Body Counts, And More Damn Lies... Errr, I Mean Statistics

First things first.
For those of you who don't know, the Lancet, a medical journal, has published a study in which they claim that their best guess as to the numbers of Iraqis killed since the beginning of the war is about 655,000.

I was gonna do a whole long post about how this is obviously bullshit.

Until it turned out that someone else already did it for me.
So, instead, I'm going to post big chunks of their article with my snide commentary just to help it along. Sound like fun? Good.
As Stephen Colbert puts it: "Strap yourselves in, America, you're about to get a truth-o-cution!"

A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

* incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;
* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
* the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
* an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.

Before we get started, this article whose content I am reposting is from Iraq Body Count, a site which has been keeping a triple-fact-checked body count of Iraqi casualties since the war began. Note that unlike the Lancet study, IBC's work comes from death certificates issued; witnessed deaths; police and media reports; and is cross-checked by no less than three different team members before its data is added to the body count.

As such, I am more inclined to trust their estimate of figures than that of the Lancet, which according to their own article, covers a range of 392, 979 – 942, 636 for excess deaths since the invasion. (An excess death being one over the statistical norm for a peacetime period in the same area.)

Let's address this in several steps, shall we? First, the margin of error. This is the big bugaboo in this study; the margin of error in the study's results is 549,657. That is, for those of you not math- or calculator-equipped, a 58.3 % margin of error.

FIFTY-EIGHT PERCENT.

The defenders of this study have gone on and on about the fact that "cluster-sampling" (the method used to come up with these numbers,) is a standard, acceptable statistical practice. This is true; however, to those staunch defenders I would note that if properly used, it usually results in a margin of error closer to FIVE percent. Look at the election day "guesses" on TV; this same method is used to determine their numbers. Note the little blurb at the bottom of the screen, saying the margin of error - 5%. 3%. 4%. Tiny percentages of error.

This says that although the methodology of the study might very well have been a standard, valid method, it was misapplied with a vengeance by the Lancet researchers.

I want to emphasize that number again. FIFTY-EIGHT PERCENT margin of error.

The much ballyhooed 655,000 number that the Lancet is using as their official "estimate" of excess deaths in Iraq is the median number.

Now, the lowest estimate number, the not - quite - 400, 000 one, is already vastly higher than any estimate thus far published, even by those speculating wildly, but I'd actually be prepared to accept it as somewhat believable, simply because the Iraqis don't like us much and don't report in when they're injured; but 650, 000? You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Let me put it in perspective.

The Lancet study delivers a guesstimate of 1,000 deaths per day in Iraq. The U. N. figures, and those of the Iraqi Ministry of Health, come to about 80 per day. I'm prepared to accept that a lot of deaths go unreported, but 920 per day? 12 times as many as ARE reported?

Bullshit.

You know what I'm gonna say.
But Wait, There's More!™

IBC points out this gem:

If 600,000 people have died violent deaths, then the 3:1 ratio implies that 1,800,000 Iraqis have by now been wounded. This would correspond to 1 in every 15 Iraqis.

And follows that up with this:

This yields a revised Lancet-based estimate of 800,000 wounded over the equivalent period for which the MoH has been collecting this information centrally. In that same two-year period the official total of wounded treated in Iraqi hospitals is recorded as 59,372.

Whether hospitals can provide a comprehensive tally of violent deaths or not, their knowledge of seriously injured should be much more complete.

Accepting the Lancet estimate would entail concluding that at least 740,000 wounded Iraqis (90% of the total) were not treated or, if treated, not recorded in any way, throughout a 2-year period beginning in mid-2004. It may be that many injured anti-occupation combatants have avoided hospitals to prevent identification or arrest, but they are hardly likely to account for more than a small fraction of this discrepancy. It would further imply that approaching 90% of Lancet's deaths are also of combatants.

Note that this implies that far, far, far more injured Iraqis have been simply walking around, wounded, rather than being treated. The Ministry of Health estimates 60,000 injured have been treated in the Iraqi hospitals.

Not 1.8 million. 60,000. That's a HUGE difference, and makes the Lancet study questionable in and of itself.

But Wait, There's More!™

The Lancet study also assumes that the Ministry of Health figures are false, anyway; they claim that they relied on death certificates for 81% of their "confirmed" deaths, but in fact the Ministry of Health has records of issuing only about a tenth of the death certificates counted by the Lancet researchers. The Lancet dismisses this as unimportant, claiming that:

"Even with the death certificate system, only about one-third of deaths were captured by the government's surveillance system in the years before the current war, according to informed sources in Iraq. At a death rate of 5/1,000/year, in a population of 24 million, the government should have reported 120,000 deaths annually. In 2002, the government documented less than 40,000 from all sources. The ministry's numbers are not likely to be more complete or accurate today."

Except they're lying outright; the Ministry of Health recorded 84, 205 deaths in 2002, excluding Kurdistan. Which means that the Ministry of Health figures are 70% of the Lancet's estimate for that year, not a third.

This means that unless the accuracy of the Ministry of Health's recordkeeping has completely fallen off - and there's no evidence that it has; they use the same methods now that they did 4 years ago - the Lancet study's figures should be reflected in a Ministry of Health casualty figure of about 460, 000.

Sadly, it's not. The Ministry of Health recorded 115, 785 deaths in 2005 - 320 per day. Note that this isn't "war deaths," but TOTAL deaths. The Lancet study, which purports to be estimating the number of WAR DEATHS, is estimating at a minimum - a MINIMUM - four times that many.

Let's take a look at what happens when you add the other 30% to the MoH's figures, shall we? According to the existing correlation between the MoH's figures and those of the Lancet's BAD-ASS SCIENCE, you'd get a figure of approximately 165, 407 total deaths in Iraq for 2005. That's a lot, but that is ALL deaths, not "war deaths."

Let's see how that adds up, shall we? If we assume that this death rate has held relatively steady - it hasn't, but let's anyway - since we invaded in 2003, we get a total since - the - invasion death toll of 496, 221. That's just over the absolute lowest figure the Lancet study estimates as the number MORE deaths there have been since the war started than there normally are.

The Lancet is estimating that there were more war deaths in Iraq in 2005 than there were actual, total deaths in Iraq in 2005. Read that again, more carefully.

THE LANCET IS ESTIMATING MORE WAR DEATHS THAN THERE WERE TOTAL DEATHS.

Does anyone still believe this study isn't completely full of shit?

The Nature Of The Threat

I have talked about this before.

Terrorism, its adherents, its nature; I have mentioned all of it on these pages many times.

However, it's past time I displayed, for those of you who may not realize it yet, the nature and extent of the threat.

So, let's take a trip on the Way-Back Machine, shall we?

1979. On November fourth, the "Iran hostage crisis" began - a 444-day standoff inside the U. S. embassy in Tehran, during which diplomats and embassy employees from the USA were held hostage by the Iranians. There is speculation that this event was pivotal in causing then-President Jimmy Carter to lose his bid for re-election.

On November twentieth, a Sunni militant group of approxiamtely 200 men seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

1980. On April 30th, Iraqi agents take over the Iranian Embassy in London. This siege was, as it later turned out, a prelude to the Iran - Iraq war.

July 27th, Said Al Nasr, a member of the Fatah-RC, kills one and wounds twenty by throwing two hand grenades into a group of Jewish children waiting for a bus in Belgium.

October third, four are killed and twelve are injured when the Rue Copernic synagogue in Paris, France is bombed; despite claims of responsibility by the FNE, the police conclude the PLO was responsible.

1981. August 29th, the Stadttempel synagogue in Vienna is attacked with machine guns and grenades, wounding 23 and killing 2. Marwan Hasan and Hesham Mohammed Rajeh were convicted.

On October sixth, Anwar Sadat, then-President of Egypt, was assassinated by Islamic Jihad.

On October 20th, a synagogue in Antwerp, Belgium, is attacked, killing three and wounding sixty.

1982. On August 9th, a restaurant on the Rue des Rosiers, Paris, France is machine-gunned and bombed by Fatah-RC, killing 6 and wounding 22.

On September 14th, the Lebanese Prime Minister, Bashir Gemayel, and twenty-five others are killed by a car bomb. Habib Tanious Shartouni, a member of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, is convicted of the crime, and later released from prison by the Syrian army.

September 18th, a synagogue in Brussels is attacked, and four people are wounded. The gunman escaped, but is believed to be a member of Fatah-RC.

October 9th, the central synagogue in Rome, Italy is attacked with grenades and machine guns; one child is killed, and ten people are injured.

1983. On April 18th, the U. S. embassy in Beirut is destroyed with a car bomb. 63 people are killed. This action is attributed to Islamic Jihad.

September 23rd, Gulf Air Flight 771 is destroyed by a bomb planted by Fatah-RC. All 117 pasengers and crew are killed.

October 23rd, the U. S. Marine Barracks in Beirut is bombed. 241 Americans and 58 French are killed; 60 Americans and 15 French are injured. This remains today the single deadliest attack against Americans overseas since World War II. Although the true identity of the bombers is still not known, evidence points to Islamic Jihad. (Later, Hezbollah. Same folks, different name. Vive' la difference.

1984. On March 7th, 3 are killed and 9 wounded when a civilian bus is bombed in Ashdod, Israel.

April 2nd, 48 people are wounded when a shopping mall in Jerusalem is attacked by machine guns.

1985. February 23rd: Hezbollah destroys a Marks & Spencer shop in Paris; 1 is killed, 18 are wounded.

March 9th, the Cinema Rivoli in Paris is bombed, resulting in 18 injuries. Hezbollah claims responsibility, and no-one else wanted it.

June 14th, TWA Flight 847 was skyjacked. The passengers are held hostage for two weeks or so, and then released. Hezbollah, again, is responsible.

October 7th, the cruise ship Achille Lauro is hijacked. One passenger - an American Jew - is killed and thrown overboard. The hijackers were members of the Palestine Liberation Front.

November 23rd, EgyptAir Flight 648 is hijacked by Fatah-RC; in the Egyptian attempt to recapture the plane, 60 are killed.

December 7th, the Galeries Lafayette and the Printemps shops in Paris, France are bombed; 51 are injured, and the attack is attributed to Hezbollah.

December 27th, Leonardo Da Vinci International Airport in Rome and Vienna International Airport in Vienna are attacked by Fatah-RC. 18 are killed, and around 140 are killed.

1986. On February 3rd, two bombs are set in Paris; the Eiffel tower bomb fails to detonate, but the Claridge Passage bomb injures 7. The Fouad Ali Saleh group is responsible.

The Fouad Ali Saleh bombing campaign in Paris goes on for a good bit, with bombs on February 4th, February 5th, March 17th, and March 20th, killing 2 and injuring 52 total.

On April 2nd, TWA Flight 840 was bombed, resulting in four deaths and five injuries. The bomb was planted by Fatah-RC.

April 6th, the La Belle disco in Berlin is bombed by Libya, killing 3 and injuring 230 people, including over 50 American servicemembers.

September 5th, Pan Am Flight 73 is hijacked; 22 people are killed during the subsequent rescue attempt in Karachi, Pakistan. The hijackers are members of Fatah-RC.

The month of September was a memorable one for Paris; between Fouad Ali Saleh and Fatah-RC, five bombs are detonated, on the 8th, 12th, 14th, 15th, and 17th; killing 11 and wounding 159.

December 25th, Iraqi Airways Flight 163 is hijacked by Islamic Jihad. 63 passengers and crew were killed; 33 survived.

For some reason, 1987 managed to get away clean from the Middle East; all the terrorist activity during that year was Basque separatist, IRA, or Tamil.

1988. December 21st, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, including 11 from Lockerbie killed by falling debris. Libyan intelligence officers were found to have been the perpetrators.

1989. July 9th, two bombs kill one pilgrim and wound 16 others in Mecca.

September 19th a suitcase bomb planted by Libyan intelligence destroys UTA Flight UT-772 on its way to Paris, killing all 171 passengers and crew.

The 1990s. Bush Sr. and Clinton. BY THIS TIME WE HAD NO EXCUSE FOR OUR LACK OF PREPARATION. THE BOMBINGS AND ATTACKS HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER A DECADE.

1990: the PLF attacks Tel Aviv. The PLO attacks the U. S. embassy in Israel.

1992: The Israeli embassy in Beunos Aires, Argentina is destroyed by a bomb planted by Islamic Jihad; 29 are killed, 242 are injured. The Iranian embassy in Ottawa is attacked by MEK - an Iraqi religio-fascist group.

1993: This gentleman right here came all the way to the USA just to shoot up a busy intersection with an AK-47 and then head home; He killed 2 and wounded 3. The World Trade Center was carbombed, killing six and wounding over 1000. The bombing was orchestrated by a coalition of five groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah. A series of Muslim carbombings in Mumbai, India killed 257 and injured 1400 others, and a bomb in Calcutta killed 60 more a week later. The follow-on attack to the WTC bombing fell apart when the radical Islamic cleric in charge of planning it was arrested.

1994: Hezbollah blew up the AMIA building in Buenos Aires, killing 85 and wounding 300 or more. They also blew up Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901, killing all 21 people aboard. They also attacked the Israeli embassy in London, injuring 20 people. A banner year for them. This year also saw the beginning of the uprising in Bahrain, the bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 by Al-Qaeda planner Ramzi Yousef, later convicted of assisting with the first WTC bombing, and the hijacking and attempted intentional crashing of Air France Flight 8969 by the Armed Islamic Group.

1995: The Operation Bojinka plot - to bomb 11 U. S. airliners, by Ramzi Yousef, is foiled after a fire in an apartment leads authorities to a laptop containing the plan. A whole series of bombings is carried out in France by the Armed Islamic Group. The OPM-SANG building in Riyadh, Suadi Arabia is bombed, killing 7, and the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan is bombed, killing 19.

1996: The Khobar Towers housing complex in Khobar, Saudi Arabia is bombed by Hezbollah, killing 19 U. S. servicemen and 1 Saudi, and wounding 372 people of varying nationalities. In his first "fatwa," or declaration of war, Osama bin Laden tells the world that the U. S. response to Islamic terror, and our response to the events in Mogadishu, (chronicled in Black Hawk Down,) indicate that we are disgraced, impotent, and weak, and promises double the rewards indicated by the Qur'an if young Muslims rise up to attack the U.S.

1997: The Luxor Massacre, in which Al-Qaeda - allied groups killed 62 people at the Deir el-Bahri archaeological site.

1998: The Wandhama massacre, in which Kashmiri Militant Islamics carried out "ethnic cleansing" against 24 Kashmiri Pandits. Oddly enough, this took place in Kashmir. Also, in India, a campaign of 13 bomb attacks, killing 46 and wounding over 200, took place in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Al Umma, an Islamic fundamentalist group, claimed responsibility. In an orchestrated, simultaneous attack by Al Qaeda, the U. S. embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya are bombed; 257 are killed, over 4,000 wounded. In a letter to the world, Osama bin Laden claims that the weak U. S. response to this bombing proves that we are weak, corrupt, and ready for destruction by the sword of Islam.

1999: The Russian Apartment bombings, carried out by Chechen Islamic separatists, led to the Second Chechen War, and killed nearly 300 people. Ahmed Ressam was caught attempting to enter the United States to bomb LAX as part of the millennium bombing plots.

The 2000's. DURING THE CARTER, REAGAN, BUSH SR., AND CLINTON ADMINISTRATIONS, DOZENS OF BOMBINGS AND ATTACKS HAD TAKEN PLACE. WHY WEREN'T WE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY YET?!?

Highlights of 2000 include the bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors and wounded 40 more, off the coast of Yemen. This was perpetrated by Al-Qaeda.

Regardless of any other events in 2001, the standout is September 11th.

I was at work that day, repairing a network workstation, and one of my co-workers came running in to tell me someone was watching it on CNN, and one of the WTC towers had been hit by a plane. CNN had already figured out what the Air Force took a couple more hours to get: it was deliberate. Not an accident.

I set up a networked video feed, so that CNN's coverage popped on every workstation in the building. Everyone there clustered around a workstation; classes came to a halt; work came to a halt; everything came to a halt. Some of the girls were crying.

I remember these motherfuckers. That's what went through my head. I remember the sorry bastards that attacked us, after we saved them from "ethnic cleansing," in Kosovo. I remember the ongoing campaign of terror against us, even if our leaders do not.


Maybe I was wrong to think that. But I don't think so. Because I can read, and the list above, which is no doubt incomplete, tells me that my first thought was exactly right.


Now we know the face of our enemy.


We ought not, as a nation, to forget ANY of this. Not just the images from 9/11, but the story in its entirety. We ought not to forget the fact that our enemies used our restraint to call us cowards; our attempts to settle things peacefully to call us disgraced; our attempts to stay out of the conflict to call us cursed before God. We ought not to forget those who died - ANY of those who died - but we ought to REVERE those who were going up the stairs when the WTC came down.


We ought to revere those who brought down Flight 93, rather than see it used as another weapon against us.


We ought to revere those who have fought and died to protect us ever since.


We ought NEVER to forget the face of our enemy, and the nature of the threat.


But most of all, we ought to STAY AMERICA. Because if we let our freedoms be destroyed by a tyranny of fear, our liberties be eroded and destroyed by leaders without vision and strength; our very moral underpinnings be bled away in the name of "security" against a threat that by its nature cannot be blocked away - if we let this happen, then our enemies have won. Because their purpose, their conviction, their goal, is the destruction of the United States. And they DO NOT CARE if they accomplish it, or if we do it ourselves.


Every 90-year-old granny strip searched by airport security makes bin Laden's heart warm with joy.
Every soldier spat on and mistreated makes him dance a fucking jig.
Every time our government tightens the noose upon our necks one notch tighter, it makes him weep with delight and praise the name of his God. For he knows that we have forgotten the face of our enemy, and in the desperate quest to stop one idea, we've opened the door to a far more dangerous one.


America is more than the WTC. It is more than cheeseburgers, barbecue, Ford Explorers, and video games. It is more than Hollywood.


America is an idea that there can be a place where people can get along; they can be as rich as they're willing to earn; they can do anything they want that doesn't hurt someone else; and they can rely on each other to help out. (Except in New Jersey.)


But we have forgotten the face of our enemy. Our enemy is fascism - totalitarianism - in all its forms, be it crazed Islamofascism, in which all nations must bow to Shar'ia or be bombed endlessly, or be it our own government slowly turning us into a police state from within.


We ought not to forget it. And we ought to fight it every step of the way.


The firefighters going up the stairs when the tower fell would want it that way.

A Sad Day For Truth, Victory For Truthiness.

In recent weeks, world events have been scary. The economy is going bad, or it isn't; the climate is going bad, or it isn't; the world ecology is falling apart, or it isn't; the only thing that seems certain these days is that people aren't certain about anything anymore.

But there are some things they should be certain about.

Some of those things are happening in the Middle East, and some right within our own borders.

But we should damn well be certain what they are, and what they mean.

To begin, there are many groups, factions if you will, in power in various places in the Middle East. Hamas, in control of the Palestinians, and Hezbollah, controlling a vast portion of Lebanon, are only two of the many groups in power over there.

One unifying fact is that they all, invariably, hate the U.S.

We'll come back to this.

They also hate Israel. But let's be clear about the dishonesty of their leadership before we begin. The Palestinians claim, loudly, that the Israelis displaced them from "their" land. This is not true. The Palestinians now committing violence against the Israelis were in fact expelled from Jordan by its king, after they attempted to overthrow him. With their ACTUAL nation having exiled them, they traveled to the West Bank, where they began trying to drive the Israelis out, and they've never stopped.

Repeatedly, HAMAS has committed horrible acts of violence against Israeli civilians.

Repeatedly, despite the world's attempts to portray them in a positive light (more on that later too,) HAMAS has defied the media and defiantly announced their intent to destroy the nation of Israel.

In fact, it's in their charter:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

and

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

and

Arab countries surrounding Israel are asked to open their borders before the fighters from among the Arab and Islamic nations so that they could consolidate their efforts with those of their Moslem brethren in Palestine.

As for the other Arab and Islamic countries, they are asked to facilitate the movement of the fighters from and to it, and this is the least thing they could do.

Now that spells out a recipe for violence. Especially since they say in their charter that they consider any negotiation with the international community to be a waste of time. Good luck over there, Dr. Rice.

Hezbollah is just as bad; their agenda calls for:

We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

But they're not alone. Repeatedly, the American media, and to a lesser extent, the world's media, not only refuses to name these groups the terrorists and criminals, the murderous barbarians, that they in fact are; no, the media does worse than this, and tries incessantly to portray them as heroic freedom fighters.

Some few of the media are becoming aware that the terrorists are capitalizing on their willingness to collaborate; Reuters just fired a Lebanese photographer for Photoshopping a picture he submitted which purported to be an aerial photo of Beirut after an Israeli raid. He had added more smoke and generally "touched up" the photo to make it look as though the Israelis had done more damage than they in fact had, and this is typical of the media's efforts.

Take, for example, the recent coverage of the raid on the village of Qana; despite the now overwhelming evidence that the so-called "massacre" was in fact staged by Hezbollah, the media has ignored evidence to the contrary, and in many cases continued to report the "news" of the "massacre" at Qana, because they feel like something like that must have happened somewhere, anyway, despite there being no evidence whatsoever.

The media has also loudly and publically proclaimed our desperate, crying need to go home from Iraq, despite those with brains telling the world over and over that retreat equates to cowardice in the eyes of those we fight. Maybe you don't believe the world's leaders; fine. You're not obligated to.

Maybe you'd believe Osama bin Laden, instead, when he said in 1996 that:

Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

That's right. Bin Laden claims that Clinton ran like a cowardly pussy. I've said that before, but since only the mouthings of our enemies seem to have any validity in the eyes and ears of the world's media, maybe this time it'll soak in.
But that wasn't all he had to say. In 1998, again during he Clinton Administration, bin Laden published another fatwa, exhorting the Middle East to rise up in jihad:

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Oh, yes, we knew bin Laden was coming. It was just that our then-President was a coward, and ran from battle; he was so determined to avoid it that he bankrupted our nation's honor for all the world to see, despite the presence of a determined enemy who had attacked us repeatedly.

And yet we laud that President, and treat him as though he deserves our respect.

Why should this surprise? In this day and age of complete, nightmarish denial of reality, the Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations tells the world that rather than treating Hezbollah as the disgusting, cowardly barbarians they are, despite their repeated violations of the Law of War, we must treat them with respect.

Thankfully, despite the tide of support for the enemies of civilization by the majority of our media, there are still those with good sense. Charles Krauthammer published a great column about the current conflict, as did Victor Davis Hansen. So did Vin Surprynowicz. All three are good, and important, reading; all three will no doubt get ignored.

We persist in lambasting Israel for their use of "disproportionate force" against Hezbollah, to the exclusion of all good sense. YET WHEN HEZBOLLAH SHELLS THE LOCAL U.N. HEADQUARTERS, NOTHING IS SAID. (Look at the bottom of the page in "other developments.") Why?

The Lebanese admit that they lie about casualty figures, yet the world ignores it. Why?

Iran has given up its last traces of sanity; they've announced that any attempt by the international community to slow their nuclear program will result in the immediate execution of all political prisoners; they've released one prisoner - Osama bin Laden's oldest son, previously held as a bargaining piece, and sent him to Lebanon to help Hezbollah fight Israel; they've admitted that they are supplying the missiles that Hezbollah hides in civilian buildings and fires at Israeli civilians; and yet the world press gives them a pass, as though they don't mean it. Why?

Because we in the West, and indeed in most of the civilized nations throughout the world, are unwilling to admit a desperate, hateful truth when it is staring us right in the face. Well, fuck it. I will.

ISLAM is the aggressor here. Despite the constant media apologizing on their behalf, there is no gratitude from Islamic nations for our aid; there is only despite. They name us "The Great Satan," and eagerly assist one another in their endless quest to do violence against anyone who disagrees with them. They migrate to countries like Britain and France, and then use those populations to do violence against the native citizenry, in response to "offenses" often imaginary in nature. They are involved in more armed conflicts at this time than any other group in the history of the world, and yet we persist in apologizing for them.

"The religion of Islam is not at fault, it is the action of a few extremists."

You've heard that before, haven't you.

Repeatedly. Because we in the civilized nations of the world are so averse to the notion that a religion can be at fault, so terrified at the notion of prejudice, so distraught over the idea that someone's feelings might get hurt, that we've forgotten that the other team does not necessarily agree with us about that. And they have PR teams, too.

Islam preaches violence against heretics.

Islam preaches that a warrior who dies fighting the infidel is guaranteed a seat at the right hand of God.

These are not statements of a peaceful religion.

The world burst into flames a while back as demonstrations, rioting, arson, murder, kidnapping, and vandalism took place in dozens of nations because a newspaper published a CARTOON.

This is not the action of a peaceful religion.

Even CHILDREN'S TELEVISION programs in countries not currently involved in armed conflict are used for indoctrination in hatred.

This is not the act of a peaceful religion.

Islamic nations and organizations openly announce their intent to destroy our way of life and replace it with Islam, and we allow it to continue because we are afraid to name our enemy, lest we be accused of prejudice and oppression.

We've forgotten a simple truth: some things ought to be oppressed.

Sadly, we are fast approaching a time when that truth will be unavoidable, and our media are helping the enemy.

Facts are incredibly difficult to come by; the media lies openly, and then refuses to report the story when they are proved to have been mistaken. A perfect example of this kind of fingers-in-the-ears, "la-la-la-la-la" journalism, is the "WMDs In Iraq" saga. Despite the fact that we have FOUND, I repeat, FOUND, over 500 of them, and there are numerous eyewitness reports that the major stockpiles were moved to Syria before the U. S. invasion, numerous reports, the media persists in asserting, repeatedly, that it didn't happen.

For once, let's call things by their proper name. We are in a cultural war, this time; one that is fought not on a single battlefield, but one that is fought globally, as the forces arrayed against us use the naivete of our own journalists to spread their propaganda. Just like Chamberlain in Munich, our journalists are eager to give away all that makes us American in an effort to appease those enemies, and in the process they are damaging our reputation, and our honor, for all the world to see.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but I'll do it if I have to.

Islam has arrayed itself as our enemy. It is not a matter of whether or not the religion is inherently evil; I'm perfectly willing to accept the proposition that it is not, provided someone can give me some actual evidence that this is so. It's irrelevant; the fact is that the leaders of Islamic countries believe themselves to be our enemies, and this makes it fact.

As I've said before, if there are in fact the oft-ballyhooed "peaceful majorities," then why haven't they stopped this perversion of their religion?

Simple. It isn't one. And that's the ugly truth at the end of the day: in order to protect our civilization, we may have to resort to measures long removed from our society because they were thought too liable for abuse to use: namely, destruction of nations, and with them, their perverted creed. There is no moral equivalence between a nation which sends uniformed troops, in organized fashion, into a city from whence they have been shelled repeatedly to remove or destroy the source of the shelling, and a group whose masked members behead innocent bystanders on video as a means of weakening the wills of those who resist them. One is a nation, acting in accordance with its moral imperative to defend its citizens and international law; the other is a group of lawless, murdering barbarians, and should be treated as mad dogs have been traditionally treated: with death.

The USA-PATRIOT Act: Now In Your Living Room!

As if the PATRIOT Act wasn't bad enough.

Now there's a home version!

That's right: somebody made a PATRIOT Act board game.

Well, what does a PATRIOT Act board game play like? Let's see.

The object of the game is not to amass the most money or real estate, but to be the last player to retain civil liberties.
"I've had people complain to me that when they play, nobody wins. They say 'We're all in Guantanamo and nobody has any civil liberties left,' " he said. "I'm like 'Yeah, that's the point.' "

Now, that's funny.
But wait, there's more!

Players roll the dice to determine how many civil liberties they start out with, accumulating them from a variety of categories: U.S. citizens get five; non-citizens one. Whites and Asians get five; Arabs one. Ultra right-wingers get six; Democrats three or four.

Now, I must admit that I'm curious as to which civil liberties "right-wingers" enjoy that Democrats don't, but still. Love it. Download it. Play it.

Try if you can to ignore the rest of the leftist wack-job yammering on the site; unfortunately some people are still hung up on "Saddam had no WMDs" which we discussed not too long ago, and "Bush lied," which he didn't.

Attention Democrats: Why the FUCK can't you manage to get mad at Bush for the things he HAS done wrong? Why are you so married to the idea that he was wrong about things that he patently wasn't wrong about? If all of you stop sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALALA" when people point out that Iraq is in fact pretty much a win for us, and instead start yelling about the PATRIOT Act, which is what you should have been mad about all along, you MIGHT have gotten something done by now.

But then, that requires thought; and sadly, too many people, on either side of the aisle, find that to be too much of a challenge, and so don't bother.

The SECOND Most Anger-Inducing Article EVER!

First things first.
This is about abortion.
If you cannot restrain yourself from swearing and jumping up and down at the very mention of the term, no matter which "team" you find yourself on, skip this. Click here and leave the hell on outta' here.
I have some things to say, and I'm frankly not interested in a whole lot of incoherent jibberjabber, from either side.
If, on the other hand, you think you MIGHT just be able to hear a few things you haven't heard before and retain control of your faculties, read on. I will try to entertain you, without offending you. (Just kidding. Why bother? Chances are you will be offended, no matter what.)

Today, in Michigan, a lawsuit was filed by the National Center for Men.
At the very, very least, it will ignite a shitstorm. Most likely, it will get swept under the rug to avoid the shitstorm it rightfully deserves.
More on this, with linkage, in a minute.

Now. Abortion as an issue exists with two questions: who has the right to make the decision, and is the procedure illegal / immoral / whatever.

My gut, and my brain, agree on the second: you, all of you who get so worked up over this, are missing the point. The question is not whether it's illegal, it's WHEN it's illegal, because no matter how you dance around it, at some point in the pregnancy, the fetus is sufficiently developed that what you are doing is murdering a human being. At that point, it's ALREADY illegal - murder has been against the law as long as there have been human civilizations.

Now, the pro-life folks will tell you, loudly, over and over, that "life begins at conception," which is technically true, but also misses the point. The pro-choicers are more varied, as some of them think there's a certain developmental point at which it's no longer "ok," and some feel that pulling the baby part-way out and sucking its brains out with a vacuum tube IN THE DELIVERY ROOM is "ok." For me, so-called "partial-birth" abortion is so obviously murder, specifically infanticide, that I won't even dignify it with a response.

Now: the fact is, medical science may not know everything, but we're not back in the Dark Ages, either. The amount of knowledge that doctors are able to gather about a human fetus is amazing. Which leads me to my first of several points: when DOES the baby stop being a "non-viable tissue mass" and start being a BABY, anyway?

Well, we know for a fact that premature infants can survive outside the womb as early as 22 weeks of gestation - a typical pregnancy being 38-40 weeks. Is it likely? No. But it's possible, and at that point, they may be small, but they're clearly babies. Let me be clear, folks: a baby is not an "unintended side effect." It is a HUMAN BEING. Your right to "terminate a pregnancy" ends when it becomes a HUMAN BEING. This is because killing a human being is murder. Destroying a non-viable tissue mass is, well, gross.

Now, the question is still unanswered: when is it a human? Clearly, earlier than 5 1/2 months, because the prematures at that developmental stage are clearly, recognizably human. Medical science can observe facial features, a heartbeat, and liver function as early as 2 1/2 months; for the sake of discussion, let's call it the first trimester. At the end of that time, the fetus is developed enough that the child can be observed to move independently, which sure indicates something other than a "non-viable tissue mass" to me.

Ok: we've succesfully answered one of the great questions surounding this issue: when is it legal, and when isn't it: very simply, it's fine, until the baby becomes human, which is in the vicinity of the first trimester. If abortion is going to take place, for any reason other than the life of the mother, this is when to do it. After that point it is already covered by the United States Code, which says you can't murder humans. (I have my quibbles with the methodology of the "health of the mother" determinations, but as they're strictly a matter of my personal opinion, I won't go into it.)

Well, that HUGE HURDLE overcome, let's talk about the real quandary: who gets to make the decision? Women's groups would have you believe that because the male does not physically carry the fetus, he should have no say, despite the fact that the fetus exists in part due to his actions, and 50% due to his biology; I think this is utter, arrant nonsense. A male that wants to have some say in the life or death of his child is not "oppressing women," he is taking voluntary responsibility for the results of his actions. Does that mean he gets to make the decision by himself? No, and that's my whole point: a child is a being which cannot, of its nature, exist without the efforts and biology of more than one person. (Barring clones, which are an entirely different issue.) Allowing EITHER of the parents, regardless of gender, to make a decision to destroy the child without the agreement of the other is simply morally wrong.

(OBVIOUS DISCLAIMER FOR ANY DUMBFUCKS WHO'VE MADE IT THIS FAR: Clearly, if a woman is raped, the father does not get a say. Also clearly, if the father just bails and doesn't want to hear about it, he doesn't get a say, because he HAD his say when he walked away. Neither of these points are germane to the discussion.)

Now. Now we get to the crux of the issue, which is: under the current state of the law in most of the United States, women do not have to consult the father at all. They can make the decision to keep the child, put the child up for adoption, or kill the child, all on their own. This is not "a triumph of empowerment," it is a statement to men that their role in the creation of the child is lesser, and their rights and responsibilities with regard to the child are lesser, than those of the mother.

Which brings me to the lawsuit.
The National Center for Men has filed suit on behalf of Matt Dubay, of Saginaw, Michigan, against his ex-girlfriend, requesting relief from his responsibility to pay child support. Why? Because, he claims,

the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.

In other words, she made the decision to get pregnant without consulting him, thus denying him his right to choose; that denial therefore relieves him of any responsibility for the consequences.

Now, NCM is arguing that if decisions regarding pregnancy are, as Roe v. Wade states, up to the woman and not the man, then it is unjust for the woman to retroactively saddle the man with responsibility for decisions she made without his consent.

Here's the problem with all this. Everything about this issue has been approached in the wrong way. Like I said before, if a child exists, it's due to the actions of not one, but two people. Moral responsibility therefore devolves upon BOTH parents. If either parent chooses to disavow the child, they have made their decision, and it should be a legally enforceable, irreversible one. Neither parent should be able to sue for custody or support, years later, of a child that they voluntarily walked away from. A woman's position here is somewhat more complicated by virtue of the fact that the child is physically attached to her, and as such a decision to abandon the child has to be a choice between carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption, or abortion, but the decision is still the same: keep it, or don't. At that point, the pregnancy must factor into a woman's thinking, in terms of whether it's worth it, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy; but that doesn't absolve her of the responsibility of consulting the male.

(ONCE AGAIN FOR THE DUMBFUCKS: Rape, clearly, does not count. In a case of rape, the male has, by leaving, disavowed his consequences in advance. There are criminal penalties for the sexual assault; the penalty inherent in the act of rape, with regard to parenthood, is total, irrevocable loss of any parental rights whatsoever.)

Currently, the state of the law enforces a double standard of monumental, hideous proportions. The father does not have to be consulted by the mother, despite his equal responsibility in the actions which occasioned the decision; yet he can be called on years later to provide financial support for children in whose lives he has had no say whatsoever. This has gone to completely outlandish proportions in some places; there was a case in Sweden recently where two lesbians had themselves artificially inseminated via a sperm bank, and then sued the sperm donor for child support.

The NCM lawsuit is predicated on this same principle. If the mother can voluntarily, summarily banish the father from the child's life, the father can voluntarily, summarily banish the mother from his life. It is a moral evil of profound proportions to require someone to accept consequences stemming from the actions of someone else; any five-year-old can tell you this, if you try to punish them for something someone else did.

But, if the connection there seems a bit tenuous to you, let me illustrate it in the following fashion: Imagine, for a moment, that you work in a giant retail store. Call it "Brand X."
Now, you hold a position at Brand X where you do not place orders, choose product lines, buy product, or in fact do anything other than hand the product to customers and say "Thank you, have a nice day." Suddenly, one day, the Loss Prevention officers at your store come to you and say,

We've discovered that another department has ordered a product that doesn't sell well. Because you work at Brand X, we're docking your pay until all the non-selling product is paid for.

The moral principle involved is exactly the same. A decision for which you are allowed no responsibility has suddenly become the justification for punishment directed at you.

This is morally wrong.
Now, to me, a rapist is already a criminal, and a man who does not want to take responsibility for a child he created, using his dick, is a reprehensible shitball who should be spat upon publically; but that does not change the fact that the gentleman from Michigan is exactly right. If he was, in fact, told that no child would result, and did in fact state in advance that he wanted no children, and the woman proceeded to have one anyway, despite her assurances to him and her foreknowledge of his disinclination towards parenthood, then he should bear no responsibility, financial or otherwise, for the child. More importantly, if the woman flatly took the decision out of his hands - and the law says she can - then it is injustice of the highest order to claim that he is irrevocably bound to support the child.

My personal feeling is that you shouldn't stick your dick in a woman that you're not willing to take the risk of having a child with; this guarantees that no matter the outcome, you are at least to some degree prepared for it. And frankly, as my father used to say,

people will go places with a hard-on that I wouldn't go with a shotgun.

But his point is nonetheless true for all its sliminess, weaselliness, and general shitheadedness: he shouldn't have to pay for the kid, as long as the state of the law says that fathers don't need to be consulted.

No doubt there are some very angry people right now: and no doubt they will email me to tell me so. Too damn bad. I'll read your emails, send one in reply that says "Thank you for your comments," and otherwise ignore you.
If, on the other hand, you are one of the 4 or 5 people I know capable of rational argument that doesn't agree with me, feel free to send me any rational comments you choose to make on the subject, or feel free to post them in my comments section; that's what it's there for.
With that, I will say, have a good evening and good night.

Hamas To Israel: Suck It, Blue!

Hamas reacts to Israeli Threats

"We will make the Israeli Zionists drown in a sea of blood," the statement said.

Just a quick note.

This is a pseudo-entry, only because I've been waiting for a while to use that title. Heh. Those of you who aren't familiar with the joke should check out Red Vs. Blue, Season One.
Why am I not making a huge rant out of this? Well, simply, because you knew damn well that Hamas wouldn't be able to keep their mouths shut, so this was inevitable.

Israel To Hamas: Quit Screwing Around Or We'll Kill You!

Think I'm kidding?

Israel's defense minister warned Tuesday the incoming Hamas prime minister would be assassinated if the Islamic militant group resumes attacks, but the acting Israeli premier also pledged a drastic cut in spending on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

That's right. The defense minister - one of the top government oficials of a sovereign nation - told the duly elected leader of another sovereign nation that if he didn't behave, they'd kill him. That's way outside what constitutes the norm for international diplomatic communication, and should serve as some indication of how Israel views the Hamas election. They are basically saying that if Hamas feels froggy, they should jump - and heads of state don't usually get to say things like that.

Five boys in Fontana, California, who tried to cheer up a recently-dumped friend of theirs by having a fictitious "girl" chat him up accidentally managed to snare a child molester, instead. Good hunting, guys!


In a not-too-surprising case of "old people knowing life is supposed to be fun," Irene Alice Goguen, of Leominster, MA, who turned 100 on Monday, recommends beer as a health tonic, and says that her husband died years ago because he DIDN'T drink beer.
I'd just like to point out that not too many nutritionists, vegans, dieticians, or doctors have lived to be 100 years old and not yet senile - but there sure seem to be quite a few centenarians who drink and smoke, don't there? Some days it seems like every time you turn around there's some oldster telling the world that hooch and smokes are the secret to long life. (50% of them, according to this study.) My local bar will be pleased to know that I am taking their advice.

Attention, cops: if you don't read the instructions for your speed cameras, chances are drivers will get their fines reversed in court. That is all.

A little more on the guy I was talking about at Xeno's Bastard Love Child who got caught trying to molest a sheep; he has been placed on indefinite leave pending an internal investigation by the Mesa Fire Department.

"I think it's disgusting," Sheriff Joe Arpaio said. "I think of Ghandi who said you judge the morality of a country by the way they treat their animals. . . . I do look at (bestiality) as some type of animal cruelty."

In a stunning turn of events, people are choosing cremation over burial in ever-increasing numbers. This is because it's cheaper. In desperation, funeral home directors are desperately trying to make cremation just as expensive, so people will go buy caskets again.

The average cremation - without the cost of burial and other fees - is about $1,850, said Jack Springer, executive director of the Cremation Association of North America. But add an elaborate urn, a hand-carved wooden casket, full funeral or fees for space in a columbarium and the price can rival, if not exceed, a traditional burial, which runs about $6,000 not including a plot and other fees.

That's right. If you don't buy all the additional crap, getting burned is about $1,850, and getting buried is about $6,000. Gee, in this day and age, I'm only surprised that anyone is left who's seriously surprised people don't want to pay that much.

Do you think Miller beer sucks? I do. And I'm not alone, either. But apparently, the Miller CEO doesn't get that we'd probably buy his company's products if they were, you know, good. Instead, says he, his company's product line is falling on its ass because...

as consumers began to look for more personalization and sophistication, Adami noted, the business failed to catch on quickly enough. Brewers stuck to the formulas that had worked before: mass-advertising campaigns with lots of bikinis and bad jokes.

In other words, we didn't buy your beer because there were too many bikini models. Um... earth to Miller Guys... the ads don't count for jack if your beer tastes like week-stale ass. Which it does. Notice that microbrews are growing quite well, thanks, despite in most cases having NO ADVERTISING AT ALL other than signs INSIDE BARS. Think your connection to reality might need a bit of adjustment?

Not as much as CBS News, evidently; CBS is all worked up about one of ABC's reporters getting hurt in Iraq. Love their concern for the other people injured in the same explosion, don't you? But what I find truly amusing in this article was the following snippet:

Both were wearing body armor, which doctors say likely saved their lives.

Especially since CBS has been portraying our body armor as crap. In fact, they've been making a LOT of noise about it. Just a bit ironic, that. A bit.

The British are joining the Japanese as world-class perverts, something which I, as a professional pervert myself, applaud: they are now selling sex toys in vending machines. Why is this a good thing? Well, because sex shops are, well, gross.

"The younger generation isn't phased by sex toys. They don't believe they equal pornography. Vending machines allow them to buy such products anonymously without going to a seedy sex shops to do so," Lucas said.

Your sea sponge wants a spell check. Oh wait, that's not right - your sua sponte HAD one. Dumbass. Here's a hint: Microsoft Word cannot deal with legal terminology. Running a spell-check is less effective than just READING OVER YOUR OWN CRAP.

You can all rest assured that if the President of the United States gets his nuts licked by a cow, I will know about it. Now, the question that occurs to me is - can we get HIM put on indefinite suspension, pending an investigation? I'm just asking, you know.

Remember all those dollars you gave the Red Cross for Katrina relief? I do. Well, guess what? The Red Cross used 'em to pay movie stars to ask for more donations for the Red Cross. But wait, it's better than that: take a look at some of the salaries the Red Cross is offering on its own webpage. They are actually advertising for applicants for a $150,000 / year job - the CEO of the San Diego Chapter. If they have regional chapter officers making over $100,000, how much of your hard-earned contribution made it to Katrina relief, do you think? I have to be highly suspicious of any "non-profit" organization whose officers are making such a VAST profit. Like the United Way, whose current CEO makes $500,000 a year; the ASPCA, whose CEO makes $186,000; the Christian Children's Fund (only pennies a day add up to $179,000 a year for President John F. Schultz;) Greenpeace, whose Executive Director saved the world to the tune of $162,125 last year; MADD, whose National Executive Director earned $238,139 last year; the Sierra Club, whose Executive Director rescued the snowy warbler for $204,983 last year; and the United Negro College Fund, whose President sent the kiddies to school last year, because those kiddies paid him half a million bucks.
And you guys wonder why I'm cynical.

Well, part of it is because GEICO won't save me any money on car insurance because I'm too poor. What, you didn't think the gecko was SERIOUS, did you? Oh, I see you did. Sorry to shatter your pleasant fantasies.

Well, just to round things out - anyone remember Bubb Rubb? The woot-woot guy? Well, he just got served: there's a company in Miami putting TRAIN WHISTLES in cars, which have "whistle tips" in the exhaust beat, hands down. The horns are louder than a jet taking off from 80 feet away. That's - faintly ridiculous. Their marketing is pretty good, too:

His horns range in price from the modest PsychoBlaster for just $42.95 (Web site: "These things pack some serious punch ... the loudest, most annoying thing you've ever heard.") to the Nathan Airchime K5, at $1,649.95 ("They'll hear you coming for miles with `The Godfather' of all train horns ... (the) loudest thing I've ever heard.").

That's right: the most annoying thing you've ever heard. Great. You know who will install these? Assholes. That's who. Glad to see they now have YET ANOTHER new tool to pester the rest of us.
Ok. That's enough "WTF?!?" for one day. I'm going to bed.

No WMDs In Iraq? Boy Do You Ever Feel Like A Jackass Now, I Bet

...Because Saddam did in fact have WMDs, and freely admitted it, on tape. That's gotta sting a little, there, huh?

Not only IBD has this, either; apparently one of Saddam's former advisers wrote a book about it. You can get it at Amazon.com, if you feel like knowing what really happened, or you can just read what Saddam and his ministers were discussing yourself.

As this story develops, more and more sources of this information are turning up, each of which corroborates the others, each of which brings new facts into the equation.

First, Saddam had WMDs. Really. He did. Just like Bush said.
Second, the WMDs weren't there when we got there, because Russian Spetsnaz troopers helped move them to other countries, like Syria and Lebanon. In fact, you may recall me saying that's what happened, (although I admit the Spetsnaz bit was a surprise; I've met some of those guys and wouldn't have pegged them as the type) in "The Most Anger-Inducing Article EVER," in November of last year.
Third, Saddam candidly discusses on the tapes his plans to use nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its allied nations through proxies (which, as described, sound a lot like Al-Quaeda) who cannot be traced back to Iraq.

I know it hurts to face up to it, but you were wrong, and President Bush wasn't. Like I've said before, you're mad at President Bush about the wrong things, and glorifying our enemies only tarnishes your image and destroys your credibility with the American public.

The Most Anger-Inducing Article EVER!!!

The Senate is threatening to "hold up" renewal of the USA-PATRIOT Act.

They complained that the House-Senate compromise now being considered takes back some civil liberty protections that senators had agreed to, including changing a Senate requirement that the government inform the targets of a "sneak and peek" search warrant within seven to 30 days.

"Sneak and peek" search warrants allow police to conduct secret searches of people's homes or businesses and inform them later.

Why are they jackasses? Because they're seriously considering renewing this unConstitutional abomination. Threatening to "hold it up" is not anywhere near enough. Now, normally, I think the ACLU is completely full of shit, but for once, I'm wondering where the hell they and their lawyers are. USA-PATRIOT violates several clauses of the Bill of Rights, and should have been in the news every single day since its inception, being challenged in the Supreme Court.

Now, for the last few months I've been keeping my boiling fury at the current administration's horrible record relatively under control, instead focusing on silly news stories and whatnot, due to my general lack of opportunity to blog. However, sometimes you come across a news story that's just an intolerable provocation.
So, let me tell you a story.
This weekend, on Fox News Sunday, which you may or may not watch, one of the guests was the Democratic Senator from West Virginia, John D. Rockefeller.
Now, if you want to read for yourself, the transcript is available here, but the relevant quotes can be found below.

WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the presidential daily brief or the senior executive intelligence brief. You got the national intelligence estimate.

But the Silberman commission, a presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced, than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the president, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, I want to play another clip from your 2002 speech authorizing the use of force, this time specifically on the question of Saddam's nuclear program. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROCKEFELLER: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years, and he could have it earlier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Now, by that point, Senator, you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, correct?

ROCKEFELLER: In fact, there were only six people in the Senate who did, and I was one of them. I'm sure Pat was another.

WALLACE: OK. But you had read that, and now we've read a declassified...

ROCKEFELLER: But, Chris, let's...

WALLACE: Can I just ask my question, sir?

ROCKEFELLER: Yes.

WALLACE: And then you can answer as you choose. That report indicated there was a disagreement among analysts about the nuclear program. The State Department had a lot more doubts than the CIA did about whether he was pursuing the nuclear program. You never mentioned those doubts. You came to the same conclusion the president did.

ROCKEFELLER: Because that — first of all, that National Intelligence Estimate was not called for by the administration. It was called for by former Senator Bob Graham, who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dick Durbin.

We didn't receive it until just a couple of days before we voted. Then we had to go read it and compare it to everything else that we thought we'd learned about intelligence, and I did make that statement. And I did make that vote.

But, Chris, the important thing is that when I started looking at the weapons of mass destruction intelligence along with Pat Roberts, I went down to the floor, and I said I made a mistake. I would have never voted yes if I knew what I know today.

Hindsight is 20/20, eh, Senator? So, it's in your hands before the vote, and you read it - and still voted for the war.
JUST WAIT, IT GETS BETTER.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm...

WALLACE: You're not?

ROCKEFELLER: No.

?!?
WTF?!?
I mean, WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?!?
You ignored the intelligence documents given to you regarding an upcoming vote about SENDING OUR TROOPS INTO COMBAT IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, and now think you "shouldn't be held responsible?"
WHY THE FUCK DO WE PAY THESE ASSHOLES?!?The facts of the current brouhaha over prewar intelligence are right there. The Senators were given the intelligence documents upon which the Bush administration predicated its request for war; the Senators ignored said documents; the Senators voted for the war - even Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy did - and so did Barack Obama and Evan Bayh, by the way - and now, not only do they think they shouldn't be held accountable, but they blame the war on Bush.

Now, let's be clear: I think Bush is the worst president this century; maybe the worst president in the history of this country. But I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with Iraq. I'll tell you why, before we go on:

1. "There were no WMDs." For 12 years prior to our current actions, the U.N. has been sending weapons inspectors into Iraq. This is because, according to the best intelligence available, President Clinton, now retired Gen. Wesley Clark, and most of the current "it's Bush's fault" agitators believed that Saddam Hussein possessed a vast store of chemical and biological weapons, and was working to obtain nuclear ones. The Bush administration's decision to advance with military action was a direct result of the treatment of those same inspectors by Saddam's regime, which denied them access to sites where they believed weapons to be present repeatedly, often in a pattern that the chief of the weapons inspection team called "indicative of delaying tactics, in an attempt to cover the relocation and concealment of any weapons present."
In other words, they jerked us around to buy time to hide 'em. Now, with most of the administration - namely those members who might know where they're buried - dead or in jail, it may be hundreds of years before any weapons are found. All we know FOR SURE at this point is that we haven't found any - not that there WEREN'T any.

2. "We're not getting anything done over there." Oh, really?
Well, let's see. We've liberated a country, with a population vastly greater than was our own at the time of the Revolutionary War, in about 1/3 of the time that said Revolutionary War took (8 years;) with, so far, a fraction of the casualties suffered during the Revolutionary War. We've given the newly freed Iraq an opportunity to create its own Constitution - which it has, and has ratified, a process that took our country more than a decade; we've set up public schools, for the first time in nearly fifty years in Iraq, where our country didn't have government-run schooling until the 1840s; we've set up hospitals in a country that has basically had no health care for anyone not in the military since Saddam first took power.
I challenge ANYONE to tell me that that's "nothing."

3. "There was no al-Quaeda presence or tie in Iraq!" Well, then, how come they're fighting so very, very hard to get it back? According to the Iraqi interim government - not our own intelligence sources, of course, since everyone apparently "knows" they're crap - over 70% of the so-called "insurgents" are troops funded and trained by al-Quaeda and funneled into Iraq via the Syrian and Jordanian borders, which is why the Iraqis are screaming at Syria and Jordan to secure said borders. You might have read about that in the newspapers. The "insurgents" are being led by a man named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was one of the top officers of Al-Quaeda; yet somehow, there's no connection whatsoever. Excuse me for remaining a tad skeptical on that point. Oh, and let me add another little tidbit from the Rockefeller interview on FNS:

WALLACE: Is Zarqawi on the rocks?

ROCKEFELLER: No. In fact, it's one of my absolute frustrations throughout this entire process. Usama bin Laden, Zarqawi — we have not taken down either one. Now, Usama bin Laden is up at 15,000 feet somewhere and is hard to get to. Zarqawi is in Iraq. He's in Jordan. He's been there all along. He started up in the northeast section. He's never left it.

And he is the great Al Qaeda threat, in my judgment, these days, as opposed to Usama bin Laden, and our good intelligence now, after 1998, and our good intelligence and our good military have failed to bring him in. I don't understand that. And I think that's a direct question that the president ought to be asked. Get Zarqawi, and our problems are going to start diminishing very quickly.

That's right. Your Democratic Senator from West Virginia admits that at the very least, one of the top al-Quaeda officers, maybe the highest remaining in the organization, has "been in Iraq all along." What's that, if not a tie?

4. "There was no need for us to be there in the first place!" Except, of course, for the fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who had killed over 780,000 people according to the most conservative estimates. Except, of course, for the fact that he had publicly asserted his intention to use military force to conquer the entire region. Don't believe me? Search online. His speeches are a matter of public record, no matter that you may have to dig a little. Except, of course, for the fact that in his invasion of Kuwait, he proved his willingness to engage other countries without provocation.

5. "The U.S. was acting unilaterally!" This, of course, ignores the other 49 countries that supported the Iraq campaign; 41 of which actually contributed troops; they are unimportant, because France and Germany, both with substantial immigrant Islamic populations, loudly voiced their opposition, because they were terrified of the kind of terrorist backlash that France has in fact suffered the last two weeks. Of course the U. S. and U. K. don't count; any use of their forces by a Republican president is automatically assumed to be wrong these days, but how about South Korea? or Italy? or Poland? or 7 different former Soviet splinter republics? (Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia) or FIJI, for goodness' sakes; Fiji contributed 335 troops to the UN security forces over there, which is nearly a TENTH of their total forces under arms. Unilaterally? Sorry, guys, the facts simply aren't there for you.


Actually, Iraq is one of the only 2 or 3 things that Bush has done right during his administration. What totally mystifies me is how his liberal critics seem determined to ignore all the really catastrophic things he's done wrong, which they could attack him for with perfect justification, in favor of screaming "THE WAR IS WRONG!!1!"
What should they be attacking him for?
USA-PATRIOT.
Also known as H. R. 3162, USA-PATRIOT purports to give law enforcement agencies better abilities to cope with the threat of domestic terrorism. In reality, it guts the Bill of Rights (which is available here.)
Want to see how?
Amendment 4 to the U. S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Act gives this the finger:

`(1) ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The order, upon service of that order, shall apply to any person or entity providing wire or electronic communication service in the United States whose assistance may facilitate the execution of the order. Whenever such an order is served on any person or entity not specifically named in the order, upon request of such person or entity, the attorney for the Government or law enforcement or investigative officer that is serving the order shall provide written or electronic certification that the order applies to the person or entity being served.

In other words, as long as the government guy says "it's legit" they get permission to go ahead with wiretaps on you.

The Sixth Amendment reads as follows:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This is what the writ of "habeus corpus" is all about. Habeus corpus allows a prisoner to require that he be brought before a court to determine if he is, in fact, being detained legally. Of course, the Patriot Act couldn't let that alone, saying that

`(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION- An alien detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.

which means that unless he submits a writ of habeus corpus, a suspected terrorist can be held up to six months on the sole say-so of whoever arrested him in the first place. Well, that's ok, the writ of habeus corpus can get him out anyway, right? WRONG.

`(3) APPEALS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2253 of title 28, in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) before a circuit or district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals.

In other words, the only court that can take your petition if you are a suspected terrorist is the Washington, D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals - not your home jurisdiction, or even the one you were arrested in. This, coincidentally, violates the Fifth Amendment protection against being stripped of your freedom without due process of law, which reads as follows:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Speaking of which, according to the Patriot Act, people can be arrested, records can be obtained, wiretaps can be issued, homes / cars / storage sheds / businesses / outhouses can be searched at will, all on the say-so of the Attorney General, without any evidence of a Grand Jury involved, in direct contravention of the Fifth Amendment. Not only that, but one of the big issues the Senators are grappling with today is whether the government should have to tell you your home has been searched at all; under the Patriot Act as it stands, it's perfectly ok for the feds to get a warrant, search your house, and then wait up to a month to get around to telling you that your home was searched - this is called "delaying notice of the execution of a warrant." It goes a little something like this:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

Which means that if they don't feel like telling you, they can poke about in your personal business without even knocking first.

Doesn't THAT seem like a good reason to hate Bush?
Your freedom and rights as an American are under siege. I urge you most strongly to register to vote and get rid of any candidate, Republican OR Democrat, who thinks that the Patriot Act is a good idea; ultimately, their power as members of the government derives, as Thomas Jefferson said, from "the consent of the governed," and it's long past time to assert your refusal to consent to allow your home to be searched without notification or cause, your refusal to allow yourself to be detained without your right to face your accusers, your refusal to allow yourself to be criminalized without recourse.

I will leave you with a quote I think the government has every reason to fear, and one that becomes more appropriate each and every day: ladies and gentlement, I give you the list of crimes committed against the colonists by King George of Great Britain, from the Declaration of Independence:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Well said, indeed.