Thursday, September 04, 2003


There has never been a better case illustrating the need for the death penalty than Paul Hill.

Hill, on Florida's death row for nearly nine years for the shotgun slayings of Dr. John Britton, 69, and his bodyguard, James Barrett, 74, at the Ladies Center in Pensacola, Florida, on July 29, 1994, said in a jailhouse interview on the eve of execution he had no regrets and no remorse for the killings.

"I believe the state, by executing me, will be making me a martyr," said Hill, a defrocked Presbyterian minister who would be the first killer of a doctor who provided abortions to be executed in the United States.

I also read that Hill believed he would be getting his reward for the good deed soon. Well, I was raised in a Baptist church so I can't speak for Presbyterians but I'm pretty sure that we worship the same God and from what I remember he takes a dim view of murder. So the reward you are most probably enjoying now, Mr. Hill, is the first day of an endless barbeque with you on the spit. Say hello to Satan for me, cretin.

For the record, I am against abortion and for the death penalty. I believe that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision. The Supreme Court made up new "rights" that don't exist in, and aren't even implied by, the Constitution. It was a huge extension of federal government power at the expense of the states.

That said, I will not in any way condone the intimidation, much less the murder, of anyone who legally performs abortions or seeks one. Abortion is legal and, no matter how much some of us wish it otherwise, that is not going to change. And you know what, attempting to change its status is not anywhere near the top of my list of things we need to change here.

No one is forced to get an abortion. As Christians, we need to live by our principles as an example to others. We should be vocal in our opposition to practices that we feel are immoral; we absolutely cannot engage in immoral behavior ourselves in our opposition.

Rest in Hell, Hill.

Wednesday, September 03, 2003


Via Instapundit, a very good TCS article on what to do in Iraq (no Rall, you imbecile, not RUN)"An Offensive Suggestion":

Well, despite the hypothetical of what could or could not have happened we now know the alternative to proactive engagement -- proven terrorist success. Our fear of imaginary over-aggression is likely much worse than the real thing, and is certainly no comfort to our soldiers in the shooting gallery. If you're going to get shot either way, choose offense.

Now there is certainly merit in winning hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and we should do this whenever possible. But the military was raiding the Sunni triangle, an area predominantly loyal to Saddam Hussein. As former Lt. Col. Ralph Peters once wrote, "Do not worry about alienating already hostile populations."

Quite. De-Baathification should proceed at full bore. If that means turning the "Sunni Triangle" into an inferno then let's get on with it and send those sadistic bastards to hell. Post haste.


Ho boy....a nice, steaming little excretion straight from the chapped red ass ofTed Rall.

A Fair and Balanced Look at America's New Vietnam

Al Franken thought it was funny so now Ted wants in too. Someone please toss him an original thought...please.


Why is it important that we know his whereabouts when he wrote this "column"? Is there something about Kirksville, Missouri that gives the GREAT RALL a unique insight into current events in Iraq?

--In my March 25th column, I wrote that Bush could salvage a war based on lies only if he played the earnest liberator rather than the crusading colonizer. He had already abandoned Afghanistan; few cared or noticed.

We've abandoned Afghanistan now have we? Funny, I missed the State Department briefing on that one. Guess we should call up a couple of additional reserve divisions and occupy the damn country, eh? Why do I get the feeling that after suggesting that we've "abandoned" Afghanistan (bad) he'll shortly be advocating that we do the same in Iraq (good)? Just a hunch.

But Iraq wasn't nearly as remote. The world would be watching, and we would only have one chance to make a good first impression.

I wish I could pick stocks as accurately.

The rest of us out here just wish you would learn to pull your head out of your ass before speaking. Alas, the two years after 9/11 have given us no hope that your flatulence will abate.

The bombing of Najaf's Imam Ali mosque, killing pro-U.S. Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr al Hakim and at least 90 Shiite faithful, marks the start of full-fledged religious warfare in the U.S.-occupied central and southern sectors. (Our de facto recognition of a future Kurdistan has effectively ended the prospect of a unified Iraq.) Possible suspects include fellow Shiite cleric Mukhtader al Sadr, an Iraqi nationalist opposed to the U.S. occupation, Iranian intelligence agents and Sunnis affiliated with Saddam Hussein's deposed government.

Again, I must have been asleep. When did the Administration announce its intention to form a "future Kurdistan"? And if they did, what makes self-determination for the Kurds a BAD thing? Should we have propped up the murdering Milosevic to prevent the disintegration of Yugoslavia? And what in the hell did that parenthetical note have to do with the rest of the paragraph?

Iraqi complaints that U.S. forces failed to provide adequate security only tell part of the story. Hoping that Iraq's next leaders would organically emerge from the mish-mash of former exile groups, Administrator Paul Bremer refused to create a new U.S. puppet regime or to allow Iraqis to hold elections. This faith-based occupation policy has sparked a violent struggle among the opposition parties. DeBaathification and random sweeps of homes in Sunni-dominated regions are alienating the Sunni minority while emboldening insurgent Shiite militants. And the Iranians, worried that Bush will invade them after next year's presidential election, are funding radical Shiites to keep us tied up.

"Faith-based occupation policy"? How pathetic. Rall thinks that labeling anything "faith-based", regardless of what faith it is based on (if any), is damning. But what "faith" is he talking about here. Faith that democracy can work in Iraq given enough time and effort? I think that's the whole point of the exercise, dumbass.

Saddam kept Iraq's federation of conflicting tribes and religions together through intimidation and bribery.

Intimidation conjures up images of a bully flexing his muscles to take your lunch money. Let's call it what it was - torture, rape, murder, and genocide.

The Pentagon has doesn't have enough troops to accomplish the former and none of the cash needed for the latter, making the old tyrant look great by comparison--and sparking paranoia in the Muslim media.

See how the slimy bastard tries to smear the US military - "doesn't have enough troops for the former", implying that they might adopt Saddam's "intimidation" techniques if only W and Rummy had sent enough troops. Well, no. Americans aren't going to run torture camps, children's prisons and execution centers in order to control the situation.

I'd like for Ted Rall to ask a Kurdish man whose relatives were slaughtered in a genocidal poison gas attack or a Shiite mother whose daughter was raped to teach the clan a lesson whether they'd like "the old tyrant", as he so warmly refers to Saddam, back. My guess is that they'd give him the Robert Fisk treatment, beating him to within an inch of his life (ah, the dreams they are so sweet).

Our early emphasis on seizing oil fields....

To prevent an environmental disaster and to protect the ONLY source of Iraqi income.

... and schemes to funnel revenue from the U.N. oil-for-food program into lucrative contracts with Halliburton (which still pays Dick Cheney a huge salary) and MCI-WorldCom (a major Bush-Cheney campaign donor)...

Proof please. Any proof...cite ONE credible source for this propaganda.

belie our stated commitment to liberation and spreading democracy. We're more Genghis Khan than Dwight Eisenhower.

Simply unbelievable. At least he didn't compare us to Nazis...in this column...YET.

Bush, a former businessman, is treating "liberated" Iraq like the victim of a hostile leveraged buy-out. In an LBO, you borrow a target company's purchase price and saddle its balance sheet with the resulting debt, layoffs and possible bankruptcy. In Iraq Bush hopes to defray rising costs of occupation--$1 billion a week for the Pentagon, plus $30 billion to fix water, electricity and oil production facilities--by selling Iraq's oil.

But it's Iraq's oil, not ours.

Good Lord Almighty its hard to read this drivel. This sophmoric analogy (again Rall believes calling someone a "businessman" is the worst sort of damnation) doesn't make any sense. But what does make sense is that the United States, engaged in one of the most ambitious reconstruction projects ever attempted, will use the Iraqi oil revenues to pay for rebuilding their roads, hospitals, water treatment plants and electrical generating and distribution infrastructure. It IS their OIL (as Teddy so cleverly points out) so we use it to BENEFIT THEM. I guess you must have to spend a lot of time with your head firmly planted between your ass-cheeks to reach the alternate Rallian reality in which this is A BAD THING.

Our troops are swaggering about the desert like Gestapo thugs, robbing locals of their cash, kicking down doors, roughing up women (a no-no under Islam) and brown-bagging innocent men's heads before dragging them off screaming into the night.

Well, we couldn't expect him to get through this entire public defecation without unsheathing the Nazi canard. This goes way beyond the pale. Cite any fact, any resource to support this slander, asshole. In the absence of any actual supporting evidence, it is fair to assume Rall gets all his ideas from the tin-foil hat types at the Democratic Underground and Indymedia. Good research. Next time try Google.

The real answer is to get the hell out before one more American or Iraqi gets killed in a lost cause.

Finally he gets back to his point which, I think (it's hard to sift through the buckets of diarrhea to find one), is the following: Abandon Afghanistan = BAD, Abondon Iraq = GOOD. Of course this would be Rall's instinct, just like any other loser or coward: when the going gets tough, run like hell. Say that'd make a good new slogan: "When the going gets tough, run like Rall"!

For God's sake, cut our losses--and Iraq's--and bring our troops home.

Sure, in the short term it would be easier to evacuate Iraq. The GREAT RALL apologizes for the people there who will be caught up in a multi-factional civil war with arms pouring in from Iraq and Syria who'll end up on opposing sides (the Shiites and the Baathists respectively). Horrendous carnage and suffering. An almost modern society plunged back into the middle ages. But at least no more American troops will die this month. Such is life...next cartoon please.

But it's not quite that easy, even for a great thinker like Rall. What would you bet that once the bloodletting occurs Rall and his pathetic ilk will be calling for the UN to "FOR GOD'S SAKE DO SOMETHING". And who will the UN turn to for the forces to do it, France? Yeah, that'd have those Iraqis (and Iranians and Syrians) just shakin' in their boots. No, it'll be US troops all over again only this time EVERYBODY there will be against us because we abandoned them in the first place.

I'm just aghast that any sentient being could evaluate the situation in Iraq and come to the conclusion that the best course of action for all involved would be for the US troops to abandon the country. Of course, Rall doesn't really care one wit about the lives of the troops that he envisions robbing Iraqis and abusing their women (what rubbish). No, his obsession is the downfall of this country and its government. This doesn't mean just the Bush Administration - if we abandon Iraq the potential for disaster is unbelievable and that's what he WANTS.

There are other creatures who crawl amongst the decaying bits, slithering around on their bellies in the waste like Rall but none lower.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=