Appearing Soon in a Memory Hole near You Mood:
don't ask Now Playing: "Maps" by the Yeah Yeah Yeahs
In an obvious cave-in to pressure applied by Chimpy McHalliburton's Rethuglikkkan $torm Troopers, Newsweek magazine is now reporting that they were wrong about the story from Gitmo that our guys are, among other things, flushing the "Holy Koran" down the toilet in order to offend their Muslim prisoners.
I don't care whether that part of the story is true or not. It's not like our personnel would be doing this to rare or valuable copies of the damned thing ---with old annotations or some special provenance--- so what the hell? These things just get replaced.
But the important part of this story of anti-war propaganda is that it's actually caused rioting in the streets of Afghanistan ---leaving more than a dozen dead. That's bad PR ---and something we don't need.
Oh, and can you feel the heat from the usually mild-mannered Glenn Reynolds? He writes of Newsweek:
Two points: (1) If they had wrongly reported the race of a criminal and produced a lynching, they'd feel much worse -- which is why they generally don't report such things, a degree of sensitivity they don't extend to reporting on, you know, minor topics like wars; and (2) If a blogger had made a similar mistake, with similar consequences, we'd be hearing about Big Media's superior fact-checking and layers of editors.
People died, and U.S. military and diplomatic efforts were damaged, because -- let's be clear here -- Newsweek was too anxious to get out a story that would make the Bush Administration and the military look bad.
Yes, but they do regret the violence their lie has occasioned.
Yeah, As a Matter of Fact, They Do Have an Obligation
Charles Johnson posted this picture taken by one of his readers at today's big rally in Washington, D.C. ---sponsored by Free Muslims Against Terrorism.
Something I Wrote at The Left Coaster and Pasted Here Because I'm Too Lazy to Elaborate
I think I'm starting to tease out what you guys are: you're economic isolationists who only go in for multiculturalism if it's not tied to globalization. Do I have that right?
Why don't you go with this some more? Why don't you stand more with those like Hillary who want an end to illegal immigration? She knows that that's a perfect policy to appeal to the disaffected worker in this country who sees his wages depressed by cheap Mexican labor.
We aren't benefited by this huge influx. Not culturally, politically, or economically ---except in the short-term. But the liberal-Leftist view of a borderless world is hallucinatory. You can't argue for protecting the job of the average worker or advocating better health coverage for him if you're also selling him out in the face of this deluge from Latin America.
Too many of you here are griping about the ideological impurity of certain Democratic politicians when you can't even see your own ideological illogic.
America for Americans. Try believing that sometimes.
Time to Quit Smoking That Chronic, Dave Now Playing: "I'm So Tired" by the Beatles
What the hell's going on with Dave Chappelle? Now he's run off to South Africa and the third season of his Comedy Central show's been cancelled?
Get your head out of your ass and get home, Dave. You're a very funny man and you need to share your stuff. So quit smoking that chronic and get it together.
Must See TV Mood:
a-ok Now Playing: "Mull of Kintyre" by Paul McCartney
You'll love this:
A DEFIANT George Galloway is to defend himself before US senators next week in the oil-for-food row, and last night predicted he would "give them hell" when he enters the lions' den.
Their allegations are that he received vouchers for millions of barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein.
The Scottish MP, who dismissed the claims as absurd, told his aides when he heard of an invitation from Washington: "Book the flights, let's go, let's give them both barrels," adding quickly: "That's guns, not oil."
If this actually happens, it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Be especially sure to watch how the American Left associates itself with this dhimmified fuckwad. It will be most instructive.
Getting over It
Anti-Bush liberals and Leftists don't want John Bolton to become this country's ambassador to the United Nations because they value that organization more than they should. They profess concern that Bolton will show the worst possible face to the rest of the world community at the UN; yet, you don't have to probe too deeply into Leftist opinion to find that our country and its leaders are already hated the world over. But most especially at home by these same people who think that Bolton could actually make world opinion worse. Really? Is it possible for a grown-up to believe that Bolton will be so singularly abrasive and belligerent that he will shift the whole paradigm of geopolitical self-interest?
What's happened is that the Left's rhetoric has been so overblown in this instance that they can no longer be taken seriously on this.
John Bolton will be the next American ambassador to the UN. Y'all may as well start getting over it now.
Just got back from voting in the City Council elections. They also had a vote on whether to expand the smoking ban to just about everywhere.
I voted for Margot Clarke because I think she's hot. Don't ask me why. And if I could have voted for that Asian chick, I would have.
I voted against the ban. I have absolutely no problem with banning smoking in restaurants and such, but when it comes to bars and clubs, a smoking ban is plainly ridiculous. When people drink, they smoke. Even people who don't usually smoke will do so if they're also out drinking and having fun.
Too, I voted against the ban because I resent seeing so much money and slickness being spent on abrogating what should be a business owner's decision. Yes, smoking is for suckers and there's no good reason to do it, but people do ---and that's their choice, except insofar as it's an addiction.
Context Is Everything Mood:
As Charles Johnson reports, there will be no court-martial of the young Marine who "double-tapped" the wounded terrorist in that Fallujah mosque last year. As the craphounds at the Associated Press put it:
SAN DIEGO -- A Marine corporal who was videotaped shooting an apparently injured and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque last year will not face a court-martial, the Marine Corps announced Wednesday.
A review of the evidence showed the Marine's actions were "consistent with the established rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict," Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, said in a statement.
Damned straight. Our man had been around the day before when another so-called "injured and unarmed Iraqi" was concealing an IED underneath his own body ---and detonated it, killing one Marine and injuring five others. That had been about a block from the mosque into which these filthy rats had retreated and where NBC reporter Kevin Sites followed our boys when he and his cameraman captured the so-called war crime on tape.
Enough of shit. The vermin who are resisting us in Iraq aren't freedom fighters or Minutemen (as Michael Moore, who is a traitor, characterized them); they are murderers who use their own so-called holy sites as ammo dumps and snipers' redoubts.
Fuck 'em all.
And a good thought goes out to that young Marine and his buddies. Thank you for your bravery and your service to our country. I am, as are all your countrymen, in your debt.
It's Still Sweeps Week, Right? Mood:
suave Now Playing: "Don't Stand So Close to Me" by the Police
I am firmly ---indeed, throbbingly--- opposed to this stupid proposed ban on sexually suggestive dancing by high school cheerleaders and drill team members here in Texas. It is my God-given right as a mammal and a taxpayer to ogle young women half my age as they gyrate in whatever miraculous fashion they so desire.
(Thanks to this website for the lovely picture of the Kilgore Rangerettes.)
Vote Aqui Mood:
irritated Now Playing: "Never Say Never" by Romeo Void
Have some of thiscrap:
Voters would have to bring photo identification to cast a ballot in Texas under a bill that House members are considering, but opponents say the requirement would drive the poor, minorities and disabled from the polls.
You know what? If having to present a government-issued photo ID to an election judge or a poll worker is just too burdensome for you, then maybe you shouldn't vote.
No, I've thought it over some more: don't vote. Just fuck off.
Back in February, Steve Soto of The Left Coaster wrote that
Sure, it would have been better for the incoming Bush Administration to continue what was underway between Seoul, Washington, and Pyongyang when they came into office. And, yes, as a result we have lost four critical years where we could have had inspectors on the ground and controls in place to stop the North from becoming a nuclear player capable now of spreading weapons to terrorists. The responsibility for those developments rests squarely on the heads of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, not Bill Clinton.
This is just incredible nonsense. No, we could not have had any such inspectors or controls ---not if you regard North Korea as a sovereign country and not if you accept the hard fact that Kim had already developed weaponized nuclear capabilities right under the noses of the worthless IAEA inspectors.
But the great do-nothing President of the Deluded Left must be defended at all costs, see.
In December 2002, North Korea kicked the IAEA inspectors out, declaring that they had "restarted" their efforts to extract plutonium.
In January 2003, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In February 2005, Kim announced that he did, in fact, have nuclear weapons.
Are we to believe, as Soto does, that Kim did not already have nuclear weapons prior to these withdrawals and admissions? How can Bill Clinton not be held responsible for the unchecked nuclear developments in North Korea? It was happening on his watch. But because Kim gets noisy on Bush's watch, he somehow gets all the "credit."
In 1994, Clinton sent former President Jimmy Carter to negotiate the so-called Agreed Framework deal with Kim ---basically a large bribe package to keep that nutty kimchi pot from working on more nuclear technology. But it was all a lie: Kim continued to export technology and work on his own missile delivery systems and uranium enrichment activities throughout the 1990s.
And none of it has ever really been suspended. If Kim closes one facility down, he opens another. It's a whole lot of three-card monty which allows Kim to pull the same shit that Saddam used to: blame Uncle Sam, demand more bribes, insist on the peaceful applications of nuclear technology, withdraw from this treaty, criticize that one. It's a joke. As is this other observation from Soto:
What also rests on the head of Bush and Cheney is the fact that while we have 150,000 troops tied down occupying the one member of the Axis of Evil that posed no such threat to us, this administration has allowed the other two members of that Axis to become real threats.
This is a typical criticism of the anti-Bush Left. Typical in that there's no thought invested in it other than what partisan posturing requires. What Soto and his like-minded friends are really saying is that we wouldn't be in danger from Kim if only we had more soldiers and Marines on the DMZ. Really? We don't have enough nuclear cannon fodder in South Korea as it is? What can our infantry do against a Rodong missile carrying a nuclear warhead? Nothing.
I will say it again: there is no politically acceptable military solution to the problem of a nuclearized North Korea. Kim and his cronies must either be brought down in a coup or the country will eventually become such a basket case that a revolution will destroy it. But there is no conventional response we can mount in the face of nuclear weapons.
Of course, if Kim ever succumbs to syphilis, he may very well go out in one last blaze of glory. But will Bush be to blame if we are compelled to vaporize Pyongyang?
Be sure to check out this post at Patterico's Pontifications on the dishonest manipulation of the news in the Los Angeles Times.
We now know, thanks to satellite video, that the car in which Giuliana Sgrena and her ransomer tried to run a US military checkpoint in Baghdad last month was, as our troops said, speeding.
But when the Times published its report on the disagreement between the US and Italian governments regarding their joint investigation of the incident, they took a Reuters wire service piece and cut it up to suit their own agenda ---inexplicably cutting the reference to the satellite video, which definitively proves that Sgrena's car was speeding.
As Patterico says:
Times editors removed the fact that there is proof, in the form of satellite footage, supporting the U.S. version of the event.
There is no excuse for the L.A. Times story not reporting this information.
Let's see what excuse the editors offer up, if any.
Gold Leafing a Hard-On Now Playing: "Sister Christian" by Night Ranger
The more I pay attention to this week's Big Media celebritoid, Jennifer Wilbanks, the more it pisses me off.
This very stupid and narcissistic little girl, who was to be married ---this very day--- for apparently the first time at the age of 32, ran away from home in Georgia last Tuesday night and fled across the country to New Mexico ---all because she was freaking out over her wedding. Along the way, she managed to plunge her entire family into a deep and grievous shock, subject her fiance to suspicions of murder, lie to the authorities, and involve them in a huge waste of resources and manpower.
Well, you know what, you very stupid and narcissistic little girl? You must have come fully pre-freaked to your present situation if you thought that 14 pairs of wedding attendants and 600 sent invitations is in any way appropriate to your station in life or to the very concept of common sense. What the fuck? Are you some sort of princess? I mean in the real world where the rest of us live ---and not in the depths of your bridal magazine and fairy tale-fueled psychosis. You were planning on more groomsmen than the Pope had pallbearers, you ridiculous liar.
Why didn't Jennifer Wilbanks have a friend or relative with the stones to stand up to her and tell her she was insane? The only thing that turns my ire to mirth in this is the thought that these same people probably lost a lot money on deposits and fees and deliveries for this absurd rooftop jack-off of a wedding.
This very stupid and narcissistic little girl deserves to be prosecuted nine ways to Sunday. And, at the very least, she can apologize to the law enforcement community for being a liar.
Friday Night Chillin' Now Playing: "Cannonball" by the Breeders
Have some of Victor Davis Hanson's latest regarding anti-Americanism as an indicator of our success:
Mexico, enjoying one of the richest landscapes in the world, can't feed its own people, so it exports its poorest to the United States. Its own borders with Central America are as brutal to cross as our own are porous. Illegal aliens send back almost $50 billion, which has the effect of propping up corrupt institutions that as a result will never change. Given its treatment of its own people, if the Mexican government praised the United States we should indeed be concerned.
As Yogi Berra once said of a certain club, I believe it was, "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
loud Now Playing: "That Lady" by the Isley Brothers Scrapplefacereports:
Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee revealed today that they have stalled the confirmation of John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador to investigate claims by Jose Canseco that the former Major League Baseball slugger had injected Mr. Bolton with steroids on several occasions.
A State Department spokesman denied the steroid allegations and said, "Mr. Bolton's temperament is all natural -- a healthy, manly reaction to the environment within the federal government."
"If he didn't get angry with preening bureaucrats from time-to-time, then we might suspect he was on drugs," said the unnamed source.
Feeling My Age Mood:
not sure Now Playing: "Almost Cut My Hair" by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
Have I mentioned lately that I am extremely nervous all the time now and that I cannot think straight? I just want this whole house-buying thing to go smoothly and come to a conclusion. Soon.
"I feel like I owe it to someone..."
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 9:55 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Saturday, 30 April 2005 4:05 PM CDT
No Revisionism, Comrades
I should have linked to this very useful post at the InstaPundit when it first came out, but better late than never. And, as if to underscore the point that the anti-war Left is intent on rewriting the history of our purposes in Iraq, here's a quote from an editorial in today's New York Times (with Professor Reynolds' emphasis):
The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.
It is completely moronic for the anti-war Left to insist that there was and always will be but one reason to have invaded Iraq. Wars are multi-causal. Does anyone reading this actually believe that the American Civil War was fought over some incident at Fort Sumter? Did we lay low the Spanish Empire for the sake of avenging the Maine? And don't you suppose that we would have eventually entered the First World War for some reason other than the threat contained in the Zimmermann Telegram?
We fight for hegemony. We fight for the sake of our friends and potential friends. We fight for human liberation and the promotion of democratic principles and the security of our energy resources and because the American Way is a light unto the world. And no one need apologize for that.
Iraq will be free. It may not come by the timetables of fantasists who childishly expect that all great and world-changing endeavors must be accomplished in a bloodless instant, but it will come. And from that will come other developments around the Muslim Middle East that will change these people and their cultures forever. That is to say, these people must be secularized and redirected away from their apocalypticism and hatred of modernity.
The greatest failing of the anti-war crowd is its inability to say just what it is that's so goddamned wonderful about political Islam in the Middle East that it should be left alone to fester and explode. Probe that to any depth and you'll find that "Democrats" are nothing of the sort: they don't believe that we have any strategic interests in the Middle East or that our principles of self-government and human rights should be extended to that part of the world. They just want to turn inward and pretend that we can continue to operate as we did in the 1990s, bribing tyrants and ignoring threats.
Once Iraq is fully functional, the whole world will reap the benefits of our country's sacrifices there. I don't know whether that will ever be acknowledged, but a democratized Iraq will move many other countries in that region to emulation. How can that be a bad thing?