Americans Delivered To Your Doorstep in 30 Minutes Or The Beheading Is Free!

Dick Morris, Fox News Analyst and prostitute phalange fetishist, recently explained the President’s Iraq war strategy in such a concise and pellucid manner that it could easily be grasped by even the laziest American lolling on his couch, too bloated and lethargic to even summon the strength to reach for the remote and turn off Dick Morris.

On the Hannity and Vague Ectoplasmic Shape Show, Morris revealed that the secret to winning the War on Terror is as old as commerce: Location, location, location.

MORRIS: I think that withdrawal from Iraq — it obviously gives al Qaeda a huge victory. Huge victory. On the other hand, if we stay in Iraq, it gives them the opportunity to kill more Americans, which they really like.

One of the things, though, that I think the antiwar crowd has not considered is that, if we’re putting the Americans right within their arms’ reach, they don’t have to come to Wall Street to kill Americans. They don’t have to knock down the trade center. They can do it around the corner, and convenience is a big factor when you’re a terrorist.

Because terrorists are a lot like soccer moms — harried, overscheduled, with too many responsibilities and too little time for themselves – and at the end of the day, all they want is a moment to put their feet up and settle back with a cup of General Foods International Coffee (“Shall we have the Jasmine Jihad, or the Mesopotamian Mint Cappuccino?”)  This is why today the sales of Certs are almostly entirely terrorist-driven (“You mean it’s a candy mint and a breath mint?  At the same time?!“) and why Scrubbing Bubbles® has recently made such significant market penetration in Waziristan.  (“Omar, stop cleaning the bowl and start decapitating infidels!  This product will do the work so you don’t have to!”)  And needless to say, EasyOff leaves you free to homicide bomb while it cleans the oven.

It’s refreshing to see that Morris isn’t squeamish about the implications of throwing our troops to the insurgency the way Russian peasants might toss a baby off the back of the sledge to distract a pursuing wolfpack.  Sure it’s harsh, but if we don’t make killing Americans as convenient as microwaving a Hot Pocket, then the next thing you know, our kids will come home from school with a terrorist and say, “Mom, he followed me home!  Can we keep him?”

Next Week:  Morris praises Amazon’s new hassle-free “Al-Qaeda Club,” that allows jihadists to order American service personnel shipped directly to their home, with no minimum order required to qualify for free shipping!

Posted by scott on Tuesday, May 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pm.

13 Responses to “Americans Delivered To Your Doorstep in 30 Minutes Or The Beheading Is Free!”

Holy shit, did he actually say that? Out loud and everything? In public? Oh, man. Way to fucking support the troops, you prick.
“…isn’t squeamish…” No… No, he’s apparently not, is he. I hardly even know what to say, so thank you Scott for capturing the exact proportions of cynicism, disgust, anger, and dismissal the fuckwit deserves for saying that.
Well, okay, and the Certs thing made me laugh, so good on ya for that too.

Left by D. Sidhe on May 8th, 2007

It’s all about priorities, D. Sidhe. By sacrificing troops in Iraq, your government is protecting property — the insurgents / resistance / whatever aren’t coming to Wall Street and knocking down trade centres.
convenience is a big factor when you’re a terrorist… So it should be easy enough to track Bin Ladin to his cave, simply by tailing the pizza delivery guys. Or accessing Amazon records to see who in Hubristan has been ordering the “Feng Shui your Cave” manuals.

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on May 8th, 2007

Re-reading that quote, Morris seems to be testing the market for rationales for a permanent occupying army (there is a tacit admission that ‘victory’ will never be achieved, at least not for current definitions of the word ‘victory’).
But to paraphrase his argument, “A steady trickle of soldiers coming home in coffins is a fair price to pay to keep your office blocks and shopping-malls intact”. I reckon he should have pilot-tested that rationale on a focus group first.

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on May 8th, 2007

I can even see how we can market it to terrorists/consumers:
Two All beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, sacrificial soldier on a sesame seed bun.
Have it your way.

Left by tomg on May 9th, 2007

See, I think Dick just slipped up and told the truth. It happens, however rarely. American soldiers have been dying to protect Wall Street for fifty years. It’s just that now its defenders can pretend they mean it literally.

Left by Doghouse Riley on May 9th, 2007

“convenience is a big factor when you’re a terrorist. A CNN/Gallup poll of sworn enemies of the United States conducted inside Gitmo, the secret prisons in Eastern Europe, and various Federal and INS/ICE installations found that the following were cited as the most important factors in choice of target:
Convenience 43%
Hatred of specific target 21%
Instructions from imam 16%
Body count/shock value 14%
Likelihood of reaching
paradise/virgins 17%

Left by trashfire on May 9th, 2007

Correction: paradise/virgins only 6%

Left by trashfire on May 9th, 2007

Not to be pedantic or anything, but the singular of “phalanges” when referring to digits (e.g., toes and fingers) is “phalanx”.
“Phalange” (without the “s”, and a capital “p”) is a Lebanese Christian paramilitary group (as you undoubtedly knew already).
Aside from that, thanks for the Dick Morris stuff. I would NEVER be too bloated and lethargic to turn off Dick Morris, and so would have missed this gem of neocon “thinking”.

Left by David in NYC on May 9th, 2007

His real name’s David, or Roger, or something isn’t it? Dick’s just an honorific, right?

Left by Mentis Fugit on May 9th, 2007

Dick’s just an honorific, right?
I think the term is “descriptor”

Left by preznit giv me turkee on May 9th, 2007

“Keel ten and ze next one is free! On ze house!”

Left by actor212 on May 9th, 2007

the singular of “phalanges” when referring to digits is “phalanx”.
Moreover, the singular of ‘hinges’ is ‘hinx’.

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on May 10th, 2007

“American soldiers have been dying to protect Wall Street for fifty years. It’s just that now its defenders can pretend they mean it literally.”
I think that could be a new recruiting slogan for the army “die to protect Wall St”. I bet, once she’s out of prison, Good old Paris Hilton could be convinced to be the model for all the print ads too.
and is the singular of binges “binx”?

Left by Donna on May 14th, 2007

I’m Going To Baghdad To Personally Shoot That Blog-Writing Sonofabitch!

Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe To Death
The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops’ online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say.

Military officials have been wrestling for years with how to handle troops who publish blogs. Officers have weighed the need for wartime discretion against the opportunities for the public to personally connect with some of the most effective advocates for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq — the troops themselves. The secret-keepers have generally won the argument, and the once-permissive atmosphere has slowly grown more tightly regulated. Soldier-bloggers have dropped offline as a result.

The new rules (.pdf) obtained by Wired News require a commander be consulted before every blog update.

Army Regulation 530–1: Operations Security (OPSEC) (.pdf) restricts more than just blogs, however. Previous editions of the rules asked Army personnel to “consult with their immediate supervisor” before posting a document “that might contain sensitive and/or critical information in a public forum.” The new version, in contrast, requires “an OPSEC review prior to publishing” anything — from “web log (blog) postings” to comments on internet message boards, from resumes to letters home. (My emphasis)
Failure to do so, the document adds, could result in a court-martial, or “administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action.”

Some people might point out that soldiers’ letters were censored in World War I and II.  But the practice was discontinued by the early months of the Korean conflict, and letters by service personnel in Vietnam were not screened at all.  Of course, the unfettered flow of information from the battlefield can hasten the public’s disillusionment with an already unpopular foreign war, and you might expect certain La-Z-Boy Leonides in the blogsphere to trumpet this change.  But even some bloggers who support the Iraq war are dismayed by this blackout.

The revised regulation were first released by Wired News blogger Noah Shachtman, and his report on the serious crackdown on soldiers’ writings is stirring the blogosphere into an uproar.

Matt at Blackfive writes:

The Bottom-Line to the this bad piece of regulation: The soldiers who will attempt to fly under the radar and post negative items about the military, mission, and commanders will continue to do so under the new regs. The soldiers who’ve been playing ball the last few years, the vast, VAST, majority will be reduced. In my mind, this reg will accomplish the exact opposite of its intent. The good guys are restricted and the bad continue on…

Operational Security is of paramount importance. But we are losing the Information War on all fronts. Fanatic-like adherence to OPSEC will do us little good if we lose the few honest voices that tell the truth about The Long War.

Setting aside the question of whether soldiers who report painful truths about the situation in Iraq are “bad guys”, you can’t really argue with the military’s concerns about operational security.  Except that, according to Iraqslogger:

In what could be considered a failure of information security, the complete text of the US Army’s new operational security regulations was posted on the Internet today.
Even more ironically, the first “major revision” listed designates “For Official Use Only”–a phrase found in bold on the front cover–”as the standard marking for all unclassified products that meet one or more of the exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and which if released to the public, could cause harm to Army operations or personnel.”

The new regulation currently causing controversy requires soldiers to consult with superiors before posting any comment on a blog, and one has to wonder if this new reign on soldiers’ speech sparked one to share the document.

The impracticality (not to mention inhumanity) of the regulation, and the incompetent way it was introduced aside, who thinks this measure is designed to keep the truth about conditions in Iraq away from:
 This guy…
 Or this guy?

Posted by scott on Thursday, May 3rd, 2007 at 8:04 pm.

10 Responses to “I’m Going To Baghdad To Personally Shoot That Blog-Writing Sonofabitch!”

Neither, methinks. Cretin #1 is living there, or at least in close proximity–he knows what;s goin’ down there. Cretin #2 is also well informed about the conflict–he just chooses not to believe a word of it. It’s shmoes like me and you… and Joe Schmoe who the Pentagon is worried might find out the truth about Iraq and get royally POed about it. Mind you, it’s too late to retain most of us, out of those who were ever for the Iraq war in the first place. It’s just that the military would like to hang onto as much of the 30% that they’ve got at the moment for as long as they can.
Tick-tock, tick-tock, motherfuckers!

Left by Marq on May 3rd, 2007

Damn, so a guy can’t even send his wife an anniversary card without approval?
My goodness..

Left by actor212 on May 3rd, 2007

GREAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTT.
Not only do we not know WHERE they’re sending Blonde Niece to, we also don’t know for HOW FUCKING LONG, or what kind of evil shit (like WE haven’t been using even more chemical weaponry than THEY have, but of course, WE’RE not supposed to know THAT either) to which she will be exposed.
Y’know, in case she doesn’t get raped by a fellow soldier or killed by “friendly fire” FIRST.
Great. Just fucking great.
And we won’t be able to hear from her the entire fucking time (and we’re not looking at a “weekend warrior” stint here) that she’s over there.
I’m glad to have the info, Scott, but I hope that y’all start stocking-up on cigarettes to send me in Levinworth.

Left by Anntichrist S. Coulter on May 4th, 2007

You’ll both be in my thoughts, Annti. And if you need an alibi, let me know…

Left by D. Sidhe on May 5th, 2007

Well, congratulations all. Thanx to a great wave o’bitchin’ on blogs of all kinds of political stripes, evidently the DOD is telling soldiers, marines, etc. that they can blog away with no fear o’ reprisals. Or so they claim. So, looks like you do get to hear from your Blonde Niece, if only on an irregular basis, after all, Annti. Huzzah!

Left by Marq on May 5th, 2007

Hey, scott–did you switch the photos around a bit? I coulda sworn guy #2 was Dumbya, not Keith Olberman! Now I feel like a Great Big Dummyhead™. The comment up above should be viewed as if I’m talking about teh Chimperor… ‘cos I was!

Left by Marq on May 5th, 2007

Aaannnddd… when I say, “comment up above,” I mean my first comment at the start of the comments, not the one two comments ago. Sheesh!

Left by Marq on May 5th, 2007

Marq–Nope, that was always Keith. Given that Bush doesn’t seem much interested in what’s going on in Iraq, I don’t imagine the military has to make an special effort to keep him ill-informed.

Left by scott on May 5th, 2007

Heard the ass-end of an interview on Normal People’s Radio Friday afternoon with some drone from the army or Pentagon or Pentagram indicating the military was going to start posting stuff to YouTube, in the usual “effort to get the real story out.” Not sure if it was in reaction to any of the above hoopla, but one must wonder.

Left by M. Bouffant on May 5th, 2007

Thanks, y’all. D., I’ll holler at ya when/if I have to do The Big Road Trip. You wanna ride shotgun?
And Bouffant — that marketing bullshit sold as “real video” and “P.O.V.” is nothing new for the Pentagon’s brainwashing division. Fuck, they are SELLING VIDEO GAMES that show you “what it’s like to be a ‘REAL SOLDIER’” — and you’ll notice that MadTV is chock-full of Army commercials, ’cause that’s the demographic that they’re aiming at — young, bored, can’t-find-a-job ’cause Dumbya & Dick have destroyed the economy.
That’s how they got Blonde Niece — she went into Job Corps to get “real job training” and her G.E.D., and all she got was the GED and “training” that wasn’t legit or applicable towards any actual real jobs, at which point Job Corps was revealed (to her, finally) as what they really are: Farm Team recruiting for the kids who get fucked into believing that they’ll get a JOB out of this shit, and then find out that all that they’re really “qualified for” is to be the next piece of cannon fodder, ’cause only the military is hiring.

Left by Anntichrist S. Coulter on May 5th, 2007

Corporal Sanchez, Meet Major Rod

Okay, which of these two people has an “11 inch, uncut monster”?

It’s kind of a trick question, because almost certainly they both do.  But only one of them was born with it.  Probably the guy on the left, Corporal Matt Sanchez, USMC.  And as we learn from the blog Joemygod:

If you are familiar with Cpl. Matt Sanchez, you probably know him as the handsome 36-year old Columbia University junior and USMC reservist who recently made the rounds of right-wing talk shows like O’Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes, where he received praise for coming forward and complaining about his treatment at the hands of Columbia’s “radical anti-military students” who called him names and mocked his military service. Sanchez was then feted at the CPAC conference where Ann Coulter made her “faggot” remark. Sanchez wrote an op-ed piece on the Columbia experience for the NY Post…

Now, if you’re like me, you might think, “Hmm, 36 years old and he’s a junior in college and only a corporal in the Marines?” Odd, but not totally implausible. But Sanchez’ face tinkled a few gay bells out there in fairyland, and last night I began to get emails letting me know that his rather late appearance on the Ivy League scene was because Sanchez has had a lengthy career in gay porn, working under the names Rod Majors (NSFW) and Pierre LaBranche

The op-ed was cross-posted on Rod’s Matt’s blog, along with a clip of his appearance on the O’Reilly Factor.  He also appeared on Hannity and Colmes, where Sean contrasted Matt with troop haters like John Kerry and Charlie Rangel.  “You’re a great American,” Sean huskily intoned as he wrapped up the segment.  “Semper Fi, my friend."

But is that really a fair comparison, given that both Senator Kerry and Congressman Rangel are decorated combat veterans, while Matt has apparently never actually seen action.  Well, scoff if you like, but I like to think that Sean would be the first to point out that, unlike Cpl Sanchez, Kerry and Rangel have never seen hot man-on-man action in such celebrated video sex romps as Touched By An Anal, Lunch Hour 2: Sweating Grease, Tiajuana Toilet Tramps, and of course, Patriot Ass.

Even thought Cpl. Sanchez has evidently not yet been deployed to Iraq, it’s nice to see that the Pentagon is finally facing up to its chronic manpower shortages, and easing up on their recruiting standards.  And while it’s not perfect, I believe that all reasonable people who are serious about fighting the War on Terror can support this new policy:

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, But Feel Free To Tape Me Teabagging Joe Spears in Manticipation.
Now I’m going to leave you, secure in the knowledge that I did not succumb to the almost unbearable temptation to make a Dirty Sanchez crack.

Posted by scott on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007 at 10:22 pm.

COMMENTS:

Damn, he *does* look familiar.
Now, I would suggest that doing gay porn does not necessarily make one a faggot, but I would also suggest that Ann Coulter wouldn’t be able to see that distinction. Someone should ask her about this so she can pretend to be all betrayed and attempt to display other human emotions that a preying mantis such as herself would have to have been practicing for years. (And, really, I still have no idea why she’s so opposed to gays considering she just *screams* faghag. One almost assumes that she’s engaged in it as a cynical act of bullying. It’s very nearly like discovering that various virulently homophobic religious types have been “laying hands” on boywhores. But that would be a thoroughly incivil suggestion on my part.)

Left by D. Sidhe on March 7th, 2007

In 2001 the Chicago Bears–a .500 team at best for the previous decade–went 13-3. I have an in-law from Chi-town who was next to insufferable about it. I tried to be nice about it, but eventually I had to start pointing out the weakness of the division and the incredible string of games won because a fumble bounced up into a defender’s arms for an untouched runback or some such. I think they were something like +65 in takeaways that year. And of course as soon as I got snippy about it they peeled off three or four 20-point wins to end the regular season.
Then they lost their first playoff game, but the real point is that they went back to being mediocre (worse; 4-12) the next year.
The Coulter Party is just like that, except it being politics the seasons last a decade or two. Everything went their way so long they imagined it was due to superior intellect and divine intervention. Now you can’t swing a cat on the FAUX set without hitting an embarrassment waiting to happen. Bush hit the trifecta, remember? Now he’s the guy the remaining ’62 Mets look at and say, “Oh well, it could have been worse.”
And by the way, I’ve got a couple of ex-Marine buddies, and if some jock-sniffer like Hannity says “Semper Fi” to them he’d better be the son of a Bronze Star recipient who can prove he was born with severe spina bifida and applied to the Corps three times anyway.

Left by Doghouse Riley on March 7th, 2007

Doesn’t faux do background checks on these people?

Left by Kathy on March 8th, 2007

See? Just because you’re a cocksucker doesn’t mean that you’re gay! Ask Ted Haggard! Chances are the VRWC won’t see fit to address this in any way whatsoevah, bit if they do, the thing that will prove to have been steaming their shorts is that he was an all-male cast adult film star, not that he lied about being in the Marines. Feh.

Left by Marq on March 8th, 2007

Hmm. Upon further reading, it seems that Mr. Sanchez is probably actually in the service… for now! And, he was quoted as saying that he had a full-time job that was presumably not being a pr0n star or a man ‘ho. So, what, I wonder, is that?

Left by Marq on March 8th, 2007

Now I would have bet that it was the person on the right that had the 11 incher. But of course there’s only one way to know for sure, and that’s the old Crocodile Dundee grab test. Which if somebody is willing to go up to Coulter and do that, and post the video on youTube, I’ll pay them five bucks cold hard cash.

Left by edward on March 8th, 2007

“Teabagging”??? I don’t even want to KNOW what that is. I thought I was worldly when I found out what a “golden shower” was. Hey, I’ll match edward’s $5.

Left by BeginningToWonder on March 8th, 2007

OK, here’s my pledge of $5. Maybe we should have a telethon.

Left by David in NYC on March 8th, 2007

doghouse beat me to it. if that chickenhawk said “semper-fi” to my bro-in-law, he’d be spitting out teeth. Hell, I’m just an ex squid and I’d punch the mother fucker.

Left by merlallen on March 8th, 2007

That IS Rod Majors. Or if it’s not, it’s his long-lost twin. Majors had a prolific and high-profile career in gay porn in the early-to-mid-90s. I actually OWN one of his movies, “Idol Country”, a major release in 1994 directed by Chi Chi LaRue (the queen of gay porn) and starring then-big-ticket-item Ryan Idol. He also worked with Falcon Studios, I’m pretty sure, so it’s not like he was in bargain-basement stuff.
But I wouldn’t call him 11″. 9″, sure, but not 11.

Left by Johnny M on March 8th, 2007

Hell Id put in 10 bucks to see her bagged..too funny.
and 9″ or 11″..doesnt matter at a certain point yanno?

Left by Sherry on March 8th, 2007

9 or 11? Are we talkin’ dick size, or I.Q.?

Left by Bill S on March 8th, 2007

Ahem: BeginningToWonder, teabagging involves dangling one’s nutsack out for one’s partner (or Joe Momentum, assuming one’s in the white house) to have oral fun with.

Left by heydave on March 8th, 2007

Well thanks, heydave! Whew, that’s a relief – I thought it might involve….well, never mind what I thought. That’s one of the great things about WOC – so educational!

Left by BeginningToWonder on March 8th, 2007

Also, in prankstering, teabagging can be used to set up some LOVELY photos, generally on the faces of passed-out-drunk/comatose/etc. compadres — the roomful of guys whips out their sacks and lays ‘em on the unconscious guy’s face. Very popular at Fark.
Now, I gotta tellya, if we’re talking dick size, I’d wager that mAnn’s is bigger than JimmyJeffGannonGuckert, JUNIOR’s, but only by microns. If we hadn’t already heard testimony to the contrary, I’d wager that we were dealing with centimeters instead of inches. That shit-eating grin on “Corporal” Sanchez’s face is the giveaway. So to speak.
So, how do we confirm his “military status,” anyway? The folks at Jesus’ General do it sometimes, but I can never remember who did it or how they did it. Personally, anybody who can stomach Sean Hannity’s slut-sucking “Semper Fi” cannot be THAT far into the military, if y’all will pardon a horrid visual pun.
And yes, if y’all can front the gas money (a new compressor for my dead a/c unit wouldn’t hurt, either), me & the pickup will happily head to whichever cave mAnn hangs from by Shim’s talons in the daylight hours and do the aforementioned package-grab. Hell, we’ve all been wondering for YEARS now, might as well get it over with, as Shim descends into the bottomless abyss of The Surreal Life-style has-beendom. If you’re on your way out, might as well go out in FLAMES!!!
And yes, y’all should include a vat o’clorox with that gas money — I’m going to need the full-body detox after touching THAT.

Left by Anntichrist S. Coulter on March 9th, 2007

Well, true, true.
Regardless of whether Corp. Sanchez’s dick or Ann’s suspiciously erectable “enlarged clitoris” is longer, I can testify to the fact that Corp. Sanchez’s unit is purty, while I suspect that AC’s is… warty.
Waaaaarrrty.
And wrinkly. And blotchy. And smegma-encrusted.
There, Annti. Saved you a trip. Enjoy your Chlor0x scrubdown!

Left by Marq on March 10th, 2007

Marq, I’m going to have to dispatch the ninja Mormons on your ass, one of these days.
Shame, boy. SHAME.
Fuck the clorox, bring on the flamethrowers!!!
BTW, not to be TOO too superficial here, pedantic maybe, am I the only one who noticed that mAnn had a boob job?
Those weren’t there the last time we glanced upon the horrible, horrible wonderment.
Well, they were there, but there sure as hell wasn’t that much there, there!!!

Left by Anntichrist S. Coulter on March 10th, 2007

Any pretense of “sexiness” her new, improved teats give Ann is more than offset in that pic by the fact that you can count her many, many ribs. It has that delightful “concentration camp survivor” look to it. It’s no wonder Ann usually wears black-it’s so slimming! Eccchh!

Left by Marq on March 10th, 2007

They are the same person.
Nice to know that he wasn’t too adverse to those lefty types so long as they could afford his price tag and presumably fund his G.I. Joe reinvention.

Left by Adrian on March 20th, 2007

Boob job? I wouldn’t know…I rarely look directly at Ann, as I don’t want my remaining sighted eye to go blind.*
*I’ve been blind in my left eye since birth. My left eye is my “lucky eye” when viewing La Coulter.

Left by Bill S on April 5th, 2007

Ot: FORCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH, Call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. DC business hours only, call often, and spread it around.

Left by Mike Meyer on January 23rd, 2008

‘don’t know about you, but I’d do either one of ‘em… Some very impressive looks there and some impressive statistics. …and I don’t care if Ann is real or not, she is hot!

Left by RDHastings on February 22nd, 2008

Irony May Not Be Dead, But Someone Just Gave It A Dose of Polonium-210

In a round-up of conservative reaction to the Iraq Study Group report in today’s Los Angeles Times, we find this:

[C]onservative commentator William J. Bennett vented in volcanic fashion. “In all my time in Washington I’ve never seen such smugness, arrogance, or such insufferable moral superiority,” Bennett wrote on the National Review website. “Self-congratulatory. Full of itself. Horrible.”

When reached at a local T.G.I.Friday’s, the nicotine-addicted former Drug Czar, secret compulsive gambler, and author of The Book of Virtues declined further comment, instead requesting a bucket as he returned his attention to his Baby Back Ribs and Jack Daniels-basted Sizzling Triple Meat Combo Platter.

Posted by scott on Friday, December 8th, 2006 at 5:45 pm.

3 Responses to “Irony May Not Be Dead, But Someone Just Gave It A Dose of Polonium-210”

You know, I knew he was a huge flaming asshole. I’m just surprised to discover how stupid he is. Every rational person in the nation, and I admit that’s not as many as I would like, came up with some variation on “Speak for yourself, pal,” upon reading that. What the hell did he *think* the response was going to be?

Left by D. Sidhe on December 8th, 2006

He wants his baby-back-baby-back-baby-back.
Remember, there’s something like twenty seven percent of the idiot nation that doesn’t see anything wrong with what’s going on.
Of course, shiny things and Britney’s kitty are much more interesting to them.
And the War on Christmas is much more serious than an “insurgency” that kills people EVERY GODDAMN DAY.
Sorry, I’m caffeinated.

Left by mmm...lemonheads on December 9th, 2006

I am one of the ever-decreasing percentage of people who have actually not seen Britney’s cooter so far, and is highly unlikely to, barring accident of course. I wonder if there’s a market for tee-shirts that read, “I Have NOT Seen Britney’s TWAT!” Whatever it is, it’s gotta be shrinking. Um, the market, that is. Not Britney’s pussy.

Left by Marq on December 9th, 2006

Probably No Topless Women Were Included

I feel slighted and diminished because I didn’t get invited to John Ashcroft’s blogger teleconference yesterday.

Heck, if he would have included me, I would have promoted his self-serving new book (for instance, I would have highlighted his claim that prosecutors botched the Tim McVeigh case. presumably because they didn’t charge McVeigh with failing to blow up the NY Times building).

But no, I was excluded. It’s just like high school again (but in a GOOD way).  However, Mary Katharine Ham, who was invited, blogged about it, so we can all share Mr. Ashcroft’s insights, including this one about why we should get rid of that old-fashioned “three branches of government” thing, and that quaint idea of balance of power.

“I am a little bit uneasy about the courts making assessments about the seriousness of our cirumstances. They are not privy to the intelligence the President is, nor should they be.”
Ashcroft argued with the notion that the Congress is somehow automatically more legitimate or responsive in exerting war powers than the President.
“I think we need to ask, ‘who is the most responsible branch and who is the most responsive?’”
“The President is voted on by many more people than any other public official.”
Paul from PowerLine suggested that the electorate also holds the President more personally responsible for acts of terror committed in the country than it does any single member of Congress.
“I don’t think there’s any question about that. Most members of Congress are not asked to answer to the media in D.C. They go home to the media…The President has to face the national media and, frankly, that’s healthy.”

And that’s why we should just go ahead and make George Bush our “Fearless Leader on the War Against Terror for Life”: because he’s more responsible, more criticized, and because more people voted for him than for all your damned Supreme Court Justices and snooty Senators combined, probably.

I was also impressed with Mr. Ashcroft’s defense of the Patriot Act, which he claims was passed in order to enrich the coffers of the ACLU (really, that’s pretty much what he said).

But if I had been included in the discussion, I might have voiced a minor quibble about this remark:

He noted that pure ignorance keeps people believing that, prior to the Patriot Act, the government couldn’t subpoena business or financial (or any other) records; somehow people have this idea that prior to the Patriot Act, no one could look into your books, even with a court order.

My question would have been “Mr. Ashcroft, sir, doesn’t the Patriot Act give the FBI the authority to look into your records WITHOUT A COURT ORDER?  You know, that part of the Act (Section 505) which allows local FBI officials to grant “administrative subpoenas” to obtain any personal records they deem relevant to an intelligence investigation — and the medical facilities, libraries, hotels, gun dealers, banks and any other businesses have to comply without ever letting you know that your records have been provided.  You know, the part that says that they can do all this without having to appear before a judge, and without having to have any evidence that you are involved in any criminal activity.  Do you recall that section, sir?  And can you discuss it while further explaining what you meant about ”the pure ignorance of the people” who believe that this Act somehow curtails their Constitutional rights?

But I guess that question might have taken away from the fan-boy tone of the event, so it’s probably a good thing I wasn’t invited after all.

Posted by s.z. on Wednesday, October 4th, 2006 at 4:00 pm.

 

7 Responses to “Probably No Topless Women Were Included”

well, if they were I’m sure he’d be happy to spend several thousand $$ apiece to cover them up

Left by preznit giv me turkee on October 4th, 2006

Okay, that’s the third time in the past couple weeks I’ve listened to some variation of “the President is elected by a nation-wide vote” routine. But he ain’t, of course, as we all know by now. The President is elected by 538 voters–he has the smallest constituency in the national government.
Am I splitting hairs? Well, excuse me for being correct, as a professor of mine used to say after pronouncing “Van Gogh” like he was coughing up a furball. But then, 1) if you’re smart enough to try to make the argument you’re smart enough to be expected to get it right; and 2) if the Republicans would quit blocking the direct election of the President they’d be free to use the argument as much as they wanted.

Left by Doghouse Riley on October 4th, 2006

S.Z, it’s time you face it. It’s not your political views that kept you out, it’s your raw feminine power.
Think about it, the man is frightened by aluminum breasts and calico cats – of course he’s scared of you.

Left by Ted on October 5th, 2006

I have to admit to a certain uneasiness about aluminum breasts myself.
I suspect it would be impossible to determine if these people were more crazy, mean, or dumb without three index cards and a dart.

Left by D. Sidhe on October 5th, 2006

his claim that prosecutors botched the Tim McVeigh case
Huh? The guy was EXECUTED. We’re not talking OJ here.
Ashcroft is just pissed that they didn’t legalize torture in time to use it on Timmy.

Left by Realist on October 5th, 2006

no one asked him why he stopped flying on commercial jets in 01?

Left by merlallen on October 5th, 2006

Ashcroft is just pissed that they didn’t legalize torture in time to use it on Timmy.

Naah. I’m sure it’s more along the lines of thinking that McVeigh was only doing things that Ashcroft sees as good, necessary, and patriotic, and that the Government had no right to persecute him. He probably also thinks that Eric Rudolph is getting a bum deal.

Left by Marq on October 5th, 2006

That's Our Hindrocket!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

July 6, 2006 by s.z.

Need a Wingnutty Opinion? Call 1-800-LAWGUYS!

We haven’t checked in on last year’s Ultimate Wingnut for a while (because life is just too short), but hey, if Mr. Hindrocket cares enough to keep writing stupid stuff, I guess we should take the time to laugh at him.

So, let’s consider his title question: “Who Betrayed the SWIFT Program?“

Now, let’s take a gander at part of his post on the topic:

The American Spectator interviewed officials from the Treasury and Judiciary Departments on the SWIFT terrorist finance tracking leak. Here are some highlights:

[...]

The Justice Department has quietly and unofficially begun looking into possible sources for the leak. “We don’t think it’s someone currently employed by the government or involved in law enforcement or the intelligence community,” says another Justice source. “That stuff about ‘current and former’ sources just doesn’t wash. No one currently working on terrorism investigations that use SWIFT data would want to leak this or see it leaked by others. We think we’re looking at fairly high-ranking, former officials who want to make life difficult for us and what we do for whatever reasons.”

Sounds like another case of Democrat holdovers in the federal bureaucracy putting party ahead of country. […]

Democrats in the federal bureaucracy collude with Democrats in the press to undermine American foreign policy, hoping thereby to benefit their party. It’s one of the most important stories of the last four years, and so far, at least, there isn’t a single Democrat of national stature who has spoken out against this unholy alliance.

Yes, a source cited by the Am Spec (a publication of unquestioned integrity … in HELL!) opined that the leaker was a former high-ranking official. From that, John has come to the conclusion that he or she was a “Democratic holdover in the federal bureaucracy.”

Sure, it might seem like Mr. Hindrocket is guilty of not reading what he copied and pasted, but in truth, John knows more than the source, since John is an expert on the fed goverment’s massive conspiracy to make President Bush look bad.

So, just what should the President do to address this, one of the most pressing problems our nation faces? (A problem that is also one of important stories of the last four years, which sadly the Democrats are failing to handle, and which few pundits besides John have even discussed, proof positive that they’re part of the unholy alliance.)

First, Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to work for the news media. ‘Nuff said.

Second, Democrats should be barred from government service. This is wartime, after all, and so our bureaucrats should all be patriotic, well-scrubbed young Republicans (preferably Ledeens, or the scions of other righteous rightwing families — the Heritage Foundation could probably send over some resumes). It’s the only way to stop the unholy alliance between informed sources who are critical of the administration, and a media that wants to sell papers.

But that plan doesn’t go far enough, because, like guy who leaked to the Am Spec said, it might have been a FORMER official who spilled the beans. So, the President should use his wartime powers and order the execution of every Democrat who ever held a government job. (Sure, we could just detain them indefinitely at Gitmo, but the fellow travelers in the Supreme Court might shoot their mouths off about that.)

So, death for all Democrats. It’s the only way to keep our country safe.

And let this plan be known as “the Hindrocket Solution.”

Posted by s.z. on Thursday, July 6th, 2006 at 6:12 pm.

If there was ever a person who could propose this plan and actually believe it should be implemented, it’s Hindrocket. He’s the kind of man only Stalin could love.

Left by sophronia on July 6th, 2006

Someone critical of the Administration. Hmmmm. That narrows it down to less than 65% of the American public!

Left by Kip W on July 6th, 2006

Only problem with getting rid of all the Democrats is you still got the independants, the old-world Republicans who don’t like Bush, the Middle East, the theocrats…

Left by Yaoi Huntress Earth on July 6th, 2006

I’m still trying to figure out why the repunks are upset about this–I think Bush himself stated that financial institutions would be giving information on the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. And really (and maybe I’m wrong about this), but wasn’t the “front page” worthy part of this story in regards to how *all* transactions are being monitored, not just suspect ones? And if so, just how much like the former USSR do republicans want this country to become? Or am I completely wrong about the newsworthy aspect of the “swift” story. (and why does everything that sounds slimy and wrong with the bushes have the word “swift” associated with them?)

Left by maryc on July 6th, 2006

Just maybe they found it on the internets?
http://www.fincen.gov/
And from their March 10, 2006 Press Release we have this super duper triple secretive information.
FinCEN seeks industry input on feasibility of collection of cross-border wire transfer data
“If we can identify data in cross-border wire transfer records that helps protect economic and national security and find a workable way to efficiently collect that data – all while protecting and preserving its integrity – it will enormously strengthen our efforts,” said Robert W. Werner, FinCEN’s Director. “At the same time, we need to ensure that we do not impose regulatory requirements on the industry without the promise of real anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist funding benefits. This survey seeks to help us understand that regulatory impact and we encourage recipients to respond.”

Left by pessullivan64 on July 6th, 2006

Or maybe from this press conference? Held no other place than?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011107-4.html

Left by pessullivan64 on July 6th, 2006

pessullivan, you are merely demonstrating the inherently treasonous tendencies of liberals. How dare you copy and paste the public web addresses of what even you admit is super duper triple secret information!
On another subject, I got my book today. Hooray!

Left by D. Sidhe on July 6th, 2006

Ever notice how if a Democrat takes the fall for something, it’s the highest-ranking Democrat there is? But if a Republican takes the fall, it’s always somebody like the substitute night janitor?
Democrat blame falls up; Gop blame falls down.

Left by Kip W on July 6th, 2006

How dare me. I’m a Karl Rove wanna be!
Hope they’re not monitoring the net. If so, I’m history!

Left by pessullivan64 on July 6th, 2006

Come on, let’s go down and get the reward. We solved it, you solved it. The credit is all yours. The painting was eaten by a left-handed moth.

Left by Hungadunga on July 7th, 2006

John is an expert on the fed goverment’s massive conspiracy to make President Bush look bad
Errrr, wouldn’t *President* Bush be at the head of that conspiracy?
Or to put it in terminology a paranoid would better understand…
Isn’t it probable that Bush HIMSELF is at the wheel of a vast conspiracy by the Federal government designed to undercut the authority and competence of the Bush administration? Could it be possible that the president himself is trying to make himself LOOK BAD??? Isn’t it just maybe possible that President Bush has rigged events to trigger a massive outpouring of hatred and distrust IN HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION in order to foment….errrrrr….something.
Or maybe he’s just an incompetent jerk who forgot to zip up his briefcase one day and a memo fell out.
I report, you decide.

Left by actor212 on July 7th, 2006