Saturday, March 22, 2003  

A Reader Weighs In...

Glenn, a reader of ours, weighs in on the "Not in Our Name" crowd:

From the website of "Not in Our [commie/anarchist/socialist/anti-american/pro-saddam] Name...

In the words of the Not in Our Name Pledge of Resistance, "Another world is possible and we pledge to make it real!"

My response...

The action of liberation and disarmament is indeed bringing a new world to the oppressed peoples of Iraq. They are celebrating the removal of a murderous tyrant, and are grateful to the brave coalition forces that have pledged to make it possible. This action is being done, not in your name, but in the name of all peoples that truly love liberty and yearn to be free.

posted by Josh | 10:59 PM

Friday, March 21, 2003  

VDH, Again...

We're not trying to be a Victor Davis Hanson (or Charles Krauthammer) blog, but dammit, he's so right!

This week there were reports of brave, impoverished Kurds burning effigies of Saddam Hussein even as the Iraqi Gestapo hunted them down. Meanwhile pictures were being broadcast of Europeans torching simulacra of George Bush. That contrast sums up the current abject dissolution of the antiwar protestors — a bankrupt movement that has intellectual roots in the crowds who slurred Churchill and praised Chamberlain.

Go figure. Poor people atop their own oil who have no liberty, little gas, and few cars can risk their lives to express a desire to be free from a mass murderer. Simultaneously, wealthy, elite Westerners (who import their oil to drive nice cars) risk an hour or two of leisure time to damn a democratic leader for risking war to free these enslaved. Poor, tortured, and exiled Iraqis grimace at all this; Uday the Impaler and Chemical Ali smile.

A professor of mine said the other day that all protest is patriotic. I agree with that to the extent that I acknowledge that a functioning democracy relies on people expressing different viewpoints. However, when you are advocating that a psychopathic dictator should remain in power, that "his" people should suffer his brutal wrath, and that American troops should die when they attempt to rid the world of him, I do begin to question how much the protestors really believe in democracy. Here's a NEWSFLASH for them: Freedom is not reserved just for those in the West. I think it's a sad world where the only Arabs with the right to vote live in Israel (think on that, hippies).

posted by Josh | 9:51 PM

An Obituary for Uday Hussein

The always reliable Washington Times is reporting that Saddam's oldest son, Uday Hussein, was killed in the initial attack that was supposed to get his daddy. There are also reports that he had a cerebral hemmorhage. Uday, we hardly knew ye:

saddam and uday

As a child molester who beats 12-year-old girls who won't sleep with him.

As Saddam's top torturer.

As a psychopath who has his own private torture chamber, just for kicks.

As the murderer of his brothers-in-law.

As a tyrant who uses rape as a tool to control dissidents.

The world is no poorer for his passing.

posted by Josh | 4:17 PM

Some Thoughts From the Left Coast

Will, another buddy of mine, lives in Santa Barbara (named after the late great Barbara Streisand), and has some thoughts on our current situation:

Several points:
1) WMI is a bastion of reason in a sea of illogic, even if I don't agree with every word you guys publish.

2) I hate war protesters. Tonight I was trying to go to a surprise party for a friend of mine in downtown Santa Barbara, and I couldn't make it on time because a bunch of hippies decided to protest the war by standing on freeway offramps and consequently backing up the freeway for miles in both directions. I'm not sure how that really shows displeasure with our administration's actions, and furthermore I fail to see how pissing an entire city off will convince people to join your cause. If you want to enact meaningful political change, forget blocking highways (only unionized cabbage farmers from Freedom pull that sort of stunt) and convince people to vote for someone besides Ralph Nader in the next election.

3) I'm glad we're f---ing Iraq right now, but I'm a little disappointed with our strategy. Why give an ultimatum for Saddam to leave when his leaving will not diminish our need to invade and reconstruct the country (as evidenced by our possible assassination of SH and the subsequent airing of an imposter on TV by the extant regime). On the same note, why float a list of potential Iraqi war criminals and then say that an ouster of Saddam will be sufficient to avoid war? If there's a nation full of war criminals, we shouldn't leave them to their own devices even in Saddam leaves. I say that there are legitimate reasons to invade Iraq, and we shouldn't be afraid to spell them out. Giving different and conflicting reasons for our actions only weakens our position with our own citizens and with the world.

4) CNN needs way hotter anchorbabes.

posted by Josh | 3:39 PM

Thursday, March 20, 2003  

Finally - Our First Hate Mail!

I thought it was never going to happen, but a dirty hippie finally wrote us regarding our "Ridiculous Quotes From Ridiculous People" page (I didn't post his email 'cause I'm a nice guy). He says:

From: "Some Dirty Hippie"
Subject: Ridiculous Quotes by Ridiculous People?

Dear WMI,

Whoever writes this garbage is completely brainwashed by George W. Bush and our government. I've got a proposal for you. If you can give me one good reason for us to go to war and get my approval I'll put a link to your site on my homepage, and be a total supporter of Bush and going to war, but when you can't, you have to get rid of that total trash off the net. How bout it?

First, if you've read everything we've posted and still don't know why America is fighting Saddam, you must be impossible to convince. I'm not going to re-post everything just for you - go to the archives and read it yourself. Basically, hippie, if you don't get it now, you're probably never going to get it. It's not our problem - it's yours.

Second, I think it's telling that the page he was most enraged about was the page where we just posted what people from the other side said - we didn't comment on it, we just laid it out. It's not our fault that the anti-war crowd says a bunch of insane things. If you're so enraged by what your crowd says, hippie, maybe you should rethink your positions.

posted by Josh | 8:41 PM

Not That I Want It to Happen, But If It Did...

Wouldn't just desserts be warranted?


"Jacques? Is that you? The terrorists did what? The Eiffel Tower, the Concorde, no kidding? I think you should give your friends at the U.N. a heads-up. By the way who gave you my number? Don't ever call me again, you weasel."

(hat tip:

posted by Josh | 8:27 PM

A Few Quick Things (Rants) from D.C.

Staff writer Tucker checks in after spending the morning in hippie-snarled D.C. traffic.

Those Goddamned "Bikes Not Bombs" protesters that are claiming they are not impeding traffic because they are "riding with the flow" are full of shit. The Key Bridge (the ONLY bridge that connects Georgetown and Arlington) had to be shut down this morning so cops could arrest them for blocking traffic. Ask a million D.C. Road Ragers - there was nothing peaceful about these protests.

Also, I know someone who was running in a 10K charity marathon in D.C. to raise money for the Special Olympics on Saturday. She said that the lazy, peacenik protesters had to be chased away cause they were eating all of the food and drinking the water that was supposed to be reserved for the charity runners...unbelievable.

And some quick retorts to the antiwar arguments:

Hippy: Regime change in Iraq will be too difficult and challenging.
Response: that's the kind of mentality that allows fat people to sue MDonald's (no offense to future trial lawyers reading this). If you think something shouldn't be done because it's difficult and challenging, then you're a f***ing douche bag.

Hippy: Bombs kill children
Response: Bombs can kill everyone. We don't have the "Children Seeker 2000 Laser Guided Bomb" in the arsenal. And 80% of the bombs dropped in this war are smart bombs (as opposed to 10% in the 1st Gulf War), which means minimizing civilian casualties. But civilians will die; it's war. But I guarantee you many less will die in the conflict than those that will be murdered, shredded in a factory, and gassed by nerve agents if Saddam remains in power.

Hippy: Iraq didn't attack us. it's immoral to attack them.
Response: Germany didn't attack us in WWII. Did that make it immoral to take on the Nazis? And also, the Iraqis have been attacking our jets patrolling the No-Fly zone for almost a decade.

Hippy: Attacking Iraq will create a backlash of terrorism against the U.S.
Response: NEWSFLASH: Terrorists hate us anyway! They are not waiting for an excuse to attack us. They are waiting for an opportunity.

Hippy: North Korea is more of a threat
Response: That may be true, but there is no fixed amount of danger in the world. If the danger level on N. Korea increases, it does not make the danger level of Iraq decrease. We will deal with N. Korea, but let's try diplomacy first. We need China, Russia, and South Korea's help. Iraq has had 12 years and their time is up. The nuclear situation in N. Korea is relatively new. And N. Korea is a perfect example of what happens when you let a ruthless dictator get a hold of some nasty weapons.

and finally:

Hippy: We support our troops! Bring them home!
Response: That's like going to you kid's football game and saying "I support my son! Now pull him out of the game before he gets hurt or hurts someone!" Like it or not, we are engaged with the enemy. It's time to get behind our troops and support them to victory. Let's bring them home, but we need to support them for now and let them accomplish their mission.

Anyway, that's my warmongering $0.02.


posted by Josh | 3:27 PM

Wednesday, March 19, 2003  

But Seriously, He Might Be Dead

Because the Iraqis took an awful long time to put 'Saddam' on TV (with a lot of interruptions from colorbars), and when they did, he looked like a poorly-made Muppet:

saddam muppett

He's really wrinkled, he's got grey in his cursed mustache, and he's covering himself in a beret (French), big grandma glasses, and a high collar. Saddam's supposedly got a bunch of doubles, but this one (if it was one) could not be one of the better ones. If it was a double, that's either really good or really bad:

Good: Saddam met his end a few hours ago at the business end of a bunker-buster.
Bad: Saddam's high-tailed it out of Baghdad and we've got another Osama on our hands.

Or maybe it was the real Saddam live from Baghdad, and he's just having a bad hair day. Also, did you notice that every other word in the speech was 'Allah', 'Zionist', or 'Palestine'? He's trying to rile up the mythical 'Arab Street', but I think the only thing such a call serves to do is to show the Iraqis' desperation.

posted by Josh | 10:43 PM

Best Friends

Saddam: ...yeah, it happened in the first five minutes. Can you believe that shit? Well, I guess we'll have to watch the rest of the war on CNN.

Satan: Can we snuggle too?

Saddam: Yes.

Satan: I want to believe that.

Saddam: So what do you say we shut off that light and get close, huh?

posted by Geraldine | 9:43 PM


It's on.

To American soldiers and others fighting to protect our freedom: Good luck and Godspeed.

To Saddam and his cronies: Make sure you're nice to the Devil when you see him.

posted by Josh | 8:11 PM

WMI Exclusive: Major General J.N. Mattis, USMC, Commander of the 1st Marine Division's Message To All Hands on the Eve of War

Message to all Hands

To see the original, full-size scan, click here. (Warning: this is a very large file.)

posted by Geraldine | 2:12 PM

Awww, Poor Weasels ... Did We Hurt Your Feelings?

Since diplomacy failed him, Chirac's right-hand weasel Dominique de Villepin (see more from him on our Ridiculous Quotes page) has resorted to whining. After yesterday's debate in the House of Commons, he issued this statement:

"The French authorities were shocked and saddened by what members of the British government said ... [T]he words used were not worthy of a country which is both a friend and a European partner."

Well at least they were just words, you backstabber. At least they haven't worked tirelessly for the last five months to undermine the security of the free world and risk the lives of its citizens. No, those were your actions - actions not worthy of an enemy, much less a 'friend' or a 'partner'.

Supposedly Bush has told Chirac, "We will not forgive and we will not forget." Let's hope that's true, and that he sticks to his promise. In the post 9-11 world, we can no longer afford 'friends' like the French.

posted by Josh | 10:28 AM

More Gold from VDH

I've rarely seen someone who can say something as well and as correctly as Victor David Hanson.

Now the battlefield, Thucydides's harsh schoolmaster, will adjudicate what talk cannot. The only question remaining is not the ultimate verdict, but to what degree the past failure of allies to support the United States emboldened Saddam Hussein, cost the American military tactical surprise, complicated logistics, and needlessly raised casualties.

Finally, Mr. Bush's grim speech was a reminder why "a peaceful but not fragile" America is different from the U.N. and the nations that are in it. They either use force or embrace principles, but rarely both and never at the same time. It is impossible to imagine a French or German statesman ever giving such a tough speech about the price of freedom, and harder still to believe any of their people would ever listen to it.

posted by Josh | 10:11 AM

Tuesday, March 18, 2003  

The Anti-War Crowd Looks in the Mirror

In a desperate attempt to stay relevant (kind of like us), America's dirty hippies are threatening massive demonstrations at the start of the war, from blocking rush hour traffic in major cities to invading military bases.

I say, more power to them. A poll that came out today said that 66% of Americans favor war, which is up about 15% from two weeks ago. Now I'm sure that part of that increase is the 'rally 'round the flag' effect, but I'll bet that some of that increase is because normal everyday anti-war people were realizing that their side of the debate was replete with rabid unwashed anarchists. Anti-war soccer moms realized they didn't have much in common with a bunch of jobless communists screaming for the downfall of capitalism.

So go nuts, hippie traitors. Every picture of your dirty naked bodies being hauled off to paddy wagons will make middle America stay even further away from you and your ridiculous beliefs.

posted by Josh | 9:04 PM

We're Getting a Following

Well, maybe not, but they're definitely on our side. A high school buddy of mine named Tucker lives in Washington D.C. and is also a vehement Warmonger. Recently, he and some of his buddies decided to stick it to some of the anti-war protestors marching on the Mall. What they lacked in subtlety, they made up for in swearing.


Here's Tucker working hard fighting against the Hippie hordes. You can find his musings about the day here, along with links to some pretty funny pictures that they took.

Update 3/19: If you think Tucker rocks and/or sucks, you can email

posted by Josh | 8:26 PM

Monday, March 17, 2003  

What Weasels Do Best

Since they've been roundly defeated on the international stage, the French are trying to make up for their losses by promising that they and the U.N. will help with post-war aid and reconstruction in Iraq. Chirac's right-hand weasel Dominique de Villepin said today that he expected France "to be closely involved in humanitarian help to the Iraqi people and the post-war reconstruction of the country."

Translated: the Americans will go in and take the land, so France can go in and take the oil. Guess again, frogs. The Iraqis are going to remember who saved them from a brutal dictator, and who worked like hell to keep that dictator in power. I hope the French like bicycles, because that's how they're getting to work from now on (the few days a year they actually go to work).

posted by Josh | 8:40 PM

The Real Nightmare Scenario

It looks like the plan is to give Saddam and his henchmen a chance to get out - if they refuse they get destroyed. I'm a little worried about this plan, and here's why: What if Saddam takes us up on our offer? He probably will not, but he's been crafty enough to do things like destroying some al-Samoud missiles which have at least delayed his demise. What if he finds a loophole here?

The problem is that just him and his inner circle leaving would not solve the problem. Last time I checked, there were about 2,300 Iraqis on the list of potential war criminals. This leaves open the possibility of Saddam going to a villa in the Sudan and running things from afar - Lucky Luciano ran NYC's Port Authority for the four years he was in Sing Sing, and that was sixty years ago. Worse, it also lets him live, which he and many others will count as a victory. He can stand forever in the minds of America-haters in the Middle East as the one man who tangled with Uncle Sam and lived to tell about it. Hopefully - surely - the Administration has thought of these possibilities and has a counter to them. My point is that this thing needs to end - no more games, just get it over with. We have seen that Saddam can find a way to squeeze his way through the smallest amount of daylight, but this time we must not give him the chance to do so.

On the other hand, maybe this 'offer' to Saddam from the Administration is a good bet; they know Saddam will never accept it so they get to look like humanitarians for doing practically nothing. We'll see tonight.

posted by Josh | 3:40 PM

Sunday, March 16, 2003  

What Would Winston Do?

On the eve of war, I thought we should reflect on some musings from a man who I believe to be one of the greatest minds of the 20th (or any) century: Winston Churchill. What would the man who singlehandedly took on Hitler think of our upcoming battle? Some quotes:


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

The British and Americans do not war with races or governments as such. Tyranny, external or internal, is our foe.

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

Truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it; but, in the end; there it is.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.

A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
- Well, we've tried everything else, haven't we?

The price of greatness is responsibility.
- We are the world's only superpower - we have to act like it.

I like a man who grins when he fights.
- If he isn't talking about W., I don't know who he's talking about.

posted by Josh | 11:14 PM

Weighing In on Ted Rall

After seeing Josh's post, I checked out Rall's latest magnum opus.

Like Josh said, fisking it would be the rhetorical equivalent of cleaning the Augean stables.

That being said, I think I'd rather shake Rall's hand than make out with Helen "I've Been An Annoying Bitch Since the Kennedy Administration" Thomas. I mean, I could wash my hands post-handshake, but I don't think I could ever mentally recover from getting down with H.T.

posted by Geraldine | 10:30 PM

I Hate Him; I Just Hate Him SO Much

I'd like to fisk this one, but I literally would have a stroke before I was finished (and it would take 20 pages). In his quest to become the most despicable "American" since Jeffrey Dahmer, Class-A Mother F-er Ted Rall has a new "opinion piece" entitled:

Don't Support Our Troops

Seriously, that's really the name; see for yourself. In it, he likens America's war on Iraq to Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland. In that same vein, he says that any real patriot will hope that America loses the war - but without American soldiers dying (how's that work?). Of course, since this is coming from the guy that mocked 9-11 widows, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

After reading Rall's garbage, I've come up with the first W.M.I. opinion poll: If you had to do one or the other, would you rather:
(a) Shake hands with Ted Rall.
(b) Make out with Helen Thomas for 30 seconds.

This should be an easy call, but I can't decide. E-mail your thoughts. Also,

A Thought on Donald Rumsfeld (inspired by the post below)

People seem so easily offended by our Secretary of Defense ("Old Europe", "We Can Fight Two Wars", "We Don't Need England"). But as Steyn points out, no one ever accuses him of lying; it's just that he's a little too blunt with the truth. What does that say about Rumsfeld's detractors? As I see it, it says that instead of dealing with the actual reality, they like dealing with their own sort of reality, maybe a 'nicer' sort of reality. Well, back in the '90s when nothing was happening, that kind of thinking was fine. But we're now in a reality where guys with boxcutters can murder 3,000 people and nuclear weapons are within arms-reach of psychopathic monsters. Sorry people, 'nice' is over. We're not in Oz anymore and we have to deal with the situation at hand - and quickly. The truth is our weapon and anyone obfuscating it - even under the guise of diplomacy - is our enemy.

The situation we all are in is so dire that efforts to fix it should not - and cannot - be hamstrung by people scared of and offended by those who 'talk straight.' If you're so worried about people telling the truth, then maybe you're on the wrong side of it.

posted by Josh | 10:00 PM

Mark Steyn on Donald Rumsfeld: The Straight Talker

The Defence Secretary made some mild remarks to the effect that, if Britain were not able to participate in the war on Iraq, it wouldn't make much difference. Even some of his cheerleaders on the right thought this was a tad inconsiderate to Tony Blair. And at the BBC they fell upon it deliriously as evidence that heartless old Rumsfeld would be happy to have Bush's poodle put down and served up at the South Korean farewell banquet with nary a thought: Secretary Rumsfeld, said the BBC's correspondent, Nick Assinder, had managed to "blow a series of holes in the Prime Minister's armour", he had "pulled the rug out" from beneath Blair's armoured feet, etc, etc.

But the thing is: he's not wrong, is he? Britain is helpful, but not necessary. And it would not be unreasonable if Rumsfeld, with a couple of hundred thousand guys kicking their heels in the sand for six months, felt that America was being perhaps too deferential to the Prime Minister's domestic difficulties. After all, at what point does Britain's helpfulness cease to be helpful?

Tony, WMI loves you, you know this. But Rummy's right, it's time to shit or get off the pot. As the colonel in Full Metal Jacket said, "how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and c'mon in for the big win?" Remember Tony, people (even British people) love a winner.

And one more money quote from Rumsfeld:

When Colin Powell was traipsing round the Middle East on his fool's mission last summer, Secretary Rumsfeld (who served as Reagan's envoy to the region) was asked about the "occupied territories" and made you wish he had been sent over to Yasser's boudoir: "My feeling about the so-called occupied territories," he replied, "is that there was a war, Israel urged neighbouring countries not to get involved in it once it started, they all jumped in, and they lost a lot of real estate to Israel because Israel prevailed in that conflict."

So simplistic! So undiplomatic!

So ... awesome.

posted by Geraldine | 9:50 PM

It's About Leadership, Stupid.

A few months ago, during a conversation/argument about the Clinton Administration, a friend of mine said that he thought the best thing about Bill Clinton was his devotion to public opinion polls. Because of this, my friend remarked, you never had to worry that Clinton would do something too politically (emphasis on politically) controversial. I, on the other hand, thought that it was his greatest weakness -- or at least symptomatic of his greatest weakness: an inability to take principled stands from which to lead the country.*

I was recently reminded of this discussion upon hearing certain commentators alleging that Tony Blair and Jose-Maria Aznar are being hypocritical in advocating for democratic government in a liberated Iraq while seemingly ignoring the overwhelmingly anti-war sentiments of their citizenries. (See, e.g., Robert Scheer's remarks during a Los Angeles Times-sponsored debate televised on C-SPAN this afternoon.) These commentators have adopted -- or at least for the sake of expediency appear to have adopted -- the position of my friend. Like him, they forget that we live in republican democracies, not pure democracies. Not every political issue, thank goodness, is decided by public referendum. For example, as the Weekly Standard [warning: subscription req'd] notes, if you'd held a referendum on going to war against Nazi Germany in 1939 after the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland, 97% of Americans would have been opposed; after the fall of France in 1941, 79% of Americans would still have voted "no." But there's no reason to think that the republican mechanism only works in favor of war-making, one could imagine situations -- in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, for example -- where public opinion might favor military action that would be foolish or immoral (after all, how many of us would have voted to nuke Kabul, had we been asked, on 9/12/01?).

Ultimately, the genius of the republican system is that it combines efficiency, in that our elected representatives have the power and time to make the decisions they feel to be necessary, with accountability, in that there are democratic mechanisms for both selecting representatives and, after the passage of a given period of time, reining them in or changing them entirely. Simply put, it allows the elected government to lead, as opposed to read, the country.

In this age of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons proliferation, where a handful of individuals could potentially wreak devastation upon western civilization, it will be of crucial importance that our democratically-elected governments have the ability to act equally quickly, nimbly, and, if need be, contrary to public opinion in their efforts to protect us. Such action might be unpopular at first blush, as Mssrs. Blair and Aznar are now finding out, but as leaders they must have a certain amount of freedom to run these political risks. If their decisions prove to be wrongheaded, they will be voted out in the next election. If they are right, however, they will take their place in history alongside Lincoln and Churchill as democratically-elected leaders who recognized that doing the right thing, even when unpopular, was a far better method of upholding democratic values than a slavish devotion to continuous public popularity. This is a lesson Bill Clinton never learned, a failure which cost him the historical legacy he so desired and, I would argue, the lives of more than 3,000 Americans who died in New York, DC, Kenya, Tanzania, and on board the USS Cole.

*(This, in turn, was probably due to the fact that he has no principles, but that's a topic for another essay.)

posted by Geraldine | 7:18 PM

A Wee St. Patty's Day War?

Well, this is old news by now, but it looks like tomorrow is the end of the line for Saddam, not to mention the Old Europe Weasels. Of course, the French are trying to give ground and offer a 30-day deadline for inspections to work. Too late worms; you're time in the sun is ending, and fast. I know you've had fun trying to ruin the world, but now it's time for us adults to step up to the plate and make everything OK again.

Oh, and take note of what may be some of Saddam's last words:

"Who appointed America the unjust judge of the world so that it can say if this country has a weapon of a certain range that it should destroy?"

While I'm not positive, I'm pretty sure it was Mohammed Atta, right about the time he rammed a 737 into Tower 1. Also notice that implicit in that question is an admission that he does have weapons of a certain range that he should destroy. Saddam's a crafty guy, but he really should hire some lawyers to look over his press releases.

Side Note: Thanks to everyone who's been giving us the good reviews. We appreciate it.

posted by Josh | 3:01 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