December 23, 2007

This Man Has A Column In The LA Times

Anyone can make another tired review that fastidiously points out all the flaws in yet another wingnut hackjob published by Regnery or some other outfit, but for Jonah Goldberg and his new book Liberal Fascism all you have to do is highlight a single sentence in his book:

"The white man is the Jew of liberal fascism."

Daily Kossack "calypigian" details the pains and sufferings of the downtrodden white man that has led Goldberg to make such a much-needed conclusion.

October 11, 2007

Why Are Negroes So Good At Basketball? Because They Steal, Shoot And Run

So there was a tragic school shooting that happened the other day, what do you do? Why, if you are FAUX Nooze sockpuppet John Gibson, inject race into it of course!

GIBSON: Now why would there be guns in schools?

[audio clip -- 50 Cent's "Fully Loaded Clip"]

GIBSON: Well, that's my working theory, but, you know -- and, of course, because the school is very heavily African-American, I did leap to a conclusion.

ANGY RICH: What was that, John?

GIBSON: Well, that the shooter might have been African-American. Turns out it's a white guy.

. . .GIBSON: Angry Rich, you know why I knew that this -- through our afternoon of mystery wondering about the kid that was the shooter, I knew this was not a classic hip-hop shooting.

ANGRY RICH: How's that John?

GIBSON: He killed himself. Hip-hoppers do not kill themselves. They walk away. Now, I didn't need to hear the kid was white with blond hair. Once he'd shot himself in the head, no hip-hopper.

ANGRY RICH: So it's not a classic hip-hop --

GIBSON: It's not even close. I mean it's whatever he is, and it's clear to me that this gun culture right now primarily promoted by hip-hop music --

[rap clip]

GIBSON: "I bought a brand new gun today. I'm gonna shoot you in the face." This culture has even reached the school campus. We're not in the Kip Kinkel era of school shootings anymore; it has changed. Yes, I know the shooter was white. I knew it as soon as he shot himself. Hip-hoppers don't do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again. Triple-8, 788-9910. I know there's a few of you who want to call me racist. But when you do, remind -- let me remind you, African-Americans are dying in major cities because people won't face this problem. Gibson on Fox.

Hmm, and he wonders why folks are desensitized to violence upon black people. When white kids get shot up in schools, it's a national tragedy. When black kids die, it must be because of their hip-hopping jungle music rap.

October 5, 2007

Ann Coulter: Repeal The 19th Amendment

I'll bet she'll later say we took this out of context or it was only a joke:

Earlier this week, Ann Coulter told The New York Observer that she believes women shouldn’t have the right to vote:
If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and “We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms??

Why does this, this, woman (boy, that took some effort) have a media platform to begin with?

June 22, 2007

Kid Exposes O'Reilly's Hypocrisy, Gets Called A "Pinhead"

Looks like kids these days are all right. And the best part is that the FAUX fairies scrubbed the "pinhead" comment from later broadcasts. Oh well, at least a story about kids hearing cautionary speeches about sex and drugs is WAY more important than reporting the disaster in Eye-Rack.

June 1, 2007

The Nooner Dumps Bush

Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan realizes what a spoiled brat WorstPresidentEver is:

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.

Her and her kind have spent the entire stillborn presidency participating in or being active bystanders of the smearing of those who don't agree 100% with the bush or the conservative agenda as unpatriotic or worse. Now that man-or-monkey has resorted to directing that calumny towards his own base, and she's upset? Cry me a goddamn river.

Shorter Bill O'Reilly And John McCain: "Rahowa!"

Bill-O, once again, has been caught slipping over his apoplexy over the "immi-gants" and has revealed his true colors:

Bill O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number.

John McCain: In America today we've got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don't need so many.


O'Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it.

McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you.

Actually, he wasn't slipping, he actually believes in his crusade to protect the interests of the poor, oppressed white males. If this were the 1850's, I'll guarantee you my left eyeball that both O'Reilly and McCain would quickly change their tune concerning the immigration debates they had during that time.

You all can see it for yourself in all its glory:

May 24, 2007

Is Joe Klein Right?

Is Al-Qaeda on the run in Eye-Rack?


(link via Atrios)

April 27, 2007

More High Broderism

When a Democrat does it, it's called "flip-flopping". When Weathervane McCain does it, it's called being a straight talker - again - and "speaking his mind".

Your Washington press corps at work.

April 26, 2007

The De-evolution Of The Blame-Iraqis-First Campaign

Remember before and during the first part of the war how it's wrong and downright RACIST to deny the Eye-Rackees the pleasures and comfort of a Jeffersonian democracy that is guaranteed to be the result of WorstPresidentEver's invasion of that country? How come freedom is good for us but not good for the Arabs? Huh?

Well, the leading warmongers, having to deal with the chaos on the ground, have retreated back to their regressive, illiberal FAUXholes and have intensified their blamemongering on the "knuckle-dragging" Iraqis:

On the April 23 broadcast of his Fox News Radio show, John Gibson argued that the Iraqi people -- whom he described as "knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century" -- are at "fault" for the situation in Iraq. While discussing Iraq, Gibson said: "The one thing that drives me up the wall is [people] saying, 'Look at all the deaths you Americans have caused in Iraq.' No! 'Scuse me? We invaded the place, we knocked over Saddam, and then Iraqis began killing each other." Later in the show, Gibson agreed with a caller that the Coalition Provisional Authority's 2003 decision to purge the civil service of all former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and disband the Iraqi army "was a mistake." Gibson then stated: "[B]ut who is doing this killing? Give me a break. These are Iraqis killing each other. So what did we do? If you're saying it's our fault that we unmasked them as knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century -- fine! I'll take credit."

You know, if the Arab world had the equivalent of CAMERA, MEMRI to track racist and genocidally anti-Arab statements made in the Western media, they will have no shortage of examples like John Gibson's garbage.

(via Atrios)

April 17, 2007

John Derbyshire, Just STFU

NRO contributor John Derbyshire wonders why there weren't any Rambo-style acts of heroism during the Virginia Tech massacre yesterday. John Cole of Balloon Juice patiently reminds him that there were:

People are taking potshots at Derb all over the place, and they should. And while this pen and paper fantasyland machismo should be knocked for the silliness that it is, it should also be mocked because it is just flat out wrong.

Read the whole thing.

March 1, 2007

"I F**cked Up, I Trusted Me"

Kevin Drum points us to another mea culpa by a former war supporter, i.e. warblogger. Sure, some of us bleeding heart types might be inclined to forgive him, The Grand Moff Texan has been so embittered by the devastation and carnage caused by such blinding imperialist arrogance to give these pant-pissing mushheads any kind of pass. His cynical takedown of that apology is pretty long, but this comment struck me as the ultimate truth in this so-called Clash of Civilizations:

You were alienated from the people who maintained the same standards of civilization that you pretend to be defending. You were dragged along by the same kind of religious zealots and ideological absolutists you see as a threat, but only when they're Muslims.

You think you are confronting a fundamentalist threat from outside your civilization, but I've been confronted with a fundamentalist threat inside my civilization since I was born. That's why I know better than to fear the former and serve the latter.

Our fundamentalists differ from their fundamentalists only in that ours have killed more people.


Nutpicking In Extremis

These lizardbrain conservative reptiles are so goddamn predictable you can set a watch to them. Glenn Greenwald noted on Tuesday how the reich-wing blogosphere is using the attack on Dick Cheney in Afghanistan as a blunt object to accuse liberals of wanting him dead, utilizing the practice of nutpicking in order to make that case. He predicted that the methane gas from the fever swamps will eventually permeate up to the graven stones of the "legitimate media".

Sure enough, on his blog Media Notes, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz gives these rantings the airplay they don't deserve (although he did emphasize eventually that the random and anonymous blog comments that these accusation of liberal treason are based upon shouldn't be taken too seriously.)

Once again, Glenn Greenwald does the legwork and argumentation necessary to put these clowns in line. I'm just giving him the airplay that he deserves.

February 15, 2007


If we had an honest media, Donahue would never have a forum outside his newsletter.

To be fair, though, the Left Behind series is expressly, unapologetically and apparently homicidally anti-Catholic.

February 8, 2007

Happy Jonah Goldberg Day


As Matthew Yglesias reminds us, today is the two year deadline for Jonah Goldberg to make good on his ill-conceived and scornful bet he made with Juan Cole over the outcome of the Eye-Rack war:

Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading. If there's another reasonable wager Cole wants to offer which would measure our judgment, I'm all ears. Money where your mouth is, doc.

. . .One caveat: Because I don't think it's right to bet on such serious matters for personal gain, if I win, I'll donate the money to the USO. He can give it to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or whatever his favorite charity is.

Ah, that little oh so unnecessary insinuation that Juan Cole is in league with terrorists would have made the vindication ever so sweet. But apart from the dire ramifications the willful ignorance of Goldberg and his kind will have on this nation and the Middle East, the real winner here is Goldberg. In the two years between his offer and now when he has conceded that he was utterly, utterly wrong, Goldberg has managed to land on his feet with a cushy opinion-writing berth in the Los Angeles Times, pushing out liberal mainstay Robert Scheer in the process. Juan Cole, on the other hand, was a victim of a neocon smear campaign that successfully blocked his move to what was once considered to be a prestigious post at Yale. The lesson here is that because of the powers that be, even if you are right, you still lose.

January 17, 2007

B-But They Were Wrong About Stuff Too!

I don't usually waste my time reading commentary by smug-ass warmongers, but today's op-ed by Jonathan Chait that appeared in today's Strib forced my hand:

Radar magazine recently published an article bemoaning that pro-war liberal pundits have not been drummed out of the profession for their error. In it, lefty foreign policy guru Jonathan Schell sniffs, "There doesn't seem to be a rush to find the people who were right about Iraq and install them in the mainstream media."

Being right about something is a fairly novel experience for Schell, and he's obviously enjoying it immensely. But before we genuflect to Schell's wisdom, it's worth recalling that his record of prognostication is not exactly perfect. After the 9/11 attacks, Schell railed against attacking the Taliban, which was sheltering Osama bin Laden and much of the Al-Qaida hierarchy. "A military strike against the Taliban or any other regime is full of perils that ... are far greater than the dangers we already face," he warned. For instance, he wrote, "millions of Afghans could starve to death this winter," Pakistan's government could be overthrown, etc.

Shyeah, and we all know how swimmingly our invasion of Afghanistan is going. We might even outlast the Russians. But wait, wait, you have to read the next part, it's goddamn priceless:

Or go back to the last war we fought with Iraq. Schell insisted that we could force Iraq to leave Kuwait with sanctions alone, rather than by using military force. But the years that followed made it clear just how impotent that tool was. Saddam Hussein endured more than a decade of sanctions rather than give up a weapons of mass destruction program that turned out to be nonexistent. If sanctions weren't enough to make him surrender his imaginary weapons, I think we can safely say they wouldn't have been enough to make him surrender a prized, oil-rich conquest.

Yep, because Saddam didn't hand over the weapons he never had, the sanctions didn't work. Nice fucking trainwreck of logic, Chait.

What I don't understand is why support for the first Gulf War is automatically a good thing. Yes, it was done cheaply, quickly and relatively few casualties, it had a real international coalition and it was popular with those watching the fireworks on CNN back home. But in the end, we defended one autocracy from the invasion of another autocracy just after we supported Iraq's failed invasion of a neighboring theocracy.

And today, you can't go to any Arab country (except Kuwait) and justify the Gulf War as anything other than an oil war. It's easy to say in hindsight that the Gulf War is an easy one to support, since any victory has many fathers, but don't discount the fact that there were legitimate reasons for opposing it as well.

January 14, 2007

Don't Believe The Hype

Glenn Greenwald details an NPR oral essay by conservative columnist/activist Rod Dreher in which Dreher recants his support for the Eye-Rack war, for WorstPresidentEver and his band of fellow travellers, and for authoritorianism. Dreher also admits that the dirty fucking hippies (and most of the country at the time) were right to oppose the Vietnam War and to question authority and he was wrong to castigate them for hating America and for assuming Democrats are wimps and Republicans are strong.

Apparently Glenn Greenwald and most of the liberal bloggers that trackbacked to his post are singing hosannas that the tide has finally turned against the Bush Republicans and all they stand for. But one blogger wasn't fooled. Chester N. Scoville at The Vanity Press notes that there are some very telling inconsistencies in Dreher's oral essay, namely that the conduct of the war has taught him to abandon his complete trust in American presidents and their policies, even though in the same breath he chronicled how the "wimpiness" of Jimmy Carter threw him into the arms of Ronald Reagan. And lord knows when Clinton was in office he wasn't quick to defend the Commander in Chief from the attacks of his fellow conservatives.

That rank disingenuousness is proof positives that these scumbuckets will quickly forget their opposition to the Eye-Rack war and learn to love the shitmire again once the dust settles. And they will quickly blame the Democrats for denying them their glorious victory, either because we haven't clapped hard enough or haven't allowed them to kill enough mud-slims.

As I've said before, we've done the same dance with Vietnam. Most people understood that the war couldn't be won, but quickly forgot and were fooled again by the myth of unilateral American hegemony. Know that it will happen again with Eye-Rack if we continue to hold the hands of the warmongers. Until the country realizes the full disaster of the policy they've given sanction to, they will never learn.

January 9, 2007

"My Name Is Joe Klein, And I'm A Dumbass"


Originally, I wasn't going to pay attention to the attention Time columnist Joe Klein has been getting with his typically braindead commentary on his new blog. Apparently liberals are right about opposing the splurge and neocons are wrong about supporting it, but liberals are wrong to press the issue since some generals (excluding the ones that just got effectively fired by Bush for opposing the splurge) seem to be on board with it.

Ezra Klein, however, in an attempt to unsully his good name he shares with the other Klein, reveals the alarming exent of Joe Klein's practiced ignorance:

Let's recap: Klein is arguing that Paul Krugman is a lazy fool because he attributes the surge strategy to Frederick Kagan and the neocons. This week, in Time magazine, Michael Duffy, their main political reporter and a guy who presumably does "talk to key players" and "read the doctrines," reported that the surge "belongs to the neocons and in particular to Frederick Kagan," and made it clear that Kagan sought out Jack Keane to add credibility to his proposal. A far cry from Klein's claim that military intellectuals "are the motivating force behind Bush's new policy."

So only one of two interpretations can be true here: Either Joe Klein is wrong on the facts, or Michael Duffy is. In either case, Time magazine is paying someone to misinform their readership. Since Klein is so quick to throw out challenges ..., here's a question for him: Are you misrepresenting the facts in order to blast liberals, or is your magazine's cover story a heap of lies? I, by the way, am a subscriber, and so would really like to know.

But Ezra Klein isn't serious because he's a dirty fucking hippie who talks too much.

January 3, 2007

Thomas Jefferson: Terra-ist Sympathizer

Keith Ellison is making new waves by using the Koran previously owned by Thomas Jefferson himself in the private swearing-in ceremony, thereby unleashing new symbolisms into this Republican-manufactured "controversy". But don't worry, the wingnuts have a new answer to counter the fact that one of our founding fathers do not mind having the terra-ist handbook in his own personal library:

The Bashaw of Tripoli’s justification for war on American trading ships in the Mediterranean two hundred years ago, according to Thomas Jefferson, was that “it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.? By all means let Keith Ellison swear in using Jefferson's Koran, maybe afterwards he can look up the passages that discuss smiting the infidels at the neck and make great slaughter among them. Probably underlined.

These lizard brains have no compunction, do they?

via Daily Kos.

December 21, 2006

The Mobius Strip Of Fatuousness

When historians come around to writing a definitive account of the Bush era, this koan to willful and militant ignorance from Cornerite Stanley Kurtz should be included somewhere for posterity:

Media coverage of Iraq has been biased, and that bias has indeed helped to shape events there for the worse. At the same time, conservative distrust of the media’s very real bias has inclined us to dismiss reports about problems in Iraq that are real.

In the end, I think the media bears fundamental responsibility for this. Had they been less biased–had they reported acts of heroism and the many good things we have done in Iraq–I think conservatives would actually have taken their reporting of the problems in Iraq more seriously. In effect, the media’s consistent liberal bias discredits even its valid reports.

But you are right that MSM’s failings place a burden on smart conservatives not to be too dismissive, just because of the bias. We wish the media were more balanced, and therefore more believable. But we only hurt ourselves if we automatically dismiss anything MSM reports. Again, I think the media bears the lion’s share of the responsibility for this problem. But conservatives still need to be smart about this, or we only end up hurting ourselves.

. . .But it’s a terrible shame that we’ve come to the point where our ability to believe news reports hinges on a those rare cases where the record shows freedom from liberal bias. The media has discredited themselves, making it tough to take them seriously even when they are right, and that has hurt us all.

The Hidden Hand Of The Frei Market

Via Kevin Drum, John Derbyshire at National Review Online's The Corner becomes bug-eyed at the fact that his health insurance premiums have nearly doubled without any apparent explanation.

My health insurer has just notified me, in a brief form letter, that my monthly premiums are to rise from $472.33 to $857.00 on January 1st. That's an increase of 81 percent. ***E*I*G*H*T*Y*-*O*N*E* *P*E*R*C*E*N*T*** Can they do that? I called them. They sound pretty confident they can. Ye gods!

Oh yes they can, Derb, because you free-market cultists and the useful idiots at the neo-liberal caucus have given corporate entities like privatized health care nearly free hand to do whatever they please, falsely believing that such liberties will bring us cheap and effective insurance. What was it you hammered over and over again? That the "freedom to contract" allows individuals to select health plans they believe is best for them? If the insurance company screwed you over like that, aren't you free to dump your plan and look elsewhere? Isn't it just another tenant of the Econ 101 course material influenced by the neoclassical conservatives at the Chicago School and Martin Feldstein? That "competition" will heal all wounds?

Real economists on the other hand realize that the health maintenance sector of the economy doesn't represent perfect competition and that people who shop around for cheap health premiums are highly likely to be ones that insurers find undesireable (read sick and costly) which will lead those services who actually sign up those individuals to go belly-up and leave behind health insurers who are more discriminating and more free to charge whatever health premiums they want.

But those neocons are right. Socialized medicine is only for commies, hippies and, ugh, Europeans. It has no place in this fair country.

December 20, 2006

Rich Lowery Turns On Eye-Rack


Rich Lowery rightly mocks Laura Bush's recent attacks against the media concerning their coverage of Eye-Rack in a new syndicated column:

First Lady Laura Bush spoke for many conservatives when she excoriated the media’s coverage of Iraq the other day. She complained that “the drumbeat in the country from the media ... is discouraging,? and said “there are a lot of good things happening that aren’t covered.?

What are those things, one wonders? One can only imagine how Mrs. Bush can figure that they outweigh the horrors in Iraq. The U.N.’s High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that more than 1.6 million Iraqis have fled the country, about 7 percent of the population. But that means that an overwhelming 93 percent haven’t left. Why doesn’t the liberal media ever report that? About 120 Iraqis are killed per day, nearly 4,000 a month. But most are still living. Couldn’t one of the morning shows do a soft feature on this heartwarming fact?

Then he finally joins those among us who has bought a clue:

In Iraq, the media’s biases happen to fit the circumstances. Being primed to consider any military conflict a quagmire and another Vietnam is a drawback when covering a successful U.S. military intervention, but not necessarily in Iraq. Most of the pessimistic warnings from the mainstream media have turned out to be right — that the initial invasion would be the easy part, that seeming turning points (the capture of Saddam, the elections, the killing of Zarqawi) were illusory, that the country was dissolving into a civil war.

. . .The “good news? that conservatives have accused the media of not reporting has generally been pretty weak. The Iraqi elections were indeed major accomplishments. But the opening of schools and hospitals is not particularly newsworthy, at least not compared with American casualties and with sectarian attacks meant to bring Iraq down around everyone’s heads in a full-scale civil war. An old conservative chestnut has it that only four of Iraq’s 18 provinces are beset by violence. True, but those provinces include 40 percent of the population, as well as the capital city, where the battle over the country’s future is being waged.

In their distrust of the mainstream media, their defensiveness over President Bush and the war, and their understandable urge to buck up the nation’s will, many conservatives lost touch with reality on Iraq. They thought that they were contributing to our success, but they were only helping to forestall a cold look at conditions there and the change in strategy and tactics that would be dictated by it.

We'll see where his newfound distaste for rose-colored glasses takes us. But for now it is too little, too late for this draft deferment-in-waiting.

December 14, 2006

Let's Iraq's Future Dictator Be OUR Dictator

Scott Lemieux brings us this Jonah Goldberg column of which he argues for an Eye-Rackee strongman in the model of Pinochet. It's just part and parcel of the reich-wing's strange attraction to that terrorist military dictator.

December 10, 2006

From Domino Democracies To Domino Disorders


Bob Johnson over at The Daily Kos discusses the new David Brooks column in today's New York TImes in which Brooks descibes a nightmare scenario of which several Arab nations gets toppled by anti-Sunni insurgents and chaos reigns throughout the Middle East, only to eventually end up on our doorstep via terror acts worst than September the Eleventh ("apply directly to your forehead"). Bob Johnson calls it The New Domino Theory©, a rehash of a discredited theory that will no doubt be peddled by the Eye-Rack war dead-enders like David Brooks to justify our staying in the shitmire, and to therefore protect their diminishing credibility.

The warbots have promoted the theory that a successful Eye-Rack war will inspire the growth of democracies in the Arab world, like spring blossoms in the arid desert.

But they've supported a war president who desperately needed to market this fiasco to the gullible voters in this country, so he rushed through elections in Eye-Rack without providing the security needed for moderate voices to be heard. Now the elections have only sharpened sectarian divides that is now fueling the civil war and the moderate voices have since been lost by the wayside. And now those same morons have shifted from predicting a Renaissance to predicting an Apocalypes. But those two theories will not pan out for the same obvious reason.

Bush's fuck-up in Eye-Rack has provided a potent example to other Arab autocracies as to why their iron-fisted rule is a necessary evil and why any incipient insurrections will be put down swiftly and with full backing of their constituencies. A dictactorship may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the "freedoms" being enjoyed by the Eye-Rackees. As I've said before, Bush's legacy will not be the one laid down by Harry Truman. It will be the ones provided by the Mongols who sacked Baghdad in the 13th century. The Mongols invasion effectively ended the growth and liberalization of Islam when the clerics declared that the invasion was God's punishment for their not following the strict interpretations of Islam. The Bush invasion will do the same to whatever nascent democratization efforts in the Middle East.

Continue reading "From Domino Democracies To Domino Disorders" »

October 5, 2006

Jesus Christ On A Trailer Hitch


What is wrong with these people? I would like to know what past event or issues would make these so-called human beings behave in this truly evil way:

Pajamas Media, Instapundit Facilitate Outing Of Foley Victim An obscure right-wing blogger, Wild Bill, has outed one of Mark Foley’s victims, a former Congressional page. It is a despicable act. Wild Bill however, gets almost no traffic, so the damage done to the victim’s life could have been minimal.

All that ended, however, when some of the most highly-trafficked right-wing bloggers decided to direct their readers to Wild Bill’s site. First, Roger L. Simon, co-founder and CEO of Pajamas Media — a portal and advertising broker for nearly every major right-wing blog — posted a link to Wild Bill on his personal site. (The Pajamas Media portal also linked to Wild Bill.) Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit — probably the most highly-trafficked right-wing blog — followed suit by linking to Simon’s post and the Pajamas Media post.

October 4, 2006

Rush Limpballs Wants To Cut And Run

John Murtha wants to redeploy troops to safe areas along the Iraq border in order to give Iraqis the control of their own country. He was branded as every kind of loser, quitter and mushhead. Rush Limbaugh wants to redeploy troops along the Iraqi borders, and he thinks it's the greatest idea since sliced cunt:

…We're trying to build a democracy; these people are going to have to learn to defend it; they can only do that by failing and dusting themselves off. The irony here that Lowry points out is that that is what the Democrats are saying, "Get out of there and let the Iraqis have this," yet they hate him. Their hate is irrational. It's not based on substance and strategy. Looking at the Woodward book, I have a strategery, folks. I think there's two things we can do in Iraq. Let me run them by you and see what you think. The first thing is that we pull back out of Baghdad, and we position along the Syrian, Jordan and Iranian borders, and we say to the Iraqis:

"We're going to stop anybody coming across these borders. No more help from Iran. No more from Syria. No more from Jordan. Nobody's getting into this country. If we have to, we'll go 20 miles inland in each of these countries to make sure nobody gets through, but this is on you. We will make sure nobody else gets in. Now, you go in there (the Iraqis) and you clear out Baghdad. You do it once and for all, and then we're out." The second strategy is, "You don't want to go for that?" We say to the Iraqis, "All right, here's what we're going to do. We're going to take everybody we got and we're going to bring 'em into Baghdad and we're going to do search-and-destroy and we're going to take out anything that looks like an insurgent and we're going to take out anything that looks like a sympathizer, a terrorist or whatever, we're going to clean this place out — and then it's up to you."

Those are two things that are… Well, they're think pieces. I'm just thinking about this. But they both center on the fact that the Iraqis are going to have to at some point take care of all this. We'll either take care of it in Baghdad for them and we'll clear the place out and leave it up to them, or we'll go back to the borders and we'll make sure nobody is getting in there, and: "You clear out who's there. We'll go to Turkey, wherever we have to go to keep people from getting in, but it's up to you guys to wipe them out." Give them those two options. In either example, it is Shock and Awe of one form or another.

via Crooks and Liars.

October 1, 2006

Time Magazine Blog of the Year, 2004 (Defending The Indefensible Edition)

I was going to check out moral idiots at Powerliars to see what they think of the Pagegate scandal surrounding former congressman Tom Foley and see if they still have a death grip on their brand of Republican sycopanthy. Glen Greenwald beats me to the punch, and sure enough, Assrocket doesn't disappoint:

But, in view of the history of far more egregious cases in the House, the idea of pursuing the House leadership on a "when did they find out that Foley sent a creepy email" basis seems ludicrous, and is understandable only in the context of two facts: Foley is a Republican, and there is an election in five weeks.

Yes, crybaby Republicans are ALWAYS the victim. This guy almost literally got caught in bed with a live boy, and they still dismiss it as petty politics and a smear campaign. Greenwald dissects the rest of the post with more lucidity and eloquence than I could ever hope for, but this pretty much confirms that if Hitler and Stalin can grace the covers of that august magazine as "Man of the Year" there's no reason why the bunch of mincing reprobates can receive the same honor.

March 6, 2006

Time Magazine Blog Of The Year, 2004

This is Assrocket's rebuttal after the ThinkProgess blog methodically and patiently prove that every single one of their arguments against Jack Murtha is demonstrably false:

Are liberals really this dumb? Do they really think that the administration believed that Saddam had nuclear weapons, but forgot to mention it except on a single occasion when Vice-President Cheney referred to "reconstituted nuclear weapons"--what does that mean?--while at the same time saying that it was "only a matter of time" until Iraq had such weapons?

Sadly, I think a great many liberals are this stupid. Worse, I think that many liberals--like the proprietor of the hate site that resurrected the Cheney quote earlier today--are so far gone in hatred of President Bush that everything they say and do is said and done in bad faith. Like Jack Murtha, they have lost any ability to distinguish truth from fiction, and any desire to do so.

Yep, when the entire thing comes apart, these jackasses will continue to blame the liberals who never initiated or conducted this war in the first place.