Saturday, April 19, 2003
Grasping at Straws
posted by Josh |
Having been utterly discredited by recent events, the anti-war crowd is desperately seeking a new standard-bearer. And since no reputable newspaper or mainstream magazine will now publish anti-war propaganda (since the war is over, and because it is incorrect), the left is having to go to other sources. But this is just sad: the Nation cites the Daily Show as a counterweight to FOXNews and CNN (because we all know what a conservative bastion CNN is):
Welcome to The Daily Show on Comedy Central, the medically prescribed antidote to CNN and Fox. Hosted by Jon Stewart since 1999, this parody of the news is dedicated to expressing utter incredulity over what Team Bush tries to get away with week in and week out. As of this spring, a weekly compilation of the show airs on CNN International, which boasts 160 million viewers.
First of all, that the anti-war's best advocate is the cable equivalent of SNL's Weekend Update is pathetic. Second, the fact that they don't even understand their own 'advocate' even more pathetic. This isn't surprising, as the Left wouldn't understand humor if it hit them in the face - there are too many sensibilities to be offended.
But maybe they should check out some pre-2001 Daily Shows, where Bill and Hillary were mercilessly skewered. It's funny to make fun of The Man; The Daily Show doesn't choose Bush for ridicule because they hate him; they choose him because no one knows (or cares about) Nancy Pelosi. I disagree with the political implications of their jokes, but I still think the Daily Show is hilarious.
But I guess I should feel good about this - when the anti-war crowd is claiming a 22-minute cable show as their forum (and claiming that CNN is my forum), my side must be doing pretty well.
Totally Off-Topic: WaPo has an article about the resurgence of my favorite beer, Pabst.
posted by Josh |
Before you start buying the amnesty arguments for terrorist Abul Abbas, remember one monument that he personally created (courtesy Common Sense and Wonder):
Think about how he murdered a crippled old man and threw him into the sea. The only shame about Abbas' current situation is that, to my knowledge, Italy doesn't have the death penalty.
Way, Way Funnier Than Mork
posted by Josh |
An excerpt from Norm MacDonald's April 19th, 1997 Weekend Update:
"In an interview this week with Diane Sawyer, Mafia turncoat Sammy the Bull Gravano revealed that John Gotti once considered trying to buy a presidential pardon for 5 million dollars.
According to Gravano, however, he and Gotti were too afraid to get involved with 'those kind of people'."
Ha ha. A bit off-topic, but we do enough Clinton-bashing here that I thought I'd let someone else get a shot in.
posted by Josh |
In our continuing quest to make sure everyone knows what a fathead Ted Rall is, here are some excerpts from his column of April 2, where he argued that ordinary Iraqis would fight for Saddam rather than let Americans occupy Iraq.
Though Operation Iraqi Freedom has been underway for only two weeks, Rumsfeld's "shock and awe" strategy was a flop.
So I guess we were in a 'quagmire', too. A 'flop' in two weeks, an utter success in three. Quite the turnaround. Unless, of course, it never really was a flop and Ted Rall is a rotten military analyst.
Only 45 Americans and Britons have died so far--compared to 112 total combat deaths in 1991--but allied casualties will soar if and when ground troops are ordered to take Baghdad.
Nothing much to say here, except Ted Rall: wrong again.
Regardless of their political affiliations, patriotic Iraqis prefer to bear the yoke of Saddam's brutal and corrupt dictatorship than to suffer the humiliation of living in a conquered nation, subjugated by Allied military governors and ruled by a Hamid Karzai-style puppet whose strings stretch across the Atlantic.
And they preferred Saddam so much, a week after this column was published, they were tearing down his statues in central Baghdad. I wonder if Rall ever gets embarrassed about being wrong so much of the time. Somehow I doubt it, but it also makes me wonder who continues to publish a guy who misanalyses world events again and again.
Thursday, April 17, 2003
Blair in 2004
posted by Josh |
I think we're doing quite well with the leader we have, but sometimes I wish he could say some of the things that come out of Tony Blair's mouth:
"I found it very frustrating and at times extraordinary that there were so many people against something that seemed to me in principle so obviously right."
Welcome to my world. But this quote sums it up for me:
"The only way I can retain equilibrium and balance through something like that is to remember the essential rightness of the decision and the essential responsibility that comes with it."
Thank God we have leaders who reject the new philosophy of moral relativism. Thank God he remembers that some things (like survival) are more important than popularity contests. If it weren't for leaders like Blair, we'd have all been radioactive dust long ago.
posted by Josh |
We finally figured out how to put a poll on our website (php coding is not our forte). So go vote on the sidebar; it's really easy and I think this week's question is timely.
(Many thanks: Pete the web guru)
Update 4/19: the poll really is working now, I swear it! If you already voted, vote again, because you probably didn't get counted last time.
And I Guess the Sky Is Falling, Too...
posted by Josh |
What do we have to do to prove military dominance? We just completed one of (if not the) most successful campaigns in military history. I just heard Paul Wolfowitz on FOXNews say that "it went better than anyone had a right to expect." But the Europeans are predicting yet another "quagmire" if we decide that Syria needs to be taken care of. The Dutch paper Trouw has this to say:
"Following Iraq, the temptation could be great to attack other so-called villainous countries. But one should advise the U.S. against that. The war in Iraq has been won, but peace is still a long way off. And a military victory for the U.S. in Iraq does not necessarily translate into a valid political strategy for the Middle East.
An expansion of the war into Syria would surely result in defeat for the U.S. in the Arab world."
What? Have they watched a TV or read a newspaper anytime in the last month? The only reason that all the land from Cairo to Tehran isn't under our control is because we are decent people who aren't bent on war (no matter what your local dirty hippie will have you believe).
Now maybe they mean we'll be defeated in the realm of public relations. While I think it's too early to make that call, I think it is important to note that for every dictator we overthrow, we gain friends. I know that every last Iraqi is not overjoyed right now, but most of those complaints seem to be due to the chaos of war, and that will end soon enough.
And think about this: we've gone to war with a lot of countries since 1776, but we have never gone to war against another democracy (although we've come pretty close with France a couple of times). For every dictator that we replace (or just is replaced) with a democratic government, that's one less country that will be an enemy, and that's yet another victory on our scorecard.
A New Threat on the Homefront
posted by Josh |
The next time you think People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is just trying to protect baby seals from being clubbed, read this article on the violent tactics of the so-called 'animal rights' movement (why don't you just give rights to a telephone pole, as well) and the effect their efforts are having on national security.
PETA also funded the legal defense of a convicted arsonist and has served as the media representative for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a terrorist group. Think that's a misuse of the ''T'' word? The FBI doesn't. It calls ALF, along with its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), ''a serious terrorist threat'' within the United States.
So serious have such crimes become that the FBI has issued an alert to law enforcement agencies to remain on the lookout for possible criminal activity by ''animal rights extremists'' during the World Week for Animals in Laboratories protest scheduled to begin Saturday.
It is outrageous that the FBI must devote resources to the crimes of homegrown animal-rights zealots at the same time it faces overseas terrorist threats. Yet a few days into the Iraq war, ALF released a report of domestic terrorism committed by ALF and ELF in 2002, claiming ''100 illegal direct actions'' against businesses, government agencies and universities.
A little off-topic perhaps, but I think it's important to remember that the war continues on the homefront as well as in the Middle East, and distractions to law enforcement can cost lives (not that PETA cares about human lives, but some of the rest of us do).
(Hat tip: Miles)
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Thanks to John at TarHeelPundit and Pejman at Pejmanesque for the plugs. We love the traffic.
posted by Geraldine |
If you're a devoted WMI reader (who isn't?) but have never been to the aforementioned sites, be sure to check them out.
Dirty Hippies Still Exist and Academic Icelanders Suck
posted by Josh |
Will, a buddy of mine, sends in this report from the left coast:
Here's an actual conversation I just had over lunch. I have indigestion now.
Hippie: I think this was a terrible war, and we shouldn't have fought it.
Will: Well, all war is terrible, so that's a pretty meaningless statement.
Hippie: Okay, it was wrong for us to invade Iraq -- we had no right to do that.
Will: So it's wrong for us to liberate a people who are oppressed by a brutal dictator and have no human rights? I'm not sure you want to agree with that.
Hippie: This war was fought for the wrong reasons!
Will: Okay, maybe. What do you think was the reason we fought this war?
Hippie: I don't know!
Later a visiting prof from Iceland tried to tell me that Americans were brutal, barbaric colonialists because we allowed the Iraqi people to destroy their own cultural heritage, and that we should be ashamed to have invaded a country that has such a small army. Luckily I finished my sandwich about the time he started to explain that since Iraq has never had a democracy, democracy will never work there and it's insulting to its people for us to try to "impose" a democracy on them. I'm not making this up.
Unfortunately, I totally believe that he is not making this up. I think Will needs to find some new people to dine with (as well as a new state to live in).
The Comics Page Must Read W.M.I.
posted by Josh |
(Thanks: Non Sequitur)
The PLO Wants Abu Abbas Back? No problem - we'll start mailing you his fingers one by one.
posted by Tucker |
There is a lot of controversy surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it seems like the general consensus is that we need to create a Palestinian state to get them to shut up and stop blowing up busloads and nightclubs full of civilians. Theoretically, we could build a Palo-Disney World - then they'd all probably move to Syria on their own. There are many schools of thought on this matter (mine personally being that if you give into their demands you basically have shown that targeting civilians with suicide bombers is an effective way to get what you want). The usual argument from the other side is that Israel (with the help of the USA) kicked the Palestinians out in the 1940's and Israel is occupying additional land from the 6 Day War. As cynical and uncaring as it sounds...so what? You have to draw a line somewhere - sort of a statute if limitations on where your borders are. If the ancestors of native Americans started blowing up buses and shopping malls because they were angry at how the white man kicked all the Indians off their land (personally I'd be more pissed off about small pox...), I doubt I would sympathize. Although if that ever happens we could offer New Jersey to them for appeasement...better yet, maybe Israel should offer the Palestinians an opportunity for tax-free casinos.
The PLO (which encompasses Abu Abbas' PLF) is fighting for an independent Palestinian state. They are also calling for the release of Abu Abbas, claiming that the 1995 interim agreement between the PLO and Israel prohibits any PLO member for being tried or punished for crimes committed before 1993 (they seem to want to embrace the idea of a statute of limitations when it favors them). Abu's PLF faction shot a disabled American in the head and chest and dumped his body overboard during their infamous hijacking. Here's a message to the PLO: your agreement is with Israel, not the USA (side note: wasn't there something in that peace agreement about blowing up busloads of Israeli civilians?). Abu is a terrorist. He's not a freedom fighter. He's not a misguided, manipulated pawn. He's not a holy soldier. He's a terrorist, and now his ass belongs to the United States of America.
Perhaps we should consider handing him over to Italy. I realize it's hard to imagine a scenario where getting a bunch of Italians involved could improve things, but they already have 5 life sentences in prison waiting for him. This could save us time and energy while we continue the war on terror.
My final thought: why are these terrorists in hiding so fat? First Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and now Abu Abbas...I thought if you were on the run from the law, you were supposed to be skinny, tired and frail? Where the f--- have these guys been hiding?!? Fudruckers?!! Sorry - had to get a fat joke in there. Maybe they can share a cell in between their new jobs as lab rats in the study of testicular reactions to violent electrical shocks.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
posted by Josh |
A day after hostilities ended, U.S. troops kicked in a dusty door in Baghdad and arrested terrorist mastermind Abul Abbas. Abbas was responsible for, among other things, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro.
I think this event and the events of the previous weeks have refuted a lot of what the anti-war crowd has been spewing of late. Because of that, it's time for the W.M.I. Dirty Hippie Lesson Minute. OK, dirty hippies, repeat after me:
I will no longer say that the war in Iraq distracted from the fight against terrorism. The capture of terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abul Abbas have proved me wrong.
I will no longer say that Iraq had no connection to terrorists. Al-Qaeda camps in northern Iraq, suicide vests in Iraqi schools, and the capture of Abbas in Baghdad have proved me wrong.
I will no longer say that the invasion of Iraq has made the United States a more dangerous place. The fact that we have destroyed terrorists training camps in Iraq and captured terrorists in Iraq make it impossible for me to say this and still make any logical sense.
We feel all better now, don't we?
Mommy Let Me Use the Internet, So I Writed a E-mail
posted by Josh |
Here is a particularly hilarious flame by some jackass who thinks he has the intellectual capacity to mess with us:
Have you ever actually participated as a member of the armed forces? Most of us were and are Democrats.
Oh really? Then why do you military Democrats vote so heavily Republican at election time, to the point that in the last election the Democratic Party tried to stop your votes from being counted?
Maybe that's why we hate war so much.
You hate war because you’re a Democrat? You mean like the way Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson hated war? And for hating war so much, the military seems to be doing a lot of it lately.
We, and or someone we know
So which one is it? You, or someone you know? (As your story begins to unravel).
actually fought in one of those little police actions,
If they were so little, why bring them up, bitch?
unlike Duhhbya who used family influence so that he could pussy-out and stay on the sidelines flyin an F102 starfighter for his daddy's Texas Air National Guard.
At least he didn’t go to Moscow and burn a flag like your best buddy Bill Clinton.
(Sideline: The F102 flies as straight as a bullet and turns just as fast. Not one of these point interceptors was sent to 'Nam, they make lousy iron bombers.)
Who the f**k cares? Did you design those things or something?
My point is: Did you or one of your inbred yokel conservative buddies actually serve overseas?
Well, being negative 5 years old at the time, the military refused to allow us to join up. Otherwise, we were there. Anyway, this is an irrelevant point. We didn’t serve in the Revolutionary War either, but we’re still glad that England got beat.
Senator John Kerrey of Massachusets did in Vietnam, he was wounded in action and got a Purple Heart. He thinks that we need a "regime change at home".
I agree, and Senate Democrats like John “I Threw Back Other Guys’ Medals to Protest the War in Vietnam” Kerry should be the first to go. And besides, since when does being too slow to dodge a bullet automatically make your political opinions worth listening to?
A decorated and wounded veteran's opinion counts more than a spoiled-brat alchoholic/cokeaholic rich-kid who used money and fraud to finesse his way to the White House.
Actually, it doesn’t. The opinion of the guy who won the election counts more. And if you don’t like ‘money’ being a part of the presidential race, I hope you didn’t vote for Clinton, the biggest money-raiser in Democratic Party history. How much did the Lincoln bedroom cost again?
Oh, and if you haven't noticed, Bush is about to get to the White House again. His approval rating is 71% with 82% supporting the war. Wow, looks like people overwhelmingly agree with us.
You see, I grew up during the Vietnam era,
No kidding, ‘cause you sound almost nothing like some washed-up alcoholic Vietnam Vet burnout.
I almost died in my country's service and so did a lot of my friends.
Maybe if you’d just tried a little harder, and died, we could’ve won that war.
I've sat with guys who have gone through post-combat flashbacks. I've talked to former jarheads who were at the fall of Saigon (During that dumb-ass Gerald Ford's administration, A Republican I might add), and I've talked to a former leatherneck who told me about all the flusterclucks that occurred during Alzheimer Ron's Grenada Raid (Launched right after his administration sent the Marines into Lebanon without loaded weapons and improper roadblocks resulting in a truck bomber sending 350+ of the few and the proud to the halls of Saint Peter).
So you think war doesn’t always go according to plan? Quick, somebody call the History Channel, we’ve got a Military Historian on our hands.
By the way, I'm a former Marine,
Thank you for your service. If you’re telling the truth.
a former Eagle Scout,
read: Canteen Boy
and a former bar bouncer at the roughest joints in three states
Your mother must be so proud. All those years at Harvard really paid off.
and I think that you and your chickenhawk, armchair general, wannabe warrior, catamite good butt-buddies
Catamite butt-buddies? As a Democrat, you should know better than to use anti-gay rhetoric.
should go back to your Rebel-Yell beer and tractor-pulls and save the internet for people who actually have something intelligent to say instead of parroting the Rich-Republican, Mutinationalist-controlled Neo-Imperialist Press.
Notice that he has failed to address a single substantive issue on our site. His argument begins and ends with ad hominem attacks. This is the usual tactic employed by the left: bash those with whom you disagree or cannot understand and never address the real issues.
Second, notice the “mutinationalist-controlled” [sic] press reference. A little “Internationalist Jew” hatred, perhaps? Do you think we have a little anti-Semitism on our hands? Naw, not from a Democrat.
Third, we can’t wait to be rich Republicans.
P.S. I think most conservatives are yellow-bellies with white feathers. The real fighting is still done by us hicks, blacks and chicanos.
Here’s another tactic of the left: every issue is a racial issue. Warmongering Illustrated has never taken a position on racial issues, but, in the name of journalistic fairness, we feel compelled to correct the assertion that “The real fighting is still done by us hicks, blacks and chicanos.” In fact, USA Today reports that most front line combat units are disproportionately white. (Of course, maybe they’re all white hicks, who knows?)
Two of those groups are 99% Democrat.
(a) This is untrue; Bush won 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and 15% of Blacks are Republicans ; and (b) as we’ve just shown, they are disproportionately underrepresented in front-line units.
And the hicks will get wise after a few more casualties in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, North Korea, Cuba.……
So are you saying that rural whites are, as yet, too stupid to understand that going into the military entails a possible loss of life? For a guy who says he stands up for the common man, you seem to have a lot of contempt for them.
You get the picture? Especially when they find that Monkeyboy and his Republican circle of jerks has cut veteran's benefits and the job prospects down-home are nil.
Job prospects are nil? Well, we know your job is secure until they close all the bars in Medford.
P.P.S.: "How does the Economy under Bush resemble a Hoover Vacuum?" answer: "It Sucks!!"
He’s a scholar and a comedian! And he’s wrong. Unemployment is still lower than it has been in decades, even if it is slightly higher than it was during the phony-boom of the late ‘90s. Right now it’s at 5.8%, which means that even if you don’t have a job, loser, 94% of the people you know do.
And remember, It's still the economy, Stupid.
Now where have I heard that one before? Oh, I know! I heard it from that president who shot his loads in the Oval Office instead of in Vietnam and in so doing caused 9-11 to happen. You sure know how to choose your role models.
Sincerely Yours, Fetid Animal.
Mr. Animal, thanks for your input. Fisking you has been delightful. It has given us a template to expose the mad rantings of so many on your ever-shrinking side of the aisle. Please write again soon if your mother permits you.
Sincerely, your friends at W.M.I.
Monday, April 14, 2003
posted by Josh |
Well, it had to happen sooner or later: Pentagon Says Major Combat in Iraq Is Over.
Three and a half weeks. That's not too bad for taking over an entire country. But what's the story now? What are a couple of old-fashioned warmongers going to do with this new-fangled peace? I've got a couple of thoughts (but an incomplete list, to be sure), that I have named:
Things Dirty Hippies Will Say That W.M.I. Will Have to Refute
(1) The Rebuilding: In the coming days and weeks, you are going to be hearing shrill protests from the anti-war crowd about how although we won the 'unjust, illegal' war, we've lost the peace. Every time someone loses a cell signal in Karbala or Najaf, you're going to hear about the horrible humanitarian crises that we have brought upon the Iraqi people. Watch for stories that are blown way out of proportion.
(2) Syria: see below. This is the next target, no doubt. And there's also no doubt you'll hear about how the long-fabled but never-seen 'Arab street' is going to prevent us from dealing with these terrorists. Or how the eventual sanctions are killing five billion Syrian infants every day. Or how it's all just a big Zionist conspiracy.
(3) The Pre-emption Precedent: Some country, like India or North Korea, is going to say that the coalition's invasion of Iraq gives them the right to take pre-emptive action against any country that they please. The anti-war crowd will use this as evidence that the Second Gulf War has, in fact, destroyed the world.
(4) North Korea: Where has that little troll been? He's smarter than the Syrians, I'll give him that. But there will be tons of people (mainly in South Korea, ironically enough) who will argue that appeasement is the best option and to let old Kim have a free hand.
(5) The Axis of Weasels: The anti-war crowd, and some of the pro-war crowd, will argue that although France, Germany, and Russia deliberately tried to sabotage the safety of the free world, they should suffer no repercussions and our relations with them should normalize. The Axis of Weasels will continue to attempt to sabotage stability and freedom in the Middle East.
(6) The Limousine Liberals: People like Maureen Dowd, Robert Fisk, Ted Rall, and Michael Moore are going to say all the things listed above, and more. Hopefully, we'll be able to pull up all the incorrect things they've said lately and destroy their 'arguments' that way.
So don't tire out quite yet people; the war is over, but the real fight has just begun.
Sunday, April 13, 2003
W.M.I. Prediction Watch
posted by Josh |
See what you think of this report:
Bush Gets Tough on Syria
President Bush was careful to stop short of threatening war against Syria, though he warned the country not to take in Iraqi leaders. He also charged that Syria has chemical weapons. "They just need to cooperate," Bush said Sunday.
"People have got to know that we are serious about stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction," Bush told reporters.
Asked Sunday whether Syria had heeded [the demands to stop selling military equipment to the Iraqis], Rumsfeld replied, "Not noticeably." [Asked about Syria's status] on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism, Rumsfeld said, "Being on the terrorist list is not some place I'd want to be."
So here's the prediction: Syria is next. The Administration is going to try to cut them some slack for awhile, but they're not going to take the bait. Case in point: the world's most powerful military force is on Syria's border, yet they still choose to taunt that power with petty actions such as letting extremists across their border and allowing Iraqis into their country.
I admit that I am totally dumbfounded about why these militant Arabs aren't getting the point yet. If you mess with us, you lose. We've taken out two countries in two years, yet Syria still thinks that they are immune. I've said it before: bad call. So we'll see what happens, but there is no country that is giving us the finger (except maybe Russia) like Syria is right now. I think they picked the wrong president to f--k with.
Our Friend Vladimir: Russians Gave Iraqis Intelligence in Days Leading Up to War
posted by Josh |
Russia provided Saddam Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders.
Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for "hits" in the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries. The two countries also signed agreements to share intelligence, help each other to "obtain" visas for agents to go to other countries and to exchange information on the activities of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qa'eda leader.
The documents detailing the extent of the links between Russia and Saddam were obtained from the heavily bombed headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service in Baghdad yesterday.
If this report is true, it is tantamount to an act of war by Russia on the United States. I'm not saying let the missiles fly, but I am saying that giving the Russkies one nickel's worth of action in post-war Iraq would be rewarding people who put American lives at risk. And maybe not just soldiers' lives - why were the Russians giving the Iraqis information on potential assassins? I think we've got another country to add to the list of terrorist states.
Rummy Quote of the Week
posted by Josh |
From Friday's Pentagon press briefing:
Reporter:You couldn't have done it [fought the war] any faster?
Rumsfeld: That's wonderful. Are we in a quagmire? (Laughter.) Huh? Is that where we are? Come on!
How can you not love that guy? Now if he'll just slap Maureen Dowd, he'll be my all-time hero.