Said It Better Elsewhere
In a comment I left over at The Left Coaster, I wrote the following:
I think I understand now what the problem is: you people believe that Bushitler claimed that Saddam was behind the atrocities of 11 September 2001 because when you hear the term "al-Qaeda," you only think of "9/11." Thus, when the Bush Administration rightfully claims that the Saddamites and al-Qaeda were linked, your minds elide these three things into one statement: "Bush says Saddam was behind 9-11."
Now that I've explained to you why you are wrong, let me further explain the reason for your ignorance. Back when Bill Clinton was running things, al-Qaeda didn't mean anything to most Americans because of the lack of emphasis he put on the seriousness of the threat. He did virtually nothing to act against al-Qaeda or its leadership militarily and, instead, only pursued them as rogues and criminals. Had Clinton acted with authority and called these Islamofascists what they are, it's entirely possible that our domestic and foreign intelligence services would have already been on a higher level of alert by the time 11 September 2001 came around. Get it? If Clinton had done something more to call al-Qaeda a belligerent actor against our country, the dumbasses who now use the terms "al-Qaeda" and "9-11" interchangeably would know that, in fact, al-Qaeda had been at war with us for years before that awful morning.
Therefore, because of Clinton's failure to respond more forcefully to al-Qaeda, too few of you are aware that that network existed before 11 September 2001. This is y'alls fault, not that of the one man who is working hardest of all to stop the threat of Islamofascism.
Should I be worried for my own sanity when I actually do "LOL" at some shit I'm reading about the absolute and irrefutable fact that Big Media are a bunch of goddamned craphounds? Courtesy of the Media Research Center, here's their take on what Dan Rather decided to focus on in his broadcast of last Friday:
Dan Rather [mentioned] how Bill Clinton, in one of "the more compelling passages" in his new book, claimed to have warned President-elect Bush about Osama bin laden, but Bush didn't care. Rather touted how "Bill Clinton recounts a meeting with then President-elect George W. Bush. The former President says he warned Mr. Bush that the biggest threat to the nation's security was Osama Bin-Laden and al Qaeda. According to Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush said little in response, and then switched subjects."
Not only is this a sorry attempt at self-exoneration by Clinton, but an even more abject example of boot-licking by Rather.
How many times does the Asshole Left have to be reminded that Clinton did nothing about al-Qaeda for years? It's not like we didn't know about al-Qaeda and Osama because we did. We knew he was responsible for, at a minimum, the East Africa embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole.
So what the fuck was Clinton doing all that time? Don't tell me he was too distracted by the impeachment business because if that were the case, then he should have had the character to resign, rather than allow his own attentions to be so divided. And if it weren't the case that he was distracted, then he should have acted against this great threat that he would some day warn his successor against. Oh, but he did! I forgot! He bombed an aspirin factory on the day that his girlfriend went before a Federal grand jury. So, you see, Clinton was able to order some military action sometimes.
What a fucking joke.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 11:47 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Saturday, 19 June 2004 11:48 PM CDT
Gazing at Damascus
Courtesy of Occam's Toothbrush, there's an outstanding post from the AlphaPatriot on the issue of Syria and how President Bush has got Assad's kid in his sights. The Syrians hold the key to the whole WMD issue. I hope we can prove it on them before too long because it'll shut the Leftists up more thoroughly than anything else. Tons of links. Check it out.
smelly Now Playing:Who's Next by the Who
In tomorrow's New York Times review of Bill Clinton's autobiography, Michiko Kakutani writes that:
[...] Mr. Clinton tries to characterize his impeachment fight as "my last great showdown with the forces I had opposed all of my life" - with those who had defended segregation in the South, opposed the women's and gay rights movements, and who believed government should be run for the benefit of special interests.
Ha, ha. What balls. But a typical liberal, though, infused with excessive self-regard: take no personal responsibility for your own failings and, instead, elevate the defense of your own corruptions and perjuries to the same level as standing up for human and civil rights. What an egomaniac.
Oh, and Kakutani basically thinks the book sucks. Not that that's gonna matter for sales or the public's interest, both of which are guaranteed to ---wait for it--- suck the oxygen out of whatever room Kerry is in.
Well-played, old man. And who's next? Kerry had better hope that Jerry Ford doesn't have some weird-assed bombshell to drop after this thing is played out.
Not Al Gore
Senator Joe Lieberman recently delivered some remarks at a symposium of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in which he asserted:
What we are fighting for is an expanding worldwide community of democracies. What we are fighting against is the prospect of a new evil empire, a radical Islamic caliphate which would suppress the freedom of its people and threaten the security of every other nation's citizens.
Read the whole address. It's a shame, but entirely to be expected in light of his former running mate's descent into madness, that Senator Lieberman is now regarded by too many in his own party as a sell-out. In fact, as Ronald Reagan said so often of his own beloved Democratic Party, he didn't leave them; they left him.
The Non-Aggression Pact: Iraq and bin Laden, 1998
The Asshole Left either wants to keep pushing a false story (that the Bush Administration claimed that Saddam was behind the atrocities of 11 September 2001) or wants you to forget that, as far back as 1998, the evidence of a connection between the Saddamites and bin Laden was made public in the indictment brought against bin Laden for his role in the East Africa embassy bombings.
In exchange for assistance with weapons development from Iraq, bin Laden was said to have agreed to make no moves against Saddam.
I do not know the full details that would substantiate this non-aggression pact, but it should be kept in mind that this particular charge was made public almost six years ago by the Clinton Department of Justice. In other words, long before Bush and the Zionist Oil Cabal, Inc. ever took power (oh, and how they took it ---at the expense of thousands of disenfranchised black voters in Florida!) the Clinton Administration itself believed that bin Laden had struck a deal with the Butcher of Baghdad. Just like the Butcher's hero Stalin had with Hitler.
The Leftist media really needs to clean up its act. They are lying to us when they say that the Bush Administration has ever pushed the Saddamite angle on 11 September. And they are ignoring the evidence that there was a connection between these two monsters.
The only question is why are they taking the enemy's side?
Laundry List of al-Qaeda/Iraq Connections
And here's some more. Be sure to read Richard Miniter's piece in the New York Post that gives you a long list of all the connections between the Saddamites and al-Qaeda.
It's literally incredible that the Kean Commission is ignoring these connections. No one in the Bush Administration has ever stood there and said that Saddam was behind the atrocities of 11 September 2001, but the President himself has said a thousand times that we aren't going to make a distinction between terrorists and the states that sponsor or harbor them. Well, Saddamite Iraq was a terrorist sponsor. And that government's been destroyed. Afghanistan's Taliban was a terrorist sponsor and they have been destroyed. Iran sponsors terror and you can bet that they're going to be taught a lesson some day, too.
My only regret is that Bush (as have many Presidents before him) has turned a blind eye to the harm that Saudi Arabia causes. The Saudis are big time terrorist sponsors. That is beyond dispute. The only thing keeping that kingdom intact is that they are usually willing to play along with us and to keep pressure on OPEC to keep our petroleum/smack flowing. But it's inconsistent, to put it too mildly, for our Government to ignore what they do. A new Saudi Arabia may well emerge from the ashes of these times. And I, for one, am not going to cry over them.
Regarding the al-Qaeda/Iraq Link
Be sure to check out Andrew McCarthy's latest demolition of the Kean Commission.
No wonder that the President thought that this commission was going to be nothing but a steaming pile. With wankers like Richard ben Veniste and the hypocrite Jamie Gorelick on the mic, it's been a farce.
How about blaming the Mohammedan psychopaths who actually committed those atrocities? Any chance of that?
Thanks to Instapundit, here's a story from The Guardian about the good reviews of the anti-American turd Michael Moore's new movie. How can you go wrong when Hezbollah likes your "art"?
Note that the Guardian thinks that an R rating keeps kids under 17 from seeing the movie. Cute.
Cuomo Whoring for Traitors
Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo has been hired by distributors working for anti-American asshole Michael Moore to lobby for a PG-13 rating for the new film Fahrenheit 9/11.
Cuomo said that he has been retained by Lions Gate and IFC to assist in the appeals process and that after seeing the movie three times "I was convinced that it should be viewed and reflected upon by as many Americans as possible ... especially young people who, in a few years, might be part of our military forces."
I think it's pretty disgusting that a man who was so highly regarded by his party as a gifted orator and rising star could be reduced to shilling for a goddamned traitor and liar. Good going, Mario. I wouldn't piss on your grave now.
The following post is taken from the National Review Online's "Kerry Spot" (15 June 2004), written by Jim Geraghty:
ABOUT THOSE JOBS THAT HAVE BEEN LOST SINCE 2000...
Brace yourselves for wave after wave of dueling statistics bigger than that tsunami that drowns Manhattan in Al Gore's "The Day After Tomorrow." After spending nearly two weeks laying out his foreign policy, Kerry is spending this week and next talking about the economy.
The Kerry message is that the economy stinks and he can do better. "A rising tide is supposed to lift all boats," Kerry said in a speech to the AFL-CIO labor federation's New Jersey affiliate in Atlantic City. "Today the middle-class boat is taking on water. I believe we can do better than rising costs and shrinking incomes."
A big Kerry theme is the total number of jobs that existed in the U.S. when Bush took office on Jan. 20, compared to now.
Of course, a good number of those lost jobs were dot-coms. And a quick trip to the Wall Street Journal's guide to closed dot-coms, or the web-site `bad-word used as a verb, past tense' company.com, reminds us of just how many people were employed in well-paying jobs in multimillion dollar businesses that had no concept of how they would make a profit.
Each day in late 2000 and the first half of 2001, dot.com upon dot.com -- Psuedo.com, Go.com, PlanetRX.com, eToys.com, MVP.com, jobs.com, officeclick.com, Rivals.com, NBCI.com, Wine.com (some of the domains may now be purchased by other companies with actual profits) -- announced layoffs of dozens, and in some cases, hundreds of employees. Many of these companies had gone through tens of millions of dollars to create little-visited fancy web sites.
Even survivors of the bubble's burst, like Amazon.com, Yahoo and CNN laid off hundreds. Outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas estimated that 149,363 jobs were cut at Internet companies between December 1999 to May 2002.
Of course, the closure of these businesses had big impacts on non-dot-com businesses as well - computer makers, office furniture makers, real estate, advertising, janitors, water cooler companies... Everyone who served the dot-coms suddenly saw their customers disappearing. So the impact probably goes well beyond those 150,000 or so.
Even if the American people had elected the Pets.com sock puppet instead of Bush in November 2000, with the sole aim of preserving the dot-com era, there is no way the President could have kept those jobs from disappearing.
The money to start up those companies came from investors and venture capitalists, who suddenly realized their investments were buying a lot of servers, web redesign teams, foosball tables, "advertising swaps" (an easy way to create pretend revenue), ludicrously excessive Silicon Valley startup parties, memos about guerilla marketing and "floating sticky eyeballs" and an endless array of promotional knickknacks. The only way to replace that money would have been direct federal subsidies, which we should be glad never got seriously discussed.
As much as we might have liked seeing 24-year-old millionaire CEOs, stock options thrown to employees by the thousands and (ahem) web-savvy journalists making money hand over foot, no economist in their right mind would have said that craze was sustainable. Those jobs had to go, because venture capitalists were flushing billions into companies that did not have sustainable business models, or were wastefully creating a product for which there was no market.
But now Kerry uses the height of the dot-com hysteria as the benchmark.
Linda Vester Mood:
One of my favorite newsbabes has to be Linda Vester on the FOX News Channel. She is delicious in every way. But the format of her program, Dayside with Linda Vester, is really annoying. I feel bad for the people in the audience because, if you look at them very carefully, you can see where they are stamped with the words STUDIO PROPERTY. PLEASE RETURN TO STOREROOM WHEN FINISHED. I realize that if Vester were to ask them any questions besides the "yes or no" variety, it might cut into her time, but then why have them there at all? I really do cringe when I see her poll the audience because there's no possible way that she's going to be substantially dissented from. And it's such a bunch of propwerk that you have to wonder why they even bother.
Linda, please just stick to the interviews (without the applause or working the room). Oh, and wear more tight sweaters.
God love you.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 2:40 AM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Wednesday, 16 June 2004 2:41 AM CDT
Tuesday, 15 June 2004
You'll be happy to know (if you have any taste or sense of humor, that is) that the genius of SCTV is now available for the first time on DVD.
SCTV was, after Monty Python, the greatest ensemble comedy show of my lifetime. And that includes the very often-overrated Saturday Night Live, which couldn't hold a candle to SCTV.
That's not to say that SCTV was always funny; sometimes, it sucked out loud. But, especially in its earlier days, SCTV practically glowed with comedic genius. Joe Flaherty as Guy Cabellero in their spoof of The Godfather is the shit. So's the bit with Johnny LaRue's Street Beef: pure pathos. As I write this, I am remembering what I guess is my all-time favorite skit: Dave Thomas doing Walter Cronkite as host of $Dialing for Dollar$, a late-night B-movie call-in show with a trivia question jackpot. A weirdo (Rick Moranis) calls in, but doesn't care about the money. He's got something else on his mind, which goes something like this:
"What does that sign say, Walter?"
"What? It says 'Dialing for Dollars'!"
"No, read it again."
"Okay. It says dollar sign-'Dialing for Dollars'-dollar sign."
"No, Walter. It says 'Styling for Dollars.' And that really bugs me."
Daniel Pipes Ain't Havin' It
On the recent opening of the London Muslim Centre in Whitechapel, Daniel Pipes has this to say of Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudayyis, the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and "one of Islam's most renowned Imams," who was there to give an inaugural prayer: he is "a notorious Islamist, antisemite, and jihadist." Pipe further quotes Steven Stalinksy of MEMRI:
The themes of his sermons are characterized by confrontation toward non-Muslims. Al-Sudayyis calls Jews "scum of the earth" and "monkeys and pigs" who should be "annihilated." Other enemies of Islam, he says, are "worshippers of the cross" and "idol-worshipping Hindus" who should be fought. Al-Sudayyis has been consistent in calling for jihad in Kashmir and Chechnya, for Jerusalem to be liberated, and for the "occupiers in Iraq" to also be fought. He often claims that Islam is superior to Western culture.
Last year, Tony Blair said that the war against the terrorists was not a war between civilizations, but I disagree. Even the most moderate-seeming Muslim leaders and communities are in cahoots, one way or another, with the most virulent sort of hate machines on Earth.
As Chivington said of the children of the Cheyenne, nits make lice. I am as sorry as I can be to know that the greatest city in the world is falling prey to these Mohammedans. When are the British going to wake up? When are we going to?
A Digital Camouflage Pattern
The United States Army is introducing its first new combat uniform design in a generation. It's said to have a "digital camouflage pattern," which is a phrase that could only have occurred to someone actually in the US Army. Looks pretty good to me.
It's also said to feature "no-shine" tan-colored boots. I'm sure a certain Army buddy of mine will be happy to know that!
This Is Why "Internationalism" Is a Crock of Shit
There's what's legal and then there's what's right. The "international" crowd would probably enjoy seeing Saddam released. Why? Because it would be a poke in the eye of Uncle Sam. Keep in mind that these are the same wretched fucks who think that the transfer of sovereignty come 30 June is a fiction, but not if it can somehow be made a relevant factor in springing the Butcher of Baghdad:
In Geneva, the spokeswoman of the International Committee of the Red Cross said coalition authorities must file criminal charges against Saddam or let him go when sovereignty is transferred.
Under international and military law, prisoners of war and civilian internees are supposed to be freed at the end of the conflict and occupation, unless there are charges against them, Red Cross spokeswoman Nada Doumani said.
As I say, there's legal and there's right. There's also what we Americans stand for and what decadent internationalist cocksuckers would happily lie down for.
Fuck the ICRC. Fuck the World Court. Oh, and fuck the UN. None of these disease-ridden whores for anti-Western totalitarianism has any moral authority over us, no matter how many times Peter Jennings shows you his nudie pics from Abu Ghraib.
Here's an interesting article in The American Thinker from Douglas Hanson, who served as Chief of Staff in the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology last year. With certainly more authority than I have, he dismisses a notion (suggested by David Kay, among others) that has long struck me as preposterous: that the reason why we haven't yet uncovered any stockpiles of WMD is because they were really the figments of scientists' imaginations ---and that these scientists were ballsy enough to lie to the Saddamites about having created such weapons because they were somehow men of conscience. Hanson writes:
To assert that the scientists bypassed the Baathist infrastructure, the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and Special Republican Guard commanders, all the while fooling Saddam is, to put it mildly, a real stretch. To this day, many still fear the consequences of cooperating with the ISG. We would need to see the detailed rationale for Dr. Kay's conclusions on this matter to gauge if Saddam was really fooled by scientists scared to death of him and the Baath Party, or if he ran one of military history's most successful deception operations. If he did the latter, we must also ask why he would risk the toppling of his regime, and his death or capture, over non-existent WMDs. The only alternative explanation to these two questionable scenarios is that WMD stockpiles did in fact exist, but that they have been hidden, and/or spirited out of the country.
A Hot Babe
I always thought that people (like the nauseating Rush Limbaugh) were chickenshits when it came to Chelsea Clinton and her supposed ugliness. I never saw it. Never. There is such a thing as the "awkward years," but that's because human beings have a rough time of it coming into their physically mature selves.
Anyway, here's a photo of a very beautiful young woman who always was beautiful. Enjoy.
Over at USS Clueless, Steven den Beste gives a good fisking to a recent article on Reagan's presidency in the New York Times by professor John Diggins of the City University of New York.
Naturally, the comparisons between Reagan and our current president are made ---but without the benefit of the truth or evidence. Diggins writes:
The difference between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush's militant brain staff is that he believed in negotiation and they in escalation. They wanted to win the cold war; he sought to end it.
Is that really how the cow ate the cabbage? Read the whole thing. It's a thorough-going dismantlement of all things bullshit and Carter.