Thursday, September 25, 2003


Tim Blair (fellow oppressor) found this entlightened headline from al-Reuters: "Israeli Troops Kill Gaza Youth After Bush UN Speech".

Of course this was a coordinated attack - the vicious butcher Sharon following orders from the Evil GW Bush.

So that's it! Spam Reuters to death! At "editor@reuters.com". Go on get busy!

Wednesday, September 24, 2003


Prime Minister Howard is my hero (hat tip Right-Thinking from the Left Coast):

"Mr Howard said Australia had always supported a greater involvement by the UN, but it was countries such as France which stopped the system working properly.

'Let's call a spade a spade: because of the authority they exercised as a permanent member of the Security Council, countries like France made it impossible for the Security Council and the United Nations to do their job,' he said.

'They were perfectly happy to see American and British troops and a smaller number of Australian forces exert pressure on Saddam Hussein before the war started, but then they weren't prepared to join the collective action.

'Now they are criticising those who were willing to do what the world I'm sure is relieved was done, and that is to rid the world of Saddam Hussein.'

Exactly what the blogging world has been saying for six months now. How refreshing that the leader of a major country has the courage to speak frankly about French obstructionism.

We sent troops to the region poised to strike if Hussein defied us once again. The UN resolution promised "serious consequences" if the Iraqi's refused to cooperate. The inspectors reported to the UN that Iraq had been less than forthcoming. Iraq continued to fire at US and British planes in the "no-fly" zones and refused to allow U-2 overflights to aid in the inspection process. So we delivered the "consequences" that the Security Council had promised and in the process freed 25 million people from the grip of a sadistic dictator.

The French may have lulled Saddam into believing that the US could be stopped from taking action. Certainly the French made clear from the begining that they were never going to allow a UN Security Council vote for the use of force. Perhaps Saddam was bluffing - we will find out in time - but one thing is clear: the world is a much better place now that he is afraid to show his face and his murderous sons are enjoying an eternity in hell.

Now it is time to call them out as enemies. There is no question that French interests, at least as defined by Chirac's government, are directly opposed to ours. The gloves must come off now - as our good friend W from "Merde in France" is fond of saying - "Time to choose sides".

Please e-mail the PM with a few encouraging words!


From Amir TaheriNew York Post Online Edition:

"The French position is that the U.S.-U.K. text could be accepted with some amendments. Some of these were spelled out by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin in an article he published in the Parisian evening newspaper Le Monde earlier this month. They include:

* The text should not use the word 'liberation' to describe the U.S.-U.K. action in Iraq. (That would be legitimizing a war that France maintains was illegal and illegitimate.) The resolution should deal with measures needed to end 'the occupation of Iraq.'

* Iraq would be placed under a U.N. mandate for one year, during which the political process to create an elected government in Baghdad will be completed.

* The current administration, headed by Paul Bremer, should immediately hand over all power to an interim Iraqi government before the end of the year. Until then, the existing Governing Council could represent Iraqi sovereignty.

* The new interim Iraqi government should be widely representative, including some elements of the former ruling Ba'ath Party.

* All foreign military forces in Iraq will be put under U.N. command. The commander-in-chief could be an American, acting under the authority of the U.N. administrator.

* To head the U.N. mandate, France will nominate one of its own senior politicians. The name mentioned is that of former Defense Minister Francois Leotard, who had a similar position in Kosovo. Failing that, Paris would accept a senior U.N. official such as Lakhdar Brahimi.

* The permanent members of the Security Council will meet once a month to review the situation and take all measures needed to improve the lives of Iraqis and speed up the creation of an elected government.

* U.S. forces in Iraq will stay out of urban areas to concentrate on guarding the borders and fighting the remnants of the Saddamite regime. The task of policing the cities will be handed over to a new Iraqi army and police force, backed by peacekeepers from France and a number of other European and Asian countries.

* All the contracts already granted by the Bremer administration will be subjected to review by the new Iraqi transition government, which will remain in power until after next year's general election.

* The former regime's leaders now in U.S. custody will be handed over to a U.N. force until they are transferred to a new Iraqi authority after next year's election.

Paris believes that even if the U.S.-U.K. resolution is passed by the Security Council later this month, the issue of Iraq is likely to have a negative impact on Bush's re-election prospects. Some French politicians, possibly including Chirac himself, believe that Bush will lose his re-election bid. And, when that happens, the French plan might appear as the only way out for the United States under a new Democrat president."

Like we should have let Vichy collaborators participate in the new French goverment after VE day, right?

Of course the French want elements of the Ba'ath party involved int the new government - they want the lackeys that were selling out the Iraqi people to French and German companies back in business. Is there any greater indication that the French only care about money where Iraq is concerned?

At least Bush had the backbone to resist the insane French positiion even as his approval ratings are dropping domestically.

In his speech yesterday, Kofi Annan got the message. While news reports noted thant Annan's address was a challenge to the United States it reads to me as more of a challenge to the UN.

Article 51 of the Charter prescribes that all States, if attacked,retain the inherent right of self-defence.  But until now it has been understood that when States go beyond that, and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

But what happens when, as in Iraq or Kosovo, permanent UN Security Council members threaten to veto an authorization for action which otherwise would have gained majority approval. If a coalition then acts, as NATO did in Bosnia or the US-UK-Australia coalition in Iraq, is this action delegitimized by the fact that France, Russia and/or China opposed it?

Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an “armed attack” with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group.

Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, States have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other States, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed.

According to this argument, States are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council.  Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions.

This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years.

My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification.

But the problem with the UN is that it can't decide when to act in any case. If a country repeatedly violates the terms of a cease fire agreement with the UN or a UN mandated coalition, at what point do the French and Russians decide that enough is enough? And since US soldiers always do the overwhelming majority of the fighting and dying, why should we give the French, who don't bother to pay for the military power requisite to assist, veto power over our decisions?

But it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action.  We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action.

Here is where Annan finally admits that the UN has failed to live up to its end of the bargain. If the UN wants to be effective, it must enforce its mandates in situations where the terms of a resolution of an armed conflict participated in by UN forces are being violated.

The French realize that they have very little power and are using it to frustrate the US in an effort to diminish US influence in the Middle East. They don't seem to care that ignoring Iraqi intransegence was destroying what little credibility the UN had left. But Annan knows that if the United States effectively abandons the UN, which will happen if the French continue to act as a hostile power, it will leave the UN powerless - relying on the French, British (perhaps), Chinese, Russians, Indians and Japanese to provide the peacekeeping and military forces necessary to fulfill its police function. And when was the last time you saw a significant contingient of any country (except the British and maybe the Indians) on that list in a UN peacekeeping role.

The fact is that the United States has essentially been the muscle behind the UN - if not for us the UN is toothless. So either the French are convinced to act responsibly and cooperatively, the UN ceases to have any capability militarily, or other member nations have to increase their military spending to pick up the slack. I believe the last option is what Annan fears most - much more than American military dominance. He alludes to it when he talks about the "proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification." Most will read this as a criticism of America, but I see it as an expression of his fear that, in the absence of American military support of the UN, new arms races will spring up in Europe, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

He's right to be afraid. The French ought to be afraid too.

Tuesday, September 23, 2003


Cheif Wiggles has started something. So get off yer ass and send something to the kids.


Randall Robinson uncovered this garbage over at The Globe and Mail:

"Having endured the outrages of the 2000 presidential 'election' and the 9/11-empowered Republicans' reactionary policies, progressive Democrats, Greens and Independents across the United States are smouldering. Especially in the 20 states that went for Al Gore in the Northeast, Midwest, and West, more and more of us are appalled by the combination of dishonest rhetoric, regressive tax giveaways, international adventurism, environmental degradation and unprecedented arrogance spewing from the President and his congressional cohorts.

We look to Washington and hear -- rather than solutions for pressing problems -- little but sound bites and lies, the all-too-familiar litany about weapon-finding, children leaving, job growing, tax cutting, Arctic drilling, missile defending, and terrorist hunting.

If you repeat a lie long enough and people start to believe it, does it become the truth? Paul Lewis apparently believes it does because he repeats the same tired old bullshit about the "sixteen words". I've debunked this a number of times - it's been debunked all over the internet ad naseum - and I'm not going to wade through that history lesson again.

Lewis is an English professor so I assume he can read. My suggestion is to go read what the president said (instead o relying on the "sound bites and lies" of the left) and fact-check it. What he will find is that what Bush said was factually correct.

And let me ask these questions: What is wrong with a missle defense system in the abstract? Is it not a worthy goal? What about "job growing" - don't we want that? And "terrorist hunting"?

"Child leaving"? I assume by this that Professor Lewis is referring to the "No Child Left Behind" initiative that Teddy Kennedy has been getting his panties in a wad about recently. The Bush Administration is so "hostile" to children that it only asked for a 2.8% increase (1.4 billion dollars) in education spending within the current budget. How evil.

In stunned disbelief, we have signed petitions, given money to progressive causes, and joined street protests. But arghhh! and aarghhh! again, many of us have had it. We're fed up and need to move on -- or out. But where to go?
A map of the state-by-state voting in 2000 suggests the obvious answer. With the anomalous and proud exception of New Mexico, Gore states are contiguous either to Canada or to other Gore states. In the most peaceful and democratic way, without invoking images of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, these states need to secede from the Union, reform into provinces and join Canada.

I would be more than happy to see Massachusetts and Vermont leave the Union. No more Ted Kennedy, no Barney Frank, no Bill Delahunt, no Jim Jefforts! But Canada is sooooo cold, if I might be so bold let me suggest a warmer clime for your move professor: HELL.

As soon as one considers the idea, the advantages become obvious. Citizens of the new Canadian provinces would enjoy basic entitlements and benefits unheard of in the U.S., including: universal health care; good and affordable colleges and universities; good mass transit in major cities; lower rates of violent crime and pollution; affordable prescription drugs; and enhanced respect for the civil rights of all people, including gays and lesbians.

Yes they care more about feelings in Canada. We care more about results here. But you're right professor, we all just live in a crime ridden, slum down here so maybe it would be better if you just moved instead of trying to take the northeastern United States with you. I'm sure that Canadian authorities would be relieved that they wouldn't have to accept millions more people into their world class health care system.

And this is just the beginning. Imagine the efficiencies of scale that will result from combining several states, with their redundant and quarrelsome governments, into single provinces. Through a process of state-by-state referendums, California, Oregon and Washington could reform into Naturia; New England (minus the odious New Hampshire) could reform into Nontario; Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, and Illinois could become Coolcentria; while the eastern states between New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., could become Atlantica.

Wait a minute, I have a better name for New England - Jackassia!

Alluding to the Middle East reminds us of one of the greatest benefits of joining Canada, a nation that has far fewer enemies than the United States. After declaring their affiliation with a country that respects the United Nations Charter, the newly created provinces would be far less likely to draw the wrath of international terrorists.

Hmmmm, do you think? Would New York be less of a target if it were flying a Canadian flag? I know one thing for sure, once you move across the border there will instantly be a lot more enemies of your beloved Canada.

On purely aesthetic grounds, the benefits are enormous. We new Canadians will (shortly) acquire a national leader capable of producing coherent sentences in at least two languages.

To hell with content and policy - its aesthetics that really count. If language skills were the ultimate indicator of good leadership we would be mining the English Departments for new presidents. This would be a problem since English professors are probably more inclined to an interest in chasing coeds than to solving the problem of terrorism. That sort of behavior would hardly endear them to Islamofacists hell-bent on imposing Sharia across the globe.

We will leave behind a U.S. composed of increasingly polluted semi-tropical and desert states inhabited by citizens hell-bent on posting the Ten Commandments in public washrooms, installing a Star Wars defence system around fast-food restaurants, and generally doing what they can to bring on the Apocalypse.

Good Gawd! Professor you forgot about us marrying our cousins, burning crosses and hanging homos - don't sell us short! You see here the bias - Christians = dangerous ideologues, Southerners = bigots, people who eat fast food and drive SUV's are working to "bring on the Apocalypse".

Suggestion: stop your intellectial inbreeding and talk to someone outside of the Northeast who has a different perspective on things than you do. Enter the conversation with an open mind; assume the person you are talking to is not a bigot. Do not dismiss views that differ with your own as stupid. You might learn something.

And just imagine what it will be like not to wake up every morning to the news that your federal government has subverted another international treaty, undermined another environmental protection, given another tax refund to the wealthy or invaded another defenceless country. To be citizens once more of a nation at peace with the world and committed to social justice and environmental conservation.

I don't have to imagine it, nimrod, I live in a place like that now, maybe you've heard of it, America. We don't have to agree with the rest of the world and sign treaties that would damage our economy. If you think that the Japanese, Germans, French and Russians aren't negotiating treaties with the goal of setting the most favorable terms possible for their own countries then you are living in a fantasy world. World leaders don't do things because they are civic minded they take actions that make their constituents happy and get them reelected (if they even have elections there).

And as for taxes, any tax cut is a good tax cut. The less money the federal government has the less its power becomes; less chance for intrusion into my life; less chance for corruption.

But go ahead and get out of the country, assnugget. Nobody is going to miss an addle-brained, knee-jerk pacifist like you. Go join your buddies up north - good riddance.

Monday, September 22, 2003


Dean lied about a situation involving a 12 year-old girl's pregnancy to justify his opposition to parental notification laws in a speech to NARAL. Tim Russert caught him in the lie and
Matt Margolis
blogs on it (thanks Anti-Idiotarian).

I've pointed out on this blog before that what he was talking about didn't have anything to do with parental notification. If a 12 year-old comes to a doctor's office regarding a suspected pregnancy, it's a pretty fair assumption that the girl didn't just pick up the phone book, select a doctor and hail a cab. Some adult brought her to the clinic. And if Dr. Assnugget believes that it is a case of incest, the proper course of action is to CALL THE FUCKING POLICE AND REPORT IT. No parental notification law is going to prevent him from doing that.

And now it turns out that, at the time he told this bogus story, he knew that there was no incest in this case. What stones this guy has accusing Bush of deceiving the American people on Iraq.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=