Saturday, December 21, 2002


"Bush is considered the greatest threat toward world peace since Hitler" and other gems are sure to amuse at this nest of idiotarian lunacy.

I stumbled upon this wonder while checking my visitors google search words. Someone hit my site after searching for "madman Bush".

Boy, they must have been REAL disappointed.


Murray said in her comments to world history students, "We've got to ask, why is this man (Osama bin Laden) so popular around the world?"

Hint - it's not because we didn't build a bridge in Afghanistan.

Hitler was pretty popular in Germany in the 1930's, does Senator Murrray think that understanding why would have prevented the deaths of six million Jews?

The popularity of Osama bin Laden has a hell of a lot more to do with the failure of Arab governments to create anything resembling a modern, free and prosperous society than with a lack of US charity.

We tried to avert a humanitarian disaster in Somalia but did that didn't prevent 18 US servicemen from getting killed and having their bodies dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. We sent troops into Bosnia to try to prevent the slaughter of Muslims there but the World Trade Center still went down.

I agree that we should help others around the world. But we can only do so much; Arabs have to build their own societies and educate their own people. To think that some kind of PR campaign will make them love us is extremely naive.

By the way, Senator Murray's response is up now at the link listed above. Good luck Patty (finding a clue that is).


Colin Powell's statement on Thursday regarding the 12,000 page smokescreen submitted by the Iraqi's to the UN inspection teams offered a few details:

"Before the inspectors were forced to leave Iraq, they concluded that Iraq could have produced 26,000 litres of anthrax. That is three times the amount Iraq had declared. Yet, the Iraqi declaration is silent on this stockpile, which, alone, would be enough to kill several million people."

"The regime also admitted that it had manufactured 19,180 litres of a biological agent called botchulinum toxin. UN inspectors later determined that the Iraqis could have produced 38,360 additional litres. However, once again, the Iraqi declaration is silent on these missing supplies."

"The Iraqi declaration also says nothing about the uncounted, unaccounted precursors from which Iraq could have produced up to 500 tons of mustard gas, sarin gas and VX nerve gas."

Now it's obvious that you don't just dump 60,000 liters of biological poisions and 500 tons of chemical weapons down the kitchen drain or in the backyard. And it's too large a quantity to have lost track of. It would take a lot of people with specialized gear a significant amount of time to destroy that much material safely. Assuming he didn't use it on the Kurds (I'm guessing we would have noticed thousands of dead people, just a hunch), what DID THEY do with all of it?

Is it credible that they would have destroyed it all but have no record of it? Only a fool would believe that.

By itself, this is ample justification to go to war. It is obvious that they are still hiding significant quantities of CW and BW and probably still producing them.

It was also obvious that this latest Iraqi prevarication has tipped Powell over toward the use of force. He was visibly agitated at the press conference.

I'd say Saddam's days are numbered now. I'll put the number at 120 and counting.

Friday, December 20, 2002


" Now, obviously, the most important issue in the feminist cosmos is whether or not female billionaires can join their male counterparts as full members in the Augusta National Golf Club. But is is unwarranted to conclude from this outsized irrelevance that feminism has been sucked into the vortex of Fermi's Paradox ("Where are they?"). To the contrary. It is surely at least as important to bemoan a tyranny of body image that is so visciously patriarchal that men not only force women to define and defend it in magazines, they then force women to buy and devour those magazines. What cads! And then there's the Glass Ceiling. And those unscrupulous car dealers who charge women more just because they were not taught how to bargain by their vicious, patriarchal fathers. And capricious, nefarious judges who might, at any random moment, deprive women of the 'choice' to commit the single most barbaric act possible to a human being. And--always, always, always--the men who won't do dishes or change diapers. How could anyone expect American feminists to spare a thought for the women of Islam, who are regularly tortured and killed in public, and who are routinely tormented and persecuted by a religion that is fundamentally anti-woman?"

"The fact is that the feminist movement is simply the Ladies Auxilliary of the communist movement. Crimes against women in countries communists stand a chance of taking over are bad. Forced abortions in communist China are good. And Islam is the enemy of communism's enemy, Western freedom, so the feminist movement is otherwise occupied. So don't ask, "Where are they?" In the American left as in Islam, a woman's place is in her place."

I can't add anything to that.


"Sen. Patty Murray intended to be provocative when she told a group of high school students terrorist leader Osama bin Laden is popular in poor countries because he helped pay for schools, roads and even day care centers."

"We haven't done that," Murray said. "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

"Murray's remarks, to a group of students in Vancouver, Wash., started even more discussion than she expected after they were published Thursday in The Columbian newspaper of Vancouver and then picked up by The Associated Press."

First, Afghanistan was the home for OBL's training bases...I don't think that giving the Taliban money for "roads and schools" would have averted the murder of 3000 at the WTC.

Second, we haven't done ANYTHING to Iraq...except demand that they live up to their agreements with the UN.

Why is it that she believes that OBL's family's road building business is morally superior to the funds expended by US government and non-governmental sources in middle east countries? Does she believe that the bin Laden's construciton company is a non-profit organization? Or that al-Qaida isn't funded by the profits made off of government contracts there?

As a US Senator she has the resources at hand to have educated herself. Therefore, I must conclude that she is a) too stupid to understand what is going on or b) willingly supporting the enemy.

I really hope it's (a).


More lunacy from the great frozen north disected with the usual alacrity by the king of the screed,
Mr. James Lileks. A small taste:

"Mrs. Williams, a 33-year-old Women's Studies student at the University of Victoria,"

"You know, if every "Woman's Studies" department was closed, and the student loans were used to create businesses that hired women instead of studied them like tragic butterflies impaled on the patriarchal pin, we might be better off. Granted, we'd be without PhDs theses like "Rape Symbolism and Beatrix Potter: A Rake's Progress," but the culture would survive; the only noticeable effect at all would be a 17% decrease in Frieda Kahlo poster sales, and a 50% decrease in 33-year old college students."

"Who is Santa?" she asks heatedly. "He is the mall's puppet.... Children are taught to worship this white, heterosexual man who overeats. I mean, it's wrong."

And thus did millions of British Columbians realize, with a flash of light and a clap of thunder, how wrong! they! were! Santa is white? Santa is heterosexual? Santa overeats? And we’ve been leading our children to the lap of this monster! What else does he do? Quick! To the Internet!

"(typing into Google image search:) santa smoking"

"(parent watches in horror as Google disgorges picture after picture of Santa smoking a pipe)"

"Nothing does the cause of equal rights for gays more damage than some dessicated harridan complaining that Santa is always presented as a Straight Male. You can feel the chill wind of the future, a clammy foretaste of the day when Santa’s marital status will become a sign of the Heterosexist Imperium. Here we see the difference between people who want to expand the definition of Normal, and those who want to redefine it. The difference between those believe Vegetarians are ordinary folks, and those who believe Carnivores have been programmed by a socially-constructed notion foisted on us by the Meatriarchy."

"Sorry.Of course Santa's straight. You think he'd wear that outfit if he wasn't?"

"But that's not the issue. We have to marvel: What sort of person complains that Santa is straight? A thirty-three-year old college student, that's who. Someone who's sat in the canteen and nodded excitedly as a fellow student describes how the whole Santa-with-his-big-red-bag-thrusting-down-the-chimney thing is a metaphor for Western anxieties over homosexual rape. Of course! It's so clear! They have to make Santa straight to make the rape-myth palatable. They all feel used by Christmas. They feel shame that they need Santa, yet are repulsed by him. Mall Puppet? More like Mall Prostitute. Ho, Ho, Ho, indeed."

"As for Santa being white - this is a crime? As for Santa being fat - this is a crime? Get a cell ready for Ed Asner."

Ahh, bashing women's studies programs and Ed Asner in the same screed - so delicious.

What is with the Canadians lately anyway? Has the relentless cold completely robbed them of their senses?

Lighten up Mrs. Williams. Christmas is hardly "hell".


Thankfully, Trent Lott resigned as Senate Majority Leader today.

The spotlight should now be shifted to how the Democrats dealt with (or failed to deal with) the racist statements of Robert Byrd ("white niggers"), Cynthia McKinney ("it's the J-E-W-S), Jesse Jackson ("Hymietown"), and Bill Clinton (William Fulbright). Why is it that these guys should get a free pass?

There is still racism in this country on BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. Democrats should be scrutinized over their statements and actions the same way Republicans are.

For contrast, go back to Bob Livingston who would have been speaker of the house in 1998. When news of an affair(s) that he had already disclosed to his wife threatened to break (through the efforts of the excrable Larry Flynt), Livingston gave up the position because he felt that he hadn't lived up to the highest standards of conduct. Then compare that behavior with prominent Democrats like Barney Frank, who paid a male prostitute for sex and then allowed the man to run a brothel out of his apartment; or Gerry Studs who had sex with a male page (employee), or Ted Kennedy (nuff said), or Bill Clinton who defiled the people's house, the White House, by letting an intern employee perform fellatio on him in the oval office. Bob Packwood resigned, didn't he?

I'm not saying that Republicans are perfect by any means. But I do think they tend to hold their ranks to a higher moral standard than the Democrats. It speaks volumes about the difference in philosophy: old fashioned Christian morality vs. post-modernism.

I think that the nation as a whole prefers the former. Republicans need to remain consistent in their stance and point out the difference to voters.

Thursday, December 19, 2002


Right Wing News notes:

"When he was the governor of Arkansas only two decades ago, Bill Clinton routinely issued proclamations, with the usual rhetorical flourishes, commemorating the birthdays of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis?

That seems to be quite the inconsistency on Clinton's part doesn't it?

Then there is Clinton's claim that, "their (the GOP's) policy is, in my view, inimical to everything that this country stands for." But, if Clinton is implying that the GOP is full of segregationists & racists, how can it be that so many Americans are voting Republican? So now Clinton has in a round about way, Clinton has called more than half of the country racists who want to return to the bad old days of segregation.

Coming from a guy who gave a Presidential Medal of Freedom to his mentor, William Fulbright, that's quite a claim. Let me give you a little background info on Mr. Fulbright. Fulbright signed the "Southern Manifesto", voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act., & voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This is a man of whom Clinton said,

"It doesn't take long to live a life. He made the best of his, and helped us to have a better chance to make the best of ours.?The American political system produced this remarkable man, and my state did, and I'm real proud of it.

So what was Clinton proud of? Fulbright's vote against the Civil Rights Act? Perhaps it was Fulbright's fight against 1965 Voting Rights Act? He could try to say that he supported Fulbright's strong stand on defense but that didn't work out too well for Trent Lott when he tried it."

Nuff said.

OUR EX-MOLESTER-IN-CHIEF ZIPPED UP HIS FLY for a moment to share his thoughts on the Trent Lott fiasco; at least they were thoughts and not bodily fluids.

CNN reports that, "President Clinton said Wednesday it is "pretty hypocritical" of Republicans to criticize incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for stating publicly what he said the GOP does "on the back roads every day."

This kind of smear campaign is hardly suprising from the spirtual head of the party that ran the James Byrd ads against Bush in the last election cycle.

"How do they think they got a majority in the South anyway?". "I think what they are really upset about is that he made public their strategy."

Ooops. Trent, you knows we kin only talk that away at the Klan meetin's. Now you let everbody know ar strategery. Peoples are gonna get wise to ar a cross burnin's now!

He added: "They try to suppress black voting, they ran on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina, and from top to bottom the Republicans supported it."

Maybe people just got tired of the Liberal ultra-PC, I'm so sensitive to your pain bullshit agenda. Maybe they got tired of dimwit Democrats trying to change team mascots so as not to offend "native Americans"; maybe they're tired of being told that they can't have a moment of silent prayer at a football game; maybe they're sick of having a president that fondles young staffers in the oval office and lies under oath.

"I think the way the Republicans have treated Senator Lott is pretty hypocritical since right now their policy is, in my view, inimical to everything that this country stands for," Clinton said.

Well, IF Republican policy was segregation of the races, as he implies, then he would be right. But as a Republican I take great umbrage at this vicious smear. As long as cynical politicians like Clinton and his race-baiting Democrat allies are allowed to perpetuate the myth that Republicans are racists in banker's clothing, race relations in this country are not going to improve.

This statement is just as inflamatory and much more malicious than Lott's stupid remark at the Old Fart's birthday party. Clinton should be excoriated by the national media for this mendacious barrage, but my guess is they'll give him a free pass. After all, they agree with him.

Wednesday, December 18, 2002


After the last two posts (wow, spleen almost empty of bile now), I thought that it would be a great idea to pitch in for some fresh diapers for the twits at The Guardian (by the way, what an inappropriate name for that rag).

C'mon, let's get in the holiday spirt! They must be dirtying their shorts a lot over there with the world about to come to an end an' all. At least they should be able to meet universal Armaggedon with a fresh, clean diapey.

Maybe we could include the yo-yo's at Democratic Underground in our generosity.

Just a thought.


Jonathan Glancey doesn't know why we should fight Saddam...or how to structure an argument either:

He starts his editorial on the (possible) upcoming war with: "It was innocent Vietnamese villagers, though, who died at My Lai on March 16 1968."

Uh...what the hell does My Lai have to do with this?

"With the experience of Vietnam behind them, what is the moral impulse driving George Bush and Tony Blair to war in Iraq?"


"...what are they fighting for? Is there more to it than installing an oily new regime in Baghdad subservient to Sheriff Bush? Or a military administration led by Tommy Franks, a general who looks as if he has walked straight off the set of Dr Strangelove?"

OIIIIIIIIIIIIIL! I knew it! You see, with all of the oil shortages here in the US and with Bush's buddies not makin' so much money 'n all, we gotta go in there and git that cheap Iraqi crude. Yesser. Dimwit.

What is with the attack on General Franks? Ohh, I see...Dr. Strangeglove...bad...Buck Turgedson...bad....me so scared of evil Dr. Bush and Gen. Franks. Please, Jonny, tell us what to do!

"What can our civilisation offer this ancient land, still free of the excesses of US consumer culture, beyond "regime change"? "

Freedom, pinhead, that's what. Whatever they choose to do with the freedom (from acid baths and genital electroshock) that we'll give them is up to them. If they want a McDonalds on every freaking corner, fine. If they want to listen to Barbra Streisand (ugh), fine. But NOTHING can happen until "regime change" occurs.

"During the second world war, Britain had no doubts about its enemy: Hitler, Nazism and governments which believed themselves to be above international the law."

Sounds like Saddam to me.

"But we also had an intelligent view of what we were about. The war developed a moral and positive, as well as a military and destructive, purpose. Politicians who put John Ruskin, Robert Tressel and the Bible rather than Harry Potter at the top of their reading lists..."

More ad hominem attacks at Bush. If you think Bush reads stupid Harry Potter and not the Bible then you have been in a coma for the last two years. How moral was the firebombing of Dresden? or Tokyo? A hell of a lot of civilians died there. There wasn't anything like that in Afghanistan and there won't be in Iraq...but you still think that we Americans are a bunch of bloodthirsty cowboys.

"We need to know what we are fighting for, and to give more than a damn."

If you would READ anything other than the forum at Democratic Underground, Noam Chomsky, Bobby Fisk and John Piger you could figure out FOR YOURSELF why we have taken this road. You apparently don't give a damn if you can't do more than throw out Vietnam and Big Macs and think you've presented a damning case against the war.

"Of course we should be on our guard. Western civilisation is under attack by angry people around the globe. We need to present the positive aspects of our culture, not its crass, bloated, knee-jerk side, nor the less-than-secret craving of certain US and British politicians for a "good" bloody war."

Yes. Let's play nice. I think we should apologise for all the nasty things we've done and give the "angry people" a big atomic stick to beat us over the head with. Nobody "craves" war...not Bush, not Franks, not Blair, NOT ANYBODY. This problem has been festering for a decade; taking action at this point can hardly be called a "knee-jerk" reaction. DIPLOMACY HAS BEEN TRIED OVER AND OVER AND HAS FAILED. Saddam has respect for nothing but the mailed fist.

It may not bother you to see thousands of Iraqis murdered by various means and you may not weep for the Israelis who's deaths are subsidised by Hussein's payments to the homicide bombers families, but it bothers the hell out of me. And unlike you, I understand why we need to take action and I support taking it. I don't take war or death lightly, but this fiend has to be stopped and the time to do it is NOW.

But if you had any intention of looking at the situation with an open mind, you'd have come to this conclusion by now. YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT WE STAND FOR WITHOUT SOMEONE HAVING TO SPOON-FEED YOU.


Writing in al-Guardian, Simon Tisdall thinks that the world is about to be plunged into the abyss of "unreason" (yawn):

"Sadly, help for the hawks is at hand - and reason is about to be suspended. In fact, reason, along with rational thought, objective analysis and calm, considered discourse are about to be gassed, bombed, anthraxed, poxed and nuked."

I have a feeling that Simon is up to the task of suspending reason, rational thought, and calm considered discourse...read on.

"The US and the four other permanent security council members have now had a week to dissect Iraq's dossier. They have also, scandalously, had a chance to edit and censor it, omitting in all probabil ity Iraq's embarrassing list of western arms suppliers along with other inconvenient facts. On Thursday, Blix will submit his initial analysis of the declaration to the council. Whatever he says, that will also trigger the US and Britain's full, formal "preliminary" assessments."

Blix himself is doing the "censoring". I personally hope, as a "hawk", that all of the western arms suppliers' names are made public. The UN resolution asks member nations to disclose any information they may have; exactly why it is so ominous that they do so is not clear.

"No prizes in this doomsday guessing game: we already know what they'll say, since they've already said it. To cut a very long story short, our elected representatives and people's tribunes will solemnly intone, Iraq's voluminous dossier is lies, lies, videotape, and more lies (without the sex)."

Right...no suprise here; Saddam has been lying to the UN for years, no reason to think he'd change stripes now.

"For all the on-off hopes of a peaceful outcome, this avoidable, illogical denouement should come as no surprise. Unreason permeates every aspect of Bush's slow-burn, post-Afghanistan campaign against Iraq. Unreason is the warlord now and is now unleashed."

The only one having a reasoning problem is you my dear Mr. Tisdall.

"Bush says people planning to use weapons of mass destruction are the big global threat. So Washington has pledged itself to pre-emptive, any-time use of weapons of mass destruction if provoked. Is that reasonable or what?"

Bush has not pledged "any-time use of weapons of mass destruction". Nobody in Washington or London is running around threatening to push the button. Just cool off lunatic!

"Bush says he has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. But for a decade the US starved and impoverished those same people with unleavened sanctions. Now, taking the direct approach, it is willing to kill them outright in order to "liberate" them."

Geez, is there some kind of fucking liberal debating school that teaches them this crap. Let me see if I can follow the intellectual thread here...we can't impose sanctions because Saddam will use them as an excuse to starve his own people but we can't take him out with the military because there will be Iraqi casualties. So, we can't do anything but stand by and watch a sadistic fiend horde nukes, chemical and biological weapons and fund homicide attacks. Golly, why didn't I think of that!

"Bush says Iraq is but part of his wider "war on terror". But while he plots Saddam's downfall, al-Qaida is plotting his (and maybe ours). Bush surely knows that nuclear-arming, desperate North Korea and its ballistically unstable "Dear Leader" present a far greater, wider and immediate threat than Iraq's rusting Scuds and mutinous army. But do his eyes turn from the gates of Baghdad? No, they do not."

What a great point! First, we can and will pursue al-Qaida while prosecuting the war in Iraq (just ask those smoking husks in the Yemeni desert if we are paying attention - what do you say? they can't answer? my point exactly). Second, there are some things that are practical and some that are not. Kim Jong-Il is an unhinged, maniacal bastard with (probably) nuclear weapons...but he also has a hell of a lot of artillery within firing distance of Seoul. We'll take care of him in time...don't you worry Simon.

"Bush says he fights for democracy, in Iraq and beyond. No matter, apparently, that the US, not trusting the Iraqis with their own country, plans to install a US-confected military government or perhaps, a carefully vetted, pro-American puppet show, and tramples civil liberties at home."

We had to occupy Germany and Japan for many years after they were defeated to insure that democratic principles had time to take root and grow. You don't just walk away after the society is damaged by war and throw them the keys to the country. I'd like it if we could but we can't.

What "trampl(ing) civil liberties at home" has to do with establishing democracy in post-war Iraq is beyond me. I guess Tisdall just felt the paragraph was a little short on lies.

"Bush says that in his coming battle, he has a host of friends and allies. But most have been bought, bullied or destabilised into bogus solidarity. Bush's moralistic war will set a woeful precedent for an immoral era of "pre-emptive" intervention."

Yeah. Unlike the French, Germans and Russians whose foreign policy towards Iraq has NOTHING to do with OIL or ARMS SALES.

What about the "woeful precedent" of allowing dictators to thumb their nose at peace agreements signed with the UN? Or the precedent of allowing despots to torture and rape their citizens at will? Which is more "immoral"?

"As long as the UN inspections continue, there is still a chance to stop this war. Maybe the French or Russians will dig in, will demand stronger evidence of Iraqi cheating going beyond the US's highly suspect dossier deductions."

Those principled upholders of freedom the FRENCH AND THE RUSSIANS....thank God!. How is it that Tisdall knows what is in the dossier before it is released? How does he know that Bush already has proof of mobile smallpox labs and underground uranium separation facilities? He doesn't. But even if the proof is put before his nose, Simon the Omniscient won't believe it.

These hysterical loonies all have the same chicken little line - "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". If you want to argue a pacifist position, fine come out and say that you don't believe in force under any circumstances. But this ignorant insistence that Bush is a blood-thirsty maniac that must be restrained from making war against the rest of the planet is so insipid that it makes me want to vomit.

Saddam is our enemy - he has proven that almost every day for the past decade. He has broken the agreements he signed to end the Gulf War over and over again. He tortures women and children and uses hideous chemical weapons to kill enemies both internal AND external. He is a threat to his neighbors and his own people and he MUST BE REMOVED. This seems very clear and extremely rational.


If you feel so strongly about it Tisdall, why don't you join those Canadian women over in Baghdad and serve as a human shield. I'm sure that will deter the MADMAN Bush.....NOT.


Suprise, suprise! The official state media in Iraq distributes lies!

"Penn's flack howled in protest, claiming her boss was the victim of terrorist misquotes.

"Oh, please! I don't know where those statements are being fabricated from," said spokeswoman Mara Buxbaum.

"This is specifically propaganda. It's a twisted interpretation of what he said. They are twisting his words."

According to Buxbaum, Penn never even spoke with the Iraq Daily.

So why would Penn's newfound buddies stab him in the back?"

Duh?! Penn's trip was itself propaganda for the Hollywood anti-war movement. Statements like, "If there is a war or continued sanctions against Iraq, the blood of Americans and Iraqis alike will be on our hands." make it clear that Penn didn't go to Iraq to "fact find", he made the trip to confirm what he already believed.

Anyone who thinks that it is possible to make a trip to Iraq and uncover anything but the government line (without the use of force) has not been paying attention. Everyone is under surveillance or has a "sitter". This is not news; it has been reported on over and over (most recently I saw this on a piece by Peter Arnett that aired last weekend). But anyone with half a brain would need no more proof than the 100% of the vote that Saddam received in the latest "election" to know that nobody in Iraq feels free to say what they think (unless they've got American and British warplanes flying overhead).

Who in the world cares what a punk like Sean Penn thinks anyway?

Tuesday, December 17, 2002


JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- "The suspects in the fatal bomb attack on a McDonald's restaurant earlier this month also planned to blow up churches on Christmas Eve, according to Indonesian police."

Apparently, Allah doesn't like hamburgers OR Christians.


This report confirms what I've long suspected; that the Germans (along with the French) have their grubby little hands dirty with the proceeds of arms and illegal technology sales to the Iraqis.

"The most contentious piece of news for Germany is that the report names it as the number one supplier of weapons supplies to Iraq. German firms are supposed to easily outnumber the firms from other countries who have been exporting to Iraq.

They have delivered technical know-how, components, basic substances and even entire technical facilities for the development of atomic, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to Iraq right since 1975.

In some cases, conventional military and technical dealings between Germany and Iraq are said to date till 2001, ten years after the second Gulf war and a time when international sanctions against Saddam Hussein are still in place."

These ARE the same Germans who are hectoring Bush about warmongering aren't they? Sure, let's just maintain the status quo, with sanctions that don't stop the flow of weapons but do harm innocent civilians, so German and French companies can line their pockets. After all, if there is ever a REAL problem the Americans will take care of it since they maintain a REAL military capability.

Is it too much to ask that the anti-war left in this country take note of this treachery and condemn it? That all those Hollywood ninnies look at their pacifist heros across the pond and understand their true motives?

Yeah, I guess it is.

Monday, December 16, 2002

No posting today or tomorrow - will be travelling on business.

The new and improved Gorebot was given common sense by his programmers - sense enough not to run against Bush again. Now if he would just go back to Tennessee and shut up (and take Bill Clinton with him)....nah, they provide too much good fisking fodder.

See you Wednesday.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=