June 10, 2004


Attention, fellow Australians! It is vital that you attend immediately to matters of national importance:

Opposition Leader Mark Latham has told Labor that it is "a matter of national importance to our party" that Peter Garrett be fast-tracked into the seat of Kingsford Smith.

The former Midnight Oil lead singer yesterday quit as president of the Australian Conservation Foundation and applied formally to join the ALP, so finally confirming his political intentions.

Quickly! No time is to be lost! Unless you support this initiative, a dull-thinking, argument-losing millionaire greenoid may miss his chance to feast on your taxes! Funny, incidentally, that Latham should insist on fast-tracking Garrett into Parliament, given Garrett's glacial voting record:

Peter Garrett has been a serial vote-dodger for almost a decade, according to Australian Electoral Commission records.

The revelation is a huge embarrassment to Opposition Leader Mark Latham, who has put his leadership on the line to preselect the Midnight Oil lead singer for a safe Sydney seat and install him in federal Parliament.

Meanwhile, Piers Akerman reminds us of Mark Latham’s pledge to:

"Commit myself to this great national purpose: reinventing and revitalising our democracy, opening up greater public participation, cleaning out the excesses of the political system, governing for the people, not the powerful."

Opening up greater public participation? Overruling local branches. Cleaning out excesses of the political system? Indulging political poseurs. Governing for the people, not the powerful? Granting a millionaire non-ALP member easy passage to Parliament.

Still, because this is a matter of national importance, we should set aside any petty partisan disputes. After all, the cruciality of Garrett’s canditature is so overwhelming that Peter FitzSimons has composed the most infantile column yet published in an Australian newspaper.

Such sacrifices -- of self-respect, dignity, and career -- must be rewarded. To that end, I now unreservedly support Garrett’s (and Latham’s) ascent. While John Howard distracts us with inconsequential talk of global terrorism, Mark Latham is calmly focussed on the real issue: giving classic-FM rock identities a free ride on your tab. Vote Latham! Vote awful singers!

Posted by Tim Blair at June 10, 2004 05:58 AM

I am kind of curious to see how this treatment of Garrett squares with their views on Pat Tillman.

Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at June 10, 2004 at 06:16 AM

Given it's a safe ALP seat anyway, the coalition should not field a candidate against.

That way the preferences will swing to an independent or minor party candidate who'll beat him.

Posted by: 2dogs at June 10, 2004 at 06:16 AM

Hypothesis: Any band that exists primarily to forward some cause will always suck.

Christian bands are the most obvious example, but Midnight Oil definitely fits the model. Agree with them or not, the constant preaching gets really old.

Of course, no one will ever surpass Arrested Development in sheer self-righteous suckpower.

Posted by: Matt in Denver at June 10, 2004 at 06:31 AM

oh, don't be so hard on him! how can he vote while the earth is turning!?

Posted by: Sarah at June 10, 2004 at 07:27 AM

I was all set to laugh at you Australians, but then I remembered that I live in California, and that Gary Coleman received 12,690 votes in the recall election, and that was actually 2,774 votes fewer than pornographer Larry Flynt got.

So I apologize for laughing at Australia.

Now I'm gonna go weep somewhere.

Posted by: ccwbass at June 10, 2004 at 07:38 AM

Can this get any better? The bugger doesn't even bother to vote or enrol and now he wants others to vote for him? He just keeps forgetting to vote due to that short memory of his - shhoooorrrtt memory.

Posted by: Rob at June 10, 2004 at 07:49 AM

He's got my vote if he pledges to give up making any more records.

Posted by: Paul Ringo at June 10, 2004 at 08:01 AM

I used to like Midnight Oil.

I remember seeing a documentary on MTV where they toured the Outback with an Aboriginal opening act.

Truth be told, I thought the Aboriginal rock band (don't recall the name but they rocked!) completely blew Midnight Oil off the makeshift stage.

It was ballsy of M.O. to leave the footage in as it showed how wussified they were compared to another Australian act.

Posted by: JDB at June 10, 2004 at 08:26 AM

Does Latham seriously believe Garrett is going to pull the party line as much as the ALP asks?

The first time a hard and pragmatic decision has to be made, Garrett will cross the floor and vote with the Greens, Democrats and other loonies.

Posted by: Quentin George at June 10, 2004 at 08:34 AM

As I've said before, Howard delaying the election for as long as possible ensures Latham and his front-bench of losers will hang themselves until dead.

Latham is gag ga. Each day he opens his mouth, each time he does so shows, we haven't yet hit the bottom, not seen fully how shallow, callow, demented and idiotic he really is - but it's a clue as to why he's decided upon another moron, Mr.Potato Head Peter Garrett, as his `hero'.

I can resist the urge to laugh becuase, it is a bloody outrage parlaiment is stuffed with such usorious scumbags like Crean, Carmen Lawrence, Faulkner, Margetts, Bob Turd Brown and oh so many more totalitarian inclined fuckers. And, insult to grievous injury, hapless real taxpayer is forced to pay the bums very good salaries, super, perks, free travel, free acoomadation, chauffer driven cars.. what the proverbial.

Posted by: d at June 10, 2004 at 10:41 AM

So why don't you have anyone from a good Australian band in government - like the lead singer of the Beasts of Bourbon, f'rinstance.

Or the guy who runs on the spot in that Men At Work video?

Posted by: rick mcginnis at June 10, 2004 at 10:53 AM

I think this could be the worst piece of political judgement so far shown by Latham (and there's been a few). Why, when you've already got a very good chance of being the next PM by the end of the year, would you take such a hairy-arsed punt on such a controversial identity?

It might well be that Garrett's political naivete will be less important than his persona in some quarters. But this has got all the hallmarks of the Kernot debacle. Undecided voters must surely be starting to question the overall political judgement of the ALP Executive.

Perhaps the purpose of Garrett's inclusion in the ALP is to try to make the rest of Labor's heavyweights seem more centrist.

When Latham started talking about tax cuts and the squeeze on so-called 'upper-income' earners, I was willing to listen. But anybody who could gush over a radical musician as an outstanding candidate is unlikely to be of any benefit to me. Uggghhhh.

Posted by: Al Bundy at June 10, 2004 at 11:08 AM

"Yes, by jingo, he has." "GOT HIM, yes!"

Sméagol says vote for Peter Garrett not that nassty Howard! Gollum!

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 10, 2004 at 11:14 AM

What does FitzSimons do first after completing a column? Have a smoke, or wash his hands?

Posted by: Greg at June 10, 2004 at 11:35 AM

Have a look at Midnight Oil's Redneck Wonderland (and other) album lyrics and realise you have no place in Garrett's Australia if you are: white, working-class, suburban, rural or ideologically impure.


Posted by: Bad Templar at June 10, 2004 at 12:03 PM

oooh "argument-losing".

Posted by: altria at June 10, 2004 at 12:13 PM

Appropos of Garrett's itellectual capabilities, I recall c 1993 (when Garrett might concievable still have had some electoral appeal) an otherwise adulatory article on Garrett in the lifestyle/celeb cult Australian Weekend Magazine that described him as "intelligent but not brilliant"

I recall this phrase almost exactly because it sort of stood out from the general panagyric tone of the piece. In an publication that usually describes any celeb with more than two neurones to rub together and "brilliant", this seemed to me to be code for an assessment of Garrett as being, as they say, dumb as a box of rocks.

There was another article in the same rag a few years later when Garrett's star had waned a little, in which rock guru/bore Glenn A Baker was scathing about Garrett's interpersonal skills, claiming, among other things, that he'd been rude to Bakers' kids.

It might be useful for someone with a bit more time and resources to pursue these articles, they could be of interest in the following weeks.

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2004 at 12:14 PM

Chris, I also recall the Good Weekend piece. Another interesting point was that even Garrett's close friends concede that he has no sense of humour.

Posted by: James at June 10, 2004 at 12:36 PM

This seems like an appropriate place to spread my poison.

Alexander Downer Must Die!

Alexander Downer
Could his nose get anymore browner?
Crawlie crawlie suckie suckie, BUMLICK
Our foreign minister makes me sick.
With a searing hot blowtorch,
His testicles I would fry;
Make no bones about it
Alexander Downer must die!

Alexander Downer
Adelaide Club member and founder.
Send him to Abu-Ghraib, give him a whack!
Clay piping and barbed wire, rammed fair up his crack.
A meeting with Colin Powell is nigh?
You can’t sit down for the meeting, too bad!
Alexander Downer must die!

Alexander Downer
Says our intelligence couldn’t be sounder.
Lording it over ASEAN, kissing arse to the Queen,
The REAL Queen, not Prince Edward, ya know what I mean?
I’d prefer Sir Les Patterson, cultural attaché, forever belching;
Anything’s better than Bush and Blair dropping their dacks
And saying, “ Hey Downer boy, GET FELCHING!”

I don’t want a foreign minister
Who enforces our subjugation.
I want someone who stands up for us
For an Australia, girt with self-determination.

Alexander Downer
Peter Garrett has you in a flounder.
You cannot relate to the common man
Tsk, quoting song lyrics, a wannabe rock fan.
I wanna see you shit your pants with the ALP polls sky-high
Pull another Tampa, prey on fear, it won’t matter

Posted by: Mat Hau at June 10, 2004 at 12:41 PM

I'm all for more celebrities (clapped-out or not)on the ALP front bench, given the dull dogs already there. How about adding Carlotta, Elle McPherson, Rex Hunt and Mark Gasnier?

Posted by: narkynark at June 10, 2004 at 12:56 PM

"remember seeing a documentary on MTV where they toured the Outback with an Aboriginal opening act.

Truth be told, I thought the Aboriginal rock band (don't recall the name but they rocked!) completely blew Midnight Oil off the makeshift stage.

It was ballsy of M.O. to leave the footage in as it showed how wussified they were compared to another Australian act."

the band was called the warumpi band - an excellent band, agreed.

M.O. left the footage in because the programme was not about the oils per se, it was about australians black & white stepping out of their traditional wagon ruts, and walking in the others shoes a while. and the music totally rocked, i also preferred the warumpis at that time.

Posted by: chico o'farrill at June 10, 2004 at 01:06 PM

That was hilarious Tim. And disturbing.

Latham has a veritable mob of 'roos loose in the top paddock. Not just your greys either - big red, bouncing boomers.

Posted by: currencylad at June 10, 2004 at 01:19 PM

JDB: Was that band the Oils toured with the legendary Wurrumpi Band? "White fella, black fella..." They did rock.

Posted by: currencylad at June 10, 2004 at 01:22 PM

Alexander Downer
Could his nose get anymore browner?
Crawlie crawlie suckie suckie, BUMLICK
Our foreign minister makes me sick.

Peter! I thought you said the Oils were breaking up? Is this a re-union?

Posted by: EvilPundit at June 10, 2004 at 01:25 PM

Chico: You beat me to it there China re the Wurrumpi B. Apols.

Posted by: currencylad at June 10, 2004 at 01:29 PM

I reckon Latham has done the right thing by fast-tracking Peter Garrett to the seat of Kingsford Smith. It's a brilliant move, possibly Lathams best.

It now means Latham won't look like the biggest fucking idiot in Parliament anymore. With Garretts intolerance of just about anything white and working latho will look like a fucking saint.

Garrett will inspire labors theme for the next election
The Time Has Come
To say fairs fair
To enroll to vote
To grow my hair

And we thought John Hewson handed up an election on a silver platter. Latham, your a fucking cockhead.

Posted by: scott at June 10, 2004 at 03:11 PM

I notice Peter Fitzsimmons calls Downer "Effete."

Why "Effete?" Homosexual?

The left including Latham have constantly been playing the homophobic card against Downer, suggesting more or less that he is a secret drag-queen, apparently because he once wore fish-net stockings for a charity fund-raiser years ago.

I don't kmow much about Downer's private life but his Parliamentary website tells me he is married with four children.

Fathers are not nessarily like sons but Downer's father as a Japanese prisoner of war behaved heroically, organising activities for other prisoners which many later said were the only things that kept them alive. Not very "effete."

Posted by: Sue at June 10, 2004 at 03:20 PM

Sue: to make matters worse, Downer has become one of the best Foreign Ministers in the modern era and he's matured into a strong and often extremely funny parliamentary performer. He wiped the smirk off Latham's face in the House recently when he nailed the Opposition Leader for basing about a dozen of his ideas on a book by Dick Morris. Latham squirmed. Ergo: Laborites can't stand him.

Posted by: CurrencyLad at June 10, 2004 at 04:22 PM

Sorry to provide a moment of clarity here, but have any of you guys noticed we're losing the war on terror?

Posted by: liberal avenger at June 10, 2004 at 08:26 PM


I cannot STAND this fucking buffoon!

Ever seen him on the front page sports show?

Loud,arrogant fuckwit.

I don't like king hits,but the French test player
decking this cunt,I can always enjoy .

Posted by: fred at June 10, 2004 at 10:27 PM

Well l.a., if an article on yahoo news says we are losing, I guess it must be true.

Posted by: Quentin George at June 10, 2004 at 10:31 PM

Hey,why don't piers akerman or tim blair run for office?
It is easy to be a self appointed critic-let the people decide piers and tim if you are worthy of our largesse.
Personally I would vote for peter garrett whatever party he was representing before ANY journo-what do you people reckon?

Posted by: marklatham at June 10, 2004 at 10:36 PM

I reckon Mr Latham, that you have sorely missed Tim's point.

And if politicians can't take criticism, they're in the wrong business.

Posted by: Quentin George at June 10, 2004 at 10:48 PM

marklatham: For all intents and purposes, Churchill, JFK and Ronald Reagan kickstarted their careers as journalists. So your point is...?

Posted by: CurrencyLad at June 10, 2004 at 10:54 PM

Tony Abbott was a journalist too, wasn't he Currencylad?

Though that probably doesn't impress "marklatham"...

Posted by: Quentin George at June 10, 2004 at 11:11 PM

Quentin, your skepticism is perfectly understandable - its hard to believe anything the US Administration says these days, even when they acknowledge they're losing the war.

BTW, did you notice the good people at the State Department are suggesting that perhaps making George King might not be such a bad idea after all?

Posted by: liberal avenger at June 10, 2004 at 11:31 PM

Hee hee. It's funny how the "liberal" "avenger" takes glee in the "losing" of the war on terror.

Sometimes they don't even pretend not to be on the other side.

Posted by: Sortelli at June 10, 2004 at 11:48 PM

Too true, Sortelli, the glee that they sometimes show as news that says, "We're Losing, Woohoo!" is instructive of a certain mindset.

Posted by: Quentin George at June 11, 2004 at 08:23 AM

And the yahoo article doesn't even use the word "losing". The report was screwed up, and it's getting fixed. No, it's not good news, but it's not bad news either.

Gee, liberal avenger, you're really rooting for the Islamofasacists, aren't you? What's next, machine gunning some children because they aren't of your religion?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 11, 2004 at 10:30 AM

Liberal A: dumb as a box of hair.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 11, 2004 at 01:26 PM

By the way, note to Libbie and others like himher: this isn't a game. Saying stupid things like "Ha ha, your side is losing!" as if the "sides" in question were members of rival sports teams only indicates that you are too immature to be allowed to comment on the affairs of your elders. Now go away, be a good little Child of Indeterminate Gender, and play with your dollies.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 11, 2004 at 01:31 PM

Liberal A: dumb as a box of hair.

I don't know Andrea, that's a little harsh...

...on the box of hair.

Posted by: Quentin George at June 11, 2004 at 05:59 PM

Let’s recap: Tim pays lip service to the war on terror in the middle of his ludicrous jihad against Peter Garrett, while his lesser followers contribute by channeling LOTR characters and eulogizing the inept Alexander Downer.

I come in, wanting to add a little reality to your otherwise fantastic world, and point out a simple, undeniable, truth: We are losing this god-damn war on terror - and what is your response? Demands we change our losing strategy? Demands we get rid of our failing leadership? Anything rational at all?

No – your response is to falsely charge me of siding with the enemy! You fiddle with your fantasies of Garrett while I tell the truth about our burning world and you have the gall to excuse me of treason?

Andrea, you fool of fools, I never said, "Ha ha, your side is losing!", I said we are losing. The Real Jeffs, Andrea can at least claim stupidity for her lies, what’s your defense? And Sortelli, you were the first to falsely charge me with being “on the other side” – are you big enough to apologize for your despicable slur?

Posted by: liberal avenger at June 11, 2004 at 10:54 PM

It is good to see that Mark Latham is putting the Loony back into the Loony Left.

Posted by: The Randy One at June 11, 2004 at 11:22 PM

Libbie, suppose Sortelli isn't sorry. Oh dear, then you won't get the apology you apparently crave every single day.

As for the notion that "we're losing" -- yeah, you just keep on telling yourself that. I'm sure it makes you feel better. I'd like to see you try that po-faced, smug, self-regarding, puffed-up pseudo-commiseration on an Iraqi. Go on, put your money where your mouth is, if you CARE so much, you pissant hacktivist: go tell someone from Iraq how you feel. Funny, what happened to all those "human rights" activists who were in Iraq to "protect women 'n' children" from Evil Uncle Sam's bombs? They melted away like snow in June, far as I can tell. Were you one of those, liberal?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 12, 2004 at 02:42 AM

Liberal Avenger, you jumped in with the question, "...we're losing the war on terror?", link to an article, and then sign off, with no analysis.

This is trollish behavior, bubba. We're supposed to read the article, and try to figure out what you were thinking. And then, by golly, agree with you, because you made a point!

When we don't agree with you, in a nasty manner, you whinge about mean we were. Slurs, insults, lies, the whole nine yards.

Now, you post here frequently. You seldom offer a rational statement, usually just snide remarks. Then you offer a gleeful statement that we are losing the war. Gleeful? I sure as hell didn't see any remorse in your post.

And now you are upset about our response? Well, boo hoo hoo! Cry all you like. I for one refuse to apologize.

My comment was deliberately trollish, to see how you like being targeted with statements not backed up by the posting. How did it feel?

I doubt that you plan on machine gunning children. But if you post a statement that we are losing the war, by God, back it up with more than a one liner and half assed link to a factual story.

That story didn't have word one on how we might be losing the war; it just reflected that the report was in error, and was going to be republished. We had no idea how you concluded we are losing the war. At best, you reacted hysterically to the news. At worst, you were gleeful over this mistake.

As Andrea noted, if you want to play with adults, act like an adult.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 12, 2004 at 02:55 AM

The Real Jeffs, your moral equivalence argument is laughable.

In an obviously vain attempt to add some reality to this closed community, I point out the undeniable truth (without analysis!) that we are losing this war on terror; in return, you make a flatly untrue assertion that I am “rooting for the Islamofasacists” but when I demand you retract your outrageous slur you won’t apologise because in your mind your untruth was somehow equivalent to my acknowledgement of reality.

Now, to be fair, I was expecting a modicum of intelligence from you (though not, admittedly, from Andrea – her stupidity is obvious to all), but I was clearly mistaken. Therefore, let me do your work for you:

When the document “Patterns of Global Terrorism” was released by the US State Dept. two or so months ago it seemed to show a decrease in terrorism – great! – and Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage claimed it as "clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight.".

Now, it turns out the initial report was riddled with errors and that terrorism has in fact been increasing, and significant terrorism is at a 20-year high! Therefore, by the US government’s own standards, we are currently losing our war on terror.

It should be pointed out that your childish attempt to project your liberal fantasy onto me - claiming me to be “gleeful”, though, in complete contradiction, acknowledging you didn’t know what I was thinking - says more about you than me.

However, in the hope that you are not a complete moron (Andrea, I know you’re a moron), I offer some solutions: The most obvious is to get rid of the failures at the top. They’ve had more than two years, tried their strategy and it’s a clear failure. Rewarding such failure only breeds more failure. Secondly, get rid of the UN and (as I said in another thread) create a new world body with fully elected national representatives – any country that doesn’t elect their representative doesn’t get a vote in this new body.

What say you? Will you reward clear, undeniable failure?

Posted by: liberal avenger at June 13, 2004 at 12:00 AM

Well, LA, you improved two things on your post. It's not a one liner, and there are no links. But it's still a poor post.

Why would a 20 year high in terrorist attacks indicate that we are losing the war? Yep, the Bush administration made a claim that we are prevailing in the fight based on an erroneous report. But now you are claiming we are losing the war based on the corrected report.

Both you and the Bush administration are extrapolating future trends from existing data. That's a fancy way of saying predicting. In military intelligence, it is known as a situation assessment, with a focus on anticipated enemy actions. All known intelligence on enemy activities is collated and evaluated, and one tries to see patterns and trends so as to determine their tactical and strategic intentions.

If you brush off the frosting, it all comes down to a reasoned guess based on available and pertinent data. Both you and the Bush administration are using this process, whether you know it or not.

The report in question is a trend analysis, or a statistical analysis. That means you have to look at the base line assumptions and data sets before reaching conclusions. This is why the initial report is being revised. It didn't include the attacks on soldiers in Iraq, which is being changed for definition purposes only.

Liberal avenger, we already knew about those attacks! Been following the news? Nothing new is being presented in that article, except that the total number of terrorist attacks will change. Which I find pendantic, not threatening.

If we had defined the terrorists in Iraq as being insurgents or guerillas (which the terrorists are most assuredly not), this report would not be up for discussion.

In short, little has changed except the report format.

I said that both you and the Bush administration were predicting future trends. The statement by Armitage may be in error, but not necessarily wrong. I say that because I don't know what other data were used to prepare that statement.

Perhaps we aren't prevailing in that the number of attacks are going down. But I am certain, based on other open sources, that we aren't losing either. No war is won overnight, as mush as this short-attention-span world would like to think. And the subject report is not a government standard on win-lose. Indeed, I'm sure the "win-lose standards" (if such exist) are classified...that would be telling the enemy what to shoot for.

You, on the other hand, immediately shouted "WE'RE LOSING!" upon hearing that the report was in error. You were clearly guessing about the war, and I couldn't see what you were working with. But I was certain it wasn't the level of information available to Armitage.

Based on your past behavior in this blog, what I know about the war, and that article, I concluded that you were wrong in your analysis, and that you were either hysterical or gleeful. Given your screen name and general attitude, I decided that you weren't hysterical, but gleeful.

Perhaps I was wrong. You could be hysterical.

And that is not rewarding failure, L.A. You are still saying "This is my point! If you don't like it, I'm gonna call you names! You're being mean and not listening!"

I'm listening to you, L.A., I just don't agree.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 13, 2004 at 02:36 AM

I'm listening to you, L.A., I just don't agree.

And that's your problem right there JeffS; after all LA stated "the undeniable truth", and how dare you argue against that?

It's funny, the only other group of people who are so absolutely sure about themselves and their opinions as to call them "undeniable" are religious extremists. I guess there's a reason that people say Leftism is the religion of the post-modernist crowd.

On that note LA, would you mind changing your handle to Leftist Avenger, btw? You're giving liberalism an even worse name than it already has.

Posted by: PW at June 13, 2004 at 03:57 AM

Poor post or not, The Real Jeffs, the truth is with me and it is clear to all that you’re just blowing smoke now.

First canard: Despite your assertion, I was not predicting anything. I said, and I quote, “we are currently losing our war on terror”. So your condescending paragraph about “extrapolating” and “situational awareness” is lovely but ultimately useless.

Second canard: You assert the changes relate to the war in Iraq, and for definitional purposes. Here you’ll be forced to acknowledge reality and see that report omitted all terror attacks after November 11 and left out many besides – not just in Iraq.

Third canard: You assert little has changed, despite the errors in the report, mainly because you’ve failed to educate yourself (“I say that because I don't know …”). However, the facts are crystal clear: “The number of significant incidents … rose from 60 percent of incidents in 2002 to 89 percent in 2003 … The body counts (due to terrorism) in 2002 and 2003 were at the highest levels in history”.

The facts are in The Real Jeffs, and no amount of rhetoric can change them: Based on US government standards, we are losing this war. Of course, if you re-read your second paragraph, you’ll see you unwittingly acknowledge this reality.

“Perhaps I was wrong” – yes sir, you were wrong: Wrong about my attitude to the war (and contradicting yourself in the process!), wrong about what you perceive to be your “adult” discourse (whilst suggesting I might want to “machine gun some children”), but most importantly, wrong to think that the changes to the report mean anything but the fact that we are losing this war.

Once you can bring yourself to consciously acknowledge this fact, you may be begin to offer realistic answers.

PS. By definition, if a statement is “in error” it is, by necessity, “wrong”. Claiming otherwise just makes you look silly.

Posted by: liberal avenger at June 13, 2004 at 04:39 AM

Now, now, Liberal Avenger! Your original post said "Sorry to provide a moment of clarity here, but have any of you guys noticed we're losing the war on terror?"

Your later statement "I said, and I quote, “we are currently losing our war on terror”."

Please point out where the word "currently" is in the first statement. That's a cut-and-paste from your original statement, by the way. You know, a real quote. Like, "...the fact that we are losing this war" from later in your post.

From the hip, your "first canard" looks like it is "in error". I trust it isn't deliberate spin doctoring.

[By the way, if I accept your version of "currently losing the war", does that mean you accept the possibility that we could eventually win the war? That not all hope is lost?]

"Second canard": The article says "...that the report omitted acts of terrorism after Nov. 11, 2003." It then goes on to say that "The department attributed this to a cutoff date for printing the report in time for its release on April 29." A number of the unreported attacks were for other nations. My error -- I thought the report focused on the US alone. That means "I was wrong". Point granted.

But again, we are back to if this is a question of losing. It's bad news, but not proof that we are losing the war.

"Third canard": I still assert that little has changed....because I refer to the world situation, not the report. What part of this don't you understand? The facts go into the report, the report does not create the facts. The world knew of those other attacks, they are not erased or painted over. I was aware of those other attacks...I've friends and professional colleagues in the middle of them. As I was aware of the terrorist attacks before 9/11.

Tell me, were we losing the war in September 2001? Has the situation changed greatly since then? Osama declared his jihad in 1996.....has the situation changed since then?

Oh, and since we are looking at trends (and you are), what good things have happeneds since 1996? September 2001? April 2003? November 2003? I can answer that.....but I want you to think about it, and balance that answer against this report you are metaphorically waving in the air. You know, an objective analysis.

"The facts are in The Real Jeffs, and no amount of rhetoric can change them: Based on US government standards, we are losing this war."

Emphais is mine. What standards, L.A.? Point a link to them. And not to this report. The report is a quantitative measure of the situation. Standards would say, "We are losing if we have X casualties per day, or a monthly high of Y casualities." If you can't produce standards, stop using the US Government as your shield.

I've pointed out that the report is not the good news that the Bush administration thought it was. They are going to eat crow, but we are not plunging into the abyss. You respond with a lot of "Yeah, but I'm still right about everything!"

A realistic answer depends on your perspective of reality. You say we are losing. I say we aren't necessarily prevailing, but there's data to support the conclusion that we damn sure aren't losing. I see my answer as being closer to realism than your hysterical defeatist tripe.

All you've done is try to whip up hysteria by overhyping one report. You've offer almost zero proof that we are [currently] losing this war, beyond this report. You continue your screeching because I don't accept your "brilliant" rhetoric at face value.

And rhetoric" is a politically correct word, L.A. I prefer to use the basic Anglo-Saxon version -- you are full of bullshit. I'm listening, I'm just not agreeing.

PS: I later said in my last post that I doubt that you would machine gun children. Clearly, you didn't read that too clearly, did you?

PPS: Go away. I'm responding to any further posts from you on this subject.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 13, 2004 at 09:54 AM

Correction for L.A.:

PPS: Go away. I'm NOT responding to any further posts from you on this subject.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 13, 2004 at 09:56 AM

Thanks for the points, PW! Leftist Avenger ain't listening at all. I waste no more bandwidth on him.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 13, 2004 at 10:04 AM