Update on Frank's Killer
I haven't found out much else about the status of the piece of shit who killed my family friend Frank Meziere, but here's what Amnesty International has had to say lately, properly edited:
[The piece of shit] was originally scheduled to be executed on March 4, 2004 for the 1998 murder of Frank Meziere. The 5th U.S. District court granted [said piece of shit] a stay of execution in order to determine if he has mental retardation.
Amnesty International is very concerned that in Texas, 254 of the 320 executions that have taken place have been of people convicted of killing whites. Studies have consistently shown that race, particularly race of the murder victim, plays a role in who is sentenced to death in the U.S. African Americans and whites are the victims of murder in almost equal numbers, but 81 per cent of the executions since 1977 have been of people convicted of crimes involving white victims, suggesting that the system places a higher value on white life.
Disgusting. Remember: people who oppose capital punishment are immoral.
A Great Commentary from Ollie
Oliver North tears into the idiocy of making Abu Ghraib the My Lai of the War for Iraq (emphasis mine):
The prison issue has inflamed the Arab world because too many of our political and media elites have treated the shameful actions of a few soldiers in an Iraqi prison as though it was the modern equivalent of the My Lai massacre. The blood of Paul Johnson is on their hands.
Gotta Sell It, George!
As I have often remarked, one of the great failures of this Administration is its incompetence at selling the war on a more consistent basis. There has obviously been plenty of good rhetoric in the conventional sense of formal addresses and the occasional sale Bush will make in an impromptu setting, but there simply hasn't been the kind of concerted effort to reinforce our rationale. And I'm not just talking about quantity, but quality: when was the last time you saw someone in the Administration really sell the American public on the importance and novelty of an Iraqi free press and Iraqi democracy on the local level and even things like the Iraqi soccer team, which is going to the Olympics later this summer? These things are huge, but Bush is being just plain timid in stressing their value. You gotta sell it, George! Don't assume that Americans know these things because you do; you gotta pound it into our skulls.
And remind the Asshole Left that this war is being fought in the defense of the very same liberties that they themselves should be supporting throughout the world if they weren't so obsessed with undermining you.
(Photo credit: Mikhail Metzel of the Associated Press)
You know, I actually came across this story yesterday, but it must have been so hallucinatorily stupid that my conscious mind must not have let it register.
Israeli-made bullets bought by the U.S. Army to plug a shortfall should be used for training only, not to fight Muslim guerrillas in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. lawmakers told Army generals on Thursday.
Since the Army has other stockpiled ammunition, "by no means, under any circumstances should a round (from Israel) be utilized," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, the top Democrat on a House of Representatives Armed Services subcommittee with jurisdiction over land forces.
"A Paladin in bin Laden's al-Qaeda Network"
Apparently, even the shit-talking murderers of American soldiers in Iraq are getting creeped out by the atrocities that Zarqawi is committing in their country. I mean ---gosh!--- almost all of the 100+ corpses Zarqawi racked up yesterday were innocent Iraqis! As the Washington Post puts it:
Friday's show of disgust ---expressed in mosques and, in Sadr's case, with fliers calling for cooperation with Iraqi police--- marked the first time anti-occupation clerics and fighters sided against violence associated with the insurgency, for which Zarqawi has increasingly asserted responsibility.
Come again?! The Mahdi Army are urging cooperation with the cops?! Jesus! Sadr really must be angling for an office job! Then again, there's still that hometown pride:
[...] a group of masked fighters in Fallujah stood before Reuters television cameras and read a statement insisting that the city's violent struggle against surrounding U.S. Marines is being carried out by Fallujans, not Zarqawi or other foreign fighters.
Hmmm. Interesting. Although it's hard for these brave Fallujans to claim that they're doing much "struggling" against Mother Green and Her Fighting Machine when all that's happened to them this past week is getting the holy shit blasted out of them. That's what they get for being a bunch of goddamned animals who are harboring Zarqawi in their toilet of a city.
Still, it must be a great disappointment to the anti-war Asshole Left to learn that their hero Muqi has definitely learned to get down on his knees for Uncle Sam and his shiny new Iraqi Government:
Sadr, whose Mahdi Army has fought U.S. troops in the Sadr City slum in eastern Baghdad and in Najaf, 90 miles to the south, ordered his followers to lay down their weapons and cooperate with Iraqi police in Sadr City to "deprive the terrorists and saboteurs of the chance to incite chaos and extreme lawlessness."
Yep. He's a politician alright. But he's really an unwanted wanted man.
The Clinton Administration Also Claimed a Link Between Saddam and OBL
As Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times reminds us, the Clinton Administration also believed that Saddam and Osama were linked:
[...D]uring President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
Think about it, folks. Saddam and Osama had a mutual enemy: Us, the Great Satan. What stupid meme about fundamentalist Islam being incompatible with a secularist Muslim state did we ever swallow that would so completely convince us that such an alliance was not at least plausible?
Osama hated Saudi Arabia because it was his home and they had expelled him. And because they were allowing themselves to be dominated by the Great Satan, thereby contaminating Arabian soil and defiling the sanctity of Mecca and Medina. And Saddam hated Saudi Arabia, too. He wished to destroy them and enrich himself on their treasure. Or did we forget that he attacked that country during the Gulf War?
This stuff isn't unimaginable; it's entirely logical (from their perspective). After all, Saddam's secret service, the infamous Makhabarat, was (and maybe still is!) sticking their fingers in the pies of every country of the Middle East and Europe for years. They are assassins and terrorists and spies and plenty else. What sort of a dumbass would doubt that they have long had dealings with terrorists to further their own goals?
Juxtapose They're Lying
If you read this editorial in the New York Times from last week, it may occur to you that it is factually contradicted by today's article from Thom Shanker (linked to in my previous post).
Try the opening line:
It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.
Note the construction. It tries to yoke together the two ideas of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq and Saddam and the atrocities of 11 September 2001. But that is a sloppy dodge, for one half of that is undeniably true and the other is a point that was never made by the President (of whom the Times demands an apology for believing the same intelligence that he and every other high-ranking member of our Government was provided with).
And try this other accusation from the editorial:
[Bush]is responsible for the administration's actions since then [i.e., 11 September 2001]. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans.
Ultimately, it does not matter whether President Bush is responsible for making the link between Saddam and 11 September 2001: most of the American people instinctively understood that Saddamite Iraq was a bad actor in the world of Middle Eastern-Islamofascist terrorism and that they were not going to be allowed to perpetually flout our authority. One important reason for this is that, in a world where the fears of dirty bombs and suitcase nukes and nerve gas attacks are only lying dormant, we must establish ourselves more firmly in the middle of the Islamic world than we ever have before. We must have a place from which we can project our military power and secure our economic interests in the oil of the Middle East. No apologies for that, comrade.
Keep debating how the fuse was lit. Those of us who support and honor our military's hard work and sacrifices will keep it in mind that no terror attack has been made on our own shores in almost three years. If you think that that's not the consequence of our war efforts and our increased security measures at home, then you're a dope.
An Important New York Times Article
Be sure to read Thom Shanker's article in today's New York Times regarding an "internal report" taken from Saddam's intelligence service. Apparently, the Times went to unusual lengths to verify the authenticity of this report which, I assume, means that it presented their propagandists with some problems. That's because it explicitly lays out the relationship between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden up until the time that bin Laden was forced from Sudan, which would have been around 1993.
Get it? Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had a relationship. No one in the Bush Administration ever said that Saddam was behind the atrocities of 11 September 2001, but they do maintain that Saddam and OBL had some reason to work together. It is now the work of the Leftists in Big Media to gloss over this relationship and to insist ---quite falsely--- that Bush misled the country into conflating Saddam and 11 September.
The Asshole Left are following the old Nazi maxim that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
There's a war on, friends. Four more months to get the point across that the Dhimmicratic Party and the anti-war Left are intent on doing harm to our national security. They will stop at nothing. They will lie and suck Michael Moore's cock and omit any inconvenient facts they come across and do whatever else they feel they must to inaugurate and enthrone their lack of principles. That must not be allowed to happen.
Buck up, jackson. The redcoats are coming.
Oh, the first exploded myth? A fundamentalist like Osama would never have consorted with a secularist like Saddam. Horseshit. They did. Even the Grey Lady thinks so.
Just Stay Away, Chris
Thankfully, the Most Obnoxious Man on Television, Chris Matthews, has been gone from his MSNBC Hardball program this week. In his place has been the almost unbelievably delicious Campbell Brown. She is not only gracious and interesting, but she even lets her guests finish their sentences. Isn't there some way that Matthews can be persuaded to stay away for a while longer? I suppose not. But Campbell Brown is just scrumptious. This picture doesn't even begin to do her justice. Oh, well. It was nice while it lasted.
22 June 1969: On the Cuyahoga
One of the most beautiful songs I know is R.E.M.'s "Cuyahoga," which, I suppose, derives at least some of its inspiration from the now-infamous occurrence on the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio in which the river itself caught fire on the morning of 22 June 1969. It was one of those events that crystallized the issue of environmental degradation in the late '60s and early '70s. But, as Professor Jonathan Adler writes, much of what we think we know of that event is mythical. But it's an excellent example of how an event can capture the public's imagination and become something far more significant than what it, in itself, actually is.
(A much shorter version of his original paper can be found here at National Review Online.)
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 9:27 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Thursday, 24 June 2004 9:43 PM CDT
"A Frank Exchange of Views"
Vice President Dick Cheney told Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to go fuck himself on the floor of the United States Senate today.
Not quite a caning, but close enough.
"That doesn't sound like language the vice president would use but there was a frank exchange of views," said Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems.
The Gorebot's Descent into Ahistorical Madness
It seems that Al Gore's descent into madness and irrelevance continues unabated. He now declares that the GOP is employing "digital brown shirts" to intimidate the media with accusations that they are undermining the troops with their constant Bush-hatred.
There isn't a whole lot of time left before the election, but I sure hope there's enough of it to persuade the American people that the Democratic Party has gone to hell when its elder statemen suggest that the Republicans are Nazis.
Not Believing My Ears
What on Earth has become of Richard Williams? The controversial father of the tennis greats Venus and Serena Williams was unbelievably gracious about a scoring error made by the umpire in today's match which caused Venus to lose the tie-breaker (and, thus, the match) in the second and final set. I would have expected a huge accusatory blast of racism and bias, but no. He was extremely understanding. Huh!
Anyway, Venus Williams is already assured a place in tennis' Hall of Fame. I don't know if the same will ever be said of the young woman who came out ahead today.
The Passion of the Agitprop
I will probably go and see the anti-American asshole Michael Moore's latest [documentary] a few weeks after all the hub-bub dies down enough, but only if I can make some arrangement to pay for a ticket to another movie while actually seeing this one. Moore would understand, of course, my act of commercial disobedience, being the prole I am. But I do not want to contribute to his income.
These are shameless times in which even the most prominent leaders of the Democratic Party can openly go and give their consent to this piece of agitprop. They can then stand tall before the American public and explain why they would support such a distorted and anti-American celluloid screed ---one that is eagerly awaited throughout the Middle East. Indeed, it's been reported that even Hezbollah has offered to promote it in Lebanon and Iran and elsewhere. Or maybe that was just a nasty rumor. I think my facts might be off some. Nevertheless, Moore would understand this, though; even if's not true, it has the virtue of being plausible.
I await the deconstructions that will come. My mood is too dark for me to believe that any backlash will come of any of it, though: Big Media is too bloodlustful to honestly report much of what has already been proven wrong. Nor will the Left, in general, acknowledge that such suspicious episodes as the mass air evacuation of all of Bushitler's Saudi friends from American soil in the days after the atrocities of 11 September 2001 was actually authorized by professional apologizer Richard Clarke. Moore is too interested in insinuating the worst to let facts keep him from his agitations.
The anti-war Bush-haters are hoping that Fahrenheit 9/11 will help John Kerry. But will any of them admit that they are participating in actual propaganda? That's a term that one would think still bears some negative connotations, especially for the Left, which decries the insidious influences of talk radio and Fox News. But they won't apply any such term to what they are engaged in now. They are too blinded by their hatred of the President. They are too determined to commit the foul.
Judging from the opinions in the Leftist regions of the blogosphere, the question of who John Kerry will pick for his running mate is unusually important. Some of the front-runners are regarded as disasters: the miserable failure Gephardt and the cipher Vilsack would be huge letdowns. Dean is a non-starter, of course, as would be Clark and Graham for various reasons. Kerry's only real choice at this point is Edwards. He is an affable and inoffensive charmer who won't really cast much of a shadow over Kerry.
But this much is clear: if Kerry's choice is as much of a deal-breaker as I gather, it should be a strong indication of how weak his support really is. If it weren't, then why were the liberals in Big Media so desperately pushing and begging for McCain to join up and make a "dream ticket"? Kerry's supporters see him as too weak to carry the day on his own merits; they very much wanted him to do something to co-opt the moderate Republican and independent vote. But he won't do that now. He'll pick Edwards because it's a safe bet. And no one will be either surprised or disappointed.
I think Edwards is a logical choice, but he is entirely unqualified for the responsibility. Just wait for him to debate Cheney: the Vice President will take him to school.
Rich Lowry pretty much nails it (emphasis mine):
Bill Clinton told 60 Minutes in his promotional appearance for his book, My Life, that he wears his impeachment as a "badge of honor." As far as honors go, it's a far cry from the Distinguished Service Cross or the Presidential Medal of Freedom. But Clinton has to pretend to cherish it. It is imperative for his legacy that he portray his impeachment as illegitimate, as the work of hateful fanatics.
The truth is that the scandals and investigations that built toward Clinton's impeachment -- from Whitewater to the China fundraising scandal to Monica Lewinsky -- were a product of the world created by post-Watergate liberals. They created the independent-counsel statute; they celebrated an adversarial press; they wrote exacting campaign-finance rules; they instituted an anti-sexual-harassment regime in the workplace -- and then they supported an attempt to defy all of it when it inconvenienced Bill Clinton.