Americans.

But what about this, you counter? Gee, I wonder why the servicemen would fire at a van that refused to stop?

HCPW3BD4VJNQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/03/30/wirq130.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/30/ixnewstop.html">"Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?"

I mean, really, really wrong?

Hey, it really is all about the oiiiiil. I mean really, really, really wrong.

Merciful God, please make it stop (I mean really**4 wrong).

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

WOW

Go read an essay that contains the following paragraphs. You'll be surprised by where you end up.

This war is an abject and utter failure. What everyone thought would be a quick, decisive victory has turned into an embarrassing series of reversals. The enemy, -- a ragtag, badly-fed collection of hotheads and fanatics � has failed to be shocked and awed by the most magnificent military machine ever fielded. Their dogged resistance has shown us the futility of the idea that a nation of millions could ever be subjugated and administered, no matter what obscene price we are willing to pay in blood and money.

The President of the United States is a buffoon, an idiot, a man barely able to speak the English language. His vice president is a little-seen, widely despised enigma and his chief military advisor a wild-eyed warmonger. Only his Secretary of State offers any hope of redemption, for he at least is a reasonable, well-educated man, a man most thought would have made a far, far better choice for Chief Executive.

*sigh*

Look, another disgusting vast right wing conspiracy fluff piece trying to tell us what Iraqi's REALLY want. Everyone knows that the Arab News is a shill for the Bush hunta hegemonistic world domination slaughter all of the little brown peoples of the world industrial/military complex, right? RIGHT?

The world would be a better place if the Iraqi people would just accept that their freedom is a price we are willing for them to pay in order to be able to bash the US of A. The sooner they come to grips with this, the sooner we can get back to designing paper mache sculptures of Uncle Sam murdering babies and organizing marches where costumed people on stilts carry anti-liberation placards.

Oh, yeah, and then there's this from Reuters, the Bush propaganda machine.

Would still be a worthless waste of bandwidth.

A commenter offers this definitiion of troll - "someone I (RNS) disagree with".

Funny, I have had lots of disagreements with lots of posters, and rarely have I labeled any trolls. I have had some very nice discussions with people that had views contrary ot my own, and somehow we managed to agree to disagree and part on good terms.

My definition of Troll is:

1) Someone who posts abusive/vulgarity filled comments with the sole purpose of starting a flame war (or hoping to get backlash hits to their blog). RNS gets these occasionally, but we usually just ignore this lot from the outset.

2) Someone who repeatedly makes intellectually dishonest/vacuous comments, refuses to engage in any kind of meaningful debate, and whose sole purpose is to adopt a contrary position, regardless of how untenable that position might be. The individual who comes to mind here is the one that is complaining about being called a troll. Anytime a statement is made that this Troll doesn't agree with, they write some snide little comment disparaging the person who made the statement, try to refute it by providing a very biased and selective view of the issue being debated, or ask for evidence. The problem is, in every instance where evidence has been provided, the Troll just abandons the argument and moves on to the next. These kinds of Trolls are the hardest to deal with - you can spend hours refuting their claims, to no avail. It is a waste of time and energy to enter into a debate with someone that has no interest in anything than cramming their own worldview down your throat, and calling you names if you don't agree. Another favored pasttime of this Troll variety is gloating over coalition difficulties and casualties, and using every tactic of moral equivalence they can think of to equate the Bush administration with Saddam Hussein.

3) A mythical monster that lives under bridges and eats small children. There have been no sightings of this type of Troll on RNS.

Ahhhhh, the poor Trolls. Having their dissent stifled here on RNS. Hopefully the odious little creatures will never find out what stifling of dissent really looks like, or this, or this, or this.

But by all means, continue your valuable work of dissenting with Iraqi liberation and the support of Hussein's regime.

Don't care about the Kurds? Then what about the Shi'a?

With evidence that there REALLY IS an Iraq - al Qaeda connection. Who'd a thunk it?

And let him know what you think about HIS letter in USA Today:

Americans have a tendency to call members of our armed forces heroes. I disagree. I've seen our troops in several wars and would conclude that the term "cowards" suits them better.
Why? Consider:
*I've watched how members of the armed forces bomb defenseless countries from 30,000 feet, killing both soldiers and civilians without descretion.
*I've considered the pictures and reports I've seen in the media during the past few days. They tell how greatly inferior the Iraqi army and civilians are as they are challenged by the world's deadliest fighting force.

Curtis Francis Doebbler
Washington.

He is, apparently, a "Distinguished Lecturer in Law and Politics" at the American University in Cairo.

You can go to his University home page here.

or his personal home page here.

Or access his e-mail here.

Links via the LoboWalk

His photo on the University page has a sort of chickenshit green coloration, which I guess is about right.

One step at a time.

Apparently Arafat has decided to declare war on the good old USofA. Wonder who he expects to appeal to the next time Israel comes after his terrorist butt?

At least maybe a few Israeli civilians will be spared being blown up by splodeydopes because of this "redeployment".

Useful Idiots and Pawns

Saddam's apparatus knows how much the people hates them, and what will happen to them the day he falls. They also may think, encouraged by global antiwar protests, that if only the regime can create enough humanitarian tragedies, the US might be forced to withdraw.

And then there's these reports:

The other story is a related one, concerning the few troops that are engaging coalition forces. "Up and down the 320-kilometer stretch of desert where American and British forces have advanced," The New York Times reported yesterday, "one Iraqi prisoner after another has told a similar tale: Many Iraqi soldiers are fighting at gunpoint, threatened with death by hard-core loyalists of President Saddam Hussein." One soldier said, "The officers threatened to shoot us unless we fought.

In other words, the "resistance" and the lack of more spontaneous demonstrations in support of the invasion are hardly evidence that Iraqis do not want to be liberated, but the opposite: a regime so totalitarian and pervasive that even in its death throes it is able to terrorize its people.

And the final bit, which really drives home the point that most of the "anti-liberation" protestors could care less about the human suffering in Iraq:

The fact that antiwar protests are continuing, and seem to be encouraged by the troubles the coalition has been having in winning the war of expectations, just accentuates how little these supposed humanitarians care about the Iraqi people. Why would anyone with a shred of human caring want Saddam to win this war, or to prolong it by a single day? What other possible effect could such protests have?

One wonders whether the protest movement that is now giving Saddam comfort, but has not a single word to say about the brutalities of his regime, will have some pangs of conscience when Saddam's torture chambers are revealed, and when the Iraqi people are free to say what they will about their years of suffering. When every totalitarian dictatorship falls, such as the Soviet Union and someday China, there are those who are surprised to discover that, if anything, those who called them evil understated the situation.

But of course, we have a couple of commenters who love to gloat about the "difficulties" of the coalition forces. I think you really have to ask - what possible motivation do these people have?

More on Iraqi war crimes can be found here. Don't wander in too close, lest ye become a singularity.

Except that, er, it appears here.
I've just heard a snippet of the most disgustingly me-me-me anti-war advert by Susan Sarandon, in which she intones, "Before our kids start coming home from Iraq in body bags, and women and children start dying in Baghdad, I need to know - what did Iraq do to us?" Well, if you mean what did Saddam do to America The Beautiful, not an awful lot - but to millions of his own people, torture and murder for a start. Don't they count?

Except they called themselves Kamikazes. That plan didn't work out too well for them, if I remember correctly.

It's amazing what answers you get from "common" Iraqis when you get to ask the questions without Saddam around.

But of course, the "common" Iraqis don't really know what's best for them - that's best decided by leftists on stilts.

Hint: You get to read the words "I was wrong" by some one who used to be opposed to the war. At least until he went and lived with an Assyrian family in Iraq.

Link via Instapundit.

At least that is the Leftist Dogma Monkey's greatest wet dream. And of course our media is doing everything it can to help that impression gain credance. Why, just go look at this actual transcript of recent war coverage.........

I'm not a military man, so I have no real idea about the expectations and realities of war. However, I wonder where this doom and gloom and attitude of "we didn't win in 24 hours, so the war is now unwinnable" mentality comes from.

I keep hearing that Iraq is a country "the size of California". Would you really expect to be able to drop a force of 300,000 people on California, march to and capture Sacramento while controlling the harbor of San Diego and controlling the populace of Los Angeles in a few days or a week? The US media hysteria is really starting to get annoying. I think these cartoons from American Realpolitik do a nice job of summing things up in pictures, which may be easier for some of our trolls to understand.

Just as a little teaser:

And for our one profoundly dense antagonist that has problems telling the difference between Saddam's forces and the Coalition forces, I can offer this.

I don't know where it came from, so I can't give proper attribution. But it is sort of funny, none the less.

UPDATE

The "left hand of Daschle" is a fake, as was pointed out by a reader. Ah, well, internet hoaxes abound.

Why is it when Saddam murders hundreds of thousands of his own people, he is guilty of "Human Rights Violations"

But when the US inflicts collateral damage, even when taking extraordinary measures not to, they are guilty of "murdering innocent civilians".

This is a letter from an Aussie reader named Neon. Seems to sum things up pretty nicely, in my opinion. And at 16, Neon appears to have a better grasp on the "real world" than some of our recent commenters.

Anyway, on to the letter:

Hey,

Although im only 16 years of age, I fully support the just cause of you entering Iraq to dissarm Suddam Hussein. I share the beliefs of many in this world that believe that a world without Suddam Hussein will be a much better place, and i believe the fact that the Iraqi's that are being freed are displaying faces of happiness for a reason. For once in their lives no longer do they have to live in fear of stepping out of line to face an execution squad to either them or their parents.

I believe the War on the Iraqi Regime is justified, moral and legal. The best time to remove Suddam Hussein from the scene, for good, is before he actually perfects his weapons and his tactics. People start retorting with comments like, "Bush should be worrying more about what is going on in his own country", unfortunately they fail to see that the Coalition of the Willing are taking the steps to make the Iraqi people have a much better Quality of Life, which is the entire idea of the liberation of the Iraq people. When has it ever been inhumane to do such a thing? All the people talking about how evil George W. bush is, turn around and look at Suddam Hussein and the regime bush is trying to decapitate. Not one protestor has ever help up a sign stating "We Support The Truth".

Honestly, you know it is sad when there is actually hesitation in deciding upon a conflict that will bring not only peace to a country in poverty, pain and suffering, but overall global acknowledgement that you can go to bed one night, and not have to worry about whether you will wake up in one in the morning.

Anyhow, i shall end this email with something i found of interest: An Indian official, who clearly stated that Indian contractors were responsible for making some of the Iraqi dictator's armouries, if not his arms; quoted this famous line when interviewed, "You don't need underground bunkers with 37-foot-thick walls of concrete just to build a bedroom!". - seems wierd enough to me :P

To The Troops, I Wish you all luck, and safekeeping until your return.

Thanks for your time,

Lots of vitriol about how the US killed "innocent Iraqis" in the marketplace. So far, there's no credible evidence that the explosion in the Shaab marketplace had anything to do with coalition forces. Of course, the Saddam appeasers won't hear of that - it must certainly be disinformation by the evil US rather than the ministrations of a madman who will do anything to stay in power.

Let's see, things the anti-liberation crowd is able to easily overlook:

Violations of the Geneva conventions, including the public execution of US POWs.

Iraqi Republican Guardsmen wearing civilian clothes and ambushing soldiers who are allowing them to "surrender"

The brutal supression of a popular uprising in Basra, where artillery pieces were fired horizontally into groups of protestors (Now THERE'S some dissent stifling)

The deliberate sabotage of huge oilfields - enough to do tremendous damage to the ecosystem

The discovery of US and UK uniforms in the barracks of the Republican Guard, along with reports that these uniforms were being worn by Iraqi troops - troops who were executing Iraqi conscripts when they tried to surrender to them

The discovery of chemical protection suits and atropine, an antidote for certain types of nerve gas, in the forward bunkers of the Republican Guard

Evidence that Iraq has fired multiple Scuds, which it swore to the UN it did not have, into both Iran and Kuwait. If you remember, the missiles fired into Iran were initially blamed on the US as well.

Preventing the timely delivery of humanitarian aid to the civilian population

I heard that Amnesty International is demanding an investigation into the Shaab incident - where have their voices of outrage been during all of these other horrors. Silent, is where - the only time there is any moral outrage is when there is a chance that the US is at fault - everyone else gets a free ride.

This is a sentiment that has been expressed by a few e-mailers and RNS trolls as well - what about the poor Iraqi civilians "murdered" by the US. Well, the short answer is that any civilian deaths are tragic and unfortunate - but all of the indiciations are that Saddam has killed ORDERS OF MAGNITUDES more of his own people in this conflict than the US has. But that doesn't matter to the devoted, dedicated anti-American masquereding as anti-war protestor. Saddam has committed war crime after war crime, while the US has gone out of its way to treat Iraqi prisoners in a humane fashion and protecting Iraqi civilians - including taking unnecessary military casualties. But it doesn't matter - the US is still the great satan, and Saddam is just some poor Muslim minority dude that is being unfairly persecuted by the US just so we can have his oil. There is nothing that you can say to these Saddam apologists that will ever change their minds - they ignore any evidence counter to their worldview, and spew nice, neat little leftist boilerplate when confronted with anything that might challenge their belief that all the world's ills belong in the lap of the US.

UPDATE:

As you may have noticed, there are a few trolls hanging about with the debating skills of a 2 year old, and the intellectual honesty to match. I have always welcomed dissenting opinions here (that is why I allow anonymous comments), but have asked that you at least try and make an honest and consistent attempt to present a case and defend it. I had a rather nice discussion with a German citizen who took umbrage at my "Ungrateful Germany" post below. In the end we did not agree wth each other's positions, but at least an honest attempt at debate was made. Perhaps the leftist dogma monkeys could use this as a template for future forays into my comments section.

As might be expected, some of the more persistent trolls have taken my position of refusing to waste any more time/bandwidth on their Saddam appeasing pablum as a sign that they have "won". Go back and read the recent comments of these types, and the responses, and you decide for yourself. I am not planning on acknowledging at least one of these people any more, but you guys lay down all of the suppressing fire you want.

Last thing I saw as I left the hotel - a group of mostly hispanic kids (mid-teens, I would guess) carrying American and British flags and signage in support of the war. Sure, it was only a handful, (10-12), but they were very enthusiastic about their work.

I have 5 hours of CE lecture to give. You guys take care of any roaches who show up.

I notice that, now that there are some American Casualties, a few or our British friends have shown up to crow a bit. They certainly were lying low for the first several days.

Common Sense. This is a multi-person blog with some great content and writing. I went over to read Dennis Miller's Memo to anti-liberation protestors.

UPDATE:

As sometimes happens in the Blogosphere, I have given the wrong attribution to the "Dennis Miller" piece. Loyal Citizen Victor points out the error of my ways:

This wasn't written by Dennis Miller-I posted it on my blog and I was contacted by Mr. Wayne Schields, the true author. the article can be found here and if you could print a correction, Neal, his mother would be most grateful.

a simple explanation

This is a flash animation of ~130kb, it may take a few seconds to load on a dial-up connection. Hopefully it will work better than my MPEG attempt.

Er, for warbloggage, of course. Then head over to The Command Post.

Oh, yeah. Michele at a small victory has a message for the war protestors.

So, I have a Canadian commenter from New Brunswick who says he hates Saddam, but the US is a worse evil because it has no right to threaten world peace by striking preemptively against Iraq. He dismisses my cancer treatment analogy out of hand, and seems to suggest that we have to have the blessing of the international community to do ANYTHING.

Let's see, just today we have evidence that Saddam:

Is using unwilling human shields to protect his Republican Guards

Has had a General in charge of a "chemical facility" surrender to Coalition forces

The US is taking possibly unnecessary casualties to be sure civilians are not injured, but somehow we are the "outlaw" regime in NB's eyes. If we had the same disregard for human life that Saddam has, Bagdad would be a total, smoking ruin. We could rain destruction down on Iraq that would make Dresden look like a picnic. Tell me who is the greater threat to world peace? Tell me again why people want to wait until Saddam is ready to strike to end his repressive regime?

I just don't understand why Saddam can do whatever he wants, but somehow we need the blessing of the international community. And new reports are suggesting that Russia has recently sold and trained Iraq in the use of jamming and night vision technology. So, our NB commenter wants us to ask permission from France and Germany and Russia before we attack Iraq, but has no problems, apparently, with these countries providing weapons technology to a brutal and repressive Iraqi regime. The UN has been completely ineffectual in dealing with Iraq, and special interest groups within the security council weren't interested in helping the people of Iraq, but in keeping their oil contracts in place and the details of their weapons indiscretions secret. But this is the body we are supposed to trust with our national interest. France, Germany, Russia - they all get to act COMPLETELY UNILATERALLY to protect their national interests, but not the hegemon US. NB has no problems with France acting unilaterally, since he agrees with their position. But the US builds a coalition of 50 countries, and they are still, somehow, acting unilaterally.

All I ask is a little consistency of argument and intellectual honesty. If you can provide neither of these, please stop wasting my bandwidth.

But of course, our New Brunswick commenter also believes the sanctions against Iraq are "unfair", as he shows in this post (apparently left BEFORE it was confirmed that Iraq had, in fact, fired Scuds into Iraq):

Man I keep finding studpier comments as I read down through your blog. IRAQ cannot have scud missles that violate some god damn regulation unfairly imposed on them, since the missles extend 14km over the allowed 'range'.

Seriously back the FUCK off Bush or the whole world will come after YOU some day.

Hahahahaha! How embarrassing for him. Remember the mantra, NB: being stupid is a shame, being ignorant is a sin. If you're both, is it a shameful sin?

Lots of interesting things:

Apparently there are Iraqi units fighting in civilian clothes. This may have been how the mechanics were captured - by Iraqi soldiers dressed as civilians and pretending to surrender

Other reports of Iraqi soldiers pretending to surrender, and then ambushing the coalition forces

And a reporter for a foreign newspaper (I couldn't understand his name or the name of his paper) asked about the mopping up, and that cities that were supposed to be secure were no sights of battles. The reporters question - is this another Viet Nam, or are the coalition forces just overconfident. Gee, I figured the war would need to go on for a month or so before the Viet Nam references started to surface

Also a report that an Iraqi General and staff in control of a biologic weapons facility has surrendered to coalition forces

If true, this is a direct violation of the Geneva convention. Apparently they are members of the 507th maintenance brigade.

If the tape is authentic, I'm not sure what Iraq hopes to accomplish by doing this. If I was on the ground in Iraq, I would go after the people doing this to my mates with renewed vigor. Sure they will get some propaganda points from the Arab world, but to what end? The Coalition is pushing forward, and this is just going to strengthen their resolve.

Best propaganda line so far comes from Pakistan - the claim that the war in Iraq is being prosecuted to create an entity known as "Greater Israel".

UPDATE:

It's being suggested that the dead service personnel were executed - apparently the tape shows several dead American soldiers, all of which were shot in the head.

Poor, Gentle Saddam - unjustly attacked by the hegemonistic west.

If the war protestors continue their antics while the Coalition troops are hailed as liberators, don't they truly become anti-liberation protestors? Aren't they saying "we don't care what the Iraqi people want, we don't care that they are happy the war is being prosecuted against Saddam"? Doesn't seem very humanitarian of them.

But for most of these "anti-liberation" types it was never about the war - it was about protesting the US.

Fox news is reporting that the British Tornado that was shot down by a Patriot missile did not have a functional IFF system. That is a very bad thing to lose in this day and age of automated defensive capabilities.

But not in the US military forces, which I'm sure disappoints Harm and her buddies to no end.

Minimal civilian casualties
Iraq firing Scuds they swore they didn't have
US and British troops being hailed as liberators

What's an anti-liberation US hater to do?

Here is an essay from a "human shield", who has come to realize that there are worse things in the world than war. The essay tells of the reaction of an Iraqi Taxi driver who found out that the Human Shield was there to protect Saddam. Let's just say an epiphany occurred, and not for the Taxi Driver.

There's an old saying in the south: " Being stupid is a shame, but being ignorant is a sin". The implication is, of course, that a person can't help being stupid. But they can help being ignorant - if they want to put out a little effort, that is.

While I was sitting in the Dallas airport, I was watching CNN (The AIRPORT! edition), and saw some anti-war protestor make the comment that they were against this war because it was pre-emptive, and no matter how "bad" Saddam is, we aren't justified in attacking him until he attacks us first. I thought about this on the connection to Phoenix, and naturally equated it to what I know best - what I do for a living; treat cancer patients (albeit of the 4 legged variety).

In the world of cancer medicine, we try to be proactive, not reactive. I try to predict which patients will develop systemic spread of their cancers, and treat them with chemotherapy before that happens. My chances of "curing" a patient are much better if I treat any metastases while they are still microscopic - before they grow to be large cancers. If I wait until I have a patient with a lung full of detectable cancer nodules before I decide to act, I have no chance of success, and my patient has no chance of survival.

The same seems to apply to fighting terrorist organizations that mean you harm. You have to find the metastases while they are still small, while they can still be surgically excised. Then you have to use all of your knowledge and skill to try and predict what these people are planning, and stop it before innocent people die.

This same CNN protestor was also concerned about the innocent people who were going to die, at least those who weren't American or British. She seems to forget that our innocent people died first, and that day we entered a battle against a new kind of enemy. Not one that will declare their intentions and go to war, but one that will sulk in the darkness and hide in the shadows - until it sees a target of opportunity. It will attack without regard to guilt or innocence, without regard to civilian or soldier - it is an enemy that will attack in a way designed to instill fear and horror in innocent people. I, for one, want my government to be proactive in this war against those who mean us harm. We had to react to the events of 9/11 � I hope it will be the last time, but fear that it won�t. In the meantime I want my government to do EVERYTHING in its power to find these cancers, and to go after them with everything they�ve got.

As for the CNN protestor: Stupid or Ignorant; you decide.

Sigh. Let's just close the fucking border now.

So now Chirac says that he will veto any resolution that allows the US and Britain to administer post-war Iraq. Of course, France doesn't want to PAY for any of it, either during or after the war, but they want to be sure they are a "power" when it comes to administration.

I love this quote from Chirac:

THE FRENCH PRESIDENT said at a European Union summit he would �not accept� a resolution that �would legitimize the military intervention (and) would give the belligerents the powers to administer Iraq.�

Funny me. Here I thought the Scuds Saddam was launching at us would somehow legitimize the military intervention. And, if the UN inspectors couldn't find these conventional weapons, how successful do you really believe they were at finding stuff Saddam REALLY wanted hidden.

OK, now I'm really going to Phoenix.

Look, the French are "shocked and saddened", just like Daschle! I TOLD you the Democrats were trying to turn us into the French.

To echo a reader's comment - let's support our troops and hope they make it home safe.

Very light posting for the forseeable future - I have 5 hours of CE to give at a conference in Phoenix over the week-end. I will try to comment as time allows, and as interest warrants.

Nothing like traveling around the country to a conference in the middle of a war. But, Phoenix in the spring is supposed to be nice.......

Orange Plus?

OK, so I haven't been over to Misha's place in a couple of days. What the hell's wrong with you, you might bellow. "I've been busy", I offer in weak retort. But anyway, just in case you haven't had enough of the "anti-liberation" nonsense, go read this post and/or follow this link to a war protest banner.

It seems anti-war really only means "don't kill anyone except Americans".

WARNING: photo resides on Indymedia server. Be sure to where your biological warfare suit before entering. You will need extensive decontamination following your return to the land of reality. We recommend wearing a tin foil hat to blend in with the native populace. Above all, don't say anything logical or pro-American while you are visiting this site, as it will immediatly give your position away. It is recommended that you make use of your personal cyanide capsule rather than allowing yourself to be captured by the Indymedia inhabitants.

..and they die, isn't it murder whether you meant to kill them or not?

Hmmmmmm, so Kopp was hiding in France when he was caught.

Here's an op-ed from the New York Post. The last statement, relating remarks attributed to the defense minister of France, really pisses me off.

But even France yesterday seemed to accept the near-certainty of war - the French defense minister was telling Arab states that support U.S. action that France intends to play a role in Iraq's reconstruction.

Well, guess what, France? I intended to be a professional hockey goalie. Didn't happen for me, and I'm pretty sure that your "intention" to be relevant in a post-war Iraq is not gonna happen, either.

Marriage doesn't make you happy?

I really, really, really detest this man.

He is our very own version of the American bred weasel.

But neither is sleeping in a sealed room with a coal-burning heater.

I found a couple of these in a storage room of the RNS underground bunkers. Anyone know what they are?

These damn tunnels go on for miles. Someday I'm gonna have to catalog all of these stupid warheads that are just lying around. I shot one at the Madman during a wintertime snowball fight, but otherwise they just lay around, collecting dust. I'm thinking it might be time to re-commission a couple, especially if North Korea keeps acting all crazy and stuff.

Standing on the shore of a secluded rural pond on an overcast spring day, catching largemouth bass with a 3 weight fly rod. Final tally for the day: ~25, with a few 2 and 3 pounders in the mix.

The few things that I can think of that beat it involve members of the opposite sex and, more often than not, a single malt or two.

Streaming Windows Mediaplayer movie

Warning - needs broadband for smooth streaming to occur. You can download the file to your hard drive and play it locally by right clicking the link and choosing "save target as". The file is about 2MB. It's just something I was playing around with on a rainy Louisiana day, so I'm not sure it's worth that much trouble. I just wanted to know if I set the streaming properties up correctly.

This is an interesting essay, from someone who demonstrated against Gulf War I, and now wonders if he didn't help keep a murderous dictator in charge.

In his own words:

Call me a chastened peacenik. For the first Gulf war, I made every vigil and demonstration in Pittsburgh (10 years before that, I was at peace rallies in Italy against American missiles coming to Europe). I think I was wrong.

Watching people march again to give Saddam Hussein a longer lease on life, I wonder about 1991. Perhaps if people like me hadn't been in the streets, Bush Senior would have had the support to destroy Saddam's regime. Lots of Iraqis would still be alive and the world would be talking about something else.

He also has a couple of other interesting assertions:

For many actors and musicians, the concerts and demonstrations are basically self-promotion. A perfect example was last week's worldwide reading of Aristophanes' play "Lysistrata." Two little-known actors created and promoted the idea of the reading as a protest of the war. The two actors are now much better known.

No! You mean people like Sean Penn, Jeanine Garofolo, and the Dixie Chicks were just trying to curry favor and show how sophisticated they could be? Who would have ever thought that there might be an ulterior motive to their posturings?

And finally,

Peace movement events can confer righteousness and seriousness on people who are not very righteous or serious. The idea that anyone's career suffers by being seen as unpatriotic is absurd. Anti-war credentials are fine entrees to the cultural and university community in Pittsburgh.

All I can say is, welcome to the dark side, Brian. Welcome to the dark side.

No, REALLY.

{All I can tell you is that Professor Bunyip is involved. The rest you need to see for yourself}

Today marks the 15th anniversary of the chemical weapons attack on Halabja, where 5,000 Kurds were killed by VX and mustard gas.

Does this statement from the article remind you of anyone?

The events in Halabja came during Saddam�s campaign to ethnically cleanse areas of minority Kurdish populations, during which villages were regularly subjected to chemical attack.

Here's a hint:

And we all remember how well appeasing him turned out, right?

Here's a story about a young woman from the US, Rachel Corrie, who was run over by a bulldozer while she tried to protect a building in the Gaza strip.

If she died for her convictions, then you have to at least give her credit for that. Standing in front of a bulldozer, however, is not such a good idea, especially if it is a large one where the operator has a very poor line of site below the top of the blade. Two laborers were run over by a bulldozer at a construction site I worked on the summer before starting college. The driver of the bulldozer, who was the cousin of 1 of the men killed, said he never saw them. And you certainly can't hear a human voice over the noise one of these huge units makes.

UPDATE

Juan Paxety has more.

Go read this Newsweek essay, titled "the arrogant empire".

Apparently the world is justified in "ganging up" on the US because of this paragraph:

With 5 percent of the world�s population, this one country {the USofA, if you couldn't guess - ed} accounts for 43 percent of the world�s economic production, 40 percent of its high-technology production and 50 percent of its research and development. If you look at the indicators of future growth, all are favorable for America. It is more dynamic economically, more youthful demographically and more flexible culturally than any other part of the world. It is conceivable that America�s lead, especially over an aging and sclerotic Europe, will actually increase over the next two decades.
Given this situation, perhaps what is most surprising is that the world has not ganged up on America already.

But nnoooooo. Can't be proud to be an American - such a foolish and arrogant country, with a cowboy as President. Well, as my grandmother used to say - "bragging's ungentlemanly, but it ain't bragging if you done it".

Another fact from the article - our defense budget is greater than the resot of the worl's COMBINED (that is a staggering concept), but that level of funding is achieved using only 4% of the GDP - equally staggering.

Security forces at Vendenberg Air Force base have been authorized to use deadly force if they believe that anti-war trespassers are a threat to either the personnel or equipment of the base.

Even if they don't get shot, it does seem like an anti-war protestor that deliberately trespasses and tries to destroy military equipment when our troops are deployed in an hostile environment should be charged with sabotage +/- treason. Isn't deliberately trying to hinder the US's prosecution of the war the same as aiding and abetting the enemy?

As always, we get the brave posturing of the anti-liberation front:

The policy will not deter protesters, said Peter Lumsdaine of the Vandenberg Action Coalition, one of the organizers of the planned trespassing.

"I think it does underline that people in the nonviolent resistance movement are willing to take some risks," Lumsdaine said.

Yeah, we saw how strong those convictions were in the Iraqi human shields/useful idiots brigades. Let's see how many people actually show up for the planned "trespassing", and how disruptive they really get, knowing what the security force has been ordered to do.

Draconian? I don't think so - try a "planned trespass" on one of Saddam's military installations - I'm betting you don't have to disrput anything to get yourself shot there.

Do any of these "activists" over at Nude For Peace realize that they would be killed for such a display under Sharia law? Guess that doesn't matter - they just want to pose naked for the world, and write protest slogans on their bodies. Warning - some of these people have room to write a LOT of protest message.

I don't have the heart to tell them that it is probably some scam set up by a pre-pubescent computer geek as a way to get women to send him nekkid pictures.

Via Michele

Does the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks have the right to say that she is ashamed of President Bush? Sure she does, even if those sentiments are expressed from overseas (why don't any of these type ever say these things in the USofA?)

But apparently, fans of the Dixie Chicks have decided to express an opinion of their own.

And more than a few country stations are removing them from their playlists.

Is it stifling of dissent when a "celebrity" says something you don't agree with, and you choose not to spend your money to support their careers anymore?

I bet it is a long time before they can play the state of Texas again.

The official apologyfrom the lead singer, Natalie Maines, sure seems pretty pathetic. Judging from the comments left at the WDAP website above, most of her now ex-fans aren't buying it.

For some mysterious reason, you can't access the Dixie Chicks message boards. Just a note about how they are upgrading softeware, and will be available on Moday, March 10th. How convenient to have a "software glitch" at this time.

Chile proposes giving Saddam 21 days to meet the following conditions:

� Allow 30 scientists to be interviewed outside Iraq, with their families, should they so desire;

� Release information regarding any drone aircraft so that they cannot disperse chemical weapons.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't these all things that the Iraqi's were supposed to have done on at least 2 seperate occassions? So why do we believe that giving him another 21 days accomplishes anything? Just curious.

Two teachers in New Mexico have been suspended (with pay) for refusing to remove anti-war posters from their high school classrooms.

To the people who don't see a problem with the teachers who force their politcal views on a captive audience - what if they were hanging military recruiting posters instead? Bet there would be a big hew and cry.

I don't know about the rats, but you don't want to miss the Loyal Citizen Victor blog!

When you visit, take heed of the challenge to Emporer Misha. Cast a vote, if you're so inclined.

The Bruce Willis brigade meets here.

The teaser:

Take action star Jean-Claude Van Damme for example. On the topic of celebrities speaking out against an all-out assault on Iraq, he told Globe magazine, "Some of those in Hollywood are part of the axis of ignorance!"

Or, I guess you could go the Kid Rock route:

Kid Rock, didn't waste time mincing words by saying, "We got to kill that mother-[bleeper] Saddam. Slit his throat."

Maybe a bit more graphic than necessary, but I guess the Kid's pretty passionate on this topic.

Why, the Germans of course!

A Brief History of Germany

1871 - Bismark founds modern Germany.
1890 - Bismark sacked, warmonger Wilhelm II takes direct control.
1914 - Germany starts World War I
1914-1918 - Germany kills millions upon millions of people.
1917 - Germany force peace loving Americans to enter war.
1918 - Germany loses World War I.
1920's - Germans try democracy.
1933 - Germans reject democracy, allow Hitler to take power.
1939 - Germany starts World War II.
1939-1945 - Germany kills millions upon millions of people.
1941 - Germany force peace loving Americans to enter war.
1945 - Germany loses World War II.
1946 - Germans whine about lack of food, America gives billions in food aid to feed them.
1947 - Germans whine about crappy economy, America gives billions in Marshall Plan aid to rebuild German economy.
1948-1949 - America puts ass on line and risk WW3 to save a few Berliners from Soviet hordes.
1949 - Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) established.
1950's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1950's - German 'economic miracle' occurs while America keeps watch on Soviet hordes.
1955 - NATO formed to protect West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1960's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1960's - German students protest war in Vietnam and American civil rights.
1963 - American President John Kennedy makes "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech.
1970's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1970's - Germans form the marxist terrorist group Red Army Faction (RAF).
1970's - Leftist German guerrillas burn, loot, and plunder much of West Germany.
1980's - America spends tens of billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1980's - German leftists bitch about Pershing II missles.
1987 - American President Ronald Reagan makes "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech.
1989 - Gorbachev tears down Berlin Wall.
1990 - German Reunification.
1990's - America spends tens of billions to defend Germany from Islamic hordes.
1990's - Germany stands by as ethnic cleansing occurs in Balkans.
1993 - Germany joins European Union.
1995 - Americans send troops to Bosnia as Germans watch from the sidelines.
1997 - Germans finally send troops to Bosnia.
1998 - Hardline, left-of-left socialist come to power under Gerhard Schroeder.
1999 - American's lead air war to save Kosovo as Germans watch from the sidelines.
2001 - Schroeder offers solidarity to America after 9/11 attacks.
2002 - Schroeder bashes America to distract voters during election campaign.
2003 - Germany sees rise in anti-americanism after several decades of poor treatment from America.

OK, so it's maybe a wee bit biased. But a reader sent it in, I thought it was funny, and it's my blog. If you don't like it, then get stuffed.

Hmmmm, wonder what this inspector found before his mysterious "accident". Unarmed, travelling alone, and just happens to be killed in a traffic accident. Sure makes ya wonder. Of course, it could just be an accident. Just like it could be true that some anti-liberation dickheads desecrated a memorial to the victims of 9/11.

UhOh. Tin foil hat crowd ain't gonna like this.

This story surprises me.

Amiland has it.

But of course, it is published in a German newspaper and not a reliable newsource like www.whatreallyhappened.com, so I'm sure some of our UK troll* friends will dismiss it out of hand.

Destroying a memorial to the victims of September 11th - what a classy thing to do.

About whether most of Europe would rather have the US or France guarding their back.

A quick round-up of the recent Iraq events (as detailed by CNN).

The bit that caught my eye:

"Whatever happens, France will vote 'no'," Chirac said on LCI television in his first televised interview on the Iraq crisis

Exactly. Nothing short of a smoking crater where Wall street used to be will ever change France's mind. It's time to quit wasting time trying to gain the support of people who oppose us just because we are the US. We need to either go forward, or not, based on the evidence we currently have in hand.

I think we move forward (big surprise there), but even if you choose to ignore the "missing" biological and chemical weapons, what about this?

But of course, the mission of Hans Blix has changed - his goal now is to avoid war no matter what the cost, not to disarm Iraq.

The spamalanche has gotten too great from the old atomicpill@nukevet.com address, so I am going to kill that addy soon. Note the new address over in the links to the right. If you're new to people trying to "spam-proof" their e-mail addresses, just replace the *at* with @ and you've got it made. Wouldn't want you RNS bashers to be unable to reach me via a valid e-mail address. Although I must admit your efforts lately have been pretty lame. I haven't had anything worth posting and making fun of since Leland Dulac's little missive.

Just saw a report on MSNBC mentioning that the Pope is trying to broker a deal with Saddam to accept exile. Under the apparent terms of the deal, Saddam and his family would have 72 hours from Tuesday (tomorrow, I guess - no date given on the ticker) to leave Iraq (and go where? North Korea?)

One of the things that caught my eye about this report was that it contained the following:

Under the terms of the deal, the UN, NOT THE US, would take control of the Iraqi oilfields. (I am paraphrasing here, but the ticker report did make a big point that the Vatican proposal specifically blocked the US from taking "stewardship" of the oil fields). Here's and idea - why don't we liberate the people of Iraq, and let them steward their own damn oil fields. And if someone starts talking about the US doing that for cheap oil, then let's point out what France and Germany did for money, namely sell arms to a dictatorial regime in the face of UN sanctions.

And what is the UN going to do with oil fields? Go into business for themselves? Become a profit generating free enterprise? Perhaps this has been their plan all along - thwart the US so they can gain access to Saddam's huge oil reserves.

UN anti-liberation initiatives - it's all about the oiiiiilllllllllllllllll!

Let's see:

Evidence that Germany, in defiance of a UN resolution, has supplied chemical warfare technology to Iraq: Strike one

Evidence that France, in defiance of a UN resolution, has recently supplied aircraft parts to Iraq: Strike two

Hans Blix, chief UN inspector in charge of determining if Iraq has defied a UN resolution somehow forgets to mention that Iraq has developed a long range drone with payload capabilities: Strike three

And the UN wonders why we don't trust them. Two of our allies who have chosen to ignore UN resolutions are threatening us with veto in the security council if we don't adhere to their interpretation of 1441? And the chief UN weapons inspector is trying to hide evidence of non-complance as a way to accomplish.......what, exactly?

Someone needs to explain the rules of baseball to the UN, take the bat out of their hands, and send them back to the dugout. They had their chance at the plate, their chance to prove they could get the job done. Instead they have proven that they are an institution more interested in "controlling" the US rather than living up to its international responsibilities.

Tell me again why we foot most of the bills for this institution?

RNS Field report:

Iraqi soldiers trained by the world renowned French Weasels Brigade performed admirably in their first true test under actual scary conditions - surrendering when they thought a war was about to begin.

Colonel Ane Belette , spokesman for the FWB, had this to say about the Iraqi performance:

"Of course, we are very happy with their decision to surrender at the first opportunity. However, there WAS actual gunfire involved, as the British troops they surrendered to were engaged in the target practice. We would, of course, prefer that they surrender before any shot is fired at all. I'm sure they will get better at this with some practice, as their instincts develop. After all, France has had over 400 years experience at surrendering, so you can't expect Iraqi forces to perform at our elite level first time out of the box."

OK, it's a joke, but........

Man, this should be exciting, eh?

And how about this statement from Clinton:

"I just wanted to make sure I wouldn't do anything that a former president shouldn't," Clinton said from New York.

Too bad he didn't have the same level of concerns about doing something a CURRENT president shouldn't.

Here is a story from California (where else) about a teacher who assigned extra credit points for letters written to the White House and a California senator expressing anti-war sentiments. Students who expressed an opinion other than the one advicated by Rosalyn Kahn, the "professor" in question, were not to be awarded extra credit.

This is an absolutely incredible abuse of power. I wonder if Kahn would think it is acceptable to make students paint her garage or sleep with her in order to get "extra credit". Can you imagine the outcry if a "conservative" professor had forced a classroom of college students to write an essay on "Why I believe in God", and only those that agreed with that professor's beliefs were eligible for extra credit? And I'm sure Rosalyn Kahn would have been right at the front of the group of people yelling about how innapropriate and "exclusionary" that particular exercise would be. But somehow she sees no problem forcing students to write letters supporting what she believes with regards to war with Iraq, and then sending those letters to the White House/Senate as if they were unsolicited (much less coerced) expressions against the war.

The report doesn't say what action, if any, the University plans on taking against Kahn. Referring back to our "mythical" conservative professor, is ther any doubt about what would have happened to him? I don't think so.

Than France arguing that the US must abide by UN resolutions and the "power" of the UN while it simultaneously sells arms (or prevents arms from being sold) to Iraq.

So, which is worse:

1) The French Governement doesn't know that one of it's military contracotrs is selling to Iraq. What else have these contractors sold while France wasn't looking.

or

2) France has willfully and deliberately helped arm a regime intent on attacking western targets.

The next time France starts lecturing the US on ANYTHING in the security council, the entire US delegation should laugh loudly and walk out.

Exocets to Argentina and now Mirage jets to Iraq. How can anyone trust these guys?

We've seen how creative the anti-war group is with paper mache, and their expertise on stilts is pretty much unequalled. A paper mache masterppiece at a recent German anti-war rally (funded, no doubt, but Schroeder's party) showed a female german politician who voiced opposition to Schroeder's stance flying out of Uncle Sam's butt.

Could someone out there please make me one of these for the next pro-war rally:

About 30 feet high should be sufficient. RNS will gladly supply the old newspapers and purchase the glue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Daschle and Pelosi agree with Germany, France, and Russia!

Let's see - the Democrats want to cut defense spending, ramp up entitlement and welfare programs, try to bring everyone to the "same level" financially, and make huge social programs their main focus. Wait a minute! The bastards are trying to turn us INTO France!

Don't wanna be like France? Vote anything but Democrat.

I guess the French really don't want us to find boxes with the words "made in France" on them during UN weapons inspections. And they have allegedly been doing this RECENTLY, in effect arming an enemy to help him fight and kill France's "allies".

If this is true - screw the UN vote, make sure the world knows all, move forward on Iraq, and be sure and televise every discovery of new French made materials on the news.

Hey EU, sure is nice to hear that the self-styled "leader" of your union is helping to arm one of the most destabilizing and dangerous regimes in your part of the world. I ask you again, do you want the US or the French guarding your back.

And what was France's deal? Here Saddam, here's some weapons parts. Just remember where you got them when you start attacking western regimes.

Yeah, there is this sentence"

The official, however, said intelligence reports of the parts sale did not indicate that the activity was sanctioned by the French government or that Paris knows about the transfers.

But, of course, the intelligence reports also don't indicate if the French government DID sanction the activity. And one thing a weasel like Chirac is going to be sure he does is maintain plausible deniability in any such action.

How many Mirage aircraft do the Saudi's own?

Maybe should have been given to the terrorists with regards to Americans sometime before 9/11/01.

Link via Instapundit

UPDATE:

I've been thinking a lot about this "protest" sign. Why is it a accepted that the terrorists will strike back if attacked, and will be justified in such and act due to American "aggression", but somehow the US is NOT justified for striking back after terrorist aggression?

Wow, even participants in an Islamic summit meant to show solidarity and avert war can't get along with Iraq.

And how about this paragraph:

Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah al Ahmad al Sabah told reporters the clash proved that only the voluntary exile of Saddam and his leadership could avert war.

This step was "the only thing and the miracle that can end this matter and the miracle is in the Iraqis' hands," he said.

Hmmmmm, apparently everyone can see that except the anti-war protestors spread out across the globe. Still waiting for a single anti-war protest that makes Saddam the focus of the demonstration.

Think boycotting France is a good idea? Then you're gonna love PaveFrance.com

Lee, over at Right Thinking, has had his website name inscribed on a round by the troops in Iraq (and photos to prove it). There's also a little dedication to Martin Sheen.

RNS wants to have its name scribbled on something. Any nuclear tipped device will do.

Indispensible, or irrelevant? You decide.

Here's what France thinks:

�The United Nations is indispensable,� de Villepin said. �The United Nations is the authority of legitimacy for the international community.�

Students CAN'T recite the pledge of allegiance in class

But teachers CAN wear anti-Bush, anti-War buttons on class field trips?

What if kids all over the US just started spontaneously reciting the pledge. That's not illegal, right?

on the PBS newshour? Doesn't that mean they have to give David Duke equal time, or something.

It is great listening to him spew every Democratic argument against war:

We shouldn't act unilaterally
I would have asked the security council for help
The have to be other options than military

So, does the Democratic Party abandom some of this drivel, or do they align themselves with the man responsible for the Tawana Brawley affair?

The democrats skewer Estrada as being unqualified while this guys serves as a representative of their party?

If Republicans were filibustering to prevent the judicial appointment of a hispanic candidate nominated by a Democratic president, would some major media outlet have leveled charges of racism by now? Just wondering.

Of course these guys see nothing wrong with it.

A reader sends this pointer to Stuart Taylor's essay on what would happen if Bush really did decide to call it a day and pull America away from the role of "policeman".

Hey Europe, who do you want guarding your back - The US, or France?

The obligatory teaser:

Imagine President Bush responding as follows to the latest rebuffs from France, Germany, South Korea and others and to the stunning surge of anti-Americanism around the world:

"Enough. The American people are weary of holding the world's rogue regimes and barbarians at bay in the face of sneers and obstructionism from faithless 'allies' such as France, Germany and South Korea, who owe their freedom to America. So I have decided, with a heavy heart, to acquiesce in the profoundly misguided but implacable demands of world opinion and to end our efforts to disarm Iraq and liberate its oppressed people. From this point forward, my policy will be to defend the United States and our true friends. We will pull our troops out of Germany, the Persian Gulf, and South Korea. We will disengage from NATO and the United Nations. I will urge Congress to invest the savings in airtight border controls and missile defense. And I will begin a crash program to end U.S. reliance on Persian Gulf oil.

Best line in the essay?

Some of our allies act like spoiled teenagers who badmouth their parents while they're living off of them.

The closing salvo is pretty nice as well:

It may be too much to expect the European and Arab publics, who are fed grotesque caricatures of Bush and America by their media and intelligentsia, to grasp their own interests in helping the United States defang Iraq. But wise leadership is about seeing one's national interest in the long term, and educating public opinion instead of pandering to it. The superficially clever Chirac and Schroeder are not wise leaders. They are fools. And they are helping to bring the world closer to a dark era of nuclear anarchy.

of any kind of Iraq-al Qaeda link.

Have all of you anti-American types stopped and thought about what the world would be like if America ceased to exist? Or withdrew completely into an isolationist country that only did things in it's own interests?

Hopefully not like this

or this

So, Korea is getting more and more crazed daily, and doing everything from ratcheting up the rhetoric to targetting a US spy plane over international waters, in an apparent bid to force a real confrontation and crisis with the US. They are certainly doing everything possible to appear to be a bigger threat to world peace than Iraq (and perhaps they are - I certainly think something is going to have to be done). The question is - why? Certainly they have provided an argument to the anti-war group that, rather than focusing on Iraq, we need to turn our attention to North Korea. As if you can just pick up 250,000 troops and move them from 1 region to the other. The covert ops part of the war plan in Iraq has probably been going on for months, do you just abandon all of that to turn to North Korea now?

So I keep coming back to why North Korea is doing this NOW? Why are they intentionally trying to make themselves public enemy number 1, just as American forces are poised to take out Saddam? What possible benefit to the DPRK is ther in this action? The only thing I can come up with that makes sense is: money. Is it possible that Korea is being payed off by someone, in the form of "foreign aid", to try and divert attention from Iraq, to force the US hand in the pacific rim rather than the middle east? Certainly the DPRK needs money, her people are starving in the "Marxist Utopia" run by a lunatic. So, would the government of Kim Jong Il take the role of world agitator to protect Iraq if the price was right. And who could make the price right - Iraq herself, Saudi Arabia, other OPEC members who want to be sure there is no way the US has a hand in the transition government of Iraq?

The only other possibility I can come up with is that Kim Jong Il wants to try and get a little appeasement money himself. Perhaps things are so desperate that he hopes to get paid off if he promises to be a good boy. He's seen how the anti-war group has done everything possible to protect Saddam, and figures he's just as cute and cuddly, so might as well go for it.

Happy Mardi Gras!!

I have no problems finding places that want me to come and spend money. No way would I put up with getting lectured by a cabbie about the evils of being American. Hell, I can stay home and get that nonsense here on my own blog.

In aharda il Yahoud, bokra il Massihian

Translation: Today the Jews, tomorrow the Christians

Found over at Instapundit's place, in a thread about anti-semitism in the Catholic church.

Wouldn't that imply that Iraq had, you know, cooperated up until now?

If you were in charge of the war strategy, target accrual, and mission assignment in Iraq - Do you change anything because of the human shields? If you are an airman sent on a mission to destroy a facility that you KNOW is being protected by western civilians, do you waver in your resolve. Do you hesitate when it's payload delivery time? Do you refuse the mission?

I say no to all of the above. What about you guys?

Human Shields, or Sitting Ducks

If you were in charge of the war ops in Iraq - troop movements, mission assignment, and target acquisition - how would the presence of human shields affect the performance of your duties? Not at all - they choose to be there, I choose to bomb them Maybe a bit - I would only go after critical targets Absolutely -even useful idiots are still idiots, you know Current Results

UPDATE

Maybe the human shields already know the what the results of this poll are going to show, because they are running away, shocked that Saddam would put them next to, you know, important stuff.

ROTFLMAO

I don't know who coined the term, but I came across this absolutely appropriate name for the heroic running human shields over at Tim Blair's blog:

The Panty Shields

If I don't stop laughing, I'm gonna need some kind of protective undergarment myself.

I tried to watch Phil Maherhererers show on HBO last night, featuring "political cartoonist" Ted Rall. The guy really is an amazing piece of work. There was tons of anti-war, Saddam can't hurt us, no link to al Qaeda moments. My favorite statement from good old Teddy (very roughly paraphrased):

One fact that no warhawk has been able to refute, no matter how many times I've stated it, is that Saddam has not attacked ANYONE since 1990.

Gee, I wonder if the Kurds are aware of this? Oooohhhhh, I see. Teddy means that Saddam hasn't attacked anybody he CARES about since 1990.

Go say hello to the newest blogging professor - all of us have opinions, but this guy may actually have an informed opinion!

The "news" out of North Korea just keeps getting crazier and crazier.

I noticed a new referring site in my tracker info, so I went over to take a look. Boycott Hollywood seems to satisfy all of your 1 stop shopping needs for info on "celebrities as useful idiots". Stop by and say hello.