TOBY PETZOLD

I couldn’t believe this, either. William J. Perry, writing in the Washington Post yesterday:

[…] if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive — the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea’s nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry.

Is this the advice of the President’s other critics who say that he should have paid more attention to the Kimchi Pot than Iraq?

I can’t wait to hear what Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright think of this idea.

Yesterday evening, a woman came to my door and interviewed me as part of the preparatory work being done by the United States Census Bureau for the 2010 Federal Census.

Apparently, this town and some Indian reservation up north are the only two such test areas for the Bureau. Very interesting. I asked her if we had Tom DeLay or the President to thank for this attention, but she didn’t know.

I had received two packets from the Bureau in the past several weeks, but had essentially buried them in the litterbox of my office. I remembered reading that, if I didn’t repsond, they would come knocking. And they certainly did.

Being a lifelong amateur genealogist, I could not help but to think of my ancestors as I stood on my porch talking to this woman. I thought of my ancestresses and how they sometimes shaved a few years off their ages for the benefit of the men standing there in their doorways with their tablets in hand. But I didn’t indulge in any such vanity.

I did, however, very scrupulously describe to her my ethnic background. She was most impressed at how well I knew my tree —and dutifully took her stylus to the little blackberry-looking thing she had with her to record my various tribes: German, Prussian Pole, Lithuanian Jew, English, Scotch, Scotch-Irish, Irish, Dutch, Welsh, and “1/32nd American Indian.” I probably also have French and Portuguese, but didn’t bother to say.

Censustaking is such an old practice that it’s even mentioned in the Bible. I’m glad I got to add my link to the chain.

I’m certainly enjoying Markos Zuniga’s meltdown —and think you should, too. After being illicitly quoted by Jason Zengerle of The New Republic —from a super-duper top secret e-mail he had sent out to his fellow moonbats—  Zuniga lashed out TNR with such self-important vehemence that one must believe he’s worried that his credibility is under suspicion.

There was one big rule for this list, an important cog in the growing Vast Left Wing Conspiracy — everything discussed was off the record.

That was obviously violated today as the New Republic betrayed, once again, that it seeks to destroy the new people-powered movement for the sake of its Lieberman-worshipping neocon owners; that it stands with the National Review and wingnutoshpere in their opposition to grassroots Democrats.

That’s right, you nauseatingly stupid and effeminate fuck: it’s those pesky “Lieberman-worshipping neocon owners” who are trying to bring you down.

Go endorse a candidate, little girl.

I hope this is another example of our military exploiting the intelligence we gathered after the extermination of Zarqawi:

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader described as the group’s “religious emir” was killed in a U.S. airstrike hours before two American soldiers went missing and in the same area, the military said Tuesday.

Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, and two foreign fighters were killed as they tried to flee in a vehicle near the town of Youssifiyah, in the so-called Sunni “Triangle of Death.”U.S. coalition forces had been tracking al-Mashhadani for some time, American military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said in announcing his death.

He said al-Mashhadani was an Iraqi, 35 to 37 years old, and that one of the men killed with him was an Al Qaeda cell leader identified as Abu Tariq.

Fantastic news.

I don’t usually go in for celebrity horseshit, but this story’s so perfectly po-mo that I am obligated:

Charity campaigners are calling for Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to be banned from Namibia after the couple’s recent stay for the birth of their first child.

Namibia’s National Society for Human Rights (NSHR) branded the couple “colonial overlords” and accused them of taking over the African country when Shiloh Nouvel was born this month.

An NSHR spokesman said: “To shut down a national border so she can give birth in peace is a massive abuse of power.”

The human rights campaigners claim Angelina and Brad “used heavy-handed and brutal tactics” to persuade the Namibian government to agree to their demands.

Commentary would be superfluous.

Did anybody catch CNN this evening when the very beautiful Paula Zahn called our terrorist enemies in Iraq “murderers”? For a split second, you could detect the great struggle that that word had in making its escape from her lips.

I don’t know which of us was more surprised: me for hearing an uneuphemized description of our enemies on a major news network —or her for giving it.

Be careful, mamma, or you’ll wind up off of Mr. Turner’s [holiday] card list.

Be sure to check out Thomas Joscelyn’s latest remarks on the connections between the very late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddamite Iraq:

There is abundant evidence that Saddam’s regime, at the very least, tolerated Zarqawi’s existence in regime-controlled areas of Iraq prior to the war. Moreover, at least three high-level al Qaeda associates have testified to Saddam’s warm welcome for Zarqawi and his associates.

Consider what a top al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, told his CIA interrogators after his capture in March 2002. According to the Senate Intelligence Report, Zubaydah said “he was not aware of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” But, he added that “any relationship would be highly compartmented and went on to name al Qaeda members who he thought had good contacts with the Iraqis.” Zubaydah “indicated that he heard that an important al-Qaida associate, Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence.”

Even if the al-Qaedists’ pre-war links with Saddam were all supposition, it still wouldn’t change the central fact of our fight against Islamofascism today: our men and women in uniform are fighting these savages over there. The jihadists and mujahadeen who so desperately want a piece of the Great Satan can have it on Arab soil and not here.

Anybody who doesn’t understand that particular aspect of our strategy against the Islamofascists is either a dumbass or an anti-war Democrat.

Take a look back at what Bill Clinton told Dan Rather this weekend two years ago about whether the Sudanese government had offered his administration Osama bin Laden (emphases mine):

In his interview with CBS newsman Dan Rather set for broadcast on Sunday, ex-President Bill Clinton flatly contradicts his earlier recorded confession that Sudan offered to arrest Osama bin Laden and hand him over to the U.S., calling reports of such an offer “bull.”

“On the accusation that he had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden, had opportunities to have him delivered by the Sudanese, he said, ‘absolutely, flatly untrue,’ describing it as ‘bull,’” Rather tells the Washington Post on Thursday.

In February 2002, however, Mr. Clinton clearly admitted that the Sudanese offer had indeed taken place. And that he turned it down.

“Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan,” Clinton told the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002.

“He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.“

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

“So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.”

There is no question that Clinton did make these and other remarks before the annual meeting of the Long Island Association at Woodbury, NY on 15 February 2002. (Go to the bottom of the page linked above for a downloadable link to an audio file of his remarks.)

Likewise, there is no question that Clinton believed it was in his power to bring Osama in. If that weren’t the case, then how would Clinton have even been in the position to debate the legality of bringing him here? How would he have been in the position of asking the Saudis to take Osama instead?

Bill Clinton, despite what he said to the Kean Commission, was offered Osama bin Laden. He didn’t misspeak about that.

He just lied about it.

And that’s probably why he thought it was funny that Sandy Berger got busted stealing documents from the National Archives that might have shown as much.

Don’t forget: it’s more of this kind of shit that we’ll have to contend with if the Dhimmicratic Party ever regains control of our national security.

I don’t like that rule. What the hell? Why did we lose that goal? Because our guy was standing in the Italian goalie’s line of sight?

Well, fuck ‘em!

Stupid rules…