Got Pissed?
Mood:  don't ask
Have a look at Greg Djerejian's latest post on the chickenshit New York Times and their trumped up stories on the missing explosives at al-Qaqaa. I haven't been reading him too long, but this post is unusually angry ---and altogether righteous.

Try to keep in mind, comrades, that in a war where we have secured and destroyed some 400,000 tons of explosives and ordnance, the extremely questionable question of where 380 tons of it has gone to is, in a word, a quibble.

And try to get to this, too: if the New York Times and Mohamed el-Baradei and all the other rectal thermometers in this story are so concerned that the missing explosives could be used in a nuclear device, doesn't the very fact that Saddam was in possession of them militate against these fools' assertions that Saddam was not a threat and had no weapons of mass murder?

It doesn't seem possible that the hyperlegalistic preoccupation that the anti-war Left has with WMDs being the sine qua non of any acceptable rationale for the war could be surpassed, but now the impossible has come: the war was falsely justified because there were, it is said, no WMD ---but now that these 380 tons, if such was ever the amount, are missing, they may have fallen into the hands of terrorists or used in the detonation of a nuclear bomb. The absurdity of this logic will not faze you if you never believed that Iraq was full of terrorists before the war, anyway, nor will it faze you if you never believed that Saddam had pretensions to the development of weapons of mass murder, including nuclear.

We do not know the full story about these explosives, but that hasn't stopped the New York Times or CBS or John Kerry from opening up on this Administration with what they believed would cause the most political damage. To call what they have done irresponsible is too kind. What they have done, in collusion with assholes like el-Baradei, is to attack the integrity of the Commander-in-Chief and his fighting men and women in the middle of a war using intelligence that was produced nearly 18 months ago. It has all been presented as a current development, with the insinuation that these very same explosives have been used against our forces in Iraq in the innumerable IED and car bomb assaults ---even though they cannot know that.

As the President says, there is no limit to what Kerry will say to hurt our military for his own political gain. That is a habit of Kerry's going back decades. It would be a disaster for this country and our power in the world if this Francophile sack of shit is elected.

Why Is Mike McCurry Wearing Eyeliner?
Kerry mouthpiece Mike McCurry, who has very obviously taken to wearing some sort of eyeliner lately, was telling Paula Zahn on CNN last night that President Bush didn't have a plan to win the peace in Iraq because we went in with too few troops. Nothing unusual there; all the Kerrion ---and even a lot of people who are in support of the war--- say the same.

But my question is "Why?" Why do Kerry and his people say that we didn't send enough troops to Iraq? I thought the idea was that they didn't want any troops there. Are they really such adherents of the Powell Doctrine (i.e., if you go, go all out)? I doubt that. So how does Kerry get away with saying to a party that is overwhelmingly anti-war that we are not as completely committed to Iraq as we should have been from the start?

I don't know. They're all assholes to me. But I do know, as I have observed elsewhere, that there is no reason for Kerry not to make as many criticisms of the President as he can. He will not be held to account for them in any event, so why not at least try? He may come out ahead for the effort and almost certainly will not suffer for any of it, no matter how contradictory.

Tributes to John Peel
Courtesy of NRO, this is a nice story from the Independent about John Peel, the British disc jockey who passed away this week on vacation in Peru. I didn't know much about him as a person, but his influence as the voice on BBC One for just about 30 years should be known to all who love British rock n' roll.

At the bottom of the piece, after several glowing testimonials, is something called "Peel's All-Time Festive 50." Check it out.

Truly a man of wealth and taste.

Final Devastation
Courtesy of the BeldarBlog, be sure to help yourself to these latest mini-documentaries from the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth. They are well-made, unmistakably genuine, and still unrefuted. Taken together, they constitute the final devastation of John Kerry's credibility as made by the men who served in the same war and same places he did.

So go fuck yourself, Larry O'Donnell.

Bill Maher Must Be Proud
The new taped warnings from al-Qaeda that ABC got a hold of feature some guy named "Azzam the American." Azzam is warning us that the horrors that are coming will make the atrocities of 11 September 2001 pale by comparison.

"No, my fellow countrymen you are guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty. You are as guilty as Bush and Cheney. You're as guilty as Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Powell," he says in what he calls his message to America. "After decades of American tyranny and oppression, now it's your turn to die. Allah willing, the streets of America will run red with blood matching drop for drop the blood of America's victims."

It's all pretty dire, of course, but the part of ABC's report I found most interesting was this:

Azzam makes references to several American officials, including 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean, and even refers to the controversial remarks made by comedian Bill Maher about the cowardice of the U.S. launching cruise missiles compared with terrorist suicide attacks.

Nice. Very nice. What we've got here is some asshole college boy who escaped Amerikkka to go be a hero to the world's oppressed Muslim Minutemen. Maybe he's even a self-hating Jew. But Azzam's steeped enough in America's [intellectual discourse] and knows enough of world history and geopolitics that he thinks it fit to cite a smarmy and ill-informed shitbag of a TV comedian like Maher in threatening us with death. If it weren't a matter of life and death ---hell, it would still be funny. Azzam, before he left this intolerable Nazi police state, was probably just the sort of pseudo-intellectual slacker-asshole who gets his news from Jon Stewart.

Say, Bill and Jon, you're not yet at the level of true traitors like the sickening truck stop toilet Michael Moore, but hang in there, keep up the good work of tricking for the Dhimmicrats, and who knows? Maybe some day, Zarqawi will quote you as he saws off another American's head.

Kicking the Kerrion's Ass
Be sure to read Ralph Peters' column in today's New York Post. It completely kicks Kerry's and the New York Times' asses as asses rarely get kicked.

The bottom line is that, if the explosives were ever there, the Iraqis moved them before our troops arrived. There is no other plausible scenario.

Sen. Kerry knows this is a bogus issue. And he doesn't care. He's willing to accuse our troops of negligence and incompetence to further his political career. Of course, he did that once before.

The October Surprise? That a bullshit lie cooked up by our enemies, the Left-wing press, and the Democratic nominee is going to backfire and destroy them all.

Don't let up on this, Mr. President. Turn it back on them and watch them crawl.

An Old Story
Mood:  on fire
Courtesy of Little Green Footballs, read this article in the New York Sun about the IAEA's long-standing problems getting their heads and their asses wired together.

Nine years ago, U.N. weapons inspectors urgently called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to demolish powerful plastic explosives in a facility that Iraq's interim government said this month was looted due to poor security.

The chief American weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, told The New York Sun yesterday that in 1995, when he was a member of the U.N. inspections team in Iraq, he urged the United Nations' atomic watchdog to remove tons of explosives that have since been declared missing.

Mr. Duelfer said he was rebuffed at the time by the Vienna-based agency because its officials were not convinced the presence of the HMX, RDX, and PETN explosives was directly related to Saddam Hussein's programs to amass weapons of mass destruction.

Instead of accepting recommendations to destroy the stocks, Mr. Duelfer said, the atomic-energy agency opted to continue to monitor them.

And these internationalist tools are who Jean le Kerrie is defending? What the fuck? Whose side is he on?

Do note that the information is still very much in flux, as intellectually honest Americans will concede at any point. We don't know the extent of the 101st Airborne's searches at al-Qaqaa when they got there 10 April 2003, nor do we know what the 3ID did when they had arrived there almost a week before. But we do know that for Kerry and Edwards and all their lickspittles to be popping off about the situation there before they know is an absolute disgrace. They very much want you to believe that they support the troops, but they continue to effectively blame them while nominally attributing that blame to the President. No one's buying it, Hanoi John. You are a willing tool in the hands of assholes like Mohamed el-Baradei and the UN and Chiraq and Blix and all those lousy bastards. Keep accusing the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war of committing these crimes of negligence and incompetence. That's an old story with you, anyway, you sorry sack of shit.

Quid pro Crap
Jim Geraghty at the NRO's Kerry Spot has put together some items for your perusal concerning the sequence of events that has moved Mohamed el-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, to play his hand. He knows that President Bush doesn't want his sorry ass around for a third term, so he is doing what he can to save his job. You need to read the whole of this post. Here's the money quote:

In late September the U.S. says no third term for ElBaradei, and Oct. 1 he writes to Iraq demanding answers about this old weapons depot!

Then, in a memo that appears to be dated Oct. 10, the Iraqis respond that the explosives are missing... and it just happens to show up on the front page of the New York Times eight days before Election Day. An article that quotes a European diplomat as saying "Dr. ElBaradei is 'extremely concerned' about the potentially 'devastating consequences' of the vanished stockpile."

I'll bet he is! He's so concerned, he felt a need to make this issue that he's been quiet about since spring 2003 and press the Iraqi government for an immediate answer that he knows will make the Bush administration look bad!

One has to wonder - has John Kerry or a member of his staff indicated they would keep ElBaradei around for another term? We know ElBaradei wants a change in U.S. policy on his third term.

ElBaradei is doing everything he can to help Kerry. What's in it for ElBaradei?

There is no way we can let this go, friends. Kerry is the choice of our enemies and so-called allies. They want him in because it will be a vindication of their corruption and inaction.

"All of Iraq was a weapons cache..."
Bernard Kerik, one of the true leaders to emerge from New York City's response to the atrocities of 11 September 2001, told Hugh Hewitt yesterday

What John Kerry doesn't know or doesn't understand is that we seized more than 280,000 tons that were detonated already. We seized another 160,000 tons that are pending detonation. You know, Hugh, every day that I was in Iraq, every single day, for the four months I was there, every aftrenoon at 12 o'clock in the afternoon, there were massive explosions out by the international airport. It was the U.S. military blowing this stuff up. People have to realize that all of Iraq was a weapons cache. The whole country was saturated with explosives. And this is what President Bush meant when he talked about the threat. This was a part of that threat. We have been addressing the issue since we got there. The problem is that John Kerry just doesn't have a clue.

And what the New York Times/CBS/Kerrion cabal want you to think about is 380 tons of stuff that no one can yet say for certain wasn't already missing when our guys showed up. It's pure chickenshit, especially as the selling point for this hysterical story was that some of the missing explosives were the kind used to detonate nuclear bombs. Well, if that was such a concern, why didn't the fucking IAEA destroy that stuff already? Because we have to persist with this gibberish about its dual use? Note to dumbasses: "dual use" to a psychotic dictator means something different from what you think it means.

Hewitt later observes that

The other problem that Commissioner Kerik didn't mention is that John Kerry instinctively trusts the U.N. bureaucracy at the I.A.E.A. to do its job better than the 101st Airborne. No wonder the troops that are either serving in Iraq or have served there prefer George Bush by a three to one margin over John Kerry.

Don't doubt for a moment that el-Baradei is trying to influence our elections by leaking this shit to the Times ---and that Jean le Kerrie is happy to abet him.

Respond Like This
Mood:  on fire
Here's a post from Jim Geraghty at NRO's Kerry Spot:

Come on, guys. The New York Times, international bureaucrats like Mohamed ElBaradei and the Kerry campaign are coordinating October-surprise hit pieces on President Bush. This is screaming for a tougher response. Something like an attack ad stating, "Kerry is playing Monday Morning Quarterback with the 101st Airborne's performance in Iraq. In 1971, John Kerry smeared our troops as rapists and butchers then... He's smearing them as incompetent now. This Nov. 2, show John Kerry what you think of his attacks on our troops."

Do not back down on this, goddammit! Kerry is in league with these degenerate "internationalists." BURN THEM.

Schwing!
Mood:  a-ok
Now Playing: "Cypress Avenue" by Van Morrison
Not to be too much of a letch, but did you happen to see footage of Sydney Perry casting her first vote yesterday at the courthouse? Sweet Jesus. She's incredible! And very frugal, too, wearing her favorite shirt from 5th grade.

God Bless America.

A Note from Cliff May
Cliff May has a message for us at NRO's The Corner:

Sent to me by a source in the government: "The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The US is trying to deny El Baradei a second term and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program."

(For the record, I don't reveal my sources so if that means I end up sharing a cell at Sing-sing with Judy Miller, so be it.)

Nice. Let the Kerrion pursue this down the nearest rathole. If they want to suck up to el-Baradei, I'm sure real Americans will provide the laugh-track.

Delusions of Grandeur
Get a load of this exchange between the nauseating clown Katie Couric and her candidate from this past Sunday. Do note the rare burst of actual incredulity expressed by the unguarded Couric:

Kerry: [...] Do you know that the president just the other day, do you know what he said? He said he doesn't know if American will ever be safe. Well I do know that America will be safe, under my leadership -"

Couric: "But can you really, Senator, make the guarantee in all honesty -"

Kerry: "You bet, because we can win -"

Couric: "-- that America will be safe under all circumstances?"

Kerry: "Katie let me say this to you. We won World War II, we won the Cold War. We know we can do it if we put our minds to it. We haven't done a third of the things we need to do to win the war on terror."

Did you hear all of that, my Leftist buddies? That Lurch ---he's a real go-getter. He's gonna do all the things that Bush hasn't done because he knows that diplomacy and bending over for Jacques Chiraq and other Euro-wankers is the way to go. It is with their help alone that we will win the war against Islamofascist terror. And don't you know that they're all up for the challenge?

Most of all, though, John Kerry is going to bring us a new age of absolute safety from all terrorism. He can do it just like he can make the lame walk and medals reappear after he's thrown them away. The man has supernatural powers, which may come in handy in tough times like these.

I don't know where I read it recently, but you can be sure of this: asshole regimes like France's and Germany's may want to see Bushitler go down in flames, but they also know that his defeat would be the new hole in their infantile safety net. Because if John Kerry is as serious as he claims to be about recruiting them to our side in Iraq, they will no longer have the comfort of their excuses, but will be obligated to at least pretend to come to some understanding. It's the last fucking thing on Earth they want to have to do. Their populations are full of degenerates who will have nothing to do with Iraq ---and they won't tolerate any moves from their leaders to engage us. Then, all of the asshole anti-Bush/anti-war types here in Amerikkka will have to face the reality that their man was full of shit all along ---although I doubt they'd care because their only object was to be rid of the Chimperor, anyway.

Fuck 'em all.

An Important Observation
As Wretchard at the Belmont Club observes of the missing explosives (emphases mine):

The loss of the RDX is serious, but in the overall scheme of things, one of the least worries. But it provides indirect confirmation of the preemptive dispersal of war materiel by the Saddam regime while the US was trying to negotiate UN permission to topple him for six months, compounded by Turkey's refusal to allow the 4ID to attack south into the Sunni Triangle.

Damn straight. Don't forget that our friendly NATO ally Turkey used the run-up to the War for Iraq as an opportunity to see if they could extort some money and goods out of us in return for a northern front. They'll always be bastards in my book for this.

Although one may retrospectively find some fault with OIF order of battle, most of the damage had already been inflicted by the dilatory tactics of America's allies which allowed Saddam the time and space -- nearly half a year and undisturbed access to Syria -- necessary to prepare his resistance, transfer money abroad and disperse explosives (as confirmed first hand by reporters).

When it comes to acting in America's best interests, we do not have time to play games with and be obstructed by losers like France, Germany, Turkey, et al. They were the best friends Saddam ever had because they resisted our plans to liberate Iraq and begin the process of making over the Muslim Middle East. Why? Because they are, at bottom, parasites on the military protection and economic largesse we have long provided. These are ingrate cultures. And too many Frenchmen, Germans, and Russians were in league with Saddam because of the blood money getting handed out under the aegis of the UN.

No more global tests.

No "internationalists" in the White House.

Getting Deeper by the Hour
Mood:  don't ask
Here's what CNN.com is reporting at this hour (emphases mine):

The mystery surrounding the disappearance of 380 tons of powerful explosives from a storage depot in Iraq has taken a new twist, after a network embedded with the U.S. military during the invasion of Iraq reported that the material had already vanished by the time American troops arrived.

NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad.

While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that reportedly went missing, according to NBC.

Now, keep in mind that Saddam wasn't supposed to be much of a threat and had no interest in working on nuclear weapons. Right? But the pansy-asses at the International Atomic Energy Agency must have thought the potential for an Iraqi nuclear capability was there because, well...keep reading.

Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. According to NBC, troops from the 101st Airborne arrived the next day to find that the material was already gone.

Prior to the Iraq war, the high-grade explosives at Al Qaqaa had been under the control of IAEA inspectors because the material could be used as a component in a nuclear weapon, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. IAEA and other U.N. inspectors left the country in March 2003 before the fighting began on March 19.

Okay, so the IAEA and the UNiks had already taken off when we began Operation Iraqi Freedom. But before they did ---and as everyone knew--- Saddam was in possession of special explosives that were intended for use in nuclear bombs. Got that? There was at least a month for the Saddamites to break the seals on those caches at al-Qaqaa and abscond with the goods ---long before we could get there.

I very much need to kick someone's ass. Just anyone's will do. These pricks at the New York Times and their glory hole-tenders at the UN and IAEA want to be done with this Administration ---and they're pulling out all the stops.

This needs to be played right from my side and then this election will be wrapped up. Because no real American is going to put up with a bunch of fraudulent shit from these corrupt bastards. Their game will be exposed today.

Fuck you, Joe Lockhart.

Fuck you, John Kerry.

Fuck you, John Edwards.

Round These Parts, Neighbor, That's Called Steppin' on Your Own Dick
Via a commenter over at Little Green Footballs named Reggie, here's something about John Edwards' typically ill-informed comments made on Larry King Live last night, with respect to the 380 tons of high explosives that disappeared some 18 months ago from the Iraqi site of al-Qaqqa:

But even better in [Edwards'] appearance was the mind-boggling accusations that Saddam intended these stockpiles for terrorists (I thought there weren't any Iraq/terrorist connections) and that Bush passed on an opportunity to [get] Zarqawi out of northern Iraq before the invasion (I thought there weren't any terrorists there before we attracted them?)

Just so.

It is absurd enough that the New York Times should breathlessly rush this horseshit story of American military incompetence to its front page before it had the basic facts nailed down, but it's even worse that these clowns running on the Dhimmicratic ticket are so anxious to get elected that they would jump on the bandwagon, too, without vetting their accusations.

Are either of these jackasses going to apologize tomorrow for having accused the President and his military commanders of incompetence when they simply assumed that these 380 tons of explosives were taken on our watch?

Don't hold your breath.

Bill Clinton's Influence
Big Media's sure been talking up Bill Clinton's appearance at a Kerry rally in Philadelphia today. The idea is that his mere presence will be enough to move the Democratic base there and everywhere to go out and vote for Kerry. But isn't that condescending?

I was pleased to see that old Bill is up and around again. He looks great and I wish him the best of health. But how is his personal popularity transferrable to Kerry? I don't see that at all. All I saw was a political genius (and that's what Clinton is, notwithstanding my disrespect for his personal character and poor judgement in foreign policy) making a personal appearance at which John Kerry was incidental.

Bill Clinton certainly doesn't want to see Kerry win. His greatest desire is to see Hillary take her shot at the title in 2008. Who doubts that her candidacy would be a major part of Clinton's legacy?

Clinton cannot magically make people forget what a lame ass candidate Kerry really is, but I'll give Kerry political credit for using Clinton when Gore refused to. Of course, that's slightly hypocritical of me since it was Gore's refusal to disavow Clinton during the Impeachment that figured greatly into my own refusal to vote for him in 2000 but, as a political move, it's the smartest thing he can do.

So long as Clinton doesn't overshadow the poor bastard along the way.

Freelancing Lurch
If you'll recall from earlier this year, John Kerry claimed to have met with foreign leaders who were secretly pulling for his election. But he would not name them. Reports at the time cast great doubt on his claims, although that didn't keep the fucking liars who support Kerry from making excuses for him.

But it now appears that Kerry has also been lying about a meeting he claims he had with the members of the UN Security Council. Joel Mowbray of the Washington Times is reporting that

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred.

At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council.

Why does Kerry have to lie all the time? I don't want a liar in the White House. Mowbray also cites another occasion when Kerry lied:

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.

It couldn't be more obvious that not only is John Kerry a compulsive liar, but he values the opinion of foreign governments and diplomats more than the authority of this President.

It is also important to note, as Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters has, that

[...] the reality of his paltry and meaningless diplomacy also shows what a lightweight Kerry is on the world stage. He went to the UN to meet with diplomats about Iraq, and who did he choose? Singapore, Cameroon, and France: two countries that could have no earthly effect on enforcing the UN resolutions, and one that Saddam had bribed into submission. He didn't bother with Bulgaria, one of the nations that Bush convinced to support the liberation of Iraq and one with troops on the ground helping to support its democratization.

Sucking on old Jacques' pipe again, eh? What a surprise. Kerry's about as American as Dominique de Villepin.

(All emphases mine.)

A Surprise (to Me) Endorsement
The Austin American-Statesman endorsed the President's re-election today, which has to be something of a surprise to any local who's made it a habit to read that thing. I really haven't paid much attention to its editorials in a while, but I'm pleased to know that many thousands of liberal moonbats all over this town were at least momentarily pissed off this morning over their organic coffee and vegan muffins. Maybe my favorite line in their endorsement?

Though Kerry is an honorable man who knows firsthand the horrors of war, he is deluding himself if he thinks a different administration will change the outlook of a foe that doesn't make war on an individual administration, but on the West in general and the United States in particular.

An eminently shrewd rebuff to all of Kerry's inanities about fighting a "smarter" war with "real" allies.

Proxies (Cont'd)
I entitled a post from yesterday "Proxies" with the intention of following through with an observation at the back end of the linkage to the Slate article, but forgot to, I guess.

I meant to say, as I have seen mentioned in more than a few places now, that the prevalence of magnetic yellow ribbons and red, white & blue ribbons urging support of our troops that one sees on the backs of cars are, in a great many cases, actually proxies for stickers in support of President Bush. But with so much petty (and sometimes considerable) violence and vandalism being committed against Republicans and supporters of the Bush-Cheney ticket, it has been the wiser course to not bring undue attention to their property and vehicles. That is certainly the case here in Austin, Texas.

I don't doubt that the vandalism and violence has been going both ways, but the ratio of such incidents between the two parties clearly indicates that the Democratic Party and the Kerrion, in general, have become a bunch of thugs and brownshirts. They are very obviously the greater offenders in this. There's no question.

Thanks to the Gorebot for reintroducing that term into our nation's political discourse; it was needed.