Tuesday, July 20, 2004
A roadside bomb exploded north of Baghdad early Wednesday, killing one U.S. 1st Infantry Division soldier and bringing to 900 the number of U.S. military forces killed since the beginning of military operations in March 2003.
Bring them on.
World's Dumbest People
Netscape.com has a message board where you can nominate someone for one of the World's Dumbest People. Here are my entries:
Hey, get this:
Our so-called President responded to the 9/11 attacks by doing a half-assed job of invading Afghanistan - which is now largely in control of the warlords, outside of Kabul - and then attacked Iraq, a nation that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 9/11!
And now it turns out that Iran, who may have allowed some of the 9/11 hijackers to transit through their country and didn't stamp their passports (to avoid casting suspicion on them when they entered our country), might have used Ahmad Chalabi to feed us disinformation in order to trick us into going to war against the wrong country!
What's more, our so-called President invited Chalabi, an Iranian spy, to the State of the Union speech! He sat next to Laura Bush!
How's that for DUMB!
While thousands were dying in the WTC, our President sat still for nearly seven minutes and read "My Pet Goat" along with some schoolkids, knowing that our country was under attack! That's pretty frickin' DUMB!
You will need an AIM handle to login.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Separated At Birth?
Ann Coulter and Fabio - Separated At Birth? (twin brothers, I'd bet)
props to Attaturk for noticing.
We Get Letters
...from the Republican National Committee and the Bush/Cheney '04 crusade, which we are only too happy to return to them in their own postage-paid reply envelopes, along with however much junk mail we can stuff in them to weigh them down as much as possible.
In fact, the real battle is just beginning.... Just consider this quote from a prominent liberal activist:
"Now the President is out of control and threatens American democracy and the peace of the world...Bush must be beaten in 2004. Not only the nation, but the world, depends on it.
Horror of horrors! A liberal wants to see Bush defeated! The nerve!
President Bush has a bright, bold vision - one of unity, and common purpose which draws strength from the timeless American principles of empowerment, independence, individual liberty, and free enterprise.
Unity? Individual Liberty? Are you Cheneying kidding me?
Yes, you are.
But the LIBERALS don't agree with President Bush . They want BIGGER GOVERNMENT, HIGHER TAXES, and LESS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
Right. Government spending has grown faster under Bush than any President since Nixon. Let's not forget those massive deficits, for which your taxes will have to be raised in the future.
And of course, the Bush regime disclaims any responsibility for the Plame leak, Abu Ghraib, the crappy economy, the non-existent WMD, and on and on and on. Whatever happens on their watch, it's always someone else's fault. Especially Bill Clinton's.
It is absolutely essential to President Bush's agenda - and our Party's future success - that we once again win a majority of votes - from the White House on down the ticket.
Bush lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes in 2000.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
It's Sunday, the day we who subscribe to that anachronistic relic of the 20th Century, the newspaper, get to read the gems and turds bestowed upon us by various pundits who somehow have been deemed worthy of being paid to tell the rest of us what we should think.
A while back, I took a local right-winger named Doug MacEachern - MacHackern around these parts - to task for asserting that there's something nefarious about Air America and how they are aiding the Kerry campaign and Democrats in general. Something which, I believe, that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News Channel, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Regnery Press, and just about every AM talk radio station in the country has been doing for the right for over a decade. It's only bad when liberals do it, you see.
Today, MacEachern bestows the following nuggets of wisdom upon us:
If you truly believe that sending U.S. troops into Iraq was the gravest, foulest mistake of the current generation, if you are convinced no justice was served by attacking Baghdad and that the Iraqis should have been left to deal with Saddam as best they may, then you forfeit the right to complain, ever again, about human-rights abuses anywhere in the world.
This includes the currently fomenting international outrage over Sudan. United Nations word-quibbling aside, Sudan is about as close as you get these days to a level of genocide comparable to what Saddam brought to Iraq. But you no longer have any moral right to suggest your nation is failing its duty to help the tens of thousands of helpless victims in Sudan.
You have no honest right to hector the U.S. for failing to level economic sanctions against China for the Chinese barbarism in Tibet.
You forfeit any right to complain about what the U.S. failed to do to save a million Tutsis from murderous Hutus in Rwanda. You can never again curse the timorous West, including the U.S., for failing to rein in Pol Pot in Cambodia.
Wow, Doug. The clarity of your rhetoric has completely won me over. I was formerly convinced that this war was about oil, neo-con imperial wet dreams, and war profiteering. I'm completely convinced. I'm certain, given your high moral purpose and integrity, that you fully supported US military actions in Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo during the Clinton era.
So, when do we start the invasion of Sudan? When is D-Day for the liberation of Tibet? And Communist China? And Cuba? And North Korea? Those guys actually HAVE WMDs.
When does our military invade and liberate the people of Uzbekistan, whose leader, Islam Karimov, is notorious for crushing dissent including the use of torture, including boiling alive his critics?
What's that, Doug? You don't think that military action is the answer for these situations? Why, you terrorist-lover! You dictator-coddler! You forfeit the right to complain, ever again, about human-rights abuses anywhere in the world.
This is a double-header today. From the more well-known Richard Cohen's column, who's complaining about Ron Reagan Jr. using the memory of his departed father to criticize the Bush administration's opposition to stem cell research:
Let's... question the appropriateness of the statement at the [Reagan] funeral and citing the dead Reagan. And let us also concede that if Rondald Reagan Jr. were not his father's son, not only would he not have been at that funeral - by virtue of what achievement? - but no one would have paid him any attention.
Richard Cohen, if George W. Bush were not his father's son, not only would he not have been nominated as the GOP's presidential candidate - by virtue of what achievement? - but no one would have paid him any attention.
What a moron. You too, Cohen.
Long time no post.
Here's my excuse: