Y’know, Dr. Black, you wouldn’t have to ban me if you just had a better grade of groupie. Ones that don’t feed off of each other in a pathetic cycle of consumption and regurgitation of hatred for The Other. But these clowns? Their purpose is to confirm to anyone who happens by your site that the state of mindless rejectionism and anti-Americanism among the Left today is fully pathological. Dissent in your little opium den? Not a chance. There’s not a half-dozen legitimate thinkers among you.
See you next Wednesday.
If you’re thinking about the war to come, be sure to read this very interesting analysis of what’s happening in Syria and Iran right now. Jack Wheeler writes about the Israelis’ air strikes on Syria just a few weeks ago:
Since then, it’s panic-squared in Tehran. The mullahs are freaking out in fear. Why? Because of the silence in Syria. On September 6, Israeli Air Force F-15 and F-16s conducted a devastating attack on targets deep inside Syria near the city of Dayr az-Zawr. Israel’s military censors have muzzled the Israeli media, enforcing an extraordinary silence about the identity of the targets. Massive speculation in the world press has followed, such as Brett Stephens’ Osirak II? in yesterday’s (9/18) Wall St. Journal. Stephens and most everyone else have missed the real story. It is not Israel’s silence that ’speaks volumes’ as he claims, but Syria’s.
Read the whole thing.
(Thanks to Glenn Reynolds.)
On two separate occasions today, I was essentially coerced into eating when I did not want to. A soft coercion, you may be sure —delivered by two of the women in my life— but bullysome, anyhow.
The first woman is a lady I know from work who very much wanted me to go get her lunch from a nearby hamburger joint. She had a two-for-one coupon and didn’t flinch when I reminded her of the wonderfulness of their onion rings. But it was early yet and I hadn’t really been done with my breakfast all that long before. I didn’t want to go, but what the hell? She could go and get it herself, but we’re already clear on the fact that I am Her Sap and have been for some time. Who knows why such soft sadism and somewhat harder masochism is the coin of our silly realm?
So I go and get the burgers. And the onion rings. It was her birthday yesterday, see.
The second woman is my mother. She wanted to meet for dinner after I got off work. But I had literally just finished eating my lunch when she called to make that plan and I didn’t want to think about food at just that moment. Amazing for a great big fat man, but it is so! And, really, I was thinking I might eat later on in the evening after a certain project around here got worked on. One way or the other, though, we were going to eat, even if we hadn’t yet settled on a restaurant.
And why was it so important for her to have dinner with her son? Just so she could share her generosity, even refusing to let me touch the bill! But I had already repaid her by interrogating her over a particular point and probably angering her a little bit. Not for long, though. I love my mother and I just want her to be happy. In fact, she gets a residual check every time that sentiment gets expressed to or for any of her boys, so I may as well get in on the racket, too.
As my Daddy used to say, some of us just can’t stand the prosperity.
If Jesse Jackson has already endorsed Barack Obama’s candidacy, then what is this stuff about Obama being too white? Is Jackson actually opening a window for Obama to defenestrate the old race-baiter to show we may know real racial transcendence? Hmmm. I doubt that they’re that clever —although that shouldn’t still the approving nods given to Obama’s eloquence and, if I may say, cleanliness.
But if it happens that Jackson did make such remarks with anything like an awareness of how crucial it is that Obama be the transcendent black man of destiny —a level which I absolutely do not believe he has yet achieved— then that speaks volumes more about the old lion in winter than anything I have seen in a very long while.
If audacity has bought Obama this experience, it will almost certainly serve him well in the long run. But he must grow up ideologically. He’s not even close to being ready yet for the Oval Office.
That wretched fuck Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to visit Ground Zero?
They’ll never permit such an obscenity, of course, but were they so thoughtless, I’d certainly hope that some patriotic American would make him a witness.
Right there where the end of Islam as we know it was begun.
It’s almost beyond belief, but there’s a report going around that
Dozens of Syrian military officers and Iranian engineers were killed about two months ago in an a chemical weapons accident, Jane’s Magazine reported Monday, revealing new details on the incident which took place in a secret weapons facility.
According to the report by the British magazine, the explosion occurred early in the morning on July 26, in a factory in the city of Halab, as the officers were attempting to mount a chemical warhead with mustard gas on a Scud-C missile.
A fire which started in the missile’s engine led to an explosion near a storage location of chemical substances. The blast spread lethal chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX gas and sarin nerve gas, which are considered extremely toxic and are banned for use according to international treaties.
If true, it will be necessary in the very near future for Nancy Pelosi’s friend to see his capital reduced to rubble.
It’s over, Assad. Know that, if this report is confirmed, it’s over for you.
So they’ve arrested good old O.J. Simpson again, eh? Oh, brother!
You know, the last time this happened, things got very bleak for the Democrats in Congress. They lost both houses as the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy finally took shape, giving us twelve years of the Fourth Reich.
Could it happen again?
Possibly. If the Big Media craphounds get too involved in covering the wretched bastard’s final descent into oblivion, they’ll forget to use their influence in continuing to sicken the American People on defeatism, ignorance, and anti-Bushery.
Man. I’ll bet Throaty McHuskington is just about moist again.
Until this afternoon, my only acquaintance with Glenn Greenwald was from maybe a year or so ago when he was exposed as a fraud who sockpuppeted positive responses to his own posts and reactions to his own posts around the blogosphere. But with his Salon blog post from last Wednesday, Greenwald makes a tour de force of absolute liberal/Leftist cluelessness. I recommend that it be read and studied. Of the disgusting MoveOn.org ad against General Petraeus that was had on the cheap from the fucking com-symps at the New York Times, Greenwald writes:
For those who think — for some indiscernible reason — that it is important enough to spend the energy developing an opinion on the MoveOn ad, there are, I suppose, reasonable arguments that can be made on both sides as to whether the “betray us” rhyme was rhetorically excessive, counter-productive, etc. But the shrill hand-wringing it has triggered is just bizarre in light of the fact that accusing Americans, including military veterans, of being unpatriotic, anti-American and betraying the country has, for decades, been a mainstream staple of the political rhetoric from our country’s pro-war Right — invoked most aggressively by those, such as [Joe] Klein, now claiming such profound offense over the MoveOn ad.
Greenwald sounds like Principal Skinner telling the kids to stop asking questions about the bizarre cover-up of Groundskeeper Willie’s death. The MoveOn.org ad was purchased with an eye towards attention and controversy, so why should Greenwald dismiss the consequences? Is speaking truth to power too scary a proposition to long remain associated with it? Must it be clumsily covered over by such sacks of apologist shit as Greenwald for fear it might be called what it is?
Indeed, just a few months ago, Gen. Petraeus himself toyed with exactly such rhetoric at the prompting of the incomparably odious Joe Lieberman, whose entire political career is now devoted (ironically) to impugning the patriotism of any Americans who oppose Lieberman’s desire to wage one war after the next against Israel’s enemies. As The Washington Post’s Thomas Ricks reported regarding a Senate hearing in May:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy “would give the enemy some comfort.”
Petraeus agreed they would, saying, “That’s correct, sir.”
Here, Greenwald knowingly uses Ricks’ inaccurate quote from Lieberman because it better suits his narrative that pro-American politicians sometimes suggest that Democrats and the ant-war crowd do give “comfort to the enemy.” He then immediately sets about to acknowledge that Lieberman didn’t use the word “comfort,” but does so by saying (emphasis mine):
Though subsequent reports suggested that Lieberman used the phrase “give the enemy some encouragement” (rather than the treasonous term of art “comfort”), the point was the same: those who condemned the President’s war policy were, pursuant to Petraeus’ toxic accusations, helping America’s Terrorist Enemies.
“The point was the same”? What are you talking about, liar? Is that this season’s ”fake but accurate”? You got Ricks wrong getting Lieberman wrong. It’s as simple as that.
Read Greenwald’s whole post, as well as the updates. He does not understand the qualitative difference between the rhetoric of the American Right and the anti-American Left because he does not recognize the degeneracy of his own position, which is incoherent in the face of our military and strategic obligations. You know he understands that the MoveOn.org ad was a huge blunder for the Democrats because he takes such pains to dismiss its importance. But these politicians cannot shake their associations with the moobat fringe. And hacks like Greenwald —just as apparently— cannot find a clue as to why they should be called traitors and sympathizers.
(Hat tip to Dan Collins of Protein Wisdom and his commenters.)
It just occurred to me why MoveOn.org’s disgusting attack on David Petraeus —in which he was called “General Betray Us”— makes no sense: people who support MoveOn.org are not real Americans and, so, are incapable of being betrayed.
Wasn’t Petraeus confirmed in his present role by unanimous consent of the United States Senate not even a year ago? How do losers like Dick Durbin and Harry Reid explain their votes to the filthy hippies?
I just watched the replay of last night’s Jon Stewart monologue on General Petraeus —and it was typical Stewart: smug, half-informed, and chickenshit.
The anti-war Leftists and liberals have it in mind that the only thing that approximates ideological coherence for them is their opposition to the War for Iraq. But why do they believe that this opposition, in itself, is worth anything? The great majority of them don’t put any strategic or tactical or political thought into why any particular aspect of the war is wrong or right, so what is the point of their opposition? Simple: if they can take their hatred of George W. Bush —and wrap the ethical argument of pacifism for one and all around that— then they believe they are innoculated against charges of treason and of sympathy for the enemy. After all, they [support the troops] —except when they assist in those same men’s and women’s excoriations before the world as torturers, murderers, mercenaries, and all-around sadists. But, you know, dissent is patriotic and other garbage.
The headlines today are all about the Democrats’ rejection of the draw-down that Petraeus envisions. “Too little, too late” and that kind of mindless prattle. Could such criticism be any more transparently devoid of thought or any more obviously partisan in its motivation and logic? To say that the proposed number of troops in the draw-down is “too little” is to suggest that one knows of a better number. Well, the pacifist would say that the only number is the one that accounts for all, but what anti-war leaders are saying that? The nuts. Shitforbrains like Kucinich. Your average Leftist blogger. These mindless ninnies want us gone from Iraq yesterday. But that isn’t going to happen, is it? So, what number is the right number? What is the logical or strategic basis upon which to insist that a certain number of our troops be withdrawn —no matter what?
One’s personal pacifism isn’t the answer.
One’s partisan motivations shouldn’t be the answer, but what else could it be?
Enjoy the coming year, comrades. Your inexplicably insane and white guilt-ridden support of Barack Obama is bound to rend your party in half. Possibly into thirds. You’re closer to having some principles this time around, if only by accident, but now it’s going to cost you extra. A large number of you are destined to be forever associated with anti-Americanism. The failures of your imagination —Obama, the Clintons, the wretched buffoon Edwards, and maybe even the Gorebot itself— are now all in line to drag your hopes of Executive control down into the dust.
I savor the prospect.
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »