Joseph Wilson embarks on an epic of shrillness:

When the Democrats take control of congress, their first order of business needs to be crushing the neoconservativers out of power in every foreign policy arena. Drive a damn stake through the heart of every single one of them, whatever it takes. They have been wrong, fundamentally wrong, on every…single….position they have ever taken. They have not been right about one single thing. […] The neocons need to be forced back into the dark holes from which they crawled. They are nothing but parasites who serve nobody and nothing but themselves who are using the Republican Party as a serving host.[…]

Wolfowitz did his best to destroy the Department of Defense so I guess it’s time for him to go destroy the World Bank and he’s got a willing partner in John Bolton who has taken it upon himself to destroy the United Nations, an organization that, since its’ inception , the U.S. has benefitted from as much or more so than it has given. […]

I was flying to Florida the other day and seated next to me was Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, and I thought “ya know Wayne, I’ve finally come around to your way of thinking. I agree, I think every single person in this nation should be armed with a gun … to protect us from these assholes you keep in power.” […]

You know when they first started trying to come up with a way to discredit me, which we now know started in March of 2003, they went through the old standbys. ‘He’s had 3 wives, he’s a womanizer, he’s done drugs.’ But then they realized they couldnt’ use those because I’ve never actually denied them. I mean I’m the first to admit that, unlike Ken Mehlman and David Dreier, I really like women. […]

I hear Ann going around exalting Joseph McCarthy. I recently read a book by Owen Lattimore called Ordeal by Slander in which he details the way in which McCarthy smeared him and attempted to destroy his life and the battle for his freedom that ensued. I wish Ann would read that book and see who she is using as a hero. Joseph McCarthy was a Nazi sympathizer who tried to destroy the lives of innocent people through a political witchhunt. That is who these people like Ann Coulter support. Remember that. Ann Coulter and her ilk are not only someone you would not want at your dining room table, they’re people I wouldn’t even allow in my home.

My ears are ringing.

Well, the umpire’s strike has been smashed by management, and so this glorious season of Wingnuttery can at last continue! Let’s go to the highlights:

Second runner up:

In a splendidly logical post, Tigerhawk explains why, if we don’t establish permanent American military bases in Iraq, the terrorists have already won:

Anybody who thinks that an American withdrawal from Iraq will weaken al Qaeda because there will no longer be the “incitement” of the “crusader occupation” is a fool. Victory begets victory, and defeat begets defeat. Whether or not the Iraq invasion has worked out precisely as its supporters had hoped — it obviously has not — it is surely in the interests of all Americans, and indeed all Westerners, that it be perceived as a defeat for al Qaeda. Any American who argues otherwise does so from a narrower agenda, such as the political advancement of Democrats. Any other Westerner who argues otherwise does so from misplaced anti-Americanism. There is no other plausible explanation.

So, defeat begets defeat, unless everyone in the Western world agrees that we should call defeat “victory”. In this case, “victory” (which is really defeat, wink wink) will beget “victory” (defeat), and so on and so on, until the war in Iraq is finally “won” (lost). Al Qaeda will thereby be “shattered” (strengthened), radical Islamic terrorism “ended” (increased), and we “won’t” (will) have to fight the terrorists at home. And if we keep this up long enough, al Qaeda will become confused and will make a fatal mistake, like putting a hat on their breakfast and eating their heads! What this has to do with the civil war in Iraq, I am not entirely sure, but if a thing is “worth doing” (utterly counterproductive) it is worth doing “right” (for the stupidest non-reason you can possibly think of).

Tell me: have you entertained the plausibe explanation that you are completely insane? Because it’s surely entertaining me.

Runner up:

Chickenhawk grunt Christopher Hitchens finally gives himself the promotion he deserves:

Up until now, I have resisted all urges to assume the mantle of generalship and to describe how I personally would have waged a campaign to liberate Iraq.

General Hitch - after consulting with his trusted military advisor, Captain Morgan - outlines his plan of attack:

I shall go on keeping score about this until the last phony pacifist has been strangled with the entrails of the last suicide-murderer.

Optionally, until I black out. Either one.

Winner:

Moderate, fair, intelligent, reasonable, thinking man’s conservative Josh “Tacitus” Trevino weighs in with his considered thoughts on why people would object to an unqualified 24-year-old plagarist and liar being given a writing job on a major newspaper’s website: THEY HATE FREEDOM! AND PEACE!! AND THEY EVEN HATE MOMMY!!!!!1!

The leftist frenzy over WaPo’s Red America continues unabated into its second day. And it is, paradoxically, turning out to be a good thing. Not only are they acting the fools, paranoid and aggrieved at a blog, they are also putting their own ugly proclivities on full display. Their penchant for dumb incivility in discourse is already well-noted — there’s even a book [edited by Domenech, so you know iyou can trust it - ed.] on it — but less appreciated, from the side that claims to care most about the touchy-feely things in life, is their bottomless opposition to parents. It seems a tremendous claim to make, especially as you’ll rarely get a leftist to say it outright. “Parenting” is among the indistinct absolutes that draw universal approval. Who is against mothers? Who is against freedom? Who is against peace? But conclusions can be drawn from the concrete actions rather than the gauzy platitudes of rhetoric. We already knew that the left expends massive energies on behalf of the negation of parenthood. And now, in the spluttering chorus attacking Ben Domenech, we are reminded that they also hate parents acting as such in the fullness of their roles.

And have you heard what they name their dogs? Although you’ll “rarely” (easily) get me to say it outright, no one abused The Left, common sense, or themselves with such onanistic fury as Tacitus … our Wanker of the Week!

(more…)

Dear Republicans,

Rallies in support of immigrants around the country have attracted crowds that have astonished even their organizers. More than a half-million demonstrators marched in Los Angeles on Saturday, as many as 300,000 in Chicago on March 10, and — in between — tens of thousands in Denver, Phoenix, Milwaukee and elsewhere.

One of the most powerful institutions behind the wave of public protests has been the Roman Catholic Church, lending organizational muscle to a spreading network of grass-roots coalitions. In recent weeks, the church has unleashed an army of priests and parishioners to push for the legalization of the nation’s illegal immigrants, sending thousands of postcards to members of Congress and thousands of parishioners into the streets.

The demonstrations embody a surging constituency demanding that illegal immigrants be given a path to citizenship rather than be punished with prison terms. It is being pressed as never before by immigrants who were long thought too fearful of deportation to risk so public a display.

“It’s unbelievable,” said Partha Banerjee, director of the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network, who was in Washington yesterday to help plan more nationwide protests on April 10. “People are joining in so spontaneously, it’s almost like the immigrants have risen. I would call it a civil rights movement reborn in this country.”

Isn’t that fucking cool?

Go on, motherfuckers, mess with the poor people that outnumber you some more. You’d think, with the black bag searches, the indefinite detentions, the giant fences, the eagle-eyed redneck sentinels, and warrantless access to the whole fucking internet, it wouldn’t be quite so easy for a million plus people to just sneak up on you like that. Especially since it seems to keep happening over and over again, doesn’t it? You fat little shitheads all grabbing for the money in the water and hey, whoah, this raft is kind of tippy, and nobody said there were sharks in the water, just mermaids. Almost like there’s some kind of cycle going on. Some kind of wave.

Paraphrasing George Peppard, I love it when a giant, angry, highly motivated voting bloc (grass roots, spontaneous, exponential, virulently anti-GOP) comes together. Especially when that bloc’s been kicked around for, like, ever, and it’s all your fault, you and your racist bedfellows. And you were trying, on the ludicrous basis of a shared love of pickup trucks, to get them to LIKE you? To vote for you? How’s that going?

And they’re Catholics! That has to sting. I mean, they love Jesus, you love Jesus, you love Bush, them not so much. After all the work you put in, really, ow.

Maybe I’m overestimating this: it’s a a momentary arc of activism and Bush, in his magisterial compassiontude, will remember Spanish and defuse the situation. George Will thinks there has to be a first time for that, right, the (objectively) Worst President Ever not totally fucking blowing it? Maybe, not kidding this time, for really reals, it’ll backfire and HELP the GOP! Like you’ve always wanted! Just gotta start working the phones, the blowdryers. Or maybe, if you’re a pudgy, yearning young conservative activist, watching those massed throngs in the streets, Americans, somehow, in American streets, you feel like maybe there is a wave coming. A wash of acid worry that cuts right through the smarm and self-satisfaction, lapping at the insults, the slights, the past you’d hoped to put behind you. A wave portending an eerily familiar future, where nobody listens to you anymore and you’re back to nodding along to Art Bell in your basement, plotting against Hillary, as you iron your red ties again and again and again, just, you know, in case you need them.

Ugly Old Bat of the Year: Helen Thomas

Ben Domenech
01/04/2002

I’ve just gotta say it: [washingtonpost.com blogger] Dan Froomkin is without question a lying weasel-faced Democrat shill.

Ben Domenech
03/25/2005

The worst [judges] are worse then the KKK, and not just because they have the authority of the state behind them. They don’t even use the vile pretense of skin color - they dismiss the value of all unborn lives, not just the lives of ethnic minorities.

Ben Domenech
04/11/2005

The President visits the funeral of a Communist [Coretta Scott King] … I think we can get a little pissed about this.

Ben Domenech
02/07/2006

If one spends any amount of time reading the columns of washingtonpost.com’s Dan Froomkin - whose status as leader of the hack is without compare - it’s easy to realize that, on any given day, the cut and paste function has to be a tiring chore. Every day, it’s use the same template, find a new reason to hate.

Ben Domenech
03/02/2006

In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.

Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com
03/24/2006

A Flat Hat opinion column written by former Washingtonpost.com weblogger Ben Domenech was found today that is similar to two columns written by Jonah Goldberg for National Review Online.

Andy Zahn
Flat Hat News Editor
03/24/2006

First, I feel sorry for [Domenech]. We all should. I won’t minimize his errors, but one can’t ignore the fact that he endured a lot of truly baseless — and truly odious — attacks. The fact that the final charge stuck (and properly so) doesn’t make the rest of it right. […] there aren’t a lot on the left who should walk away from this one feeling proud.

von
03/25/2006

To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America.

Ben Domenech
03/24/2006

Pure class, right to the end. Pure class.

The way they play the game:

While Domenech’s violations were blatant, it is status quo for the conservative movement. Quite frankly, intellectual dishonesty is what these people do for a living (there are entire organizations dedicated to documenting and rebutting their ooze). Whether it’s cooking the books on environmental data, changing their stories to suit a new set of facts, or just straight up and up lying, cheating, and stealing, the conservative cause is simply a fraud.

They’ve put a lot of money into dressing up their fraud, from a bunch of well-staffed think tanks outputting shoddy research under the guise of science, to media outlets presenting propaganda as news, to activists who don’t think twice of appealing to the worst sort of bigotry in exchange for an electoral percentage or two, the conservative cause is composed of thousands of Ben Domenechs.

His only crime to them was that he got caught. Don’t believe them for a moment that they see a downside to what he did. Their only misgiving is that he didn’t do a good enough job covering his ass. Had Domenech’s work not been so simple to uncover (someone please give the Washington Post staff Google for Dummies), they would be expressing the same sentiment they had when his blog was launched. Their RedState blogger had landed at the Washington Post, and he would be able to inject even more of the fraudulent thinking that makes up conservatism into the mainstream.

Word. This is why you should never take anything these people say seriously, and it is why whenever someone goes fishing for shadiness, deceit, and fraudulence in their background, they always land a whale. It’s just who they are. “Conservatives” are con artists, and “conservatism” is a con. Political debate about issues of war and peace are “a big game of charades that everybody [who is one of us] understands“.

Word:

Journalists and editors should no longer appease the right-wing. It doesn’t matter if it’s hiring Ben Domenech or listening as Bush tries to convince you of the link between 9/11 and Saddam or that Iraq is now named ‘flowers and candy land’, journalists should no longer listen to the right-wing. Ken Mehlman’s statements about Russ Feingold wanting to surrender to terrorists are no longer part of your story. Period. The idea that the media is hiding the good news in Iraq is not a story. Period.

Do not appease the right-wing. When you do, and when you treat the conservative movement as if they are a legitimate source of information, you end up with WMDs in Iraq, 9/11 linked to Saddam, or on a small scale, an unethical racist trashing the brand of the Washington Post and the career of Jim Brady.

In their ongoing effort to strike a balance between being a newspaper and being a GOP campaign ad, WashingtonPost.com (which is to some extent a seperate entity than the newspaper) has hired Ben Domenich - a professional Republican activist - apparently to act as a counterweight to Dan Froomkin - a journalist who reports stories in ways that professional Republican activists don’t like. Now, there’s a bit of interesting Abramoff/nepotism scuttlebutt here, too, but that’s not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is what home-schooled prodigy Domenich writes in his first fucking column:

Any red-blooded American conservative, even those who hold a dim view of Patrick Swayze’s acting “talent,” knows a Red Dawn reference. For all the talk of left wing cultural political correctness, the right has such things, too (DO shop at Wal-Mart, DON’T buy gas from Citgo). But in the progressive halls of the mainstream media, such things prompt little or no recognition. For the MSM, Dan Rather is just another TV anchor, France is just another country and Red Dawn is just another cheesy throwaway Sunday afternoon movie.

Really, you can’t make this shit up.

But I don’t want to talk about that, either. What I want to talk about is Digby’s indefensible slam on ten-year-old kids:

Back here on planet earth, it’s what 10 year olds call “cool,” and everybody else calls “camp.” It would be the equivalent of Left Wingers revering “Wild In The Streets” for its serious political message.

Hey, buddy: I saw Red Dawn (1984) when I was ten. And it sucked nads.

The mid-eighties was, to my mind, a cinematic Golden Age. This was the age when the gratuitous shower scene was truly perfected as an artistic device. It was the age that created three Porky’s, a half-dozen Friday the 13ths, and over three hundred thousand Police Academys. And, more than anything, it was the age when Arnie was Arnie.

Commando (1985) - now that’s a cool movie. One of the first movies I ever saw on a VCR (first ever: Peter Yates’ seminal Krull), and one I watched over and over and over again, drinking in every brilliant detail. Once, I watched it just to keep track of the total number of people Arnie killed (answer: you always lose count in the sixties) - just so I would know. If you are ten, and you want to see a cool movie, go see Commando. You will not be disappointed.

[If you have not seen Commando, here is a brief synopsis of the plot: foreign-looking people do something to Arnie’s family - I don’t remember what, and it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that Arnie must kill people. Arnie kills like twenty people. Then, he holds this guy upside down over a cliff, and says “remember when I said I’d kill you last? I lied.” Awesome. Blood spurts in every direction as Arnie kills fifty more people. He throws a circular saw blade like a frisbee and cuts the top of some guy’s head off. Rad. It becomes mathematically impossible to calculate how many people Arnie kills. Arnie chases the head bad guy down into a basement, and throws this huge metal pipe which goes right though him, and sticks into this big industrial water heater thing. Steam pours out of the foot-wide pipe sticking through the bad guy’s corpse. “Let off some steam,” quips Arnie. Sweet. The End. Also, Arnie’s name in the movie is “John Matrix.” Believe it.]

Red Dawn was probably the first movie I ever saw on cable. Cable had probably been around for some time, but we never had it because my parents hated me. So I was sleeping over at a friend’s house, and we stayed up late to see what kind of masterpieces they were saving up for when the kids were asleep. Red Dawn came on.

Part of Red Dawn’s profound nad-sucking comes from the fact that it starts with such promise. The US has been invaded by Russia, and everybody has been put into big cages. Evil Russian soldiers are all over the US, thousands and thousands of them, just waiting to be killed and one-liner’ed. On such a canvas, Arnie would have painted his masterpiece … IN COMMIE BLOOD!!!!!

But it was not to be. First of all, the invasion of the US? We don’t see it. We are just told it happened, and then we get to watch everybody cry when they see their dad in a cage. Daddy, I loves you! Oh son, I loves you! Boo-hoo-hoo! My daddy’s in a big cage! And I loves him! Dude: NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR BORING MOVIE DAD. Also, you suck at acting. Please kill Russians. If memory serves, this “character development” crap goes on for approximately the entire history of time, before somebody finally kills a Russian. They shoot him with a bow and arrow or a hunting rifle or something, and that’s pretty much it. And then, it’s back to the cry-a-thon.

Maybe there’s more killing I’m forgetting about - I’ve tried to erase all the shitty cry-acting from my memory, and I may have wiped out a few dead Ruskies, too. But once scene I will never forget - the last scene I could stand to watch - involves some shitty character development dialogue shit where the incomparable Powers Boothe (the Colonel) asks C. Thomas Howell why he hasn’t bawled his eyes out for three or four seconds. From memory:

Powers Boothe: Kid, all that hate’s gonna burn you up inside.

C. Thomas Howell: It just keeps me warm.

And … scene! At a certain point, enough = enough, and that was this point. It was agreed that rather than continue watching this rather strange episode of Little House on the Prairie, we should just go to bed. Maybe we could dream of dead commies.

… Actually, if I recall correctly, the comment that immediately preceded the decision to go to sleep was “dude, this movie’s gay.” In fifth grade patois, all my thoughts about Red Dawn were expressed precisely, completely, and compactly; however, these days, it isn’t polite to use that word to describe things you don’t like. Considering the etymology of the word, it is probably better this way, but until an adequate substitute word is found, I will be unable to give Red Dawn the review it deserves. Or, indeed, to really do justice to the Post’s decision to - once again! - take editorial direction from professional Republican activists.

… I would be remiss if I didn’t remind everyone of Sasha Volokh long history of Red Dawn fandom. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Except that it’s a shitty movie for losers.

It’s no surprise, but it makes me sad:

The mayor’s advisory commission, formed after Katrina struck Aug. 29, recommended in January that some flooded neighborhoods be replaced with parks and that the city take a go-slow attitude in rebuilding low-lying areas. But that suggestion was greeted with jeers and outrage at public meetings.

Nagin, who is running for reelection on April 22, distanced himself from that plan.

On Monday, he offered to let residents rebuild anywhere but warned that homeowners in flood-prone areas would do so at their own risk. “I’m confident that the citizens can decide intelligently for themselves,” Nagin said.

Well, no, they probably can’t. Especially since they’ve been given no good options besides building on the land they own. If they had the option to take a buyout, at pre-Katrina levels? Maybe. If they had the opportunity to buy land at a discount elsewhere in the state? Maybe. Instead, they’re left to twist in the wind, or more accurately, waves. Telling people that they might not be able to get insurance* if they rebuild is, at least, slightly honest (slightly: it’s virtually certain they won’t get insurance), but it’s a far, far cry from giving marginal homeowners or renters other good options. Which would you pick: rebuild where you were, where you have some support from your old neighbors, in the shadow of levees that everybody insists are safe (sure it seems like they’re lying, but they keep saying it), or take a total loss and try to rebuild your life somewhere else on your own dime, with no governmental support? Yeah, me too. Even if I had to live in a deathtrap FEMA trailer rather than a concrete Katrina cottage, even with all that I’ve said about how dangerous it is to live in NOLA, if I owned a home in (for instance) Broadmoor, and I had a choice between rebuilding and salvaging what I could on the one hand and completely giving up everything and starting my adult life over from scratch on the other hand, I’d be hard-pressed to leave. One risk (pulling up stakes) is immediate and fairly catastrophic. The other is potentially a lot more catastrophic, but not obviously certain (it’s pretty damn close to certain, but who knows, you could win the lottery). We’re human beings. When people talk about how hard it is for human beings to manage risk, this is exactly the scenario they’re talking about.

And, meanwhile, as it becomes less and less debatable that hurricane intensity is directly linked to rising ocean temperatures, what happens next time? The people who rebuilt with no insurance, with no safety net whatsoever, will we do right by them next time? Or will it be the same thing all over again?

* “Nagin said he appreciated the committee’s desire to protect residents from spending money on houses or stores that could be vulnerable to flooding again and might not be eligible for flood insurance.”


I’ve been remiss in not posting about the titanic dickheadedness of the search engines’ China capitulation. Google’s knuckling under, coming as it did while they were trying to play the good guy and fight a similarly intrusive US subpoena, was particularly galling. Even if you don’t particularly care that Chinese web surfers can’t search for hot tibetan-on-tibetan action, the search engines’ acceptance of Chinese terms affirms a dangerous precedent for governmental balkanization of the internet. I guess I hadn’t felt this subject as urgently as the war, New Orleans, making fun of Hitch. But this hits close to home:

What if I have to take a stand then? What if as in my business-school strategy class, there’s a professor who demands a stand from me?….I would forget about the bullet points, forget about analysis, forget about my desire to go with the “average” Chinese (because I don’t know the “average” Chinese and my decision has zero influence over the “average” Chinese’s), and stake my stand based only on me, on what I, as an individual, would want in a democratic society, because that’s the only decision making process capable of making any honest sense to me — I don’t want to live in a society that doesn’t allow me to express myself freely!

But wait, would that land me in prison?

The answer, as Mr. Drum notes, is yes. As citizens of the United States we are responsible, maybe more or less, but responsible, for the actions our nation takes in the world. Similarly, as users of the internet, and customers of Google, we are implicated, however slightly, when they play ball with Chinese censorship. More than that, as Hao Wu’s case shows, we tacitly endanger people very much like us, and maybe ourselves someday. It’s not like I’m going to boycott Google, but it’s wrong to be silent.

The infinite loop:

Hinderaker:
The leaders of the Democratic Party write to the members of their party exactly as they would if they believed those members to be ignorant of current events, unable to read plain English text with any discrimination, and consumed by hatred of President Bush. Are they right? I don’t know. They know their members better than I do.

The authors of Power Line write for their readers as if they believe those readers to be ignorant of current events, unable to read plain English text with any discrimination, and are willing to swallow any amount of bullshit if it props up their collapsing worldview. Are they that deluded? Or do their readers like to eat shit? I don’t know. They know their readers better than I do.

Assrocket, tomorrow morning:

The author of the blog TBogg writes for her readers as if she believes those readers to be ignorant of my superior intellect, unable to read self-explanatory kerning primers, and are willing to swallow any amount of Chai lattes if it props up their collapsing worldview. Am I a genius? Or should they FUCKING SHUT UP BEFORE I TEAR OFF THEIR HEADS AND SHIT DOWN THEIR NECKS? I don’t know. She knows her readers better than I do.

TBOGG! GET OUT NOW! IT’S A TRAP!

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about where we went wrong in Iraq. Discounting the obviously flawed idea that it was a STUPID FUCKING IDEA FROM THE WORD GO, the lights of the goutosphere have been throwing out their immensely relevant estimates of how many troops, what kind of strategy, which particular tactical frameworks would have sewn this puppy up the way it was supposed to happen. This endeavor (endless, self-justifying, blue-sky wishful thinking with zero relevance to the actual, current war) is clearly vital to our nation’s future. It was with great relief, then, that I learned that one of the heroes of unrepentant neoconservativism has - with the greatest reluctance - heard his people’s call. Resplendent in his battle dress uniform, tied to the saddle with ermine straps, hoisting in one hand the scepter of pointless rhetorical justice, and in the other a fifth of fine British gin, ladies and gentlemen, General Hitch:

Up until now, I have resisted all urges to assume the mantle of generalship and to describe how I personally would have waged a campaign to liberate Iraq. I became involved in this argument before the Bush administration had been elected, and for me it always was (and still is) a matter of solidarity with the democratic forces in Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan and of the need for the United States to change its policy and be on their side

Excelsior!

The rest of the article is typically stupid boozy junk, resting on the three pillars of “Saddam kind of wanted us to think he had WMDs”, “We won’t know if there were nuclear weapons until we read his diary,” and “It was totally the French’s fault.”

What? The French? How the hell did they get involved? Even a master of elegantly glib nonsense like Hitchens couldn’t actually seriously try to blame the American GOP’s epochal clusterfuck on the same old cartoon villains, right? Who lost us Vietnam, J. Jonah Jameson? Ah, but that’s why he’s a General:

It is in the light of that last point that one of the article’s crucial discoveries must be read. Saddam believed until the end that the French and Russian governments would save him. He also knew what we—at the time—did not: The oil-for-food system had turned into a self-sustaining racket that cemented his support in French and Russian circles. He thought that contracts would speak louder than words, and in this instance he wasn’t completely crazy to do so.

Those… BASTARDS! Just for that, I’m going to start calling my sandwich a Freedom Dip again.

And, of course, you can’t be an unrepetant war supporter these days without a gratuitous violent fantasy about the people who, in addition to disagreeing with you, were right from the start:

Well, if everyone else is allowed to rewind the tape and replay it, so can I. We could have been living in a different world, and so could the people of Iraq, and I shall go on keeping score about this until the last phony pacifist has been strangled with the entrails of the last suicide-murderer.

Ugly time, this twilight of the nitwits.

… the selfless masochists at Hitchens Watch notice similar hilarities

Next Page »