Saturday, May 03, 2003  

At Least One of Them Gets It

The underwhelming nature of the current Democratic presidential candidates was reinforced last night when their debate was not televised live on the network that sponsored it. ABC choose to show the movie Gladiator, instead.

Upon reading that, my first instinct (of course) was to post "I guess ABC knows that people only want to watch men who have some backbone." But upon reading what Joe Lieberman said at the debate, I decided not to post that thought (although I guess I sort of just did). He said this regarding the war on terror and the upcoming elections:

The American people "are not going to choose anyone who sends a message that is other than strength on defense and homeland security."

Yes! A Democrat who gets it, who understand that the difference between winning and losing 2004 is how hard you are willing to fight against the terror threat. The wishy-washiness of John Kerry and the lunacy of Howard Dean are not what presidents (good ones, anyway) are made of. If you haven't figured it out from the polls, the strongest political ground regarding Homeland Security is not to the left of W., it's to his right. If you want to win you'll have to out-hawk the top hawk, and for a Democrat that could be tough.

But this has eased my mind somewhat. I was pretty convinced that if W. lost in 2004, I was going to have to move to a bomb shelter in Montana, because his replacement was not going to take the Islamofascist terror threat seriously. But if someone like Lieberman (or maybe Edwards) wins, I might be able to put off purchasing my new 'vacation getaway'. Now if ol' Joe could just lay off Grand Theft Auto 3.

posted by Josh | 11:55 PM

Bias: Alive and Well

If you think that FOX News has made liberal bias (or at least anti-conservative bias) a thing of the past, check out this article from the Associated Press about Bush's visit to the USS Lincoln.

It implies, and not too subtlely, that Bush's real motivation for his appearance was the upcoming (in only 18 months!) election:

President Bush didn't have to make a dramatic tailhook landing on this aircraft carrier. He could have flown here on a helicopter as presidents normally would, the White House said Friday. Press secretary Ari Fleischer dismissed any suggestion that the overnight trip was custom-ordered to provide campaign footage for Bush's re-election campaign.

Who suggested that? The article refers to no one who claimed that the visit was for anything but to thank the troops and send a message to the world. They could have just as easily printed, "Press secretary Ari Fleischer dismissed any suggestion that the overnight trip was in support of killing cute little puppies." It's fascinating to me that by just printing the 'facts', the media can also express an opinion.

And the opinion in this article was that Bush had an ulterior motive in going to the Lincoln. They offer little if any proof (mainly that the camera angles were set up so Bush could have a good background), but the reader comes away thinking that the whole speech was just propaganda. Question everything.

posted by Josh | 1:39 PM

Just to Let You Know...

We're in the middle of exams, so if we don't post much for the next week or so, that's why.

But after they're out.

posted by Josh | 12:35 PM

Friday, May 02, 2003  

What's With You People? --- WMI Referrer Log Follies, Pt. II

So I was looking through our referrer log again, and again I found some seriously weird Google/Yahoo searches that apparently led people to our site. Try these on for size:

Naked American and Iraqi Girl? Sorry, we're not that kind of website. (Though maybe we should be.....) Or how about this one:

Arabs + brunettes; seems a bit redundant, no?

If anyone tries to tell you that the internet isn't full of weirdos, just check your referrer log once in a while and disabuse yourself of that notion.

posted by Geraldine | 1:04 PM

Thursday, May 01, 2003  

War Works

I would be interested to hear the frequent critics of the President's tactics in the war on terror explain their views in light of this report:

Year 2002 Sees Lowest Number of Terror Attacks in 30 Years

Here at WMI, we believe that - unfortunately - the only language some people understand is the howl from a cruise missile a split second before it explodes all over them. It's no fun to constantly have to fight the bad guys, but as long as it gets results like those documented in the above report, no one should complain.

So the next time some peacenik starts ranting about imperialist agression, Pax Americana, and the like, just tell him that one reason he's able to make such stupid arguments is that he hasn't been blown up by a terrorist. And President Bush had a hand in making sure that didn't happen.

Note: For those hoping that 2004 produces a Clinton Part II (it won't), just remember that last year, under Bush, had less attacks than any year under Clinton. So appeasement does work - for the terrorists.

posted by Josh | 12:13 AM

Wednesday, April 30, 2003  

Rummy Has Returned

Some pics from Rumfeld's victory lap around Baghdad.

sign palace
Signing a Baghdad road sign and touring one of Saddam's palaces. You know you've won big when you're walking around in the other guy's house.

posted by Josh | 3:21 PM

Tom Daschle Reads WMI?

I was perusing our referrer log today (99% of which tends to be composed of traffic from other blogs and Google searches for stuff like "Kill + Dixie Chicks + Traitors") when I came across the following, very, very, very disturbing referrer:

"I + hate + Dixie + Fat Chicks" is one thing, but "Nancy+Pelosi+sexy"? Eww, now that's just gross.

posted by Geraldine | 2:52 PM

Tuesday, April 29, 2003  

Worth the Fighting For

Free at last, free at last. After decades of brutal oppression from Saddam's regime, Iraqi prostitutes and pornographers are finally back on the street.

"This is freedom. It's so wonderful they kicked Saddam out," said the owner of one soft-core porn cinema.

So maybe you like this news or maybe you don't. But if nothing else, at least Iraqis now have the freedon to make the same decisions, good or bad, that all Americans enjoy. Or at least all Americans who can afford a plane ticket to Vegas.

posted by Josh | 10:52 PM

This Explains A Lot

Found a study on the web that displays the average IQ in a bunch of European countries.

Guess who's last? You guessed it: Frank Stallone. I mean, France.

Below-average intelligence may explain why they want to set up a Euros-only defense union to counter NATO. That's a scary thought. Our only hope is that engineers in our military industrial complex can design a missile powerful enough to defend against feckless diplomats and white surrender flags.

posted by Josh | 1:12 PM

Reason #928,298 Why Refusing to Sign the Treaty Creating the International Criminal Court Was a Good Idea or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Unilateralism": Belgian Lawyer Wants to Try General Franks for War Crimes

Recent developments from Orwellville (a.k.a. Europe) indicate that the Bush Administration's refusal to surrender U.S. sovereignty (despite guess who Bill Clinton's previous attempts to do just that) to the International Criminal Court was precisely the right way to proceed. At the time, various leftists decried this refusal as yet another instance of obstinate American "unilateralism." Although the current effort to indict General Tommy Franks is occurring within the Belgian legal system (which the Belgian government has given worldwide jurisdiction), it still provides a nice (or not-so-nice) preview of what life under the ICC would be like -- a series of politicized prosecutions (the Belgians have also taken it upon themselves to indict Ariel Sharon for war crimes) and Orwellian "justice":

War is peace.
Bad is good.
Tommy Franks is a war criminal.

Liberating Iraq and defeating the Taliban are certainly President Bush's greatest achievements to date, but protecting American sovereignty against the ICC runs a close third.

posted by Geraldine | 11:13 AM

Monday, April 28, 2003  

Iraqi Information Minister Gets Bitch-Slapped by Reality

Because he hasn't been made fun of enough, here a is funny clip of Baghdad Bob, from some TV sketch show. Right-click on the picture to save to .mpg file.


Update 4/29: Arab-TV offers job to a dead man. Maybe reality needs to slap them, too.

posted by Josh | 9:13 PM

Sunday, April 27, 2003  

America’s Enemies Hate America? Well, duh!

I do have some liberal commie friends out there, and while I am slowly converting them to the side of right and justice (along with warmongering), I keep hearing the everyone-hates-us-now argument. When did we become a nation of “Help Me Dr. Phil, Everyone Doesn’t Like Me!” emotionally and globally codependent nimrods? Everyone shouldn’t like us. Do you know why? Cause there are a lot of a##holes in the world, and we should not want to be their buddies. North Korea shouldn’t like us. Syria shouldn’t like us. Iran shouldn’t like us. And we shouldn’t like them. Perhaps I should be a little more specific. We shouldn’t like their governments. I’m sure their people are fine (American-hating fanatics exempted). Ultimately, I feel most people in the world like freedom. I also think most people like football (the REAL kind, not soccer you stupid, whiny Europeans), hamburgers (India will come around eventually when they realize you don’t have to go hungry if you choose to eat the stupid cows*), and gin and tonics (I’m on my 5th right now). But let’s just start with freedom and work our way up, shall we?

*That was a cheap shot at India. In India’s defense, I think they have done some very positive reforms over the last 30 years, and they no longer need foreign food aid to feed their population, so my hat is off to them.

Let’s just deal with North Korea for a moment. Make no mistake about it – we are a threat to the North Korean regime. But here’s what confuses the hell out of me – WE SHOULD BE A THREAT to the North Korean regime, or any tyrannical dictator who starves his country under a repressive, communist regime (perhaps I should start saying “his or her country” – you never know if Hillary will gain control of a foreign country, so it could be prudent to plan ahead). I cannot understand why people would want to be friends with the North Korean government. How bad do your current friends have to be to want a psychotic dictator to play ball with you? We should be enemies. Personally, it would scare the hell out of me if Kim Chong-il liked us. Would you not be bothered if Charles Manson liked you? What if Hitler dedicated a book to you? What if Nancy Pelosi sent you flowers? …Ok that last one was out of line. I shouldn’t be comparing Pelosi and Hitler. After all, Hitler’s mustache wasn’t quite as scary. The point is that it’s ok to have enemies. It’s just part of life, albeit one of the less fun parts. But there’s no law that says we have to get along with everyone in the world. Would it be nice if we could? Yes, of course it would, but it would also be nice if Elizabeth Hurley were to show up naked at my door right now...just checked my front door – no such luck, but that’s life. So if we are going to have enemies, North Korea is a good enemy to have…right below France. And for any American-hating foreigners out there reading this rant, in case you don’t already know, America is NOT a good enemy to have. Just ask any member of the Taliban or Baath party if you don’t believe me.

I realize people are scared because of the nuclear factor with North Korea. I implore you not to be afraid. I live in Washington, D.C., certainly ground zero for any attack, along with New York. I am not scared at all, because ultimately I believe Kim Chong-il is a coward, along with all other tyrannical dictators. Trust me when I say that Kim is more worried about staying in power than looking tough against the USA. If he chooses to launch a nuclear weapon against us, whether directly or indirectly (i.e. selling it to terrorists), we will turn North Korea into a parking lot. And he knows this, so don’t sweat it. Kim Chong-il is the one who is sweating, assuming he’s not drunk off cognac right now.

This rant is getting long (and I’m almost out of gin) so I’ll wrap it up, but think about this:

We spent 8 years during the Clinton administration trying to get everyone to like us. It did not work, and we came off looking like cowards. Notice I did not say we were cowards, but we looked like cowards. In 1993, 18 American servicemen were killed in Mogadishu. We (read: Clinton) vowed to hunt down those responsible and punish them, but instead we ran away (under the orders of the Commander in Chief). Two embassy bombings and a couple of hundred deaths later - we (read: Clinton) vowed to hunt down those responsible and punish them. That didn’t happen. In 2000, terrorists attacked the U.S.S. Cole, and 17 sailors were killed. We (read: Clinton) vowed to hunt down those responsible and punish them. Again, nothing happened. I have to say I was feeling pretty depressed. However, since Bush became president, we are 2 for 2. We told the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden or we would remove their government from power. They chose not to cooperate, and we promptly kicked their ass. We told Iraq to comply with U.N. resolution 1441, or we would remove their government from power. They chose to not to comply, and in 39 days we parked our tanks in downtown Baghdad. The world is a better place without the Taliban or the Saddam Hussein regime. The world will be a better place without the North Korean regime, but it’s up to them not to be #3 on our list.

posted by Tucker | 12:06 AM
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