard that I am, will now cut considerably shorter by forwarding your spam to the Nigerian government.
We have agreed to COMPENSATE you duly if agreement is reached by both of us and I and one of my colleagues involved in this deal will come to your country to arrange for our share, upon the confirmation from you that the Certified International Bank Draft has been Approved and Raised in your favor.
Why all this trouble? Just send me the money and I'll be happy to share the loot with you once you get here.
Consequent upon your acceptance of this proposal, kindly confirm your interest by the above email address. (Please fax to my American-fax number which is +1 775-593-0605.Your indication by revert email or fax to me of your sincere and serious interest will enable me fax you or brief you of
the PROCEDURES FOR THIS TRANSACTION. If my line is busy, please keep trying you will surely get through.
Sure I will... Who are all these people faxing you, by the way? I thought that you guys only got in contact with people after "careful and due deliberation"?
It might surprise you why we choose you and trusted you for this transaction. Yes, we believe that good friends can be discovered and business like this cannot be realized without mutual trust. This is why we have decided to trust you for this transaction.
I'm flattered. I'm also convinced that you guys must be utterly nuts. Heck, I wouldn't trust myself further than I could throw me!
Be further informed that everyone's interest and security had been considered before you were contacted, so be rest assured and feel free to go into this transaction with us. But let Honesty and Trust be our watchword throughout this transaction and your prompt reply will be highly appreciated.
Be rest assured that your security doesn't matter one whit to me and that I just finished ripping out the pages with the words "honesty" and "truth" in my dictionary. Let's roll...

Damn That Logic!
It's so friggin' annoying to the Looney Left that the Right always use logic rather than emotion to push their agenda, because there's so little that can be done about it. But, laughing in the face of derision, Polly Toynbee, noted Idiotarian of the al-Guardian, sets out to do this anyway. Don Toynbee and Sancho Fisk, tilting at windmills for your eye-rolling pleasure:
It was a bravura performance - it almost always is. With eloquence, reason and deftness of foot, the prime minister silenced the war wobblers - at least for now.
"Curse his Anti-Idiotarian bones!"
Many remain queasily uneasy, crossing their fingers that Saddam sees sense in time: yesterday's unsurprising dossier...
Now there's a winner! Considering that it was "unsurprising", then what was the reason for the boneheaded bleating from the Rectums of Ridiculousness™ known as the "left" all about?
...changed few people's risk assessments of war. Yet whatever their doubts, both cabinet and loyalist MPs were forced by their leader's inexorable logic to nod in assent at each stepping stone towards (probable) war.
Don't you just hate it when that happens? Don't you hate it even more that it happens all the friggin' time? Poor Polly, have a cracker...
Does the UN and international law matter? (Nods all round.)
If you hear something, it's the sound of my head shaking vigorously.

But it sure is a nifty way of painting Idiot Tranzis into a corner, I'll give Tony that
Is all law worthless unless backed by the might to enforce it? (Nods again.)
Is there any point in threatening force if the UN does not mean to use it? (No, of course not.)
Even a professed liberal Idiotarian should smell the trap now, but, alas, it's too late by far.
Did diplomacy unbacked by threat of force ever bring dictator down? (Heads shake.)
Nope, it never did.
Would failure to enforce UN resolutions tell all dictators they could flout the law with impunity? (Yes, indeed.)
As a matter of fact, the UN Idiots have been telling Saddam just that for 11 long years, vociferously backed by the Lefty Loons who love all dictators, as long as they're opposed to the US.
And so the path to perdition may be papered with the purest logic, sanctioned by the highest law and blessed with thoroughly noble sentiments
...but will this keep Polly from throwing logic to the four winds gaily, falling back on her knee-jerk anti-Americanism? Of course it won't, she was separated from her brain at birth, after all. Hint: It wasn't the placenta you morons threw out.
- yet still be a dangerously misguided act.
See? It's perfectly logical, it's backed by facts, yet it's still "dangerously misguided".

Oh, to be a leftie again. Never having to use your brain...
Outside America and No 10 there are precious few leaders (and even fewer of their peoples) who sincerely believe that an attack on Iraq is wise.
Fortunately, none of these "leaders" and their peoples matter more than a Catholic bishop at a Bar Mitzvah.
But the combination of Bush's hegemonic will and barrister Blair's legal and moral logic drive on remorselessly.
"DAMN that logic! DAMN the fact that we're all impotent little wussies who'd have to think twice about invading Monaco!"
When is the right time to talk of due proportion and prudence? When does the inexorable logic pause to ask which risk is worse - war or continued no-fly containment? Where is the evidence that Saddam will use these weapons, while thus contained?
Where is the evidence that he won't, you Odious One-trick Ostrich? There are some of us that aren't quite ready to sit it out and wait to see what happens next. Of course, being a citizen of an irrelevant country, you needn't worry as much as we do, but we're worried alright.
Though White House hawks at first refused to go to the UN, now the UN emerges as the trap forcing the world to threaten war in the name of its own credibility.
Heeh, heeh, heeh... That damned "idiot cowboy", eh? Heard about the motto "Don't Mess With Texas"? Well... Now you know why...
If Saddam miscalculates and invites attack, then who can pull back from a logic they have nodded through? The problem for MPs yesterday, and for the rest of the world at the UN, is that once the threat is made it can never be withdrawn.
Yep. That's called "having the courage of your opinions" and "making your case and sticking to it", something the Idiotarian Left has never quite mastered.
This sabre-rattling phase was not the right time for parliament to hold this debate, when every reasonable person wants to show Saddam that he must comply. Yet it might be the only time to challenge the "logic" of all this.
Sneer quotes... Ahhh... I love the smell of Lefty Loon sneer quotes in the morning... Smells like... Despair!
Tony Blair was at pains this week to stress the difference between his fundamental beliefs and those of George Bush.
In the universe that Idiotarians inhabit, this is a bad thing. You have to disagree! Consent is the Mother of All Evil™! Dissent is Noble! Dissent is Good! If all of my friends say that jumping off bridges is stupid, then I must jump! Right now!
Careful to breathe nothing but respect for the president himself, there is much eyerolling dismissal of the hawks about him. Despite the humiliating master/lackey surface, there are two quite different doctrines at work. The Bush doctrine published last week in his new national security strategy lays out the nature of US power in remarkably bald terms.
"Fuck with us and you're dead. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it either."
Scant diplomacy bothered to mask its brash self-interest.
"Self-interest". The Nemesis of the Left.
It outlines an unfettered "distinctly American internationalism" ready to act unilaterally when it wants. Asserting a US right to pre-emptive attack against any hostile state, it offers a recipe for global mayhem on every disputed border. illustrated by our numerous wars against... erm... anybody? Bueller? Bueller??

Listen, you Clueless C*nt: It's quite simple, really. You can do whatever you damn well please, but if you mess with our national interest and the security of our citizens, we're gonna burn down your chickencoop and piss on the ashes, capice?
Above all the Bush doctrine promises that never again will any other nation rival American might, whatever it takes to keep it that way. This is America's first genuine post-cold war doctrine, daring to trumpet its monumental unfettered power.
...and it scares the willies out of Statist Utopians such as Polly, which is the best argument for it that I can find.
The Blair doctrine, as befits a mini-power lacking brute force, instead summons up a mighty moral imperative. First propounded in Chicago when urging Clinton to rescue the Kosovans, all this week Blair has expounded it to all doubters.
...because the feckless fucknuts of the left have been demanding it... Now that they've got it, they got their knickers all tied up in knots. This is a Good Thing™.
Yes, he would intervene anywhere, any time to depose tyrants and free victims. In Zimbabwe, if he could. In North Korea. In the mullahocracy of Iran, maybe: the half world still living without democracy is potentially on his list. It is an admirable ambition, casting away the cynical old Kissinger doctrine that wheeled and dealed with any tyrant so long as he was useful, letting sleeping monsters lie so long as they were our monster, South Africa included.
Polly still hasn't gotten over the fact that now that the Soviet Union is no more, we're no longer constrained by Realpolitik. She also haven't gotten over the fact that the "monster" South Africa has gone from being the only successful nation in Africa to being another dictatorial, aid-sucking hellhole in record time.
The Blair doctrine also arises from seizing a new post-cold war chance. What need stop the onward march of liberation from tyranny now? The trouble with his doctrine is that it lacks reality. To topple the Taliban, a multitude of filthy regimes had to be paid, strengthened and appeased - in my view, worth the result.
They'll be mightily surprised when they wake up and realize that there's the head of a horse in bed with them. But thank you so much for your endorsement of our blowing the Taliban to Hell. It means so... little... to us. I wish that you'd find it equally worthwhile to rip Saddam a fresh one and free his people of his tyranny, but I'm asking for too much.
To invade Iraq again requires abetting regimes as bad on the Blair moral index. He has been right three times - Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan - and he might be right now; or else Iraq could bring his doctrine crashing to earth. (And his political career with it.)
I'm not quite sure what those regimes that we need to "abet" are. Shoddy Arabia? Make me laugh. What do you think that new base in Qatar is all about?
There was another great awakening from the cold war this week when Gerhard Schröder won by breaking all the old rules of European diplomacy. Sensing not only among his own voters, but right across Europe, a significant groundswell of anti-Americanism since Bush took power, he severed an umbilical cord with the US.
...and pulled the plug on the life support as well, a move that will be cursed by generations of Germans to come.

You think that was a "smart" move? Well, I suggest that you go cheer up Schroder and his cabinet, then, if you can get them to pull their tongues and noses out of the US Administration's asses for long enough to listen to you.
At a stroke Germany's war guilt, Germany's gratitude for the Marshall plan, plus German reliance on US defence in Nato was forgotten.
...and at a stroke, American goodwill towards that Teutonic Cesspool was equally forgotten.
Whatever reconciliation is patched together, overnight Schröder shattered a European taboo: others may now find it easier to turn away from an America whose present regime is abhorrent to an essentially social democratic continent.
...or they might wake up and smell the coffee. They might realize that you can't expect to shit on the hand that feeds you and then expect them to still respect you in the morning. They might also realize that you EUnuchs need us more than we need you.
Schröder's desperate electioneering ploy may start a surprising new spirit of European independence. That would trigger an angry US review of Nato, forcing the EU to forge a useful common defence capability and a more united foreign policy. Is that over-optimistic, since Blair and Schröder's positions could hardly diverge further at this moment?
I'd say it's seriously over-optimistic, you fuddle-headed fucknut Idiotarian. To have a "united foreign policy" you need something to back it up. To get something to back it up, you need a "defence capability". To get a "defence capability", you'd have to create an actual army and to create an actual army, you'd have to give up your statist, illiberal utopian welfare states.

Oh, and I forgot the most important thing: To develop a "useful common defence capability", you'd have to learn the meaning of the word "consensus", something that's not likely to happen in a gaggle of gibbering socialist states who can't even agree on the correct curvature of cucumbers.
Blair may have yet again lost an opportunity for leadership in Europe, with even Al Gore standing to his left on this.
Note to Idiotarian EUnuchs: the GoreBot stands wherever his handlers tell him to stand. He's about as likely to be found in the same place for more than ten seconds as a squirrel on crystal meth.
Unease is everywhere, among senior EU figures and politicians all across Europe, reflected in newspaper editorials of many political hues. They watch the Dow Jones and FTSE falling through the floor as war looks likely, hurtling the world towards recession. They see oil prices rising whenever war is mentioned. Labour is falling in the polls.
Good news indeed. Labour plummeting in the polls... I guess it ain't good news for Tony, but I somehow feel that, once Saddam is a bullet-riddled corpse, we'll see another swing in the polls. Good to see that there are still a few honest pols around who value the safety of their citizens higher than their immediate chances of re-election.

Gee, Polly, maybe you're a little bit out of touch with the actual population of the country that you live in? Heaven forbid! Well, they're obviously just simplistic morons anyways, people who need to be enlightened by your superior insight...

If there's anything more funny to watch thant the entire Loony Left sitting on the deck of the Titanic, claiming that if they just scream loud enough, the cold waters of the North Atlantic will cease to pour into the hull, I haven't heard of it.
Serious talk in many corridors of power considers the suitcases of horror waiting under unknown beds to be unleashed in US and EU cities the day Saddam falls: no one doubts the dossier's descriptions of what he has, only his likelihood of using it except in his death throes. He is well enough contained currently in his no-fly zone.
...says Polly Dimwit, safely ensconced in the Idiotarian shelter of Ignorance that she inhabits. If you have conclusive evidence that he's "well enough contained", why don't you show it to the rest of us, Polly-Wolly-Doodle?
Igniting Arab outrage...
...which takes about as much effort as pulling a nose hair and has considerably less serious consequences.
...inciting worse terror...
...I can't hardly cross the street without running into an Arab splodeydope since we annihilated the Taliban...
...uniting enemies against the aggressor with dominoes of states falling to fundamentalist rebellion... seen in Iran, where the mad mullahs have had to resort to hiring Hezbollah thugs to keep power from the people who are tired of theocratic despotism and sense a new morning...
all are logical fears,
...sure they are, Polly... SQUAWK!
but they seem like mere self-interested cowardice under the blazing moral light of the Blair doctrine.
...that's mainly because they are, Polly.
The puzzle is Tony Blair's uncharacteristic recklessness abroad, risking his own career, his support at the polls and much else.
...all conundrums to the self-serving Idiotarian Left. How can anyone possibly put morals and security over polls????
How brave he is over the moral certainties of distant war; how over-cautious, by comparison, he has often been over familiar dilemmas at home.
Blah, blah, blah... I sense an "It's the Economy, Stupid!" coming on. Thankfully, we're not listening...

Stupid Fuckwit Idiotarian...

OK, If THIS Ain't Worth Supporting, Nothing Is...
I was just alerted to the existence of, I swear I'm not making this up, a bona fide, card-carrying Anti-Idiotarian in, get this, EFFING Berkeley!!!

Not only is this some of the best news I've heard all day, he's also the author of a damn fine website, Mean Mr. Mustard (which happens to be one of the Rott's favorite Beatles songs, but that's beside the point), a site so loaded with Anti-Idiotarianism that you're a wet liberal drool-blanket if you don't go check it out, right now.

If you can't find it in yourself to support Anti-Idiotarianism at friggin' Berkeley, where can you?

While I'm at it, I'd like to make the following official Rottweiler Linking Statement:

If you hear about a great site or if you're the author of such, or if your significant other is, or if your pet hamster is or for whatever reason at all, and if you think that I might like it, please feel free to let me know about it. In fact I URGE you to do so.

If you don't tell me about it, it's pretty unlikely that I'll ever know. And not only will you be cheating me of a great read, you'll be cheating everybody else who comes here as well.

Of course I reserve judgment, seeing as I can't link to everything in the blogiverse and also, and no less importantly, because I like my philosophy that if I link it, I like it and if it's on my blogroll, it's because I think it's good (the Idiotarian Fisking Holes excluded, obviously). But please don't hesitate to give me a hint.

Oh, Did I Mention?
...that Charles Austin has put up not one, but two pieces of Scourging Goodness™ on this very fine day?

'Tis a fine day to be a blogreader indeed!

Don't just stand there, get thee hence or may thy dreams for a fortnight be disturbed mightily by visions of Al Gore in a thong!

I'll be repairing the soapbox while you're gone...

Tuesday, September 24, 2002
The Chief Fisk™ Is Cruising For a Bruising Again
(I'll try the Rantburg Format on for size this time. Let me know if you liked the old indented and longer format better):

Bobby "Whack Me, I'm an Idiot" Fisk is at it again in this "Independent (...of Facts)" column:

Tony Blair's "dossier" on Iraq is a shocking document. Reading it can only fill a decent human being with shame and outrage.
This, of course, excludes Bobby Fisk immediately, but let's go on anyway.
Its pages are final proof – if the contents are true – that a massive crime against humanity has been committed in Iraq. For if the details of Saddam's building of weapons of mass destruction are correct – and I will come to the "ifs" and "buts" and "coulds" later – it means that our massive, obstructive, brutal policy of UN sanctions has totally failed. In other words, half a million Iraqi children were killed by us – for nothing.
They were, of course, not killed by anybody even close to fitting the pronoun "us", but that's just par for the cause for the Fisk™. They were, in fact, killed by the sick priorities of the madman that Fisk seems so Hell-bent on protecting from the "US Hegemon™" (just wait until it "Digivolves™").
Let's go back to 12 May 1996. Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State, had told us that sanctions worked and prevented Saddam from rebuilding weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Let's go forward to 1998, when now Saddam Hussein fuck-toy Scott Ritter declares that: Again, I'm not going to avoid the issue. The bottom line is that because of Iraq's choosing, they have painted me as a troublemaker in an effort to distract the world's attention away from its failure-Iraq's failure to abide by its disarmament obligations. In doing so they made me a lightning rod for attention, and there many in the U.S. administration of Madeleine Albright included, who felt that my inclusion on certain inspections would attract attention and would become the cause for conflict, and they felt that it should be the inspections, not the inspector, that are at issue, but they just don't get it.

What a diff'rence four years make.

Our Tory government agreed, and Tony Blair faithfully toed the line. But on 12 May, Mrs Albright appeared on CBS television. Leslie Stahl, the interviewer, asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" To the world's astonishment, Mrs Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."
Could be because, in a rare moment of moral clarity, the two-bit whore for the left, Madeline Not-too-bright, realized that it was Sammy who was choosing to use Iraqi babies as hostages in his attempts at avoiding abiding by the terms of peace that he himself had signed.
Now we know – if Mr Blair is telling us the truth – that the price was not worth it. The price was paid in the lives of hundreds of thousands of children.
Murdered by Soddy Hussein and, added to that, 3,000 innocent Americans. But Fisk wouldn't let fact get in the way of a shoddy argument, now would he? Of course he wouldn't, the balding Idiotarian with a Death Wish.
But it wasn't worth a dime. The Blair "dossier" tells us that, despite sanctions, Saddam was able to go on building weapons of mass destruction.
Well hooray! It seems that the Idiotarian-in-Chief, Booby Fisk, has finally been hit a sufficient number of times over the head with the Clue-Bat that he's understood something! But let's not get our hopes up.
All that nonsense about dual-use technology, the ban on children's pencils – because lead could have a military use – and our refusal to allow Iraq to import equipment to restore the water-treatment plants that we bombed in the Gulf War, was a sham.
Nope, it was ineffective. Among human beings with a rudimentary capability for logical reasoning, this would lead to the inevitable conclusion that some other approach would be a good idea. But then again, Bobby Fisk is neither human, nor logical.
This terrible conclusion is the only moral one to be drawn from the 16 pages that supposedly detail the chemical, biological and nuclear horrors that the Beast of Baghdad has in store for us. It's difficult, reading the full report, to know whether to laugh or cry. The degree of deceit and duplicity in its production speaks of the trickery that informs the Blair government and its treatment of MPs.
And again, the Fisk fails to provide anything even remotely resembling "logic". The only logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that the skanky whore, Madeline Dimbulb, was too afraid to land her promiscuous, pederast boss in hot water to utter the truth about the threat from Saddamn Hussein. To put it in language that even a Lefty Moron ought to be able to understand: She was lying through her false teeth.
There are a few titbits that ring true. The new ammonium perchlorate plant illegally supplied by an Indian company – which breached those wonderful UN sanctions, of course – is a frightening little detail. So is the new rocket test stand at the al-Rafah plant. But this material is so swamped in trickery and knavery that its inclusion becomes worthless.
You could just have said: "I have no way of refuting this, so I'll just say that they're lying", Booby, it would have made just as much sense.
Here is one example of the dishonesty of this "dossier".
Could you give me a moment while I bate my breath, Booby?
On page 45, we are told – in a long chapter about Saddam's human rights abuses
..."we'll ignore most of this, but I found a grammatical "error", so I'll just use that to refute the whole thing"
– that "on March 1st, 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War, riots (sic) broke out in the southern city of Basra, spreading quickly to other cities in Shia-dominated southern Iraq. The regime responded by killing thousands". What's wrong with this paragraph is the lie is in the use of the word "riots". These were not riots. They were part of a mass rebellion specifically called for by President Bush Jnr's father and by a CIA radio station in Saudi Arabia.
They were a "riot", as opposed to "riots"? Oh the humanity! And a rebellion against an oppressive, murderous thugocracy? How could anyone with a Fisk™ ever support that?
The Shia Muslims of Iraq obeyed Mr Bush Snr's appeal. And were then left to their fate by the Americans and British, who they had been given every reason to believe would come to their help. No wonder they died in their thousands. But that's not what the Blair "dossier" tells us.
Full honesty mode: I am not in the least bit proud of the fact that Bush Sr. created a political environment in which revolt seemed like a good idea, then failed miserably to follow through on it. I think that Bush Sr. was an inexcusable wimp on that issue and that he ought to be publically flogged for it. However, I don't consider it an "argument" for not doing the job right this time.
And anyone reading the weasel words of doubt that are insinuated throughout this text can only have profound concern about the basis for which Britain is to go to war. The Iraqi weapon programme "is almost certainly" seeking to enrich uranium. It "appears" that Iraq is attempting to acquire a magnet production line. There is evidence that Iraq has tried to acquire specialised aluminium tubes (used in the enrichment of uranium) but "there is no definitive intelligence" that it is destined for a nuclear programme.
...and of course, our friend Booby would argue that playing Russian Roulette with millions of lives would be perfectly acceptable, since Shoddy hasn't actually killed anyone (apart from hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) yet.
"If" Iraq obtained fissile material, Iraq could produce nuclear weapons in one or two years. It is "difficult to judge" whether al-Hussein missiles could be available for use. Efforts to regenerate the Iraqi missile programme "probably" began in 1995. And so the "dossier" goes on.

Now maybe Saddam has restarted his WMD programme. Let's all say it out loud, 20 times: Saddam is a brutal, wicked tyrant. But are "almost certainly", "appears", "probably" and "if" really the rallying call to send our grenadiers off to the deserts of Kut-al-Amara?
It is, unless you'd rather sit around and wait for the first nuke to go off in London or New York. My guess is that that's exactly what you'd prefer, seeing as you'd make doubly-damn sure that you weren't in either of those locations when it happened, using your friends to obtain the info if need be.
There is high praise for UN weapons inspectors. And there is more trickery in the relevant chapter. It quotes Dr Hans Blix, the executive chairman of the UN inspection commission, as saying that in the absence of (post-1998) inspections, it is impossible to verify Iraqi disarmament compliance. But on 18 August this year, the very same Dr Blix told Associated Press that he couldn't say with certainty that Baghdad possessed WMDs. This quotation is excised from the Blair "dossier", of course.

So there it is. If these pages of trickery are based on "probably" and "if", we have no business going to war. If they are all true, we murdered half a million Iraqi children. How's that for a war crime?
You're an idiot, Booby, and "if" you ever happen to be in my neighborhood, I'll "probably" find an excuse to put a hollow-nosed .45 through your Idiotarian skull. The children of Iraq would thank me.

A Long Overdue Announcement:
People who've been hanging out around this little corner of the web already know who my "blogmama" is, the talented Idiotarian-Fisker who keeps the ding-dongs at Kumbaya HQ busy running for cover, Donna.

However, I never got around to mention who my "blogdaddy" was. I have to say, without a doubt that it has to be John "Grumpy" Cole who was one of the very first to welcome me to the blogosphere (Charles Austin was the first) and, even more importantly, was the one responsible for my first "Instapundit" link.

Those of us who remember being young bloggers (and I most certainly do, being still very wet behind the ears) will know how much that first link means. It doesn't matter what the quality of your writing is (and I'm not too impressed with my own), if you're never linked, you're like the tree falling in the forest without anybody being around to hear it.

When you are linked, however, you get a shot. People come around and check you out and, hopefully, some of them decide to come around again.

And that's why those first few links matter so much. It's not "pushing" you, it's giving other people a chance to check you out. If they don't like what they find, no amount of blogrolling and pushing will keep you afloat, but you won't even get a chance at a launch if nobody gives you that first "linkalanche".

So, with that in mind, let me thank all of the people that have linked me over the last month and a half again in hopes that you'll continue to give "newbies" (of which I am one) a chance. I have no doubts that it'll continue to be that way, the Blogosphere™ is one Heck of an accomodating "community", I just want to reiterate the importance of it.

OK, I'll get back to being an annoying, abusive, ranting maniac now. Just one of those things I had to get out of my system, yanno?

Woooooo HOOOOO!
Past 30,000 unique visitors and not even at my 2 month mark yet!

Thank you all of you who, for some inexplicable reason, keep coming by for more of my babbling, thank you to all of you kind people who've helped me out by linking to me since I started, thank you to all of you who keep inspiring me by writing in and leaving comments and... lest I forget... Thank you mom! (Yeah, I know, but it had to be in there somewhere).

(And a special thank you to my reader in Poland, my reader in the United Arab Emirates, my reader in Argentina, my reader in Mexico, my reader in the Czech Republic and my reader in Austria.)

Time To Move the UN.
But, unfortunately, according to Idiotarian letter-writer, it shouldn't be into the East River, a move I would most heartily endorse. Heck, I might even go all the way up there and help out shoving the pigs in!
A decade ago, when I worked at the United Nations, the building was in dire need of repair, modernization and expansion. When the United Nations moved into its present headquarters in the early 1950's, there were about 50 member states. Today there are 190.
...and pretty soon, I hope, there'll be only 189, none of which will be the US.
Many citizens of other members of the United Nations were killed at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. What better memorial than to build the new headquarters at ground zero?
What better memorial indeed?

Turning the site where 3,000 innocents were brutally murdered by Islamofascists into a giant monument to the very body that, through their endless squabbling, multilateralism, moral equivalence chutzpah and moronic kvetching, helped keep the thugs in power that supported the hijackers in committing their heinous act?

If the League of Nations UN had suggested moving into the Twin Towers pre-9/11, however, it would have been a brilliant idea. Unfortunately, time machines haven't yet been invented.
Contributions and design proposals could come from around the world and would represent an international response of defiance of terrorism.
South Londonderry, Vt.
Sept. 20, 2002
The writer was United Nations under secretary general for political affairs, 1989-92.
This babbling, Idiotarian UN-has-been oxygen thief needs to look up "defiance" in the dictionary. I personally guarantee that he won't find a picture of the UN building anywhere near that entry.

I'm also sure that the definition of the word "defiance" won't be anything remotely resembling: "Building a massive and quite superfluous building at taxpayer expense."

(Link via Spleenville)

Monday, September 23, 2002
The Childrens' "Crusade"
Paul Wright of TAANSTAFL fame has had quite enough of the Chickenhawk "argument" as well, but won't dismiss it out of hand. He has therefore come up with a fair and equitable solution.

NOTE: Lefties need not read this, seeing as how they're totally incapable of understanding "humor". The rest of you, however, will go read it or be forever considered French. Just don't drink anything while you do so.

"Please Don't Let That Big Meanie Hurt Me! Whaaaaaaaaaahhhh!
Watching Arafat slide into obscurity is getting funnier with every passing day:

Arafat: Sharon wants to kill me.
If he did, Yasser-boy, you'd be busy plucking raisins from the ass of Mohammed right now.
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat spent the past 48 hours phoning numerous world leaders, urging them to stop the IDF operation in Ramallah.
Rumor has it he even phoned the speaking clock of Ulaanbaatar.
He also authorized three senior PA officials to contact the government to try to find a solution to the standoff.
Just hand over the snuffies, Yasser, you can even keep the baby wipes if you do.
Arafat's deputy, Mahmoud Abbas, phoned Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer yesterday morning, urging him to end the military operation.
Ben-Eliezer was reported to have laughed so hard after he hung up that he nearly got a hernia, one of the most successful attempts on the health of a senior Israeli officials ever.
Palestinian Legislative Council Speaker Ahmed Qurei asked to see Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, but was turned down.
Apparently he refused to lift his shirt to prove he wasn't carrying any Semtex.
PA negotiator Saeb Erekat was also rejected.
This, however, was due to Saeb being a notorious nobody.
PA officials told The Jerusalem Post last night that Arafat told several Arab leaders that he believes Sharon is "determined" to kill him.
Nope. He's coming to steal your last boxes of baby wipes, Yasser.
"Sharon wants to kill me, because he wants to take revenge for what happened in Beirut in 1982," a senior PA official quoted Arafat as telling Arab heads of state in a series of phone calls.
No need to go 20 years back in time to find a legitimate reason to put a bullet in your skull, Yasser, and, again, if he wanted to, you wouldn't be making those phone calls.
The anonymous official also quoted Arafat as saying that he would prefer to shoot himself in the head rather than fall prisoner to IDF soldiers.
By all means, don't listen to those defeatists trying to talk you out of it, Yasser, they're all traitors. Here, use my gun.
He said the chairman was critical of the Arab governments for failing to pressure Israel into stopping the attack on his offices.

Arafat warned that "any attempt to liquidate the Palestinian leadership will result in total anarchy in the Middle East," the official said.
Sounds like a giant leap forward for the Middle East, if you ask me. Commence firing.
"[Arafat] stressed during these conversations that Sharon's plan is to destroy the PA completely and reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip," the official added.
...almost there... Faster, please.
Among the Arab leaders who received phone calls from Arafat over the weekend were Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Morocco's King Muhammad, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah, Jordan's King Abdullah, Tunisian President Zen al-Abdeen Bin Ali, Arab League Sec.-Gen. Amr Moussa, and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Muhammad.
Not to mention Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Osama bin Laden, who refused to answer his call.

I'm glad I won't have to pay the long distance charges on Yasser's phone bill once he's done using up his "Jihad Whenever Minutes".

Yesterday, Arafat also talked to French President Jacques Chirac and Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller, whose country chairs the European Union.
He might as well have called the Easter Bunny a second time, for all the good that's gonna do him.
Palestinian officials, who were busy yesterday mobilizing the international community to intervene, warned of an explosion in the entire Middle East should anything happen to Arafat.
Oh... There's going to be an explosion alright...
"We have told the Americans how dangerous the situation is... any shrapnel from shells directed at other targets in the compound might hit and kill or hurt Arafat," said Arafat adviser Bassam Abu Sharif, who lives next to the compound.
...and what a terrible, terrible tragedy that would be. The official answering the call is being told to have asked Mr. Sharif if that was a promise.
"That would trigger an explosion in the entire Middle East," he warned.
It would also trigger several free rounds at my local bar.
Salaam Fayyad, the PA's recently appointed finance minister who is with Arafat inside the three-story Ramallah compound, told the Post that Israel should think of the "dangerous consequences of the siege."
Yep. It's gonna take forever to disinfect the rubble in that compound once Yasser and the goons are pushing up daisies.
"This is a dangerous situation, where will it lead us?" he asked, hinting that extremists are profiting from the situation.
Well... That should make you happy, if that was indeed the case.
Meanwhile, Arafat issued a statement to the PA's official news agency WAFA yesterday, urging all Palestinian factions to immediately cease attacks on Israeli civilians within Israel.
Much too little, much much too late.
"I reiterate my call to the Palestinian people and all our parties to halt any violent attacks inside Israel, because Sharon exploits them as a cover to destroy the peace of the brave," said the statement.
"The peace of the grave", more like.
Yet Arafat remained defiant in his statement, saying he would never capitulate to Israel. "We are ready for peace but not for capitulation, and we will not give up Jerusalem or a grain of our soil," he said.
...says the baby wipe billionaire weasel who will be sitting in Paris in a month, living the good life on the funds that he embezzled from the Palestinians.
Hani al-Hassan, a Fatah leader who is also holed up with Arafat, told the Post by phone that local Fatah leaders are calling him to ask for permission to renew attacks, but he stressed that the Fatah leadership is sticking to its decision to end attacks on civilians.
"If Fatah will renew attacks, it will take us another three months to calm things down again," he said.

Hassan was behind the draft statement circulated to Fatah members some 10 days ago in which Fatah vowed to end attacks on civilians. While senior Fatah leaders and PA officials wanted the declaration to include all civilians wherever they are, many local Fatah leaders are still opposed to ending attacks on Israelis in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.

Yesterday, Fatah issued a statement threatening retaliation should Israel harm Arafat.
Goodbye Fatah and good riddance too.