February 01, 2004

BRING IT ON

More big media lies:

Margo will be back on deck at the end of January.

She isnít. A nation is forced to wait for the Pure Truth.

UPDATE:

Margo will be back on deck by the middle of February.

Posted by Tim Blair at February 1, 2004 11:23 PM
Comments

Margo lied, but I don't cry.

Posted by: Richard at February 2, 2004 at 01:22 AM

There are valuable lessons to be learned from Ms. Kingston's behavior. Miss deadlines, don't keep your promises, don't proofread, and you'll be successful?! I've been going about my life the wrong way, it seems.

Posted by: Anne at February 2, 2004 at 03:49 AM

Margo lied, but I don't cry.

Classic.

Posted by: Quentin George at February 2, 2004 at 07:05 AM

What a quagmire

Posted by: Johnny Wishbone at February 2, 2004 at 08:19 AM

Is KEFUFFLE!

Posted by: Drago Milovechek at February 2, 2004 at 08:41 AM

Margo=Hitler

Posted by: Fred at February 2, 2004 at 08:43 AM

Hi boys,
I'm in Hawaii,

my facelift is taking longer than expected, the surgeons say many more procedures are necessary; expect me back by mid-June,

Aloha,
your Margo

Posted by: Margo Kingston at February 2, 2004 at 09:15 AM

back on deck, but with a full deck?

Posted by: ks at February 2, 2004 at 09:23 AM

Lucky you I would say. As long as you're covering her and her other partner in that unholy alliance of demented feminists, Maureen Dowd, I'm not paypalling you anything.

And eh, wouldn't it be time for a new poll? For example some advice to Gilligan what to do next?

Posted by: Berend de Boer at February 2, 2004 at 11:47 AM

Can't wait for Margo to come back, huh? Starved for content, huh? Only happy when you can shoot fish in a barrel, huh?

Try this for content.

Then you'd better take down posts like this from your blogmire before it gets embarrassing.

Posted by: Miranda Divide at February 2, 2004 at 11:55 AM

Nice shot Miranda! You go, girl! (Girl?)

Personally, I think Tim and Margo are secretly an item. I suspect they are each other's biggest source of hits, so they absolutely need each other.

Perhaps we should get them to diclose their commercial arrangements. I bet there are kickbacks involved.

Posted by: Nemesis at February 2, 2004 at 12:12 PM

Oh hooray, Mirander's back, giving her cheerpuppy Nemesis something to do. Now all we need is Lunchboy to chime in with something about Tim needing to join the army. Come on, can't one of you two give Lunchie a ring?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 2, 2004 at 12:18 PM

Woof.

*Sees Miranda and wags tail*

*Then sees Andrea and cocks leg*

Posted by: Nemesis at February 2, 2004 at 12:24 PM

Nemo:

* Sees Tim and bends over.

Woof, woof

Posted by: Max at February 2, 2004 at 12:34 PM

NEMESIS! HEEL BOY, HEEL!

Bloody Miranda-dogs on heat again. Why don't they get her speyed?

NEMESIS! GET OFF THAT BITCH!

Damn it, wheres the hose ? Sorry about that Andrea, he gets excited sometimes. Let me get that dry-cleaned for you ...

Posted by: Arik at February 2, 2004 at 12:36 PM

Bwahahaha, Max.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 2, 2004 at 12:37 PM

No problem, Arik -- it's wash 'n' wear. I don't know what Miranda is going to do -- that skirt was made out of Organically-Grown Hemp-cloth and has to be handwashed in a pure mountain stream by Culturally Non-Compromised Indigenous Natives or it will spot.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 2, 2004 at 12:39 PM

Hey! Those kind of comments are what keep my people in bondage. And how can i go to the toilet while my people are in bondage?

Posted by: Culturally Non-Compromised Indigenous Native at February 2, 2004 at 12:57 PM

Super to see you taking President Bush's lead Tim.

An excellent and speedy reponse to nothing.


Posted by: Sincerity Slips at February 2, 2004 at 01:01 PM

Much like your blattings, Sicily Slither, or whatever your name is.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 2, 2004 at 01:45 PM

Sorry Mr Slips, i wasnt aware the President had issued a statement regarding the return of Ms Kingston. Do you have the link available?

Posted by: Paul Dub at February 2, 2004 at 02:17 PM

The link?

Saddam has loads of WMD's ready to rain terror on the world, so Mr Bush invades.

Margo and the SMH spread a vicious lie. An untruth engineered to bring Australia to its knees as a nation, and Tim is there to rescue us from injustice.

Posted by: Sincerity Slips at February 2, 2004 at 02:58 PM

Whoah. Why are all the dickheads back? Miranda, you promised you weren't going to come back here. And to think I forked out for your hysterectomy.

What a gyp.

Saddam has loads of WMD's ready to rain terror on the world, so Mr Bush invades.

For simplifying the matter so eloquently and thereby rendering any debate null and void I've decided to follow your lead with my own gross simplification.

You're a fuckhead.

Posted by: Quentin George at February 2, 2004 at 03:48 PM

Sincerity - here is a quick hypocracy test - what is your attitude towards a) the invasion of East Timor by Australia and b) the bombing of Serbia by NATO and c) the invasion of Iraq by the US coalition d) non-intervention in rwanda?
The first was supported by the UN, and grudgingly by the erstwhile rulers of East Timor. The second was not supported by the UN. The third was arguable, but we will say that the UN didnt expressly authorise it either. Likewise, the UN did not authorise action in Rwanda either.
Now, i am going to take it as given that you opposed the Iraq one. I am assuming that you supported East Timor. I will even hazard a guess that you were one of the madmen 'demanding' that we sent troops in, even before indonesia authorised it.
What about Serbia - here you have NATO, which includes the US (boo-hiss) and germany (yay) unilaterally (boo-hiss) attacking a country in order to prevent the slaughter of muslims. (yay) Personally, i supported it, as i support the action in Iraq.
To continue the theme - what about Rwanda. I will assume that as the UN did not authorise any intervention, you are content that nothing was done, and that people were slaughtered in their millions?
Again, i can be consistent, and say that i would have supported US troops on the ground and planes in the air. What about you?

Posted by: Paul Dub at February 2, 2004 at 04:24 PM


I will rip you all new ones.

Posted by: Big Ramifications at February 2, 2004 at 05:47 PM

Congratulations on your unwavering consistency in favour of military action Paul Dub, hooray for you.

The settings for brutality between humans vary so greatly though, that comparisons of different theatres of conflict are inevitably of the apples and oranges variety.

Where were the US troops when Pol Pot was murdering the people of Cambodia? Why was Vietnam punished for removing an evil dictator, more murderous than Saddam, from power?

And what about Rwanda? Or even Sierra Leone, DRC, Uganda or Zimbabwe.

Odd that you bring up the African context really.
With the WMD/Osama excuse continuing to turn out to be a ruse, it is the human rights defense that is now increasingly wheeled out.

Viewing the situation in central Africa through the same human rights prism we're supposed to view the invasion of Iraq delivers a very oil soaked image.

So Paul, thanks for the hypocracy(sic) test. But this is an issue that you may want to ponder a little more deeply before you burden yourself with an absolute.

And Quentin, it DOES show when you don't take your medication.


Posted by: Sincerity Slips at February 2, 2004 at 06:15 PM

Where were the US troops when Pol Pot was murdering the people of Cambodia?

More importantly, where were you an fellow traveller Chomsky?

Oh, that's right, praising Pol Pot.

Why was Vietnam punished for removing an evil dictator, more murderous than Saddam, from power?

You mean Ho Chi Minh?

And what about Rwanda? Or even Sierra Leone, DRC, Uganda or Zimbabwe.

All in good time, all in good time.

Please be consistent. Either deposing dictators is a good thing or a bad thing. You can't turn around and say, "But...but...but how DARE the US take out one unreconstructed Stalinist and not every single last one! BWaaaahahhaahah!

...very oil soaked image...

... human rights defense that is now increasingly wheeled out.

Fuck me if it isn't the Oil excuse being increasingly wheeled out.

I apologise for calling you a fuckwit, Sincerity, when its clear you are just a dictator-enabling scumbag.

Posted by: Quentin George at February 2, 2004 at 06:22 PM

Sorry, but had to post again. The stupidity of this is starting to fucking annoy me.

Do you guys really think Tim, me and other posters here like war because we get to kill people? I mean WTF? If you are starting from that point there is no chance of even a remotely reasonable discussion without you bleating about oil, previous US policy and whatever other bullshit you guys are obsessed about.

Oh and Sincerity, you talk about bringing democracy to the world? Congratulations, in that at least, you and the Bush Administration are ideological soul mates.

Posted by: Quentin George at February 2, 2004 at 06:39 PM

Fuck you Tim! You and your BIG LUNCHES! with EXPENSIVE WINE!

Join the army! Join the army!


Bleeeeeeeeeeeagh!

(That was for you, Andrea)

Posted by: Big "Fuckin'" Hawk at February 2, 2004 at 06:40 PM

Wow Quentin, you really are an intellectual Everest.

No, I wasn't praising Pol Pot. We were too busy supporting my brother who was on the Thai/Cambodia border working for the Red Cross trying to save as many Cambodians from the terror of the Khmer Rouge.

And I didn't mean Ho Chi Minh, I meant Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was long dead by the time Vietnam liberated the people of Cambodia. Guess that little detail escaped the steel trap mind hey?

But there is one thing we all seem to be agreed upon, deposing murderous dictators. Though, as I've been trying to show you, this is an area where consistency isn't always an abundant commodity.

Posted by: Sincerity Slips at February 2, 2004 at 06:47 PM

Ho Chi Minh was long dead by the time Vietnam liberated the people of Cambodia.

You have a strange memory of recent history there Sin.


But there is one thing we all seem to be agreed upon, deposing murderous dictators. Though, as I've been trying to show you, this is an area where consistency isn't always an abundant commodity.

Name one dictator I've been opposed to overthrowing and I'll accept your point. Saying "Oh, if you don't want to overthrow them all tomorrow, you can't overthrow any." isn't what I mean.

Posted by: Big "Fuckin'" Hawk at February 2, 2004 at 07:36 PM

We were too busy supporting my brother who was on the Thai/Cambodia border working for the Red Cross trying to save as many Cambodians from the terror of the Khmer Rouge.

Props to your brother, but what does that have to do with Noam Chomsky's praise of Pol Pot?

Posted by: Big "Fuckin'" Hawk at February 2, 2004 at 07:37 PM

We were too busy supporting my brother who was on the Thai/Cambodia border working for the Red Cross trying to save as many Cambodians from the terror of the Khmer Rouge.

Props to your brother, but what does that have to do with Noam Chomsky's praise of Pol Pot?

Posted by: Quentin George at February 2, 2004 at 07:37 PM

Sorry, double post and forgot to change back to my normal tag.

Guess I'm only an intellectual K2.

Posted by: Quentin George at February 2, 2004 at 07:38 PM

Arrgh. Stuffed my first post. I'm not questioning the timing of Ho Chi Minh's death, only the 'liberation' of Cambodia.

Posted by: Quentin George at February 2, 2004 at 07:39 PM

The 'goyle must be on the Hajj, or has scored some kick-ass Afghan pink; not back 'til mid February now.
I thought Naltrexone worked quicker than that.

Posted by: Habib at February 2, 2004 at 09:17 PM

Removing Saddam is part of the exit strategy. For twelve years we have had Saudi and Turkish bases inplace to enable the no fly zones over north and south Iraq. This was all quite expensive and perpetual. Undoubtedly, the air presence removed the targets of Saddams chemical weapons programs from his reach, causing there obsolesence. The invasion removed the need for Saudi bases so the Death Cult can go about their happy homicides in the "unholy" land, without contamination by the infidels and their nasty unreasonable objections to having their predominantly Christian soldiers murdered by the occasional terrorist bomber.
Now the terrorists can get on with the happy work of attacking all the phoney muslims who want to join the 21st century. Sadly, this includes the House of Fraudi Arabia, which is well on the road to crumbling. Sad because Saud's biggests crime was unbridled greed, which isn't the worst thing that I can think of, and in fact isn't a crime when done properly. Already key members of the Saudi Government are being shot on the road to work.
No weapons of mass destruction found? They still have pilots in training don't they? They still have Imams giving death chant sermons don't they?
They still celebrate the "stoning of satan"by stomping 300+ people to death during their pilgramage to Mecca don't they?

Posted by: Papertiger at February 2, 2004 at 10:19 PM

Margo will be back on deck at the end of January.

Perhaps on the deck of the Titanic???

Posted by: James Dudek at February 3, 2004 at 01:02 AM

Not sure where you take issue with the 'liberation' of Cambodia, Quentin.

Things certainly ain't great there yet, but I think you would struggle to find a Cambodian who would argue that the Vietnamese didn't remove the Khmer Rouge in 1979(Ho Chi Minh died in 1969), or get misty eyed for the great life Pol Pot was making for them.

What does Chomsky's opinion on Pol Pot have to do with me? Don't think I've discussed his opinion here.

My information on the tragedy that was unfolding came from said brother who was THERE. Knowing what I know about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and the members of my sister-in-law's family who were murdered and mutilated by them; your suggestion that I support Pol Pot is a bit obnoxious.

And I wasn't suggesting they (the eeevil dictators) should all be overthrown tomorrow or not at all.

The inconsistency pops up when 400,000 people disappear over two years and the free-world sits on it's hands. And that is just one dictator overlooked.



Posted by: Sincerity Slips at February 3, 2004 at 01:52 AM

On assignment. Top secret, very hush-hush.

Or else she was investigating a sanitarium, and now they won't let her OUT!...

Posted by: mojo at February 3, 2004 at 02:23 AM

OK, I'm confused. Sincerity Slips, are you saying the US should have introvened in Cambodia? In the 1970's I seem to recall my college professors adamanantly stating the opposite viewpoint.

Posted by: R Wright at February 3, 2004 at 03:29 AM

Scrolling down the page in a hurry, I first read the phrase as "back on dreck." Probably more fitting, really.

Posted by: AK at February 3, 2004 at 03:30 AM

Ok, Sincerity, but why are you opposed to the US taking out Saddam? You seem to be for it. And as for the free world sitting on its hands...you do realise there are many other countries in the free world apart from the US.

Posted by: Quentin George at February 3, 2004 at 06:30 AM

Aaah, you corrected a typo - how cute. Did you snicker to yourself as you did so?
You still didnt answer my questions though. This line was particularly repugnant however

"The settings for brutality between humans vary so greatly though, that comparisons of different theatres of conflict are inevitably of the apples and oranges variety."

In other words, mass murder and brutal dictatorships are okay sometimes, and not okay at other times.
Please - tell me, what do you think about Serbia - should it have been attacked? Rwanda - should the UN and/or US done something?
These are simple questions. I dont want to hear about oil, or cambodia, or the coup in Chile in 1973 etc - I want to know your opinion on those two actions.

Posted by: Paul Dub at February 3, 2004 at 08:03 AM

Just on the subject of the Herald, does anyone remember Maynard G. Krebs from the old 50's TV show? He was a bongo playing hep-cat who was born out of date, but never stopped trying to be cool.

I think the Herald deserves a "Maynard" award for its photo of Sonia Plebiscite in a black suit with a mobile phone in one hand and a bottle of mineral water in the other. The article wasn't titled "Youthquake" or "Daughter of the Revolution" but it was sufficiently matronising to put me off voting Labor for a couple more decades.

Any other nominations for a "Maynard"?

Posted by: Rob at February 3, 2004 at 09:57 AM

Actually, I don't want to read the trolls' opinions on anything -- they are all a variation of "no matter what is being done, America shouldn't be involved, and if America is not involved, than America sucks." It's a circular argument, one no one can win because it is designed to burnish the ego of the troll. None of them -- leaving aside the "brother" and "in-laws" in which I believe in as much as I believe in Santa Claus -- give two shits about the oppressed of the world, they just want to impress each other with their own over-inflated self-importance.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 3, 2004 at 01:49 PM

Alright, alright - we admit it. There were no weapons. Iraq was no threat to us (imminent or otherwise). Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. Yes - it's true.

But yes, we do still believe (well, hope) in the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities. No, we have no clue what that means either.

You were right and we were wrong.

Sorry.

George, Tone & John

Posted by: Whitehouse Turkeys at February 3, 2004 at 04:31 PM