December 27, 2004 by s.z.

Who Said It? I'm not feeling too great (and since we know that Jesus is the Reason for the Season, I guess it's His fault), so why don't you kids go play "Who Said It?" and let Mommy get some rest? First, let's demask our Mystery Guests from last time: A.  I don't consider Guamers freeloaders. Got a lot of respect for Guam. We got a radio station in Guam. We own Guam. I love the name Guam. I've loved it ever since I first heard it in World War II. It's my second favorite island next to midway. What a great name for an island.  and You know what I'd like? I'd like to apply for the torture job at G'itmo.-- Rush Limbaugh. B.  And if the best liberals are going to give me to argue about this week is Autopen-gate, then: (1) I shall sleep well knowing that the secretary of defense has made so few mistakes for the past four years that liberals are reduced to carping about his autopen. -- Ann Coulter So, it looks like Merl and Clif named them first. However, sj, hellinahandbasket, and Bidziliba are right about Rush (who was born in 1951) being too young to have heard ANYTHING in WWII.  So, I'm guessing that he meant that he loved the name when he first heard it when he IMAGINED he was John Wayne in some WWII movie (because we know that Rush belives that imagining being in combat is just as valid as actually serving.) Now, here are today's guests: name one or name them all.  Just do it quietly, okay? 1.  Sure, introspection is painful, and a brutal assessment of where we are and what we’re really doing is about as appealing as eating a morning Bagel with Joan Rivers while she’s tripping on acid after just getting fresh lip implants.  2.  Put simply, I buy my ink by the barrel and I have far better lawyers than those employed in the UNC system. That’s why I don’t have to feign respect for the people that employ me, just to keep my job. 3.  Can we do anything to stop cult slayings? I can't imagine how, I believe many of these perpetrators are in high levels of government and politics, which would explain the irrational hatred of everything most Americans consider holy in public education and the media. [...] As for me coming up with a theory for Peterson, Tony, I don't even like Peterson! But it is not good when the media labels cult activities as "cockamamie" theories, laugh at them and hush them up. Ritual slayings DO happen, they are serious, just ask the family of Sharon Tate, wife of Roman Polanski who directed "Rosemary's Baby," a film with a negative presentation of Satanic cults. 4.  When it comes down to it, I have never trusted Ms. [Katie Couric]. I find it hard to trust anybody who smiles constantly, especially when championing causes like pro-choice and pro-homosexual lifestyle and that sort of tame matter. I don’t trust Ms. KC for one simple reason: She’s like the rest of her liberal news family — she’s not right. And that’s "right" spelled in the moral definition. Hint: This pundit is a "Graduate of accredited college (BA) and seminary (M Div) with graduate work at Harvard Divinity School." 5.  Two new books are out that attack the cheese-eating surrender monkeys from two of France's three most vulnerable sides, facts and logic (the third vulnerability, duh, is its border with Germany).  If you have any trouble with this, ask your father. 1:46:23 AM

WorldNetDaily Stupidest Exclusive Story of the Week I realize that a "stupidest" WorldNetDaily story is only a matter of degree, since they're all stupid by definition, but this one is my pick for this week: DAY OF INFAMY 2001 WorldNetDaily Exclusive Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania   During surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, defense secretary contradicts official story --WND WASHINGTON – Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania. The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target – possibly the U.S. Capitol. During his surprise Christmas Eve trip Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers. Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?  Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be." The WorldNetDaily story runs another 12 or so paragraphs in order to present conjecture about whether the U.S. military shot down flight 93.  But if we just look at Rumsfeld's words, it's obvious that the answer to WND's multiple choice question is "a": a slip of the tongue.  As you will have noted, Rumsfeld's point is that evil doers bombed the mess hall in Mosul, planted the bombs in Spain, attacked New York, etc.  So, if he let the truth slip, he is saying that the terrorists are responsible for shooting down the plane over Pennsylvania -- which totally contradicts the thesis of this whole article (but which does give us a great new conspiracy theory). However, it's been previously reported that cockpit recordings indicate that the passengers never got inside the cockpit, and that the terrorists themselves brought down the plane, presumably in response to the passenger uprising.  So, it's seems almost certain that what Rumsfeld meant to say was that terrorists "brought down the plane over Pennsylvania" -- you know, by crashing it.  Sorry, WorldNetDaily, to burst your shiny government conspiracy balloon like that, but those are the breaks. However, here's a new challenge WND can offer its readers: try to make Rumseld's statement use grammatical, complete thoughts.  Here's my attempt: "I think all of us can have a sense of how none of this is my fault if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the various people who have committed terrorist acts (e.g., the bombing in Mosul, etc.) were the Secretary of Defense instead of me.  If terrorists had my job, I think you'd find that the situation in Iraq would be even worse than it currently is, for their purpose is to use terror to alter behavior -- that is, to make people be something other than that which they want to be; while my purpose is to use soldiers, weapons, and warfare to make people something other than that which they wish to be, and no terror is involved at all." Well, I think that was basically what he was trying to say.  But if it turns out that he really did cop to shooting down Flight 93, I will apologize to WND. 12:49:54 AM