Friday, March 07, 2003  

Saddam Will Be Lucky...

... if this is the worst thing that happens to him this month.

piss on saddam

posted by Josh | 5:55 PM

Not months, not years, but decades...

If you had any illusions as to just how crazy and nonsensical the anti-war crowd is, read this quote from Senator Carl Levin (D - Michigan) from today's Inside Politics. When asked how long inspections could take, replied:

"Korea's [been] 50 years, we're still there."

Nice analogy. He's willing to risk American lives for years or decades while Saddam schemes a way to get at us. That's leadership for you.

posted by Josh | 5:33 PM

Thursday, March 06, 2003  

Fisking The Nation's Robert "Ilych" Scheer: Bush Pushes the Big Lie Toward the Brink

So the truth is out: George W. Bush lied when he claimed to be worried about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Otherwise, Iraq's stepped-up cooperation with the UN on disarmament would be stunningly good news, obviating the need to rush to war.

Funny, I don't remember anything in Resolution 1441 about "stepped-up" cooperation. I do recall "full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions...." Chopping up a few missiles is not stunningly good news, Robert, it's the same old wine in new bottles.

Instead, the UN weapons inspectors' verification of Iraq's destruction of missiles, private meetings with Iraqi weapons scientists,

Yep, everything said during those meetings was kept in the strictest of confidence: only the scientist, Hans Blix, and the Iraqi secret police would ever know what was disclosed about Saddam's weapons programs.

visits to locations where biological and chemical weapons were destroyed in 1991

And when the IRS asks me to pay taxes on money I made during 2002, I'll just show them my tax returns from 1991 -- see, all paid up, no money to collect here...

and a series of unfettered flights by U2 spy plans have been met with a shrug and sneer in Washington.

Deservedly so.

The White House line is that even if the Iraqis destroy all their slingshots, Goliath is still bringing his tanks and instituting "regime change."

When you're going to use that trite David and Goliath stuff, at least get the facts straight: David used a sling, not a slingshot. Furthermore, to compare chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to slingshots is just fucking dumb.

The arrogance is breathtaking.

Coming from you, that's saying something.

We have demanded that a country disarm--and even as it is doing so, we say it doesn't matter: It's too late; we're coming in.

When are you going to get it through your thick commie skull? Saddam Hussein is not disarming. As Condi Rice said, we know what disarmament looks like, and this isn't even close.

Put down your guns and await the slaughter.

Are you really suggesting that it's the policy of the U.S. military to slaughter people who put down their guns, or was that simply another one of your ill-reasoned "points"?

Abraham Lincoln once observed that even a free people can be fooled for a time--and this, mind you, was long before Fox News existed--and in his chaotic two-year presidency, Bush has pushed the Big Lie approach so far that we are seeing dramatic signs of its cracking:

This is truly a strange paragraph, Robert. You start out by referring to Abe Lincoln's "You can fool some of the people some of the time" aphorism and then, all of a sudden, you're referencing Goebbels' "Big Lie" theory. Why don't you just come right out and say it? You want people to equate the President with Hitler. Of course you won't come right out and say it, because you know it's so goddamned ridiculous, so you try to camouflage it a little.

an international backlash,

Ooooh, the French don't like us. So what else is new? The Germans don't like us either? Jeez, I'm getting all broken up just thinking about it. The Belgians too? Say it isn't so!!!

a domestic peace movement

Now there's a reputable bunch.

and whistle-blowing from inside our own intelligence and diplomatic corps.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What I do know is that our intelligence corps just arrested Al Qaeda's second-in-command. Looks like someone blew the whistle on Khalid Sheik Muhammad.

"We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam," wrote John Brady Kiesling, a twenty-year veteran of the US Foreign Service in his letter of resignation last week to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Kiesling, who was political counselor in US embassies throughout the Mideast, added that "until this Administration, it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my President, I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer."

Oh, so that's what you're talking about. One crank quits his job and that convinces you that Saddam's not such a bad guy after all. Just how much intelligence do you think they share with "twenty year veterans" of the US Foreign Service? I'm guessing not a whole hell of a lot.

And this brave man is not the only one who has caught on. The entire world is astonished that our President is lying not about a personal indiscretion

Don't even bring up Bill "Just Shoot a Cruise Missile at 'Em" Clinton.

but about the most sacred duty of the leader of the most powerful nation in human history not to recklessly endanger the lives of his own or the world's people.

You got that almost right. It's the president's duty to protect the AMERICAN people. Protecting other people is nice too, but it should be a distant second to protecting the American people.

Yet lie he has.

The first lie, claimed outright, was that Iraq aided and abetted the September 11 terrorists.

I don't recall the president ever making this claim. Documentation?

There is no evidence at all for this claim.

Which one? Yours? Big of you to admit it.

It is also interesting to note that not a single leading Al Qaeda operative has turned out to be Iraqi.

It's also interesting to note that the guy who built the bomb used in the 1993 attack on the WTC, Ramzi Yousef, entered the country on an Iraqi passport.

The latest to be nabbed, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was living in Pakistan, was raised in Kuwait and studied engineering--and presumably the physics of explosives--at a college in North Carolina.

This, kids, is what we call a non sequitir.

The second lie was that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction represent an imminent threat to US security. Despite the most hugely expensive but secret high-tech spy operation in human history--estimated by most at well over $100 billion a year--

Estimated by most what? By most anti-American cranks like you Robert?

and a vast network of defectors and spies, we have not been able to find their supposed weapons.

"Supposed weapons" -- answer me this, Robert, if they don't have any weapons, why did Saddam threaten to use them against us if we were to invade?

The third and most dangerous lie is that our mission now is to bring lasting peace to the Mideast by a devastating invasion of Iraq, which will end, as the President outlined last week, in US dominance over the structure of government and politics throughout the region.

That really would be terrible. After all, our president is practically Hitler, so they definitely don't need any American-style government.

After abandoning promising efforts by the previous Administration to create peace between Israel and the Palestinians,

Well, you know what they say: one man's "promising effort" is another man's "Intifada II".

the Bush team now claims that changing Muslim governments around the world will end the downward spiral of violence there.

It will end the stream of $20,000 checks to the families of Palestinian murderers. That's a start. It will also show the Palestinian terror organizations that, should they be stupid enough to try their bullshit in America, the U.S. is not to be messed with.

Which leads us to another lie: that this is all good for our ally, Israel--the claim of the cabal of neoconservative ideologues running our Mideast policy.

Come on Robert, we all know what "cabal of neoconservative ideologues" means: "Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Bill Kristol, those dirty Jews."

In fact, however, Israel will be placed in a terribly dangerous position, serving as a fig leaf for US ambitions, further insuring that it remain forever an isolated military garrison.

Spare me the disingenuous concern for Israel, especially when your "point" is nonsensical.

This construction of a new world order comes from a naïive and untraveled President,

He's naive? He's sophisticated enough to use Goebbels' "big lie" strategy, right? And if he'd just taken that semester abroad back in college, he'd have developed a completely different worldview too.

emboldened in his ignorance by advisors who have been plotting an aggressive Pax Americana ever since the Soviet bloc's collapse.

Those dirty Jews.

Bush insiders Richard Perle,

Let's keep a running Jew count, just for shits and giggles. Richard Perle, that's one.

Elliott Abrams,


Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz


and Donald Rumsfeld are all members of something called the Project for a New American Century

Probably a part of the International Zionist Conspiracy.

that has been pushing for a US redesign of the Mideast since 1997.

You'd have to be crazy -- or some dirty Jewish schemer -- to want to change a single thing about that heaven-on-earth known as the Mideast.

After September 11, they seized on our national tragedy as a way to enlist George W. in support of their grand design.

What a dupe. President Bush ought to know better than to be caught in a cabal of Jews, uh, I mean "neoconservative ideologues."

Not only was this reckless scheme never mentioned by Bush during the election campaign, it was the sort of thing renounced as "nation-building," something he would never support. Yet another lie.

It's called "projection" Robert. Kind of a Psych 101 thing, you might want to look into it.

posted by Geraldine | 11:43 PM

Californian High Schoolers Pay Tribute to State's Rich History of Looting During Anti-War Protest

The revolution will be televised (on a convenience store security camera).

posted by Geraldine | 9:26 PM

Humor Can Cross Ideological Lines (Get It?)

Comedian David Cross seems to be avidly anti-war, but he's still pretty funny. Some quotes from tonight's The Daily Show:

"I'm just trying to bring about world peace through swearing and blasphemy."

"Let's protest the protestors; not because we're pro-war, but because we hate lame protests."

posted by Josh | 8:38 PM

A Case Against a New Resolution

Most arguments against a new U.N. resolution to disarm Iraq, mainly coming from our ex-allies in western Europe, seem to be based on a fear that a new resolution would authorize war. While that may or may not be true (I hope it is), I am against a further resolution because (1) it is a redundant waste of time and (2) any 'allies' that we might gain from it are untrustworthy at best and back-stabbers at worst.

First the question of redundancy. Resolution 1441, adopted in November, lays out specific terms for the disarmament of Iraq. For example (excerpts are edited for space considerations):

The U.N. decides while acknowledging [that Iraq is in material breach], to afford Iraq, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.

I'm not sure how 'final' translates into French and German, but in English, it means, "This is it. This is the last chance. If you blow this, it's over." This resolution was passed November 8. It is now March 6, four months later. While I am no expert on weapons demolition, I cannot imagine that if the Iraqis had wanted to destroy their WMDs, they could not have done so by this point. Even if they couldn't, if they were out there every day hacking missiles and bombs apart in full view of the inspectors, the case for war would be dealt a serious blow. That's what's most irritating: they need not fully comply, they need to just make a good effort to comply but they wouldn't even do that. If that fact doesn't prove that the Iraqis have no intention of complying, I don't know what does.

The U.N. decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations.

False statements or omissions: how about Saddam denying that Iraq had any WMDs? That was a lie. How about all the al-Samoud 2 missiles that Saddam claimed did not exceed the prohibited range? They did. How about all the warheads that the U.N. found that Iraq had not declared in its declaration? They existed. False statements. Omissions. Under 1441, these constitute material breaches. Under contract law, when a party is in material breach of a contract, that's it - they lose and are punished.

The U.N. decides that Iraq shall provide [the U.N. with] immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom they wish to interview.

Iraq has interviewees wear wires to the interviews. They insist on having 'minders' present during the interviews. They allow no interviewees to leave Iraq to be interviewed. Again, last time I checked, 'unrestricted' meant 'no restrictions' and 'private' meant 'without any thugs staring over your shoulder.' Clearly, Iraq has violated this provision as well.

The U.N. recalls that the [Security] Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

This is the key - what are serious consequences? More inspectors? They're already there. More sanctions? No more could be done without starving every Iraqi to death. The only 'serious consequence' that is imaginable under this scenario is military force. The U.N. said in 1441 that Iraq will face serious consequences for its violations. It has continued to violate U.N. resolutions. While I hold the U.N. in the lowest possible regard for a number of reasons, it has done one thing right - it has already passed a resolution which authorizes war with Iraq, right now. A new resolution could do no more tnan the old one has already done.

The second point is this: what is to be gained from these traitor countries (France, Germany, Russia) approving our resolution? They approved 1441 and now refuse to enforce it. What amount of confidence could we have that if they approve a new resolution they will strive to enforce that one? None. These countries refuse to adhere to the dictates of their own laws. More confidence and trust in them is misplaced and only serves to allow Saddam to dig in more than he already has. This will cause the deaths of more Americans when we inevitably march on Baghdad. For these reasons, we should forego any additional unnecessary resolution and enforce the letter of the U.N. resolution, whether its member states want to live up to their responsibilities or not.

Despite this, the President in his press conference tonight stated that the U.S. would put another resolution to a vote before the Security Council. His purpose, I take it, is to enter into stone a historical record that shows three of the five veto-holding members of the Council in opposition to freedom and democracy in Iraq. While this shows great integrity on his part, I think it also shows naivete. It assumes that scumbag countries like France and China care whether or not history views them well, or even beleive that history will view them poorly. If we losethe vote and invade Iraq anyway, it gives the anti-war crowd another argument about American imperialism. But more importantly, if we win the vote and the countries of the Security Council follow us into battle, it gives untrustworthy traitors a claim to the political and economic future of Iraq. That should not happen. Stability in the Middle East is too important to leave in the hands of the French, Germans, and others who have no full world view and only consider their own personal short-term interests.

As I've written before (and can be found in the Federalist Papers), any president's first duty is to protect the lives of his citizens. Delaying on action in Iraq threatens American lives, especially those of its soldiers. Giving Europe a chance to get in on our agenda threatens American lives because it puts some responsibility for those lives in the hands of leaders who do not even care about their own citizens, much less Americans.

posted by Josh | 7:31 PM

The Noose Tightens...

Some clues that make me think the start of the Second Gulf War is imminent:

Here are all the countries that have told their citizens to leave Iraq in the last three days:


We're letting them know that something big is coming (cue Jaws theme). But more importantly, the military presence has been subtly stepped up. For example:

(a) We've doubled the number of planes flying over the no-fly zone, I imagine to spot or take out as much resistance as we can before the 'real' war starts.
(b) We're stepping up the leaflet campaign (this time with an environmental message, OK dirty hippies?).
(c) And here's an under-reported but interesting little tidbit: the U.N. is reporting repeated breaches in Kuwait's border-long fence with Iraq, at least one by a group of U.S. Marines in a 4x4.

The war against Saddam has already started, they just haven't told us yet.

posted by Josh | 3:08 PM

Wednesday, March 05, 2003  

W.M.I. Contact Info

We just set up an e-mail address, so if you think anything here is incredibly right or incredibly ridiculous, send us a message at:

If we like it, we'll file it away; if we hate it, we'll reply.

posted by Josh | 11:38 PM

Sad Funny, Like a Dead Clown

"This time around over 90 percent of the ordinance we plan on dropping is precision."
- Rear Adm. Matthew G. Moffit

"I’m just so against the war with Iraq."
- Michael Stephenson, an East Chapel Hill high 10th-grader

Isn't there something ironic about the fact that we're sending all our smart bombs to Iraq while we're stuck with so many stupid kids here at home?

posted by Josh | 11:16 PM

I don't know, these people look like they're having too much fun to be real protestors...

"C'mon everybody! We're going streaking through the quad!!!!"

posted by Geraldine | 8:14 PM

Helping Out a Kuwaiti Brotha

Although the Kuwaitis don't occupy the warmest place in my heart -- they tend to shoot an awful lot of Americans for a nation of people whose asses were saved by us only 12 years ago, that's borderline Frenchy behavior -- they are at least our nominal allies against Iraq. That being the case, I thought I'd help out the Kuwaiti who suffered a verbal beat down at the hands of the Iraqi delegate to the Islamic Summit, this guy:

So, Kuwaiti dude, here's your belated retort:

"Don't step to me with that monkey bullshit, you shit-brown polyester suit-wearing, redheaded sonofabitch. Who the hell's heard of a redheaded Arab, you're probably Irish, you drunken bastard."

posted by Geraldine | 3:06 PM

Guess who's behind today's student strikes?

posted by Geraldine | 2:48 PM

Don't Get Chrissie Hynde Wrong, She's Rooting for Saddam

Between songs, the pugnacious Hynde, in a classic black T-shirt and jeans, bantered and battled with the crowd. She dedicated "You Know Who Your Friends Are" to "all you junkies and f--," gave a shout-out to the late Joe Strummer, opined that she hopes the United States loses if it goes to war with Iraq ("Bring it on! Give us what we deserve!"), and introduced the song "Fools Must Die" with the self-deprecating quip, "I'll show you how it's done."

When we crashed a local anti-war rally with our ironically pro-Saddam posters, we wondered if maybe we were being a little too subtle for our intended audience. Maybe, we thought, we could have riled up the crowd if we'd explicitly expressed a desire for American deaths and defeat. Apparently that's no big deal either, just fodder for concert banter.

The take home message: you cannot satirize people who pride themselves on being foolish.

However, if you want to tell this loathesome wench how loathesome she is, you can write her (sorry no email) at:

Chrissy Hynde
c/o Gailforce Management
24 Ives St.
London, England
Great Britain

You can also write Warner Bros. and tell them they shouldn't be supporting people who publicly advocate the deaths of American and British soldiers. Write them at:

Warner Bros. Records Inc.
3300 Warner Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91505

Or give them a call: 818-846-9090

If you want to go protest the treacherous fiend, check out The Pretenders extensive touring schedule from the Warner Bros. website. Ha Ha.

posted by Geraldine | 2:35 PM

...speaking of insolence...

posted by Geraldine | 1:07 PM

A Crack in the Armor

Say what you want to about the Arabs, but they know how to hold a summit. In a meeting in Qatar yesterday, the Iraqi delegate made this well-reasoned argument to the Kuwaiti delegate:

"Shut up you minion, you agent, you monkey. You are addressing Iraq. You are insolent. You are a traitor to the Islamic nation."

Or to put it more succinctly:


A small but important sign. They know the end is near and they are scared. I'm telling you, this war is going to last about five minutes, or as long as it takes the Iraqi Army to makes half a million white flags.

On a similar note, Libya pulled its envoy to Saudi Arabia due to their recent verbal spat. Nothing is more fun than watching a bunch of dictators tear each other apart. And our presence in the region is the reason for it. That alone justifies American involvement in the Middle East.

Special thanks: Get Fuzzy

posted by Josh | 10:58 AM

They're on a Roll

The Religion of Peace scores twice in two days with a suicide attack in Haifa that killed 15. I beleive that brings them to a two-day total of 36.

The issues in this have been debated to death so I see no need to address them again, except to say that this is yet another reason why we need to overthrow Saddam. This argument may seem a bit attentuated, but I think it works. First, you've got a family of a terrorist which is $20,000 or so richer today because of Saddam's reward system. Ending him would obviously end the economic incentives for these bombings. But more importantly, he is a bright shining beacon for those who think that power and political leverage can be gained through lawlessness. That is because he has been able to gain those things through lawlessness for the past twelve years. When the Palestinians see that his way of doing things only leads to self-destruction, they may put two-and-two together and think twice about their methods.

Or not. If you don't buy this argument, the always brilliant Victor Davis Hanson wrote a more eloquent, but similar, argument here.

Update: One more; that brings today's total to 16 and monthly total to 37.

posted by Josh | 8:40 AM

Tuesday, March 04, 2003  

Oh Thank You, Thank You God; We Really Owe You For This One

The unwashed hippie masses tried to ruin America (and Chapel Hill) again today, but divine intervention made them think the better of it: Protestors decide against marching naked.

A bunch of dirty hippies tried to talk big and say they were going to burn out our eyes with their hideous naked bodies, but instead they went like this:

Could've Been a Worse Picture

One dirty hippie, after thankfully deciding to keep his potato sack on, said:

"Now that it’s through, I’m thinking it was a good decision. Was it going to be our bodies or the message?"

Well, your bodies are retched and your message is ridiculous, so I guess you can take your pick. I'd rather put my fingers in my ears than have to wash out my eye sockets with chlorine. What is it about taking their clothes off that makes these people think that they're making more of a political statement? As a professional armchair psychaitrist, I think I know the answer: (1) daddy never loved them; (2) they hate daddy; (3) daddy hates public nudity; (4) they see George W. as their 'new' daddy; so (5) they'll do something that new daddy hates, too.

But not to end on too sour a note, some good things do happen around here. Read this piece about a Gulf War veteran whose son is going to finish what his father started.

posted by Josh | 9:29 PM

Reason #827,928 why Chapel Hill, North Carolina is known as "The People's Republic"....

One of our city bus drivers is a Soviet spy.

Hat tip: JB

posted by Geraldine | 8:59 PM

Religion of Peace Enters March with a Bang!

Muslims rebels in the Phillipines murdered 19 people, including an American, with a bomb in an airport. In related news, a different Muslim terror group in the Phillipines says they are getting their money from Saddam.

On the first point, people calling Islam a peaceful religion would have a lot better argument if Muslims would stop murdering people in the name of God on a daily basis. Starting today, we're keeping a running death count.

On the second point, is anyone surprised that Saddam and those in his cabal (is that spelled right?) are funding terrorists? Saddam already told us that he gives $20 grand to Palestinian families every time one of their kin heroically blows himself up in an Isreali pizzeria. That being known, why was there such debate about Saddam's Al-Qaeda connection when Powell presented it to the U.N.? If Saddam supports one group of terrorists, why wouldn't he support another? Of course, I think we know what the answer is: many (especially on the left) think that terrorists that kill Jews, really aren't terrorists, they're freedom fighters. Therefore, Saddam's links to Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups really don't establish a precedent in some people's warped minds. But make no mistake, while those on the left see Americans and Isrealis as different peoples, the terrorists do not.

First they came for my neighbor, and I said nothing; then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Also a footnote about reports that the U.S. is spying on U.N. delegations: of course we are. That's what you do to your enemies.

Update: The death toll is now up to 21.

posted by Josh | 11:58 AM

Monday, March 03, 2003  

Fisking Eleanor "I Played the Stupid Liberal Lady on the McLaughlin Group" Clift: Planet Bush

....Bush extended his fantasy of peace all the way to Jerusalem, asserting that the removal of Saddam would clear the way for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Yeah, it's absolutely crazy to think that removing a major source of funding, cheerleading, and inspiration to Palestinian terrorists would do anything to help resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Bush has it backwards, says Carothers [a "democracy specialist" at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace -- more on this later. - Ed.]. The way the administration has ignored the Arab-Israeli conflict is fueling anti-Americanism, and an invasion of Iraq will only harden the anger.

I love this logic. If we do anything to Saddam Hussein, we'll be hated for meddling. If we decide, with good reason after he turned down 98% of what the Palestinians supposedly wanted, that a Yassir Arafat-led Palestinian Authority simply cannot deliver its end of any American-brokered peace agreement, then we'll be hated for failing to act. Frankly, if the Arabs, French, and Germans hate us, I say wear that as a friggin' badge of honor.

Baghdad has almost nothing to do with the Palestinian uprising, and Saddam’s payments to suicide bombers are a pittance.

That's a lie.

Money is not in short supply in the Arab world;

That's also a lie. According to the CIA Factbook, Saudi Arabia, one of the richest Arab countries, has a per capita GDP of $10,600, a little more than half of Portugal's $17,600. In Iraq, per capita GDP is a meager $2500. So, unless you happen to be a sheik or a dictator (not that there's much difference) money is in very short supply in the Arab world (largely because sheiks and dictators are not).

the terrorists will find another way to underwrite their actions. “The notion that invading Iraq will dry up terrorism is a pipe dream,” says Carothers.

Who said it will "dry up" terrorism? If it so much as seriously inconveniences terrorism, that's a plus.

It’s as though the inmates have taken over the asylum. Neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, once consigned to the think-tank world, are now running the show.

That's a lie too. From the DoD website's bio on Wolfowitz: "For the last seven years, Dr. Wolfowitz has served as Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University." Last I checked, Johns Hopkins wasn't a think tank.

Prior to JHU, Wolfowitz "served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in charge of the 700-person defense policy team that was responsible to Secretary Dick Cheney for matters concerning strategy, plans, and policy." Hmm, I don't think the Pentagon is a think tank either.

"During the Reagan administration, Dr. Wolfowitz served for three years as U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia . . . . Prior to that posting, he served three and a half years as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, where he was in charge of U.S. relations with more than twenty countries."

So much for poor ol' Paul's consignment to the think tank world. By the by, isn't the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, Mr. Carothers' employer, a - drumroll please - think tank?

These mythic thinkers are more like missionaries bringing a taste of civilization to the unwashed than real-world policymakers.

Note the not-so-subtle implication that Arabs are incapable of democratic self-government -- and that anyone who thinks otherwise must have the idealistic naivete of a missionary.

Democracy as a source of inspiration already exists in the Middle East.

Yeah, it's called Israel, the only country in the Middle East with Arab voters. Notably, it's also the one country in the Middle East where the citizenry doesn't hate America.

Many Arabs have lived in Europe and know what democracy is; they just don’t think it’s achieved with the barrel of a gun.

That's funny, during their time in Europe they must not have noticed all those huge military cemeteries in France and England.

“An Egyptian told me that if the road to democracy is 3,000 cruise missiles, an American invasion and an American military occupation, I’d rather not have it,” says Carothers.

Well, you know the old saying, "If you can find one Egyptian dude to say something, it must be a great argument."

Clift continues with more inanities about missile defense (she's against it) and spending on homeland security (she wants more of it). If you're a masochistic type, I heartily recommend reading the full version.

posted by Geraldine | 8:37 PM

Like Rats From a Sinking Ship, Part II

The wife of The Cause of 9/11 issued a statement from her Senate office yesterday, saying through a spokesman that:

"Sen. Clinton fully supports the steps the president has taken to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."

Oh really? Because I just read that on January 24, Hillary made pretty much the exact opposite statement:

"Personally, I think we ought to let the inspectors, you know, do some more work and try to make sure that we have more people with us than we do right now."

Personally, I think, you know, she just realized that she had been playing for the losing team and decided it was time to defect before things got any worse. Is there something in the water in Arkansas that slowly dissolves people's spines? I mean, as much as I detest the opinions of the anti-war people, I don't (usually) question their integrity. But predictably, Hillary is going where the polls take her. Oh well, at least she learned from the best.

Of course, maybe we shouldn't be too hard on her. For example, I don't remember her objecting when her husband bombed Iraq on the day of his impeachment.

posted by Josh | 8:25 PM

This just in from the "People Who Live in Glass Houses" Department: Pope's peace envoys leaves for Bush meeting

A peace envoy of Pope John Paul flew to Washington on Monday to urge U.S. President George W. Bush to step back from the brink of war against Iraq.

Cardinal Pio Laghi, a former Vatican ambassador to the United States, is due to meet the president later this week and will hand him a letter from the pope appealing for a peaceful solution to the crisis.

In response, President Bush dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Vatican to urge the pontiff to restrain his troops from launching preemptive strikes on altar boys' buttholes.

posted by Geraldine | 7:39 PM

Sunday, March 02, 2003  

Behind Enemy Lines

Sunday afternoon it was on in tha Thrilla. I'm not sure anyone actually got the joke, but hopefully after we infiltrated this anti-war rally at least a few dirty traitor hippies were instilled with a renewed sense of irony.

Check out the pictures here. Watch out; it's big page load.

We realize some Rush Limbaugh fans beat us to the punch, but it's still a helluva lot of fun. You should try it.

Also check out our awards for Best Pro-Saddam Slogan of the rally.

posted by Josh | 9:37 PM

Like Rats from a Sinking Ship

Who didn't see this coming? All the dirty hippie traitors that went to Baghdad as 'human shields' now want to go home, citing lack of effective numbers and, surprise surprise, that Saddam would rather have them 'shielding' military bases than hospitals. Dirty hippie Christiaan Briggs says:

"Now we are being told we cannot go to certain sites, such as hospitals, so we are reassessing our strategy,"

You know, all those hospitals and orphanages that the Air Force had targeted as part of its campaign to kill little kids, Iraq's most effective fighting force. He continues:

"The aim was always a mass migration and if we had had five to ten thousand people here there would never be a war. We do not have those numbers."

Five to ten thousand people who are going to put themselves in harm's way for Saddam?! I'll wager there aren't even five or ten thousand Iraqis who will do that. But frankly, I'm sad to see them leave. Their loss would have left the world no poorer.

Update 3/03: Check out a law professor's musings regarding how we might still rid ourselves of these freaks after all (via lethal injection).

Update 3/05: Turns out the dirty hippies aren't even good at running away: Their buses are stuck in Beirut because they ran out of money. Isn't great when bad things happen to bad people?

posted by Josh | 2:52 PM

WMI goes a-demonstratin'....

Coming soon, a link to photos of WMI's recent visit to an anti-war demonstration. As much as we tried to rile up these dirty hippies, they were either too non-judgmental -- or, more likely, -- too uninformed to understand that we were making fun of them.

posted by Geraldine | 2:41 PM
WMI Poll
arsenals of democracy
coalition of the willing
evil empires
wmi's gonzo journalism
email us
link to WMI
the archives
that don't work