Yee ha! Party time!

Whoo hoo! Dead al-Zarqawi! Bush bounce, up 1 per cent! Break open the bubbly and ... whoops, never mind. Bounce gone. Carry on.

It's none of your damned business. Got it?

And the unseemly cross-border parallels continue, with CPC Health Minister Tony Clement telling folks to butt out of his business relationships.

Now, where have I heard that aggrieved, self-righteous tone before? Oh, right.

It's nice to see the grown-ups back in charge.

And in this corner, we have the CPC restoring honour and dignity to the House of Commons. My God, how I've missed that.

Suddenly, they're big fans of science?

It's moderately amusing how, having categorically rejected any and all science that supports the notion of climate change, some Blogging Tories are now enthusiastically supporting any alleged "science", no matter how shoddy, that contradicts it.

What a great gig. Can I choose my preferred snippets of reality, too?

BOB CARTER, MORON. Since all of the above scientifically-illiterate dipsticks reference exactly the same article from Canada Free Press, and since that article makes such a big deal of one Professor Bob Carter, it naturally behooves us to take a closer look at the dumbfuckery of Prof. Carter.

This has been a public service announcement aimed at those who truly want to understand what is happening with respect to climate change. This does not, of course, include any Blogging Tories, who are simply beyond help these days.

BAD CRITIC. NO BISCUIT. Commenter "ruairidh" weighs in on the controversy, with unfortunate results.

All research in this area should be welcome but there is an unfortunate trend amongst some people to declare that the issue has been settled and any sceptic/denier /heretic who deviates from the dogma should be abused and ridiculed. This post on your blog is a particularly fine example of this hysteria.

Really? In what way? I can't wait to hear this.

By getting into a personal attack against one contributor to an article ...

I'm sorry ... "personal" attack? Where? There's absolutely nothing "personal" about accusing someone of being a partisan hack and ignorant dumbfuck if you go on to back it up with unimpeachable evidence. Nice try, though. Onward.

... (which if you were being fair quotes many more scientists than the one you single out) you do your arguments a disservice.

Ah, so one of my sins was that I didn't discredit each and every contributor to that article. Of course, if I had tried such a thing, every contributor I eviscerated would have been just as quickly replaced with another dishonest hack, and I would never have been able to keep up.

I should point out that, while the Blogging Tories I linked to above simply gleefully swallowed every bit of nonsense that was presented in that article, I was the only one who took the time to dig a little deeper. And for that, I am chastised for, apparently, not digging deeply enough. You just can't please some people, can you?

Just for the record in case you want to call me scientifically illiterate ...

Not scientifically illiterate. Just logically incoherent. And, just for the record, don't take it personally.

ADDITIONAL SMACKDOWN AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Since just one disemboweling is apparently not enough for some folks, I'll toss in a second one for free. From that hideously dishonest CFP article:

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

And since Ball makes several appearances in that article, it seems only fair that one be allowed to heap discredit on the article by doing the same to Ball, no?

There. That's two. Is two enough?

My theory. Which is mine.

It's not like I'm being territorial or anything but, given the continuing entertainment value of the parody domain name www.ijustwetmypants.ca, I thought it was only fair to point out that that name did, in fact, originate in the fevered imagination of yours truly, who promptly passed it on to Alison at Creekside to do all the actual work.

The perfect gender-based division of labour, no?

Froomkin on Rove.

Dan Froomkin makes some good points, as usual. Hello, MSM -- now it's your turn.

GREAT LINE OF THE DAY. Stealing shamelessly from Cathie ('cuz I'm nothing if not shameless), we have Mark Schmitt on Rover Boy:

Now I’m sure plenty of people here will be appropriately outraged by the fact that an official paid by taxpayers is out there raising money for a felon’s legal fees.

Yes, that's what it's come to -- fundraisers for criminal defense lawyers. And at this point, I can't even work up the outrage to be moderately amused anymore.

Blogging Tories Short Takes: June 14, 2006.

Shorter Spirit of Man: "I like the idea of the United States supporting Iranian dissidents. What could possibly go wrong?"

Shorter Dr. Roy: "Speaking as someone who is absolutely convinced of the overwhelming guilt of the Canadian terrorism suspects before the legal proceedings have even begun, I want to caution everyone else about rushing to judgment."

Shorter Adam Daifallah: "I'm outraged about the betrayal of the Canadian lumber industry by the recent softwood lumber agreement and ... ooooooh, look. Pretty beads."

Shorter Kate McMillan: "It's at times like this that I find myself wishing I was Ann Coulter."

Bye bye, Jo Jo.

And like a regularly-recurring outbreak of cold sores, we have yet another total wank who wanders into town and sufficiently makes an ass of himself here at CC HQ so that he is shown the door. The things I do for you folks just to keep this establishment respectable.

Karl Rove: Curiouser and curiouser.

A couple of observations on the ongoing Karl Rove weirdness. First, Justin over at TPM Muckraker has the following intriguing little gem:

Responding to news that Karl Rove's lawyers say they've been notified the Bush adviser won't get charged in the Plame leak investigation, Reader AB asks, "is it reasonable for them to publish the letter from Fitzgerald to prove that their statement says is, in fact, true[?]"

We thought it was a good question -- noting, however, that news reports conflict on whether Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, received a letter from Fitzgerald. Luskin himself stated he was "formally advised," but does not state how.

I called Luskin at his office and told him I was interested to know precisely how Fitzgerald had notified him of his decision. "I'm really not going to add anything to what's in the statement," Luskin told me.

In other words, Rove's lawyer appears to have absolutely no intention of making that letter public. But why not? One would think that, if you've just been exonerated, you'd be more than delighted to be waving the proof around under everyone's nose. So why the reluctance? Well, as other people have proposed, here's a guess.

If the hypothetical letter fully and unambiguously cleared Rove of all wrongdoing, well, sure, you'd be more than happy to announce it to the world. But if that letter said something like, "We have decided not to press charges with the understanding that, pursuant to our agreement, your client agrees to testify against Richard W. Cheney, as per our extensive discussions. Any deviation from this agreement will immediately nullify our arrangement and will result in immediate charges against Mr. Rove." Yeah, I can see you not wanting that to get out. Is it irresponsible to speculate? As Magic Dolphin lady once suggested, it is irresponsible not to. But that's not the best part.

As several Rove watchers have established, there is absolutely no doubt that Rove was part of the White House conspiracy to expose the identity of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame. That he did this is part of the public record, and the fact that Fitzgerald had decided (for whatever reason) not to charge Rove doesn't change that in the slightest.

And yet, from the wankersphere, you're seeing incredibly infantile chortling like, oh, this:

Fitzmas has been cancelled (again), idiots. Deal with it.

Translation: "Hey, boneheads. Karl Rove blew the cover of a secret agent, jeopardized national security, ruined a woman's career and he got away with it! Whoo hoo! Fuckin' A! Do we rock or what?"

The shallow end of the gene pool really can be an unpleasant place, can't it?

Karl Rove, for those who aren't afraid of intellectual calisthenics.

First, there's the sophomoric whooping it up at places like, oh, Damian's. Then, for those up to the intellectual challenge, there's the more nuanced stuff you'll find at places like Fire Dog Lake, written by people who actually have a clue.

Feel free to pick your camp.

P.S. You do realize, don't you, Damian, that "won't be charged" is not quite the same thing as "has been cleared," right? Just thought I'd ask.

OH, MAN. Jonah Goldberg really missed his calling as a Blogging Tory.

AFTERSNARK: By all means, check out this slightly earlier piece at FDL, which shows how the New York Times is still hopelessly confused about just about everything (emphasis added):

The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, ...

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Um ... hello? That's some pretty careful wording there. Fitzgerald did not say that he wasn't going to charge Rove. He said that he doesn't anticipate charging Rove, which certainly makes it sound like Turd Boy cut himself a deal and he better not even think of backing out on it.

I don't think we've heard the end of this.

And the Clenis gets the last laugh.

Compare and contrast this:

Backing Away From Bush

Some Republican Candidates Avoid
Ties With Unpopular President

President Bush goes to Pennsylvania tomorrow to campaign for embattled Republican House members in the Philadelphia suburbs. But one of the candidates isn't expected to be there.

Mr. Bush "is really doing poorly in our state," says Rep. Curt Weldon, explaining why he won't be on hand and hasn't asked for the president's help. "I've got to win this by myself."...

It isn't easy leading your party to victory when a lot of people aren't eager to follow. With Mr. Bush's job-approval ratings skidding as low as 30% in national polls, more Republican candidates face risks in associating closely with him.

and this:

Nelson reaps 'power of Bill' Clinton at Gables event

It's hard to believe that just six years ago, Al Gore balked at campaigning with President Bill Clinton, fearing the impeachment scandal would taint his national bid for the White House.

Now the former president is the hottest ticket on the Democratic fundraising circuit. To wit: He helped U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson rake in half a million dollars Sunday in Coral Gables.

Man, that's gotta hurt.

"Tories?" Who, us?

Apparently, Bound by Gravity's Andrew has finally had enough of the festering cesspool of lockstep Harper worship over at the Blogging Tories and is calling it a day, BT-wise, although I'm fascinated by the position of at least one commenter:

The Blogging Tories are not an official political arm of the CPC and have no political affiliation other than the bloggers generally support a right of center viewpoint.

Um ... huh? So it's purely a coincidence that they're called the Blogging "Tories," is that it? And that the website is predominantly Tory blue? And that, on that main page, you can click through to "CPC Feeds" where one can add content to their web page representing, oh, CPC Press Releases, and CPC News, and CPC Speeches, and the CPC Calendar.

Apparently, it's all just a spectacular coincidence. Go figure.

And in Iraq, democracy and freedom is still flourishing.

Another day, another cheap, meaningless photo op:

President George W. Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq on Tuesday to meet newly named Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and discuss the next steps in the troubled, three-year-old war.

I guess Bush's latest visit means things are on the upswing, the mission is accomplished, the insurgency is in its last throes, etc. etc.:

The trip was known only to a handful of aides and a small number of reporters sworn to secrecy because of obvious security threats for Bush and members of his entourage.

Landing at Baghdad airport, Bush transferred to a helicopter for a six-minute ride into the capital's heavily fortified Green Zone. White House officials said the helicopter ride posed the greatest risk for the president.

Bush was greeted by another day of violence in Iraq - dozens of people were killed or wounded Tuesday in explosions in the northern oil city of Kirkuk, and eight bodies were found in western Baghdad.

Or maybe not.

He's a genius. Just ask him.

Would you like another chair for your ego, Mr. Friedman?

AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: One can never link to this disemboweling of Friedman too frequently.

Unintentional humour, I'm sure.

The incomparable James Wolcott clues us in to the underwhelming military victory that was the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The best part of Wolcott's piece?

And with Zarqawi gone, suggests Cockburn, the US will have to find another shadowy arch-villain to inflate, another scowling mug suitable for the Wanted poster.

Well, there's always, you know, that Osama guy. Osama. bin Laden. b-i-n ...

The sleazy dishonesty of Queen Ann.

Geez, what is it with neo-con loons and plagiarism?

The selectivity of directionality.

Hey, kids! You know how the entire progressive blogosphere can be discredited by the action of a single crackpot? How just one ill-conceived post over at Progressive Bloggers can be used to tar the whole group? How the entirety of the Left can be dismissed as, say, the "Michael Moore" wing of political discourse? How the most extreme and unrepresentative positions of the left can be used to dismiss everyone on that side of the ideological divide as uniformly shrieking moonbats?

Apparently, it doesn't work that way over on the Right. Man, are those folks lucky or what?

Always look on the bright side of life.

Oooooh, here's some devilish cleverness. Via Liberal Catnip, we have the newest devious military strategy from Guantanamo detainees -- killing themselves:

Rear Adm Harris said he did not believe the men had killed themselves out of despair.

"They are smart. They are creative, they are committed," he said.

"They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."

There is, of course, a long noble history of such tactics:

[A group of faux oriental-looking warriors come over a hill, led by their leader, King Otto.]

WORKER
The Judean People's Front!

PARVUS
The Judean People's Front!

OTTO
Forward all!

WORKERS
Look out! The Judean People's Front!

[The JPF stop in front of Brian's cross.]

OTTO
Ve are the Judean People's Front! Crack suicide squad. Suicide Squad! Attack!!! [They all ceremonially whip out their weapons, open a hatch in their armor, and proceed to kill themselves.]

God help us all if they unleash the killer rabbit.

Wow. What a clever idea.

Hey, check this out. A Blogging Tory seems to have a new feature where he pokes abbreviated fun at some small selection of Lefties. What a slick idea. I must give that a shot. I bet it would be ever so popular and entertaining.

Of course, I'd take care to at least spell "Whatchu" properly.

I'm kind of pedantic that way.

HE'S aggressive and driven. SHE'S a pushy bitch.

These days, it's almost sport to watch the rest of the neo-cons leap to the defense of Our Lady of the Sociopaths:

MATLIN [sic]: This is the point. This is complete the point [Coulter]’s making. These lefty crazy people go around calling us [unintelligible] and Hitlers and Nazis and everything and nobody say anything. She calls somebody a harpy and you’d think that the whole world was on fire.

That's right. Coulter calls four 9/11 widows "witches" and accuses them of reveling in their husband's horrific deaths and everyone has the unimtigated gall to get their Snuggies all wound up. It's not like, say, just claiming that you're embarrassed that the President is from your home state, which is legitimate rationale for years of howling, spittle-flecked hatred and death threats.

I would have thought that was obvious.