Monday, October 31, 2005
Priceless. Just priceless. With everything else going down these days, Jinx gets all excited over an alleged story about a nine-year-old Bill Clinton. See? It really is all Bill Clinton's fault, even after all this time.
It's even funnier that the article Jinx links to for corroboration has already been pulled. Somehow, the phrase "pathetic loser" doesn't quite seem to do him justice.
THE COMPANY YOU KEEP: There's some entertainment value to the fact that Weasel Boy has a link to a non-existent page, which suggests that the right-wing "NewsBusters" blog (Apparent motto: "Down the memory hole") did in fact have such an article and, presumably, realized they were being total idiots and, rather than apologize, simply quietly deleted the page, leaving unfortunate dumbfucks like Jinx hanging high and dry with broken links and egg on their faces.
At least, it sure looks that way, doesn't it? Poor Jinx. It really has to be painful being that gullible.
EVEN MORE "DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE": This gets more entertaining by the hour, and represents a delightful lesson in how not to try to recover from making an ass of yourself.
If you have the stomach for it, re-visit that blog page of America's Dumbest Wanker, in which he actually 'fesses up to the fact that his earlier link has now disappeared. No, don't give him any credit for it -- it's not like he had a choice since even a three-year-old would been able to click on the link and see that it went to a non-existent page.
But hang on -- where was that link, anyway? Why, it's been quietly removed from WB's page. It used to be there under the opening sentence, "Simply unbelievable. Literally!". But the link is gone now, with no record where it was or what it pointed to.
So let me help -- it originally pointed here, to what is now a missing page, something Jinx apparently couldn't wait to erase the record of. But that's not the best part.
Even after having been exposed for the gullible buffoon that he is, Jinx still tries to bluff his way out of it, writing, "The NewsBusters page is gone. I have no idea why." Here's a suggestion, Jinx, you dimwit -- why don't you email them and ask them? Since they just finished making a complete fool out of you, don't you think they owe you an explanation?
And when you get an answer from them, by all means, let us know. We'd love to hear it.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITHOUT GOOGLE? And its ability to cache pages? Like, say, this one? Since Weasel Boy seems unwilling to show you what you're missing, I guess that job falls to me.
And note how that cached page from NewsBusters credits and links to a page from the wankers at Free Republic, a page that has also, hysterically, been pulled without explanation!
So, Jinx, if you check that cached page, you can see the original author down there at the bottom: John_Armor@aya.yale.edu. Why don't you drop him a note and ask him what the fuck is going on here? I mean, come on, I'm not going to do all your work for you.
Apparently, October was a particularly unpleasant month for the U.S. ... uh, sorry, "coalition" troops in Iraq, with 93 American dead. So, if this trend were to continue, the casualty count for American troops should hit 3,000 in ... let's see, divide by three, carry the one ... whoa! Less than a year from now.
I guess all of us ghoulish liberals should start booking those party halls now, right, Jinx?
As a preamble to the free advice, consider this article in the series currently being published by the York Daily Record on the Dover school board ID lawsuit, and a short excerpt (emphasis added):
Heather Geesey used the word creationism.
“You can teach creationism without its being Christianity,” the Dover Area school board member wrote in a letter to the editor in the June 27, 2004, York Sunday News.
Even though Geesey chose that word, in reference to efforts that month to find a new biology textbook, she testified in U.S. Middle District Court on Friday that her letter wasn’t meant to convey the board was considering teaching creationism.
Rather, Geesey told the court, board members had been talking about intelligent design.
But before Geesey took the stand Friday afternoon, two local newspaper reporters recalled several board members using the word creationism at two June 2004 public meetings.
There's more, of course, and there are many more articles in the Daily Record covering the trial, so here comes the free advice.
If you are a member of a school board somewhere in the United States, and you are considering adding Intelligent Design to the curriculum, what you should do is get a full and unabridged transcript of this lawsuit once it's over. And you should read that transcript in its entirety.
And then you should ask yourself the question: If we were to introduce ID, and inspire a lawsuit, and have to go to court, and have to answer questions under oath, would we sound as unspeakably and indescribably stupid as those people did?
And if you have to answer "yes," then maybe you should just drop the idea and find something else to do. Because, trust me, you will sound that stupid. I guarantee it.
Do you really need the embarrassment?
IF YOU NEED MORE, start here and just follow the links to find a former school board member committing perjury. Which is, depending on your political leanings, either disgustingly unethical or perfectly all right.
Samuel Alito, come on down! Oh, man this should be fun:
Legal experts consider the 55-year-old Alito so ideologically similar to Justice Antonin Scalia that he has earned the nickname "Scalito."
In 1991, in one of his more well-known decisions, he was the only dissenting voice in a 3rd Circuit ruling striking down a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands if they planned to get an abortion.
If the Dems can't draw this line in the sand, they are well and truly useless.
HEADS UP: Commander Chimpy will undoubtedly, as he has done before, claim that he arrived at this choice after a great deal of consultation with both parties. This would be a lie, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid makes abundantly clear in that CNN piece:
Reid said the choice of Alito "would create a lot of problems."
"That is not one of the names that I've suggested to the president," he said. "In fact, I've done the opposite."
What that means is that, the instant spokesweasel Scott McClellan tries to pull this "bi-partisan consultation" crap, he should be called on it. Instantly. If not sooner.
THE TRACK RECORD: Think Progress has the goods. I'm starting to think that the word "fascist" isn't that much of a stretch here. But that's just me.
It may be that I don't need to invest a whole lotta time eviscerating the nonsense over at Little Green Dumbfucks, since these folks seem to have a handle on the situation.
I specifically like this piece, in which some of the commenters at LGD are treated like the lying little schoolchildren they are.
Remember this site, which doesn't seem to have changed even a little over the last several months? Which makes that final section even funnier than it might have been, what with phrases like "maximize speed" and "a regular, hopefully daily basis."
Oh, and "This will be determined by the degree of public support the Web site gets." I think we've established that already, folks.
Apparently, some of the mainstream media is tired of cowering in fear of Dick Cheney:
Nicholas Kristof, whose New York Times column in May 2003 helped set in motion the "Plamegate" scandal, called today for Vice President Dick Cheney to explain his role in the matter or resign.
It was an unexpected proposal from Kristof, who has long been skeptical about criminal wrongdoing in this case. In fact, he opens today's column with an apology to federal prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
The column E&P refers to is available here, only through Times Select, so you can pay for it if you want. E&P continues to quote from Kristof's piece:
"Since Mr. Libby is joined at the hip to Mr. Cheney, it's reasonable to ask: What did Mr. Cheney know and when did he know it? Did the vice president have any grasp of the criminal behavior allegedly happening in his office? We shouldn't assume the worst, but Mr. Cheney needs to give us a full account.
"Instead, Mr. Cheney said in a written statement: 'Because this is a pending legal proceeding, in fairness to all those involved, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the charges or on any facts relating to the proceeding.'
"Balderdash. If Mr. Cheney can't address the questions about his conduct, if he can't be forthcoming about the activities in his office that gave rise to the investigation, then he should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr. Bush should demand his resignation.
"It's not that there's a lick of evidence that Mr. Cheney is a criminal. There isn't. But the standard of the office should be higher than that: the White House should symbolize integrity, not legalistic refusals to discuss criminal cover-ups. I didn't want technical indictments of White House officials because they inflame partisanship and impede government; for just the same reason, it's unsavory when a vice president resorts to technical defenses and clams up."
No shit. When someone runs for president on the promise that he's going to bring decency and integrity back to the White House, it's kind of unseemly that your new standard for that is that, technically, you didn't actually get indicted.
And in keeping with my recent resolution to up my Canadian content, let's take a minute or two to slap around everyone's favourite local right-wing chew toy, Pete Rempel, based on this bit of silliness. Where to even begin?
Well, there's the fact that Pete uses the Wall Street Journal as a credible, objective news source. What's the problem, Pete? Couldn't access any online Bill O'Reilly transcripts or what?
Pete then goes on to (quite erroneously) suggest that both Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are now in the clear, when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has made it abundantly clear that the book is definitely not closed on Uncle Karl. Not by a long shot.
And Pete's final "point" is just plain confusing:
The previously unknown Libby has been a key figure in the administration’s foreign policy and the “war against terror,” both of which the CIA have proven obstinate over. Is it perhaps not suprising that it is Libby who has been indicted rather then other administration figures?
Um ... huh? Would anyone like to translate this from Rempelese for the rest of us?
OH, WAIT ... Now I get it. It's a conspiracy theory. Whew. For a minute there, I thought Pete had written something stupid. Imagine my relief.
AFTERSNARK: I love Pete's implied smackdown of the CIA, as if they were somehow at loggerheads with this administration. Why, of course they were, Pete. How else to explain this savage comeuppance by the administration of former CIA head George Tenet? I'll bet that showed him who was boss, yessiree. Damn right.
CC: Tell me, Pete, do you ever actually listen to yourself?
Pete: Ah, I drift in and out.
Given the inevitable hilarity that will ensue once Pajama Wankers LLC starts generating actual content (or, as we Canadians like to describe it, "crap"), I took several valuable seconds out of my day and created the blog Pajama Wankers Watch.
However, given that I have enough to do these days, I'd be more than happy to hand over actual writing and snark-generation duties to interested parties. Step right up, no shoving. Line forms on the right.
Oh, man ... you just cannot make this stuff up.
Apparently, we're down to the short list of far-right, lunatic nominees for the Supreme Court, and it strikes me that some ballsy White House Press Corps member could make Scott McClellan squirm by asking something like, "Scott, when Harriet Miers was nominated, she was described as the most highly-qualified candidate available. Now that Miers has withdrawn, the president has nominated (for example here) Samuel Alito, Jr. Can you explain why Mr. Alito was less qualified than Ms. Miers? Be concise and specific. Give examples."
Just watching the tap dancing would be worth it.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Problem? What problem?
... some insiders say they are not sure if Mr. Bush fully grasps the degree of the political danger he faces and the strength of the forces arrayed against him.
I'm pretty sure this is one of the few times you'll see the phrases "Mr. Bush" and "fully grasps" in the same sentence.
There are no words in Elvish or Entish or the tongues of men to adequately express my annoyance with this piece of shit in the Wall Street Journal, whose subtitle reads:
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.
Apparently, though, if you replace "Libby" with "Clinton," everything is suddenly fine.
Apparently, some readers are taking issue with my prose, like Aaron back here who writes:
Actually, you are completely out to lunch on your analysis. :P
The fact that they are Christian is incidental to them being members of a Christian school. If they were at an Islamic, Hindu or Jewish school, the headline would reflect this fact.
Christians have been beheaded throughout history, and a beheading is the ultimate symbol of martyrdom for a Christian.
I was going to revisit this issue, anyway, so now seems like as good a time as any.
Not surprisingly, a fair number of Wankerville blogs have gone ballistic over this incident (for reasons that still escape me since most of these same bloggers have shown precious little sympathy for, say, the tens of thousands hacked to death by machete during the genocide in Rwanda -- ah, the joys of relativism.)
Consider, if you will, Canada's own Dimwit in the Great White North, who really gets into it here and reproduces some of the original coverage of the incident (emphasis added):
Three teenage Christian girls were beheaded and a fourth was seriously wounded in a savage attack on Saturday by unidentified assailants in the Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi.
The girls were among a group of students from a private Christian high school who were ambushed while walking through a cocoa plantation in Poso Kota subdistrict on their way to class, police Major Riky Naldo said.
Notice anything missing? Why, yes -- any mention of the identity of the attackers, so it's impossible to tell if this was a religiously-motivated crime, or one committed entirely at random. If you don't know who the perps are, how can you possibly suggest it had anything to do with the religious affiliation of the victims? Maybe those girls were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who's to say?
And yet, if you have the stomach for it, go back and read Dimwit's article, in which he goes on and on and tediously on about Islam terrorism and slavery and "perparing this land for the expansion of Islam," all based on absolutely no evidence of religious motivation whatsoever.
You know, given that Dimwit is today's featured guest star over at Pajama Wankers LLC, I can't wait to see the kind of swill that's going to start coming out of that site November 16.
And over at the New York Times, where the editorial board is still defending Judith Miller, columnist John Tierney demonstrates that he is still living in an alternate reality:
... Fellow columnist John Tierney, however, suggested that the administration leaks about Plame were not deliberate, nothing but an "accident."
He said journalists will suffer: "Still, the biggest losers so far in this case -- aside, of course, from Scooter Libby - are journalists.
Really, John? The biggest losers here are journalists? Gee, I would have thought that the biggest losers in this dishonest, Miller-driven fiasco were the thousands of dead and maimed coalition soldiers and their families. But what the fuck do I know?
Once again, the neo-con puppeteers wind up robo-moron and send him out to inarticulately regurgitate the talking points:
... The best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and win the war on terror. We will train Iraqi security forces and help a newly elected government meet the needs of the Iraqi people. In doing so, we will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.
And exactly what "mission" are we talking about here? Was it the mission to rid Iraq of WMDs? I think it's safe to say that's been done, since there were never any in the first place, so that "mission" would seem to be complete, no?
Or was the "mission" regime change? Given that Saddam Hussein is safely behind bars (and has been for a while now), one would think that that "mission" is also complete. So what's left to keep the troops there?
Is the "mission" now to, as Commander Chimpy says, "train Iraqi security forces?" Funny, I don't remember that as one of the original rationales for invading Iraq. I'm not sure how well it would have gone over with the American public to have proclaimed, "We are going to invade Iraq and put your children in harm's way in order to ... uh ... train Iraq's soldiers to be better and more effective fighters." I don't think so.
"Help a newly elected government meet the needs of the Iraqi people?" I'm sure I don't remember that as being part of the rationale either.
So ... what's the mission these days? And what part of it is still unfinished? And which White House Press Corps member will have the sense God gave a urinal deodorizer disc and think to ask this of Scottie and actually press him for an answer?
And why am I not going to hold my breath?
Well, I never. Apparently, after hockey players and Arctic air masses, our country's most notable export is Islamofascist terrorism, at least according to this wingnut (emphasis added):
But a little perspective would be nice because Mexico isn’t the most imminent danger the USA faces in the neighborhood. Canada is more of an immediate threat to our security by far than is Mexico.
It is true, perhaps, that Mexico is a long-term problem, one measured in decades. But the GWOT is an immediate problem and Canada poses the gravest threat to further attacks on American soil.
Hint to Mr. Huston: if you see us as your biggest threat to national security, then I suggest that the last thing you should be doing is pissing us the fuck off with respect to softwood lumber!!!
If you catch my drift.
(Credit to e-mailer "JPV", who shall remain nameless 'cuz Canadians understand the concept of "covert operative", ya know?)
Our gal Michelle, very carefully rationing her outrage:
Meanwhile, in Indonesia:
Three teenage Christian girls were beheaded and a fourth was seriously wounded in a savage attack on Saturday by unidentified assailants in the Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi.
Michelle's upset 'cuz, you see, Christians are worth more than the rest of us. Don't make Michelle have to explain this to you, OK?
And over here, James Wolcott takes senility-addled Victor Davis Hanson out to the woodshed, after Vic has the audacity to write something this stupid:
"George Bush also should begin addressing his most venomous critics at home, by condemning their current extremism. He must explain to the nation how a radical, vicious Left has more or less gotten a free pass in its rhetoric of hate, and has now passed the limits of accepted debate."
Oh, yeah, that's us leftists -- completely unhinged in defense of our principles of stuff like, you know, universal rights and all that.
Mind you, this is the same Victor Davis Hanson who, in that very article, suggests that the best way for Commander Chimpy to respond to his critics is to " bare his fangs and like some cornered carnivore start slashing back."
Now that's discourse.
If you have a low nausea threshold, you might not want to read this.
BY THE WAY, I just can't wait for the first, the very first actual news piece over at Pajama Wankers, in which the collective braintrust there will link to something at MSNBC, misrepresent it completely, then give a hat tip to Michelle Malkin.
It'll be just like the good old days, but with an editorial board.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
What is the deal with this post over at LGD (reproduced in its entirety):
Miss Mabrouk reports that our friends in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are going to execute a 14-year old boy.
Um ... OK ... and your point is? What? That you're outraged? When did that start?
Remember, readers, these are the same folks who were all gung-ho for the invasion of Iraq and, consequently, the killing of tens of thousands of its civilians (which, need I point out, included more than a few children).
So ... what's the point of this piece? Are they criticizing the Saudis? The liberals? The kid? What? The Saudis are your friends, remember?
I'm so confused.
BY THE WAY, for those who might not have twigged to the point I was making, it seems a bit out of place for anyone in the right-wing wankersphere to be getting all cranked up about the execution of a juvenile in Saudi Arabia when the U.S. itself has a long and sordid history of executing juveniles, and we didn't hear a lot of complaint from those very same wankers about that, did we?
In fact, it was just this year that the U.S. Supreme Court made it unacceptable to execute juveniles. Better late than never, I guess.
Oh, man. Karl Rove is so not out of the woods yet. If things really get ugly for him, he could always do the GOP thing and betray one of his own.
Uh oh ... am I prescient or what?
In a sign of the trouble lingering for the Bush administration, the indictment handed up Friday in the CIA leak probe refers to someone at the White House known as "Official A."
The unidentified official could become a courtroom witness against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who left his job as vice presidential aide shortly after his indictment on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.
Late Friday, three people close to the investigation, each asking to remain unidentified because of grand jury secrecy, identified Rove as Official A.
I'm not sure how I missed this over at Little Green Dumbfucks:
The criminalization of politics continues apace: Cheney Adviser Resigns After Indictment.
Perjury? What perjury? Treason? What treason? Threatening national security by exposing a covert agent? Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?
And if you have the stomach for it (and I don't make this warning lightly), try reading the comments until you just want to slit your wrists out of embarrassment for being a member of the same species as these people.
Shorter Weasel Boy: If everyone were as breathtakingly ignorant and apathetic as I am, we'd all be so much happier.
OK, technically, that wasn't really shorter. But it was still worth it.
I'm reading the following:
Lewis Libby, who resigned on Friday as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, said he believed he would be found innocent of the charges against him in the CIA leak investigation.
"I am confident that at the end of this process I will be completely and totally exonerated," Libby said in a statement issued by his lawyer, Joseph Tate.
I'm curious -- has any member of this administration accepted any responsibility for the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame? Every public pronouncement regarding Libby has been along the lines that he's a noble and tireless worker for the American public, that he will be missed, etc., etc. Not a hint that he's a sleazy traitor that deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life.
And, keep in mind, this has nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty." He is guilty -- it's been established beyond any doubt, based on his statements under oath, that he lied to federal investigators. That's not even part of the debate any more.
So where's the personal responsibility? Where's the accountability? Is there a single right-wing blog that has accepted that Libby broke the law and should go to jail?
This really is the administration that, in the eyes of its adoring groupies, can do no wrong, isn't it? Well, except for that Harriet Miers thing.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Shorter Crazy-Assed Bitch: If you died believing the lies, then your death doesn't count.
And over at Little Green Dumbfucks, we again have a gratuitous re-interpretation of the facts:
At MSNBC, an AP wire story notes a simple fact, buried amidst heaps of hyperbole. (Hat tip: ciaospirit.)
In the end, Fitzgerald accused Libby of lying about his conversations with reporters, not outing a spy.
Um ... yes, that's right. He lied about those conversations, as that very AP article points out, "under oath, repeatedly." Yeah, it's that "under oath" part that kind of makes all the difference, doesn't it? Wankers.
Then, unbelievably, we have this:
They spent two years and millions of dollars to come up with this.
Holy fucking shit! This is from the same bunch of dickwads who spent six years and $50 million chasing a no-account land deal in Arkansas that ended up with nothing. Where the fuck do these people get their gall?
THE NEW TALKING POINT: If you have the stomach to read the drivel in the comments section of that LGF piece, you can see the rapidly-developing talking point, like this one in comment #16:
2 years, millions of tax payers dollars, one fancy special prosecutor's web site - we get charges of political aide lying to media in washington - news at 11!
Dear dumbfuck #16: He wasn't indicted for lying to the media; he was indicted for lying to federal investigators about his conversations with the media.
Jesus, some of these people are dumber than Weasel Boy, and I didn't think that was physically possible.
Now here's an interesting development:
Cheney said in a statement he accepted Libby's resignation "with deep regret" and said Libby must be "presumed innocent" before he is proven guilty.
I'm sorry -- when did you guys stumble over that principle?
Here, TBogg has a little fun with the upcoming launch (dare we call it a "countdown"?) of Pajama Wankers LLC, where we read how PJ Media is going to revolutionize how you get your fair and balanced, right-wing spin:
In every way, readers will be intimately involved with the site, from commenting and correcting, to submitting content, ...
Really? Readers can submit content? Wow. Apparently, Pajama Wankers sees this as a cutting edge development in information dissemination. I see it as the comments section on my blog.
First, it was Harriet Miers, garroted by Commander Chimpy's own right-wing, fundamentalist base for not being enough of a lunatic. And now, we have Scooter, indicted on 5 counts in the Plamegate scandal and resigning because of it. What could be worse?
Quick, Jinx! Over there! People mourning dead soldiers!
It's all a matter of priorities, isn't it?
BY THE WAY ... "Mr. Libby maintains his innocence and we want to emphasize that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and we can all agree that everyone is entitled to due process under the law and will all you people just fuck off and leave me alone, you bunch of media vultures?!?!"
It's not like this stuff is even news anymore, is it?
Cheney, Libby Blocked Papers To Senate Intelligence Panel
Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.
Now, if you had a choice, what would you find more upsetting: people throwing a memorial for 2,000 dead soldiers, or the lies that sent them to their deaths in the first place?
Never mind; I'm sorry I asked.
What with the spectacular right-wing lynching of Harriet Miers, we can, of course, begin the speculation on which far right, lunatic wackjob will now be presented as absolutely the "best qualified" human being in the entire United States for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
Man, I can't wait. Really.
Uh oh ...
One of the more annoying properties of so many right-wing wanker blogs is that they have this grating tendency to promote their own splashy headline, which doesn't always reflect what they've linked to accurately.
Take, for instance, this short piece over at Instawanker:
LIBBY TO BE CHARGED, BUT NOT ROVE: And for False Statements Act violations, not any underlying misconduct. That's what the New York Times says, anyway. Make of it what you will.
Really? Is that what the New York Times says? Gee, why don't we follow that link and actually read what the New York Times says (emphasis added):
Cheney Aide Appears Likely to Be Indicted; Rove Under Scrutiny...
Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday...
Among the many unresolved mysteries is whether anyone in addition to Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove might be charged and in particular whether Mr. Fitzgerald would name the source who first provided the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer to Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. Mr. Novak identified the officer in a column published July 14, 2003...
The apparent delay in a decision about whether to charge Mr. Rove, and the continuation of the criminal inquiry, is a mixed outcome for the administration. It leaves open the possibility that Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's closest and most trusted adviser, could avoid indictment altogether, an outcome that would be not just a legal victory but also the best political outcome the White House could hope for under the circumstances.
Yet, in apparently leaving Mr. Rove in legal limbo for now, Mr. Fitzgerald has left him and Mr. Bush to twist in the uncertainty of a case that has delved deep into the innermost workings of the White House and provided Democrats an opportunity to attack the administration's honesty and the way it justified the war to the American people.
No, I don't think Karl is out of the woods yet. And now you see why only total morons get their news from Instawanker.
[Condoleezza] Rice bristled when asked how the U.S. could be trusted when it doesn't live up to its international agreements.
"Well, I think the word of the United States has been as good as gold in its international dealings and its agreements," she snapped.
No, really. She said that. Really.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Litmus test? What litmus test?
As the White House turns its attention to finding a new Supreme Court nominee, conservative activists relieved at Harriet Miers' withdrawal Thursday vowed to oppose President Bush's next nominee unless the candidate has solid conservative credentials.
Oh. That litmus test.
Yes, it seems so long ago when I gave an off-the cuff recommendation to a then-obscure little blog. And look where he is now: two CBA nominations, for "Best New Blog" and "Best Personal Blog."
Dude, don't forget all us little people. Dude? Hey! Oh, well ...
And the nominations threaten to turn into a veritable tidal wave ... OK, there's a second one for "Best Blog Post", for this piece from way back, of which I am more than a little proud.
I guess that means I should get to work on Part 2. Sigh. Sometimes, you people are so needy ...
It sure saves time when those wackjob Republicans betray their own colleagues. The big news is, of course, the Harriet Miers' withdrawal, with the alleged excuse that, since she was the President's personal counsel, she couldn't turn over a number of policy documents requested by the Judiciary Committee because that would violate attorney-client privilege and prevent the preznit from freely getting the atrociously, hideously, unspeakably horrendous advice that has for so long been offered to him by his coterie of right-wing, lunatic, neo-con sycophants.
Well, it might have been a plausible excuse if it hadn't been so thoroughly exposed as a sham by none other than high-profile wingnut Charles Krauthammer:
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, suggested in a column in last Friday's Washington Post that the White House press the documents issue as a face-saving way to withdraw the nomination.
"That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege," he wrote.
Conveniently, he wasn't the only wanker who saw through that lame excuse:
In a statement issued by the White House, Bush said, "It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel."
But Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownbeck suggested the line could have been drawn somewhere else to avoid the impasse.
"We were not asking for documents regarding attorney-client privilege -- or privileged communications," he said. We were saying 'show us documents of policy issues discussions,' so we could get some framework of her policy views."
Man, it's gotta hurt when your own drinking buddies hang you out to dry. Ouch.
Robert over at My Blahg seems to be channeling some of my recent ponderings, as he gives Canadian conservatives a few examples of what sort of loons they might become if they keep emulating their American counterparts.
If you're a conservative, feel free to promote your favourite conservative ideas. Get involved in the debate, defend your positions, go wild.
But know where to stop. The instant you start promoting Intelligent Design in public schools, or condemning gay marriage, or defending the rights of pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control, well, you've just crossed that line into pure idiocy and irrelevancy.
Well, isn't this special? A nomination for "Best Liberal Blog" at the 2005 Canadian Blog Awards. You shouldn't have. No, really. I guess I feel just a smidge guilty since, as many people can tell, I spend an inordinate amount of time obsessed with things Americana but I'm trying to recover. I'm thinking of smacking around Pete Rempel on a regular basis now.
It's a start.
BY THE WAY, no disrespect to the candidates in the other categories but I figure I might as well start figuring out who I'd vote for and, in the category of "Best Blog Post Series," I'm thinking that this choice is a no-brainer. I've always had a soft spot for single-minded, maniacal obsession.
Well, what a completely, totally, breathtakingly unexpected development. And to think she was absolutely the best-qualified person for the position. Damn shame that.
And now that the conservative wingnutosphere has made it clear they're driving this particular bus, any bets on which complete fucking loon is next in line? Come on, feel free to speculate. Alberto Gonzales? Priscilla Owen? Charles Pickering? Janice Rogers Brown? Michael McConnell? Ex-FEMA director Michael Brown? Karl Rove? Jenna Bush? Ann Coulter? Bernie Kerik? Private Lynndie England?
The lines are open.
UPDATE: At this point, out of sheer self-preservation, the Dems should make some kind of announcement before the next nomination that they're going to have some minimum requirements for that nominee.
It doesn't really matter what those requirements are but they should draw some kind of line in the sand -- fire a warning shot, as it were. At the very least (and as I've mentioned before), they should take the position that they will absolutely not even consider a nominee who has publicly advocated the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Another requirement might be that they will want all of the possible documentation on that nominee, and that they won't tolerate the administration withholding that kind of information. You get the idea.
Any other requirements you think would fit here?
Not to harp on Scootergate overly, but there's one defense that White House spokesweasel Scott McClellan has been using lately that really gripes my wagger:
Q Scott, with what looks like indictments pending in the CIA leak investigation, what's the anxiety level like here at the White House? What's the atmosphere in the hallways?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, there's a lot of speculation going around, and I think there are a lot of facts that simply are not known at this point.
Not to take issue or anything but how exactly is that possible? What do you mean there's stuff you don't know?
Earth to Scott: the people under investigation are your colleagues; they work for your administration and are answerable to your president. If your Commander Chimpy sincerely wanted to know stuff, he could have simply called in his people and asked them. How much simpler can this get?
The only way these people can, at this point, not know stuff is because they don't want to and they're stonewalling. There is absolutely nothing legally that is stopping Scott's preznit from finding out what he wants. Nothing. Got that? Nothing. All he has to do is ask the questions and demand the answers.
The fact that he hasn't done so has nothing to do with that "ongoing investigation." It has everything to do with an administration that is trying to hide its crimes.
Have I made all this perfectly clear?
AFTERSNARK: Does anyone seriously believe that Commander Chimpy really doesn't know all the facts by now? Just asking.
When the next unspeakably ignorant wanker tries to tell you how this whole Valerie Plame/CIA thing is no big deal and is just a partisan smear witch hunt, you can show them this.
Or, better yet, you can print it off, wrap it around a brick and beat said wanker to death with it. Either way works for me.
Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, well, OK, I'm just an idiot. Any of this sound familiar?
Amid escalating frustration over dwindling supplies of gasoline, ice and water, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Wednesday acknowledged shortcomings in the relief effort for Hurricane Wilma.
So, whose fault is this? Ah, I see:
At a news conference in Tallahassee, Chertoff urged patience while Bush said Floridians should have done more to prepare for the storm.
Dude, it's not nice to blame the natives. After all, most of them are mentally retarded -- they voted for you.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
All right, fine, let's see what the Canadian wankerhood is saying about Harriet Miers, and it appears to be that, if you keep digging, you'll find that pony in there somewhere:
In today’s WSJ, Thomas Griesa, a trial judge in New York, defends Harriet Miers on the basis of her extensive litigation experience, something I’ve noted in the past that has been overlooked by her critics and that the SC needs.
Um ... dude? Even the Republicans have turned on Miers with a vengeance. Why are you still defending her? Don't you have loftier ambitions than to look even dumber than American wingnuts?
Jesus, have some pride.
Because the scientific community is a monolith, impenetrable and often hostile to new theories, intelligent design proponents have to turn to the public schools to recruit support, a witness said Monday.
So the proper response to the scientific community panning ID for the pathetic, pseudo-scientific crap that it is is to ... inflict it on students.
Let's summarize -- it's incredibly tacky, unpatriotic and meaningless to be obsessing on this 2000-dead-in-Iraq "milestone" because, um, it's just a meaningless number and it's not about body counts because the number of dead shouldn't be used as any sort of scale against which to measure failure and ... Hello. What's this?
Enemy Body Counts Revived
U.S. Is Citing Tolls to Show Success in Iraq
Eager to demonstrate success in Iraq, the U.S. military has abandoned its previous refusal to publicize enemy body counts and now cites such numbers periodically to show the impact of some counterinsurgency operations.
So, to sum up, presenting the enemy's death toll is a perfectly acceptable way to demonstrate the success of one's military operations while, conversely, presenting one's own casualty figures is ... uh ... is ... shut up! Just shut up, OK?
Apparently, the mainstream media is just not interested in all that whining from the Bush administration or the citizens of Wankerville:
Going against the expressed wishes of the Pentagon, several top U.S. newspapers today treated the tragic arrival of the 2,000th American military death in Iraq as a major milestone. The New York Times even used that officially disapproved phrase in a headline at the top of a page. USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post all carried special features.
And the dam begins to leak just a little more ...
BY THE WAY, it's not like the Bush administration is opposed to the abstract concept of "milestones":
President George W. Bush said Iraq's Oct. 15 constitutional vote is a milestone for democracy in the region and the U.S. is making ``progress toward peace.''...
Apparently, there are good milestones, and there are not so good milestones.
Your future FOX News military affairs analyst. I think it's safe to say those two truly deserve one another. (Link credit to the folks at Raw Story.)
Oh, dear ... apparently, someone's run home to tell Daddy on me.
Not quite the milestone of 2,000 folks who died for Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and various neo-con fantasies, but sitemeter tells me I'm coming up fast on 50,000 visits to the blog. Who woulda thunk it? Now, finish your coffee and get back to work.
At least, that's the apparent message from one "Major Chaz," who receives a favourable link from the dimwits over at Little Green Dumbfucks. Writes Major Chaz, in an effort to discredit the Left's protests over those very deaths:
The MSM is starting to gear up (and the anti-war left has been ready for a while) to present us with the story of "the milestone of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq".
Which is, as I'm sure you can appreciate, quite the milestone given Commander Chimpy's historical claim of "Mission Accomplished." (Man, that seems like such a long time ago, doesn't it?) Anyway, to continue with Major Chaz (sadly, verbatim):
Unfortunately, this story is bogus for a few different reasons. Please keep in mind I am military, and none of that which follows is to make light of any of the deaths not matter what column they fall into, but rather to point out that those that make hay about this milestone, and actually celebrating it to further their own cause.
Good, good ... Major Chaz is being totally predictable in accusing the Left of "celebrating" this milestone, despite the fact that it's a total lie. And make sure you understand that Major Chaz is telling you that in no way is he going to make light of these deaths, despite the fact that he proceeds to do just that:
First, being in the military is a high-risk enterprise, even when you are not in combat. Humvees roll over, helicopters crash, people commit suicide, people get hit by vehicles. People die.
Ah, so shit happens, that's how it works, so can you all please just chill out a little bit and not get quite so cranked up over this? Besides (emphasis added):
But only slightly more than 1500 have actually died from hostile fire. More than 400 military members have died due to non-combat causes. And not all of the almost 2000 total deaths have actually happened in Iraq. It is not well known that if a military member dies anywhere in the AOR, on orders for OIF, his/her death is counted towards "the milestone of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq".
And there you have it. Unless you actually took a bullet on-site, or had your head blown off by an IED somewhere in Iraq proper, your death doesn't count. I mean, all this yapping about 2,000 deaths and, really, it's barely more than 1500 if you count them correctly, so can all you whiners please just take a pill and get some perspective? I mean, really.
P.S. You know it's just a matter of time before some complete wank blogs something like, "Did you see what that Canadian Cynic guy wrote? That he just doesn't give a shit about the American troops killed in Iraq. 'Fuck em,' he said!"
Give it time. You know it's coming.
Once upon a time, the Presidential Medal of Freedom used to mean something. Times sure have changed, haven't they?
And over here, Weasel Boy is throwing a party to celebrate the passing away of civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.
Well, sure, I realize he doesn't actually use the word "party" but we know better 'cuz, you see, like him and his Wankerville neighbours, we can read between the lines. Even if he doesn't admit it, it's obvious that the death of Rosa Parks couldn't "come fast enough" for Jinx and his racist, conservative friends, and we all "have little doubt" about what they really think and that, while Jinx might not have actually written it out, well, come on, "we already know what to expect," don't we?
Wow. Is this a great game or what -- inventing words and motivations for people you've never met to paint them in an unflattering light. How does it feel, Jinx, to be exposed as gleefully celebrating the death of an American civil rights heroine?
Oh, come on, Jinx, you're not going to tell us I'm misrepresenting your position, are you? That would be irony of the highest order, wouldn't it?
UH OH ... THERE'S MORE: Oh, look. All those fine folks over at Little Green Dumbfucks are also celebrating Park's demise. Yeah, yeah, I'm sure they'd argue that it's just a memorial but, again, we know better, don't we? It's always "party" time over at Wankerville Central when there's one less uppity darkie, isn't it?
And a "party" wouldn't be a "party" without Crazy-Assed Bitch joining in the festivities, would it? Man, this is fun. I never realized how effortless blogging could be if I simply discarded every scruple I ever had and just made shit up. I'm starting to see the appeal.
HOLY SMOKES, THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! Conservative wingnut La Shawn Barber links to a veritable menagerie of wankers, all clapping their little paws with glee that that troublemaking Parks has finally snuffed it.
Yes, I'm sure all of them would tell you that they're honouring her memory or some such rubbish, but we all know better, don't we? We recognize a "party" when we see one.
SOME DELIGHTFUL SATIRE: Dr. Dawg gives this whole brouhaha the treatment it deserves. I think I just wet myself again.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Hello. Life at the top just got a lot more interesting:
I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.
Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.
The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war.
Ouch. It's that "previously undisclosed" part that really pisses off a federal prosecutor. And now, cue the entire right-wing wankersphere, dismissing it all as a partisan witch hunt. If they choose to talk it about it at all.
Man, it can't be much fun being Weasel Boy these days, can it?
Monday, October 24, 2005
Oooooooh ... White House Press Lizard Scott McClellan is gittin' downright snippy with folks these days. You have to love this exchange, where he tries to put some poor journalist in his place:
Q Okay. Well, let me just ask one more question, a little narrower than what David was asking. What are the President's views of Patrick Fitzgerald as a prosecutor?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he's previously spoken to that issue and I'll leave it where he left it.
Q Could you just remind me?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he spoke about that recently and nothing has changed.
Q Because, you know, I have a memory like a sieve and I just tend to forget things from day to day.
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think anything has changed, in terms of his views. And he's already expressed that.
How much longer before Scottie is just beaten senseless late one night on the way to his car?
Well, this is precious -- apparently, the whiz kids over at Little Green Dumbfucks have backed down on their lunatic claims of the Left getting to "party" upon the death of the 2,000th U.S. military person in Iraq.
See, back here, they referred to these events (hideously dishonestly, of course) as "parties."
In the face of mounting criticism and in defiance of, well, anything resembling logic, they stuck to their guns about those gosh-darned "death parties."
A more recent post there, however, has curiously dropped the word "parties" and now uses only the word "events".
And, finally, the word "party" seems to have been banished entirely, as the collective imbecility over at LGF has settled on the catchphrase "grim milestone," for what that's worth.
Perhaps even the dimwits over at LGF can recognize when they've crossed the line. One can only hope.
It's quite the sight when even psychotic wingnut Michelle Malkin turns on her ideological teammates, as she does here, where she lays a pasting on Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchison:
The Left had a field day over Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's remarks on NBC's Meet the Press this morning in which she downplayed possible perjury and obstruction of justice indictments this week in the Rove/Plame/Miller/Libby/God-knows-who-else leak case. I watched the rebroadcast of the show tonight and have to say that I found Hutchison's pooh-poohing more than a bit disturbing.
Note first how the Left has "a field day" over this. See, when the Right goes totally freaking ballistic over, say, some obscure, former academic saying vile things, well, no amount of coverage is too much, since it's necessary to flog that baby until it lies on the ground in bleeding strips. And that issue must be dragged back out on a regular basis to be re-flogged, as proof that all black people hate whites and want to kill them all.
On the other hand, when the Left gets its groove on regarding some issue, well, they're just having a "field day," almost certainly over-reacting, taking things out of context and, in general, blowing things totally out of proportion, if not making this shit up entirely. See how that works?
Anyway, feel free to return to Malkin's piece, in which Hutchison is suddenly a big believer in "innocent until proven guilty" and due process and all that good shit, the impeachment of Bill Clinton notwithstanding.
Man, if the hypocrisy around here were any thicker, you could cut off a piece and club someone to death with it.
AFTERSNARK: It really is breathtaking hypocrisy for anyone in the GOP to be cautioning against legal witch hunts being "a waste of time and taxpayer dollars." How do these cretins live with themselves? Seriously.
Sorry, folks, but the delightful timing here is just too delicious to pass up. Witness my very recent piece here, in which I explain how the right wing likes to leave out salient details in their sputtering outrage.
So what's got Jinx stroking himself under his bathrobe this morning? This:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - An angry mob of insurgents attacked a convoy of American contractors last month when they got lost in a town north of Baghdad, killing four and wounding two, the U.S. military said on Sunday.
The Telegraph reported that two of the contractors not killed in the initial attack were dragged alive from their vehicle, which had been badly shot up. They were forced to kneel in the road before being killed.
"Killing one of the men with a rifle round fired into the back of his head, they doused the other with petrol and set him alight," the paper reported.
"Barefoot children, yelping in delight, piled straw on to the screaming man's body to stoke the flames."
The crowd then "dragged their corpses through the street, chanting anti-U.S. slogans," the report said.
Say, I know -- let's go to the original article and see what was so carefully excised by those ellipses, shall we (emphasis added)?
An angry mob of insurgents attacked a convoy of American contractors last month when they got lost in a town north of Baghdad, killing four and wounding two, the U.S. military said on Sunday.
The Sept. 20 attack in the mostly Sunni Arab town of Duluiyah, about 45 miles north of Baghdad, was reported for the first time on Saturday by the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph and confirmed by the military on Sunday.
The convoy, which included U.S. military guards riding in Humvees, made a wrong turn into Duluiyah and insurgents opened fire with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, Maj. Richard Goldenberg, a spokesman for Task Force Liberty in north-central Iraq, told The Associated Press.
I'm sorry -- the convoy included U.S. military guards riding in Humvees? What the fuck were they doing the whole time? Gee, you'd think it's their job to, you know, take care of contractors under their protection, no?
And what else did Jinx so delicately remove from that article? Oh ...
The Telegraph reported the contractors killed and wounded were employees of the Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, the biggest U.S. military contractor in Iraq. But Goldenberg could not confirm that.
And suddenly, your sympathy vanishes like fog in the early morning sun. Sorry, folks, but if you fake data to justify invading a helpless country, killing its civilians, stealing its resources and remaking its political structure entirely, you have to expect that some of them are going to take it badly and are going to fight back, sometimes in very nasty ways.
It's called "war," as you so frequently keep reminding us. And, frankly, the last people I plan on feeling sorry for is military contractors from Halliburton, if you catch my drift.
See what you can learn when you take the time to follow the links?
BY THE WAY, a couple more observations on the level of dishonesty in the reporting and careful editing of the news by certain members of the wankersphere, which applies to many right-wing wanks, not just Weasel Boy.
First, re-read Jinx's selective quotation here once again. Note carefully that he does not reproduce anything which suggests that there was a military component to that convoy. Check that again to make sure you see what I mean. So why does that matter?
Because if you get the impression that this was a convoy of nothing but civilian contractors, you're probably going to be outraged. But once you learn that there were U.S. soldiers and Humvees in the procession, well, that makes it a military target under the rules of engagement, doesn't it? And if the blowhards on the right keep yapping on about the "War" on "Terror," then they have no right to complain when that war happens to descend on them like a million pound shithammer, do they?
The next bit of sleazy journalism had to do with omitting the contractors' affiliation with Halliburton. And why does that matter? Because it's guaranteed to reduce the sympathy you feel for those folks.
Make no mistake -- if those contractors had been from the U.N., or CARE, or OXFAM, or the Red Cross, their affiliation would have been splashed front and center across Weasel Boy's blog. But Halliburton? Hmmmmm ... maybe just leave out that detail, readers don't really need to know that, it's just extraneous detail, nothing to see here folks, come on, move along.
Finally, of course, there's the complete myth that Jinx is "sickened" by the thought of someone being pulled from a vehicle and burned to death. And yet, where is the outrage for a "coalition" airstrike that hit a Baghdad neighborhood, killing dozens and wounding dozens more?
Make sure you prepare yourselves for the right-wing wankfest that's going to surround this story of the contractors' deaths. Four dead contractors? "Sickening." Dozens of Iraqi civilians killed in an arbitrary airstrike on a populated Baghdad neighborhood? Hey, shit happens, ya know? We call that "collateral damage."
This is war, remember?
Ooooooh ... you have to enjoy it when some high-profile, egotistical, Christian wackjob can't keep from shooting off his mouth, which ends up getting him in big trouble:
The Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to summon a leading conservative Christian to explain the private assurances he says he received from the White House about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, the committee's chairman said yesterday.
Testimony by Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson would heighten the political and religious overtones of the already-high-stakes confirmation hearing for Miers, scheduled to start two weeks from today.
And what is it that so firmly painted the bulls-eye on Dobson's back (emphasis added)?
Dobson is among several evangelical leaders enlisted by the White House to vouch for Miers's conservative credentials among right-leaning groups unhappy with her nomination. He spoke with Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove shortly before President Bush announced the nomination, and later hinted he had received privileged information. "When you know some of the things that I know -- that I probably shouldn't know -- you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that Harriet Miers will be a good justice," Dobson said told his national radio audience Oct. 5.
You know, with the howling shitstorm swirling around top-level Bush administration officials regarding the Valerie Plame exposure, it's hard to believe that anyone -- anyone -- these days would be so fucking dumb as to go on national media and brag about having been slipped some confidential information by Karl Rove.
Apparently, the religious right in the U.S. is now officially being run by the mentally retarded.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Lifted shamelessly from the entire collection here, doesn't this cartoon pretty much sum up the entirety of Wankerville? (Just the top one, that is.)
And, sure, you know that everyone in Wankerville has been touting the alleged existence of WMDs for years, hanging on the New York Times' Judith Miller's every word, worshipping every bit of journalistic nonsense with her name on it.
And now, as she goes down in total disgrace, those same folks are going to use Miller's dishonesty to howl about how that gosh-darned liberal media has no integrity.
Wait for it. You know it's coming.
And the Judith Miller smackdown continues. Man, that's gotta hurt.
THAT "CONTEXT" THING AGAIN: That article has so many delightful gems, but I particularly like this one:
The apparent deference to Ms. Miller by Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, and top editors of The Times, going back several years, needs to be addressed more openly, especially in view of the ethics issues that have come to light.
The freedom Ms. Miller was given to shape the legal strategy may have stemmed in part from the failure of top editors to dig into the case earlier in the battle.
Last Sunday's article raised this issue: "This car had her hand on the wheel because she was the one at risk," Mr. Sulzberger said. When I asked him this week if the integrity of The Times and the First Amendment weren't also at risk, he stressed that his assertion had to be read in the proper context.
Oh, yes. Whenever you've really screwed the pooch, just blame it all on "context."
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Just when you think the blowhards on the right can't get any more vile and reprehensible, well ... that's just what happens.
Consider the plans of a group called the "American Friends Service Committee" who, when the U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 2000, plan to hold a number of memorials and services across the country to remember them.
Let's let AFSC describe it themselves, shall we (with proper emphasis on how the AFSC views this milestone):
Soon we’ll be reaching another horrific milestone in the war in Iraq – the death of the 2,000th U.S. service member. AFSC, Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families for Peace, and Iraq Veterans Against the War are calling for people across the U.S. to stand up and say that the needless killing of U.S. troops and Iraqis must stop and that the resources funding this war are needed for other things.
Events to mark the 2,000th reported U.S. military death will range from candlelight vigils to public actions that illustrate the size of the death toll. Here in our “Not One More Death. Not One More Dollar.” campaign center, you will find supporting materials and suggestions for designing an event that meets the needs of your community.
And how does Michelle describe this when linking to the description of this at LGF?
THE GHOULS OF THE LEFT
They support the troops...by partying over their deaths.
MEA CULPA: In a fit of anger, I referred to Michelle Malkin in an unacceptably crude way, and that wasn't called for. My apologies. But, man, she pisses me off in a big way. Argh.
Uh oh ... apparently, it's every man for himself at the Times as well, as Queen of Iraq Judith "I was proved fucking right!" Miller gets tossed overboard:
Judith Miller’s boss says the New York Times reporter appears to have misled the newspaper about her role in the CIA leak controversy.
In an e-mail memo Friday to the newspaper’s staff, Executive Editor Bill Keller said that until Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald subpoenaed Miller in the criminal probe, “I didn’t know that Judy had been one of the reporters on the receiving end” of leaks aimed at Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson.
“Judy seems to have misled” Times Washington bureau chief Bill Taubman about the extent of her involvement, Keller wrote.
And once Miller gets tossed, Keller should be right behind her for pure stupidity.
AND THE PISSING CONTEST IS ON! Oh, boy. (I'm sure any snarky comparisons of journalistic credibility at this point would be utterly superfluous.)
Oops ... busted:
Dover Area School District Supt. Richard Nilsen said he did not believe his high school principal when she wrote that a school board member wanted to require that creationism be taught equally alongside evolution.
So Nilsen would have no reason -- no reason at all -- to think that creationism could possibly be an issue in his school district. No reason whatsoever.
He also acknowledged in court that he attended a school board retreat a week earlier at which creationism was discussed.
Nope. No reason at all. Let's check that timeline again:
Because Nilsen thought then-Principal Trudy Peterman “exaggerated constantly,” he was skeptical when he read a memo from her about her concern, Nilsen testified Friday in U.S. Middle District Court.
During cross-examination, plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild asked if Peterman’s memo was written five days after the March 26, 2003, board retreat.
Nilsen agreed it had been.
Creationism? Never heard of it. And pay no attention to that retreat expense form. An explanation, Supt. Nilsen?
According to Nilsen’s own notes from the retreat, board member Alan Bonsell had listed “creationism” as a potential school board issue. Nilsen testified he could recall no details of the discussion and later said he had no memory of creationism ever being discussed in any setting.
Ah ... the Judith Miller defense. Very good. A classic.
AND THIS IS PRECIOUSSSSSS ...
[The Thomas More Law Center], which is representing [the Dover Area School District], agreed to work for the district for free, but [Thomas More's Richard] Thompson told [district solicitor Steve] Russell it would not cover the other side’s legal costs should the plaintiffs win the case and, as is the practice, try to recoup their legal expenses.
That's generally a good sign that one does not think highly of one's chances.
Given that White House Press Reptile Scott McClellan will dismiss almost any question as a "hypothetical," this story has to be giving him some grief:
The White House has begun making contingency plans for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers as President Bush's choice to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, conservative sources said yesterday.
"White House senior staff are starting to ask outside people, saying, 'We're not discussing pulling out her nomination, but if we were to, do you have any advice as to how we should do it?' " a conservative Republican with ties to the White House told The Washington Times.
And what is a hypothetical but the consideration of a contingency plan if things don't go according to schedule? So how can the White House respond to this?
If they admit to beginning the search for a replacement, they have as much as admitted that, yes, they do engage in hypothetical thinking.
If they don't admit it, well, the history of this administration is pretty much one of never thinking about what might happen down the road, isn't it?
"Mr. President, what if the Iraqis don't welcome the American troops as liberators and heroes?
"Can't happen, no sir. Not even going to consider the possibility. Heh heh heh."
And we've already seen the kind of shit you can get into with that kind of thinking.
HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING: If the Miers nomination is withdrawn, how will it be spun? Will it be presented as Miers voluntarily stepping aside? How will she explain it, after having been so staunchly defended by the White House?
Will it be presented as the White House itself withdrawing the nomination? Given that Commander Chimpy described Miers as the absolutely best-qualified person he could find, how the heck will that be defended?
No matter what happens, if Miers' nomination goes down, someone's gonna have some serious 'splainin' to do.
Gosh darn it, Michelle has the goods on us lefties again:
Here we go again. Australian moonbat journalists accuse American soldiers of abusing corpses in Afghanistan.
Yeah. And, by the way, ignore the fact that there's a video.
HISTORY LESSON TIME: Anyone remember this?
Top U.S. officials in Baghdad Thursday decried the killings of four U.S. security contractors in Fallujah, vowed to hunt down the perpetrators and promised to pacify the restive anti-U.S. hotbed...
The four -- employees of a security company that has provided security for Bremer -- "were attacked and their bodies subjected to barbarous maltreatment," Bremer said. "The acts we have seen were despicable and inexcusable. They violate the tenets of all religions including Islam as well as the foundations of civilized society.
I'm sure there's a "context" issue we're supposed to appreciate here.
Only after you read the original piece should you continue this descent into right-wing stupidity, as Jinx doesn't even bother to remove one foot before firmly inserting the other.
Well, it looks like some people actually can admit that this guy is racist, ...
Why, yes, Jinx, we can. What part of my article where I wrote:
... is Kambon racist? In a word, fuck, yes. Of course he's racist, fer Chrissake. What kind of stupid question is that? Who the hell would even think of denying that?
is so difficult for you to understand?
So ... Jinx snidely challenges us on the left to own up to Kambon's racism, I do precisely that, at which point the ever so appropriately named Weasel Boy moves the goalposts so as to not give me any credit for doing exactly what he challenged me to do in the first place. There's a word for this: predictable. But (and you knew this was coming) it gets better, as Jinx writes:
"But," they say, "this man does not represent the left like Bill Bennett represents the right." (Or words to that effect.) To that I say, "Hardly." Ask yourselves this, liberals: what was Bill Bennett doing before this controversy? You don't know, do you?
To that I say, you are so full of shit, Jinx, it's a wonder you don't spontaneously explode. We on the left knew very well what Bennett was doing, as we are very aware of his history as a pompous, sanctimonious blowhard who gets his jollies telling everyone else how to be moral and virtuous while quietly satisfying his gambling addiction.
On the other hand, Jinx, let me ask you a simple question: Had you ever heard of Kamau Kambon before this recent controversy? Be honest. As difficult and as unprecedented as it may be for you, tell us the truth. Then we can talk about bogus equivalence again.
BY THE WAY, it should be obvious to regular readers that there is no example of conservative speech or writing that is so vile that Weasel Boy would actually condemn it. From his perspective, there's always a different interpretation or contextual perspective that makes it somehow acceptable. See, Bennett wasn't actually calling for the abortion of black babies, he was just pointing out how doing that would be good for society in terms of the crime rate. No racism there, no sirree.
It's sort of like when someone says, "Hey, I'm not a racist, I just don't really like niggers." Or, "No way am I an anti-Semite, but I just can't stand kikes, know what I mean?" Sound familiar? And with a little tweaking, you get, "I'm not promoting the abortion of all black babies, no way. I'm just demonstrating how it would be a benefit for society. But that doesn't make me racist."
Is there any conservative hate speech that Jinx would actually condemn? How about something like this:
Fresno residents and community leaders, outraged by an e-mail message in which City Council Member Jerry Duncan wished he had a "dirty bomb" to kill every liberal in Fresno, called Thursday for his resignation, recall or reprimand.
No doubt he was just joking, right, Jinx? I'll bet there was some important context we missed there, right? Or how about just collecting countless examples of right-wing hate speech in one place, like here?
And who can forget everyone's favourite bloviating, right-wing talk show host and Oxy Contin addict Rush Limbaugh when he said:
"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus — living fossils — so we will never forget what these people stood for."
Or conservative screech harpy Ann Coulter:
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
But don't worry. Give Jinx some time, and he'll start explaining how it all has to do with context: "Killing all the whites? Oh, man, that's so racist. Killing all the liberals? Oh, man, that's ... that's ... hey, let's talk about context, OK?"
AND WHILE I'M HERE, you'll notice that Weasel Boy quietly failed to address any of the other points I raised in my original post -- that Kambon was only a sessional faculty member at NC State, that he isn't even there anymore, and that NC State emphatically condemned Kambon for his remarks. And WB's reaction? Just quietly move on -- no clarification, no retraction, no update -- and hope no one notices. How utterly typical.
(By way of contrast, one can read the coverage of this incident at The Locker Room, and note how that site clarifies Kambon's status at NC State, which is what any moderately responsible site should do. Unlike Weasel Boy's.)
The lies, of course, don't stop there. WB suggests I'm trying to qualify my opinion of Kambon when he (WB) writes:
Well, it looks like some people actually can admit that this guy is racist, yet they add a "but," of course. "But," they say, "this man does not represent the left like Bill Bennett represents the right."
There was no "but" involved in my description of Kambon as a racist. He's a racist. Period. No qualification. No "but" involved -- WB is flat-out lying here. The "but" had to do with bringing Bennett back into the conversation, it had nothing to do with Kambon. Another Weasel Boy lie. It's a good thing I'm a mathematician, otherwise I'd have trouble counting them all.
And there is, of course, one more (sort of) lie where WB writes:
Kambon unquestioningly and unapologetically called for the deaths of whites - and people clapped for it!
Did they? Let's go to the Locker Room's coverage and see what they wrote about that:
And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. *tepid applause*
"Tepid?" The applause was "tepid?" That's kind of an important qualifier as it makes it clear that Kambon didn't have what you'd call rousing support. But you can see the pattern here -- WB will howl incessantly about how you have to take context into account and, if he doesn't like the context, well ... he'll just change it.
So, so predictable.
HOW THE RULES WORK: If you condense this dialogue into its essence, it went something like this:
WB: So which liberal is going to admit Kambon is a racist, huh? Go ahead, admit it. I dare you. No, I double dog dare you. Come on, admit it!
Me: No problem. He's a racist. Absolutely. Unequivocally.
WB: Well, ... no fair, that doesn't count! Because ... you didn't stand on one foot and close one eye and touch your nose when you said it. So it doesn't count. Nyah nyah nyah.
That's pretty much the recipe for any attempt at dicussion with your basic wanker, which invariably goes something like this:
- Wanker makes claim.
- Liberal responds with total and devastating smackdown of wanker claim.
- Wanker suddenly and arbitrarily changes the basis of the argument, then criticizes liberal for not responding to redefined argument in earlier reply.
Seriously, if you're going to engage in an argument with a wanker, you might want to familiarize yourself with the rules first. It saves time.