Tim Blair

well, i wouldn't accept one who used a plastic turkey

Maybe we all just need to "move on". Or not.

and then when a suitcase nuke goes off in new york or london or sydney we can just "get over" that too.

asshats

Fuckwits

Shorter William Rivers Pitt: "it will never be forgotten, but"

All one really needs to read from his diatribe to predict everything else in it.

Does sound a lot like Indy media. Group think at work right before your eyes.

I laughed at the opening sentence:

"There is a growing sense that Americans have become victims of September 11 in a way that has blinkered their democratic instincts."

Is his definition of victims ensuring our children don't have to deal with a 9/11? This is how we have become the victims, by fighting back in a war that was declared upon us?

Perhaps "democratic instincts" means, to him, to 'bend over and ask for more'? For this is what we have put aside. We were attacked before 9/11 and by our responses, at those times, we appeared weak and afraid. If we ever did anything to *ask* for 9/11 it was our weak responses to previous attacks.

I don't care if people think we are the craziest, most deluded people on the face of the earth. Go ahead, think we are crazy cowboys. Please!

Be afraid of what we may do because our president is such a liar and we listen to him as cult members listen to their leaders. Worry about what we have become. Agonize over what we are doing.

While you're at it, please convince the nutz that have declared war on all of us that we will hunt them down and kill them. If you want to believe the US has abandoned everything that is good and logical to embrace all things that are bad and crazy .. BE MY GUEST.

Worry about the 'American Street'. Ponder what the Islamists have done to *us* to cause us to behave as we do. Fear us. Hate us. As long as the nutz leave us alone, fine by me.

Perhaps the best response to the crack-brained Mr. McGeough is to let him know that the United States and its allies have moved on from September 11: to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to the Philippines, to the Horn of Africa, and to anywhere else the jihadi vermin think to hide.

Would Americans ordinarily tolerate a president who lies and exaggerates?

Well, we managed for eight years under Clinton with no protest from this tard.

"There is a growing sense that Americans have become victims of September 11 in a way that has blinkered their democratic instincts."

-----

Yes, because all the proof that you need of this is that we in America have

-- Cancelled all elections, including the presidential contest in November
-- Suspended the First Amendment and are in the process of rounding up celebrities and journalists who have spoken out against the country's leaders (a specially-configured oil tanker has been dispatched to collect Michael Moore)
-- Suspended the Second Amendment and are in the process of collecting all firearms from the citizenry, in some cases "forcibly" (for precedence, see Ruby Ridge and Waco)
-- We have "annexed" Canada and Mexico to provide buffers to our borders
-- Interstate travel without proper ID and authorization has been suspended
-- Civil and criminal courts have been suspended in favor of a constellation of Star Chambers
-- All stations, broadcast and cable, now run continuous loops of WWII movies and Kate Smith's rendition of "God Bless America"
-- Oklahoma has been set up as a mass internment camp for "people of color"

Etc. Sadly, this will be my last post from Fortress Amerikka because they are at this point removing my keyb....

I was going to say exactly what RC Dean said.
Damn you, sir, for beating me to it!

With any luck, Mr. Jones will, like Americans caught doing that sort of thing, be sent to years of hard labor at Leavenworth for it.

What, he thinks he's above the law?

We didn't do anything to deserve 9/11, just like the Aussies didn't do anything to deserve Bali, and the Spaniards didn't do anything to deserve Madrid, and nobody has deserved what those jihadist animals have done.

So, NO, I don't fucking want to "get over it"!

Finally, "humorless screed" and "Monty Python" can be used in the same sentence. Is it stuff like this that gives rise to the rumors that Jones and John Cleese don't get along very well?

We have gotten over it. But most of the people I know (college educated, law abiding Central California citizens--most Repub's; but I'm a Democrat) don't think we're being tough enough, and I agree. Of course we need to be wise, but these people have declared war on the US and its citizens. They made good on this declaration. I'm hoping we haven't even begun to pay them back.

Why does the western press see need to be the propoganda wing of Islamism? Don't they think Al-Jazeera has a wide enough reach?

You should consider yourself lucky Americans, that you don't actually have to pay for your fifth columnists. Unlike "our ABC".

If Paul wants an example of the killing of a democracy - then look no further than Zimbabwe. Oh hold on, you cannot critise Africans, they know not what they do. It was all America's fault anyway, somehow, whatever.

William Rivers Pitt? No one listens to that asshole. Believe that.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that the only Python worth a damn was Carol Cleveland.

I'm a reformed lefty.

My epiphany came when the organisation I was working for at the time bore the brunt of a leftist smear campaign. The reprehensible sentiments McGeogh chooses to report on remind me of the bilge that got thrown at us. I learnt very quickly to translate media-speak.

For example:

When I read 'There is a growing sense' I now automatically translate that into what the journalist should have more honestly said, and that is 'I have a feeling in my waters'.

I never found Monty Python very funny, but was embarrassed to say it. It was soooo fashionable to laugh at these guys who spent half their time in drag. Cleese's slapstick provided what little mirth was to be had. But there's something more sinister about that Jones article.

It's from The Age. It cites The NYT. Why is it so sadly predictable that an article like Jones' incoherent attempt to link Rumsfeld to child abuse will inevitably...and I mean INEVITABLY have its roots in some shite from the NYT. And that the SMH or Age will slavishly report it for our benefit.

Jones is just a bit player. He is irrelevant. He is nothing more than a useful idiot for the editorial decision makers at Fairfax to peddle their views.

To be honest, if the mainstream media was my only information source, I'd probably think his views, while a little harsh, were probably not unfair. Thank the Maker for the Blogosphere.

Would Australians ordinarily tolerate a newspaper which lies and exaggerates? A newspaper which uses distortion to manipulate its readers to its own ends? A newspaper whose editorial staff blowup the front cover as political payback? A newspaper whose administration blows millions of dollars on false business pretexts? A newpaper which deems terrorism acceptable?

Would they accept a newspaper which seems to agree with its reporters that they are above journalistic standards?

I don't know if y'all have been paying attention, but Terry Jones has been publishing this crap for at least a year now. He makes Maureen Dowd look like W.F. Buckley. "Har! They said it wasn't about oil! Can you believe? Ha! They tell me there were terrorists in Afghanistan! Terrorists! I ask you now! What won't that crazy Boy George and his prancing poodle Tony think of next? Hyuck! And now I'll continue in this vein for 800 more words, just like the many Python skits which went on about fifteen minutes after they stopped being funny! Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!"

Craig Mc,

just about to say exactly the same thing

Gee, do you think McGeough holds any contempt for the American people? That couldn't be fixed if we all would just listen to him. He presents a lot of assertions, but I missed the logic upon which he built the foundation of his reasoning. I must be one of those tolerant Americans that falls for such exagerations.

Again, what media organization carries his thoughtful prose for his American audience?

You poor blinkered fucks. This Administration have been bullshitting you since the Axis of Evil speech - and because you're so scared of these "Islamists" (who's that - the fuggers in funny towel hats? Fuck, there's 2.5 billion of them - where you gonna run?) you give Bush and Rummy and that crazy fuck Cheney and whoever else's on the pulpit preaching "freedom", or whatever, carte blanche (sic?) sick? - to do whatever the fuck they like. What is it - they say, you believe? Just instantly? Like Rupert's Fox?

This war was based on the premise Saddam had WMDs and that he had links with Al Queda and the ability to launch to fucking things in 45 minutes, yarda yarda - there was even some dodgy Niger document about uranium ... or some fuckin thing ... signed by the Niger foreign minister from 1992, or some shit ... anyway, what the fuck was that? I mean THAT was used as evidence, a dodgy ... fuckin ... forgery. Some cunt's forged it, and used as a signature the foreign minister from 1992 and that fucking thing's been used int the state of the union address as Evidence Saddam's loading himself up with nukes that are gonna blow us all t'hell we don't do summin' - Unbelievable. Simply un-fucking-believable.

Anyway despite all this bullshit, all this propaganda, you still can't find fault with your government? What the fuck is with that? Like all the way with LBJ - whatever they do, whatever the lies and deceit and fuckin immoral crap, I'm behind it cos ... what? We got da bomb?

Anyway, whatever - so there we are, we know that these things don't exist, y'know WMDs, etc, so this proof that was used as evidence (thing that makes things true) doesn't fucking exist, the very things they said proved we needed to go over there and kill tens of thousands of innocent poor bastards ... they don't exist. And Dubya and the fuckers knew they didn't. They sent Powell to the UN with pictures of ... trucks. Or something. anyway there's no evidence of WMDs or links to Al Queda, et fucking cetera, and yet it's still all cool, this govt is good cos ... they are. Yep, they are, and the it's all good and right cos Saddam's outta there and the world's a more peaceful place.

Well, bull-fuckin-shit. No. It aint a more peaceful place. It's a fucking shit-storm. The war's the greatest recruitment drive Al Queda could've wished for. Now if they want to kill Americans they just go to Iraq.

It's just so stupid. The war on terror needs to be fought by co-operation between international police forces, MI5, CIA, the Chinese, everyone - not by bombing the fuck out of Iraq on a lie. It's like taking a sledgehammer where a scalpel is needed.

Ah. What's the point. You're still going to vote for the half-wit and his fuckin nut-jobs, his crazies, who believe some magical god in the sky is telling them that they're right.

Fuck it. Beam me up, God or Allah or whover the fuck's telling Dubya what to do. Spare us the bullshit and missile defence shields and urgent need to cluster bomb cunts we don't like.

Hey Chris,

Yawn!

Ya probably would have had more of an impact with your frenzied diatribe, if ya'd written it in CAPS.

Wow Chris, you've convinced me. Completely. The US should switch to an aggressive leaflet campaign. I'm sure that would be most effective.

They should also adopt that completely safe an honest governmental system that the other countries use. You know - the one that never lies to its people. Umm refresh my memory - what country is that again?

I understand your points , Chris , the Bush's administration has been lacking in a number of area ; prison surveillance being one of them . Their defence of torture is inexplicable ; it is not even an efficient method of interrogation . Having said that the war on terror is a real war that has to be fought and the lives of Iraqis have been improved beyond measure . The Bush administration should be given credit for that .

Moderator: you don't put spaces before periods -- they go right after the last letter of the last word in the sentence, like this.

As for Chris: you all seem to have responded to him as if he had actually written something that made some kind of grammatical sense, but all I could see was "Blah blah LIES blah BLAH blah OILOILOIL blah blah BLAH blah blah BUSHEQUALZITLER AAAAAAA!!!" and so on. Can anyone tell me what Chris actually said?

Would Americans ordinarily tolerate a president who lies and exaggerates?

Hey, don't dismiss Chris so lightly. He has some mighty pertinent points to make, as emphasised by his repeated use of the word fuck.

Yes, each of his assertions is demonstrably wrong, but that's to miss the point. That is, that a large number of people believe these 'facts' as mediated by the NYT and Fairfax here in Australia.

Pointing out the actual chronology of events, showing that Bush didn't actually state that Saddam was behind 9/11 etc etc is a splendid waste of time.

Let howler monkeys like him screech. Heck, you can even have fun rattling their cages. Just imagine them sitting there banging away furiously on their keyboards, and wiping the froth and spittle off their screens. Quite amusing really.

McGeough's TV and newspaper reports have consistently undermined Australia's war effort, and given aid and comfort to the enemy. I presume the Iraqi terrorists have granted him protective status?

After all, I'll only be doing what the US Administration has been condoning since September 11.

Noooobody expects the Terry Jones inquisition!

(The World Today included snippets of the sketch in a recent article about the Spanish Inquisition.)

The thing that really got me, as I noted in my post on the subject, was Paul talking about Iraq being "the saddest little "sovereign" government the world has seen in a while". The worst country in the world. Really.

That's it the SMH is now too bad even for use as toilet paper!
We did'nt deserve Bali and now we don't deserve the SMH.
I hope the readership dwindles to nothing even if it means having to find a new source of paper.

ANYBODY?
Was it Terry Jones who tried to rewrite the history of the Crusades for Aunty to fit the views of Islamic Jihad?

The only people who MAY have the right to "tell america " to forget about 911 are perhaps the relative of the victims.
For a New Zealander or an Australian to do just that is absolutely despicable.
Bad enough to have the 911 islamic deniers who place the blame on Mossad or the CIA, but this is worst as it come from the tongues of westerners.
They are nothing short than assassins of memory.

Yes davo, you are correct. His "documentary" on the Crusade basically boiled down to "Nasty, brutish Europeans invade the ancestral lands of civilised, peace-loving benevolent Saracens."

Chris, word of advice.

"Angry", is rarely a synonym for "correct".

Something for the Democrats to remember this year. The voting public may not be keen on a party who's only way to debate seems to be with snarling, spitting, righteous fury.

Chris:

From Resolution 1441:

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security...

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area...

These were among the resolution's preambles. Then, on to potential consequences. The signatories to the resolution (including France and Germany) stated that the UN:

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations...

You're the one lying, you hysterical jerk.

The words of Democratic Senator Tom Daschle also seem relevant. This is what he said at a news conference on 11 February 1998 when President Clinton was ratcheting up support for a possible attack on Iraq:

Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily.

It must have been God communicating that insight directly into Daschle's head, eh Chris? Incidentally, you sound as if you're on the verge of a Dean/Gore head explosion. Take a panadol and hope for the best.

You should consider yourself lucky Americans, that you don't actually have to pay for your fifth columnists. Unlike "our ABC".

Well, Quentin, our tax dollars actually fund the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio. The latter is like a radio version of the New York Times. PBS isn't quite as bad, but they (we) pay Bill Moyers an awful lot of money to spew about how much Bush reminds him of Hitler.

Chris....

is probably 37.. if you go by the theory that the number in your email account is probably your birth year. So that's an incredibly asinine post for someone who's above 18. Mr Zverzinas, the best teacher I ever had in primary school taught me that using swear words was a sign of ignorance, immaturity and general deficit of intelligence.
Yup, that sums up Mr Chris.

Chris

Hahahahhahahahahah! Man you are one funny dude. I suggest you calm down and join a "Peace" Group. I bet you have a "No War" sticker on your car.

You crack me up!!

..this war was based on the premise Saddam had WMDs and that he had links with Al Queda...

No, it wasn't.

It was based on good versus evil.

..."this war was based on the premise Saddam had WMDs and that he had links with Al Queda...

No, it wasn't.

It was based on good versus evil. "

Yes. And to make sure that Saddam would not stage his own 9/11-like event (see: Putin). Otherwise known as doctrine of preemption. And I have no intention to apologize for that.

To think at the time i fell for all the BBC revisionist crap about the crusades as presented by Mr Jones and believed that Islam had been "maligned".
How many more were brainwashed like this?
Then I read Bat ye'or's "Islam and dhimmitued".
It seems that the history of Islam is nothing but a history of murder and oppression of minority religious groups.
It makes American slavery look peaceful.
How long is it going to take for our politicians to look Islamic Jihad squarely in the Eye and stop talking about militants or terrorists.
Wonder how many people do not know that the Nazis were germans ?

The Alliance of the left with islamofascism is truly an alliance with the devil.
In england those who want to fight Islamofascism have to align themselves with equally bad BNP racist fascists and those in france with Le Pen.
We need a centre party that will take the bull by the horns now.
otherwise we will commit suicide.

SEAN
we get PBS news here every night.
believe me comparing it to the Australian ABC is like comparing the "Australian" to the LOndon "Guardian".

If Terry Jones churns out more tendentious rubbish like this, I think someone should tell him where his son goes after choir practice.

Terry Jones has been like this for some time. He would no doubt consider a comfy chair with non-homogeneous stuffing in the cushions as a form of torture, as long as the USA could be blamed. As the shortest and least talented of the surviving Pythons, it's not surprising that he is a leftist.

davo,
PBS isn't all that bad. They do a pretty good job with historical documentaries. They also seem to run a lot of BBC (non-news) stuff, like costume dramas and murder mysteries. And their news ain't all that bad, though like most news outlets here in the states, it does skew to the left. However, they do tend to do a lot of what you could call identity-politics shows (i.e. it's tough to be gay/black/hispanic/whatever) and the above-mentioned Bill Moyers, who thinks Bush is turning America into some sort of Christian Coalition Afghanistan. I don't know much about the ABC, but Tim makes it sound like Pravda down under. Condolences.

Sean
Tim is right the ABC here is extremely biased and almost runs a marxist agenda with regards to ME.
It is in some ways even worse than the BBC in london.
I've found PBS an excellent source of unbiased news and well worth watching.
The whole ABC bias subject is sure to explode sooner or later but in the meantime they are damaging Australia in its fight against jihadism for all the reasons staded so often on this site.

Again, just wanting to add some reality to this otherwise fantastic world you've created for your little selves, here is Bush describing one reason why he should be allowed to invade and occupy Iraq:

"acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"

March 18, 2003

- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

So we attacked Iraq because it either "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" in the 9/11 attacks.

This is the reality. I know how much you guys wish you could re-write history, but sorry, this is not 1984.

By-the-by, here is Bush, lying to us:

"Bush reiterated that the administration never said that "the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," he said."

- http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/

Words fail.

"actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations"

"including" typically means "not limited to" in this context.liberal avenger, you are an idiot.

Sorry, "liberal avenger." What Bush said isn't contradictory, much less lying. The first quote says "necessary actions against international terrorists INCLUDING those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided," etc.

Not "ONLY those nations."

So your little conclusion that we attacked Iraq because it "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" is the blatant lie. It's not even a logical step from what you'd just quoted.

My LORD, how you trolls twist things.

Oh boy, liberal avenger gets his talking points from Slate's Whopper of the Week (written by reliable lefty and admitted Bush hater Tim Noah) now. A reason-injecting response can be found here, including the showstopping observation that the first quote is from the Iraq Resolution, not anything Bush said.

Crawl back under your rock, LA.

Oh boy, liberal avenger gets his talking points from Slate's Whopper of the Week (written by reliable lefty and admitted Bush hater Tim Noah) now. A reason-injecting response can be found here, including the showstopping observation that the first quote is from the Iraq Resolution, not anything Bush said.

Crawl back under your rock, LA.

I did not intentionally post the above twice; I am but a victum of the devious machinations of my left mouse button.

(Sorry Andrea!)

liberal avenger pulls us into the light, because, y'know, Bush lied. To do so, he said....

So we attacked Iraq because it either "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" in the 9/11 attacks.

This is the reality. I know how much you guys wish you could re-write history, but sorry, this is not 1984.

By-the-by, here is Bush, lying to us:

"Bush reiterated that the administration never said that "the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," he said."

Nice quoting out of context L.A., very much in the current leftoid journalist style, using two different articles. Michael The Moor would be proud. CNN did a decent job on this article; I suggest reading the entire thing, because President Bush said before your extract:

The president answered: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

The article also discussed the 9/11 report which notes no collaboration between Iraq and AQ. The last paragraph quoted President Bush saying:

"I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat," Bush said. He was "a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like (Abu Musab al-) Zarqawi, who is still killing innocents inside of Iraq."

There's a big difference between "orchestration" and "cooperation", "collaboration" and "mutually shared goals". Hussein supported terrorism for his own purposes. Al Qaedea is a terrorist organization. Hussein and AQ need not have been in bed with each other to achieve their goals.

And the Iraq Resolution authorized an attack on a broad basis, as PW and suellen pointed out, not focused simply on the 9/11 attacks.

Keeping that in mind, tell us, L.A., how does this article prove Bush lied? Logically and concisely, please. No rants, and you can't start your first line with "BUSH LIED!"

Poor Liberal avenger, everyone piling on like that. Too bad, but I think I'll jump too. His "proof" is to be expected when you confine yourself to reading trash like the NYT, WaPo, or the other headlines of the last couple days. All the left weenies have hung their hats on favorable headlines like this one: "Commission finds no 9/11 Al Qaeda links"

BTW the link has a definitive list of Saddam, Al Qaeda links and some the failings of the Commission.

It would be instructive to read what the Vice Commissiors had to say about how the media has distorted their findings.

By Thursday afternoon, the misreporting had become too much for some members of the 9/11 Commission. Its vice chairman, former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton, defended Vice President Dick Cheney against his attackers in the media:

"I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."

And also this from various Commission members.

"By week's end, several 9/11 panel commissioners sought to clarify the muddled report. According to commissioner John Lehman on Fox News, "What our report said really supports what the administration, in its straight presentations, has said: that there were numerous contacts; there's evidence of collaboration on weapons. And we found earlier, we reported earlier, that there was VX gas that was clearly from Iraq in the Sudan site that President Clinton hit. And we have significant evidence that there were contacts over the years and cooperation, although nothing that would be operational."

"Commissioner Slade Gorton supports Lehman's comments, adding, "The Democrats are attempting to say that this gives the lie to the administration's claim that there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam," he said. "But the administration never said that."

Terry Jones screed is an example of how irreversible a rampant lie can become. The wires attached to that prisoners genitals were not live... granted, this was a horrible abuse, but there is a vast world of difference between scaring a prisoner and actually zapping them. The same distinction as pointing a loaded gun and an unloaded one.
And Jones seesm to think torture has been widely used since 9-11? He gets that from 7 freaks in Abu Ghraib?
The Left's lies are sticking. This is insane.

"Ah. What's the point. You're still going to vote for the half-wit and his fuckin nut-jobs, his crazies, who believe some magical god in the sky is telling them that they're right.
Fuck it. Beam me up, God or Allah or whover the fuck's telling Dubya what to do. Spare us the bullshit and missile defence shields and urgent need to cluster bomb cunts we don't like.

Posted by: Chris at June 19, 2004 at 11:32 AM"

Um, Chris, the magical god is in Mecca. Dubya actually needs to have Congress and the people of the US approve his actions. He doesn't just come down the Capitol steps, carven rocks in hand, and announce what "we're" going to do next. Sad fact for you, Chris--most Americans approve of what Bush is doing--else he couldn't do it.

I know that gnaws at you, much as a hamster would.

TO: Tim Blair
RE: Terry Jones

Tell me when Terry starts decapitating those kids. Please have him provide snuff flicks to substantiate his claim.

Then he'll be on a par with the characters this war is about. Otherwise, he's just so much BS.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. And a waste of natural resources...i.e., trees and fresh air.

Someone should drop a dime on Jones. If he thinks the U.S. military is uniquely evil, then he's obviously never dealt with a . . . social worker.

Actually, the least talented of the Pythons was Terry Gilliam: you know, the one whose only job was to those boring animated sequences that interrupted the funny stuff, and who now directs boring movies for college kids. Terry Jones was the second least talented.

You guys are like, so cliche. Islamic threat is so totally 80s! Bogus dude, really bogus...

Back in the USSR:

Today, it no longer seems so self-evident. More than a year after the fall of Baghdad, the United States has found no evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear program. Iraq's nuclear scientists say there was none. The central assumption underlying this magazine's strategic rationale for war now appears to have been wrong.

Huzzah!

TO: Andrew
RE: Terry Gilliam

"...who now directs boring movies for college kids." -- Andrew

Actually, neither Time Bandits nor Brazil nor Baron Munchausen were 'boring'. And I'm a bit beyond being a 'college kid', these days; bachelors of science in '75.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Snicker snak...touché!]

Yo, bl@h!

Try again. You quoted out of context. Like other leftoids that jump in here, shout "NYAH NYAH! YOU WERE WRONG!" and run away.

A typical troll act, trying to get an emotional response.

If one reads the tone of the editorial (you didn't mention that it was an editorial, did you?), yep, it says we were wrong for the reasons due to WMD. But, in fact, those reasons weren't the only reasons.

And then the editorial goes on to say, in places:

"...In retrospect, we should have paid more attention to these warning signs. But, at the time, there seemed good reason not to. After all, Saddam had tried desperately to build a bomb before the first Gulf war.....he acted like a guilty man..."

"...Indeed, even most opponents of the war assumed Iraq was trying to build a bomb. We feel regret--but no shame..."

"...But, if our strategic rationale for war has collapsed, our moral one has not...."

"...With all these tragedies, how can there still be a moral case for the war in Iraq? Because Iraqis today--no matter how scared and how bitter--are, in some meaningful sense, free...."

"..."In the Middle East today, you talk about food, you talk about football--and you talk about democracy....There is a serious debate going on in the Arab world about their own societies. The United States has triggered this debate."..."

And further, the editorial is another example of hindsight being 20/20, redeemable only in that it morphs from hand wringing to a good analysis of what the current problems could be. A good example "Yes, President Bush made mistakes, but that doesn't mean he was completely wrong in the war."

Your post is a beautiful example of leftoid behavior through the blatanting twisting of facts by quoting out of context. I'll bet you still believe the turkey was plastic.

Margo is the sun and you guys are just planets or moons orbiting planets. In the end though, the overriding orbit is around the sun. There is a world of information and commentary out there but in here I see a strong focus on Margo. That says a lot. It says she is articulating views you find simply impossible to ignore. Margo reminds me of the Erasmus of Rotterdam during his "Basel years". The Erasmus was the "wandering scholar" and exceptionally cool to boot. He would look at the sectarian world before him and call it as he saw it. His clarity and strength of purpose was scary to the prejudiced and the ignorant. Why did he prosper in the Swiss city on a bend in the Rhine? Basel was a free and open city where intellectuals could find refuge. In the end it is up to you guys to either orbit the sun as you do now, or engage properly and create your own virtual Basel. A good starting point would be to read Margo's latest book, "Not Happy John". It's published on Monday 21 June. Together, we can take back Australia.

Hmm, I actually read "bl@h's" posts to be a parody of infrequent troll "bleh"...surely nobody could say "Islamic threat is so totally 80s!" with a straight face? And on that note, Harry Heidelberg above sure sounds like a parody of the prototypical Euro intelligentsia type, too. Well done, guys!

"...we can take back Australia."

"Harry Heidelberg" sure is a funny name for an Aboriginal person.

I dunno, PW, guess I don't have a sense of humor this week. :-(

Margo reminds me of the Erasmus of Rotterdam during his "Basel years".

Margo reminds me a lot of Crazy Aunt Mabel of Cedar Rapids during her menopause years.

Truly, that has to be the funniest statement by a lefty nutjob that I've come across in, well, at least the last 24 hours.

Margo is like Erasmus of Rotterdam? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. For serious thought Margo doesn't even rise to the level of Stultitia.