Still Talking About It...Just Like They're Supposed To
I see on CNN that there's still a lot of people out there snickering, whispering, and rolling their eyes about our Dumbass Cowboy President having to testify before the Keangaroo Commission in the company of his boss, Dick Cheney. "Why couldn't they have testified separately?! Waaaahhhhhh!" the babies cry.
Heh, heh. Fucking chumps, every one of you.
Let's see: what do the President and his advisers know most of all about his reputation among the chattering classes? Why, that's he's a dumbass who needs to be propped up to talk to a bunch of fucking political hacks!
So why not use some political judo and let the real dumbasses try to outdo each other in their speculations and insinuations about the President's inability to speak for himself? Use the momentum of their own ponderous steamrolling and watch them come off their tracks and wind up in the ditch.
The President and his boss spoke for over three hours. They even outlasted a couple of the Dhimmicrats, including the rectal probe Bob Kerrey, who had to leave early for some prior engagements. But remember: this was an important meeting, even without the cameras.
Engage, stick it in as far as it'll go, and smile after you've delivered the goods. Neutralize, neutralize, you stupid fucks. You've all been had again.
I Get So Irritated with Goddamned Nonsense, I Can't See Straight! Mood:
don't ask Now Playing: "Everybody, Eat My Shit!" by the Tariq Aziz
How dare you fucking network morons spend an instant on the story of that hideous plastic pseudonegro faggot when we are at war?! It isn't possible for me to care less about Michael Fucking Jackson ---and I'm sick of having to allow even a glimpse of that monstrous piece of shit in my home when I'm trying to find footage and commentary from the war.
Is there any doubt that the Internet is the only worthwhile venue for instant information anymore? Fuck corporate news in its poll-driven ass!
Oh, yeah! I was flipping through night before last and who did that wretched hack Larry King have on his program? That smarmy little blonde-haired bitch I used to hate from Little House on the Prairie! Are you fucking kidding me?! She's 40-something and telling the world that she was sexually abused?! GOD ALMIGHTY, HOW I FUCKING HATE BIG MEDIA!!! AAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 2:21 AM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Saturday, 1 May 2004 2:22 AM CDT
Basically, he says he wants to internationalize our efforts there and submit everything to the UN's approval. I have to say that I am shocked at the novelty of it all.
He said one thing that caught my eye for its sheer ignorance:
"But why would others join a cause that they did not support in the first place? For one simple reason: it's in their self-interest. For the Europeans, Iraq's failure could endanger the security of their oil supplies, further radicalize their large Muslim populations, threaten destabilizing refugee flows, and seed a huge new source of terrorism."
Is this a message to Rumsfeld's "Old Europe," viz., France? Is it even conceivable, in the aftermath of the Madrid train bombings, that our good friends in France would send us a fucking dog-catcher, let alone actual troops? The al-Qaedists' message has been received and understood: you're going to die if you help the Americans and their Jew puppet masters. And France, with a full tenth of its population facing Mecca five times a day, doesn't want to see its Eiffel Tower fall over.
So no chance of any help from France, Senator Waffles. No more help from anybody in the EU with visions of membership. Your talk about NATO and the UN suddenly loving us again if we'll just get on our knees and show them some respect is just horseshit.
But on this UN thang, Senator, I strongly encourage you to talk that up as much as you can. Please. Keep siding with them and acting as though they were the moral arbiters of the world. And then, once they're up to their waist in you, that'll be about the same time that even ABC and CBS will have to start giving due attention to these stories of massive corruption at the UN. The associations will be vivid and lovely and Middle America will really trust you and your judgement.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 8:05 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Friday, 30 April 2004 8:07 PM CDT
Why is Nobody Talking About This?
The Jordanians stave off a major chemical attack on their capital city and nobody bats an eyelash. Why? Because it makes the case that the Syrians and their Ba'athist brothers in Iraq are a danger to humanity? Just like that Dumb Cowboy from Crawford said?
The Boy Who Read Spengler and Wrote Too Much
The work of great, pluralistic societies is never done. If it were, and all the things of the public sphere were settled, then there's a society that is dead and awaiting the destruction that comes before rebirth.
But the United States is an evolving society where we are free to publicly debate the great issues of the day and to make our criticisms of others, including even our highest leaders. We may do so without recrimination, except through public opinion, to which we contribute even as we detract.
We are free to be ignorant, too, and detached from our civic responsibility to participate in our own governance. That is a weakness of a free society, but it is something that must be tolerated as it cannot be made compulsory. Not without going from a pluralistic culture to a monolithic and repressive one. Only fascists, either Left or Right, would want such an undissenting, unconsenting mass of inhuman subjects.
I say all of this by way of pointing out the necessity of even free societies periodicially stepping outside of their usual pluralistic and classically liberal characters and asserting, at the proverbial point of a gun, the superiority of their systems to those of repressive, tyrannical regimes. This is no contradiction of sense or right but is, as I say, a necessity. The Founding Fathers knew this. Lincoln knew this. And George W. Bush knows it, too.
A free society is not free, but earned through blood and sacrifice. But such a society is well worth this cost because it provides all the liberties that make our lives worth living. In our own case as Americans, we have so completely triumphed in the establishment of a free society that too many of us forget what is required. Too many of us are too enamored of our own intellectual fetishes by which we disrespect the genius of our culture by constantly throwing up the evidence of our past sins and errors. We make moral relativism an idol and say that we, as Americans, have no right to impose ourselves and our practices on others because we have been a nation of slave-holders and Indian-killers and oppressors of this group or that one.
But these objections are gibberish because we have also overcome these sins and have atoned for them. We, with our armies of black, brown, yellow, white, and red men and women, have known collectively what the absence of liberty entails ---and we know what its victory required. We have earned the right to make our case before the world and to declare that people ought to be free to worship and speak as they please. Men and women and children everywhere must have the right to travel and live where they will, and to be unmolested in their possessions. There should be no castes or segregation based on race.
But, as the work of a great, pluralistic society is never done, we must also work to maintain our individualism in the way of our unity. It is a complicated, unending task ---but one that is earned by degree and justified by participation. That is, if we do not assert and work for our right to be who we are as individuals in the greater context of our identity as Americans, we will be lost. So I cannot dismiss the rights of others to dissent, but I take it as a charge to hold them accountable for their beliefs and to question them in judgement of the validity of those beliefs.
None of this work will bring us its rewards if we do not guarantee their preservation. That is why we must step outside the safety of our own free society and insist, even through violence, that our way is superior to the ways of others. If we know this to be true and can justify what we do, we will be right in crushing those who would crush us. We can stand proudly and affirm that the doctrine of pre-emption is right because it will guarantee us our own security and that of our friends and potential friends who may not yet have tasted it for themselves.
But enough of self-loathing and moral relativism. Those on the Left, most especially, do not look deeply enough into the bases of their own liberty to think and speak as they do. They wrongly believe that our society has reached a point where sacrifice will no longer be necessary, and that pluralism is an end in itself. They wish to break the back of our unity as a free society and permit sedition to take hold.
Thus, wherever you see such depravity, expose and resist it. It is a responsibility to be taken solemnly, but absolutely. And once you have exercised your vigilance, return to your love of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. You have earned them, even in your most monstrous hour.
No Sin of Omission, But of Justification
I don't like Jim McDermott, the Dhimmicratic Congressman from Washington state. I think he's a treasonous jar of rancid smegma. But the attention he got this week for omitting the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance while leading the House of Representatives in reciting it is silly.
As I have probably mentioned here before, I used to do the same thing while leading my seventh-graders through the Pledge at a public school in Los Angeles a few years ago. For me it was both a matter of conscience and a good thing to do to see where the kids were at in terms of their own beliefs, which we would sometimes discuss. A stunt? Sorta. But a sincere choice against hypocrisy? Certainly.
Anyway, McDermott shouldn't be blamed for omitting the phrase, but he's still a liar about why he did so. Vincent Phillip Mu?oz explains why in the National Review Online. Check it out. McDermott got busted and now wants to weasel out. Tough.
Hillary Really, Really Wants Kerry to Win
Tina Brown, writing in the Washington Post, says that Hillary recently told a "top fundraiser" with the Dhimmicratic Party (who was griping about what a boring candidate Kerry is):
"You don't have to fall in love [with Kerry]. You just have to fall in line."
In the latest issue of Foreign Policy, Jason Burke produces a lengthy list of what he takes to be the Right's misconceptions about the war against Islamism or al-Qaedism or whatever he wishes to term it, and counters them with his analyses to the contrary.
It's a useful article on the whole, but many of Burke's conclusions and suggestions are every bit as naive and ostrichy as the pro-war crowd's are culturally insensitive and hard-assed. I'll take the latter approach and then show my concern at the museum gift shop afterwards.
The basic argument of the Left (to which I do not know whether Burke belongs) is that Islamofascist terrorism is a many-headed hydra that cannot be killed ---so why bother? Don't visit justice upon the wicked and, instead, understand them and feel their pain. So, why do angry young Muslim men choose to go and commit suicide while killing others on the way? Because the West is corrupt and is friendly with oppressive Arab regimes.
But what do these madrassa-trained jihadis wish to put in the place of the jet-setting sultanates? Why, strict, Koranically-correct caliphates! No thanks, Mo. I think we'll just help your oppressors kill you instead.
I hope that the President and the far-sighted people around him realize what a small price it is for them to personally pay ---in suffering the abuse and detractions of craphounds and isolationists--- to reap the great credit due them for promoting democratic republicanism in the politically retarded Middle East. These petty sympathizers and Islamophilic excuse-makers are condemning themselves to a sordid reputation as the defenders of tyrants and terrorists, wife-beaters and honor-killers. But why? Why are Leftists and civil libertarians the most vehemently opposed to the liberation of Iraq and the Islamic world on the whole? It's either that their moral relativism has rendered their judgement unsound or they are simply angry because they think George W. Bush stole the 2000 Election. Come to think of it, the answer is probably both.
Nits make lice, friend. Enough of nuance. Crush the vermin.
A (Presently) Unkicked Ass
Some maricon named Rene Gonzalez at the University of Massachusetts recently wrote a column for his school's paper insulting the life and sacrifice of Pat Tillman. And then, fantastically, UMass' president Jack Wilson stepped up and wrote in response that Gonzalez' remarks are
"a disgusting, arrogant and intellectually immature attack on a human being who died in service to his country."
Ha, ha. Fucking sweet.
Tell you one thing, though: that wretched cocksucker Gonzalez comes into my line of sight and I'll kick his ass. That's a fact in your Library of Congress.
Courtesy of Blackfive, read Lt. Col. M.R. Strobl's account of his accompanying the body of Marine Lance Corporal Chance Phelps back to his final resting place in Dubois, Wyoming.
"Chance was an artillery cannoneer and his unit was acting as provisional military police outside of Baghdad. Chance had volunteered to man a .50 caliber machine gun in the turret of the leading vehicle in a convoy. The convoy came under intense fire but Chance stayed true to his post and returned fire with the big gun, covering the rest of the convoy, until he was fatally wounded."
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 10:41 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Thursday, 29 April 2004 7:17 PM CDT
Not Sponsored by Mutual of Omaha
INDC Journal has another installment in its Moonbat Migrations series.
You know, student activists who hide behind bandanas are cowards. If they're so fucking proud of their anti-Americanism, why don't they show their faces to the world? They've obviously got no problem showing their asses, so what's up?
Poking Holes in the Soft Sedition
Listen to Donald Rumsfeld's recent observations on how the press presents the story in Iraq:
"There are two ways, I suppose, one could inform readers of the Geneva Convention stipulation against using places of worship to conduct military attacks. One might be to headline saying that Terrorists Attack Coalition Forces From Mosques. That would be one way to present the information.
"Another might be to say: Mosques Targeted in Fallujah. That was the Los Angeles Times headline this morning."
Don't let these commies in the media and the blogosphere tell you that what they're doing by slanting their coverage in favor of terrorist assholes is somehow "patriotic." They don't know what words mean anymore, nor are they capable of appreciating the irony of speaking under the protection of the First Amendment in defense of people who would wipe their asses with our Constitution if they even knew what one looked like.
Does the anti-war Left (which includes shit like my most favorite group of late, "Lesbians for a Free Palestine") even stop to consider what sort of enormously violent and oppressive assholes they're defending against our "imperialist aggressions"? Is Leftism nothing more than impotent contrarianism, devoid of principle and common sense? Because I think that, if they actually thought about what good is coming of our military's sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan, they'd shut up for five seconds and be grateful that human liberties await the Mohammedan world. But the detractions and seditiousness of these Leftist tools keeps us from the resolve and unity we could really use right now to get the job done.
Kerry Goes to Westminster College
At the invitation of the president of Westminster College (the site of Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" Speech), Senator John Kerry will go there Friday to make a speech in rebuttal to that of Vice President Dick Cheney, who spoke there Monday.
President Fletcher Lamkin has expressed his "disappointment" that Cheney's speech somehow disintegrated into a partisan attack on Kerry's fitness to lead our country in a time of war. He has invited Kerry to make his own case because he wishes to provide a forum for all views to be aired.
This is fine. But Lamkin should have just scheduled a speech for both men in advance and left his personal views out of it altogether. He claims to be a neutral party, but to go pencilling in Kerry for the explicit purpose of rebutting Cheney hardly qualifies as a neutral decision. Moreover, it is just about stupid to have expected no partisan observations from a Vice President in the heat of a campaign when there is a crucial decision to be made with respect to who will be leading our country through the wartime and diplomatic challenges we'll face in the months and years to come.
Lamkin is a dope. Apologizing to the student body for Cheney's speech? Get out of here! Cheney's speech was very well-received. He doesn't need some lame-assed gristlehead making "excuses" for the defense of our cause for peace in the Middle East.
At any rate, when Kerry makes his speech, he will have nothing to say because he has no relevant or practicable alternatives to the Administration's policies in Iraq. Does anyone really expect Kerry's Westminster Declaration? Will there be a new or memorable way to say that we need France's approval and assistance? Kerry screwed himself beyond redemption when he cast a "protest vote" against the $87 billion supplemental for our military in Iraq after having cast his vote in favor of the war itself. The only conceivable reason why he did so is because he was trying to prove his bona fides to the Dean crowd. What a sucker. Kerry's got no game. Forget him.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 9:25 AM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Wednesday, 28 April 2004 9:37 AM CDT
Weapons of Mass Destruction Found
If even some of the information in this story from one of those awful right-wing magazines is true, then Saddam's WMDs have been found after all ---it's just a matter of how much attention the media gives them.
Not that it's a sport, but it will be interesting to see how slowly and fitfully the anti-war crowd will move the goalposts on this. They (and even a lot of wary conservatives who believe that they are maintaining some pretense of reasonable objectionism in this war) will have to find some other reason to hate the Warmonger in Chief if it can finally be demonstrated that Saddam was as dangerous as advertised. But their obsession with Saddam's "missing WMDs," which they can insist is a discredited casus belli, ignores the truth that war is a multi-causal and evolving endeavor. If WMDs were the only reason to go in, they would have had a technical point in their favor. But, as there have been many good reasons to do what we have done, they are desperate to cling to the most superficial claim of correctness. Well, forget that. An American-dominated Iraq is the best idea for peace in the Middle East in our lifetimes. But don't expect these stupid ninnies to admit that.
Oh, and for the psychotogrammarians among us: languages (and I would imagine that this is especially true of English) often adopt peculiar constructions when new terms are introduced. That is to say, an acronym like WMD is almost always construed plurally ---and it is no great crime that a user of this term might apply a plural ending to it (viz., "WMDs"), despite its asyntacticality. Capiche?