Tim Blair

Fascinating. The New York Time crawls further out onto the tree limb. Are they waiting for someone to cut the limb, or is their a rope with a noose at the end?

I loved the part about official denials being disbelieved. No one, except a collection of loonies serving as congresscritters trying to make some silly statement, wants a draft. Yet, the lead item is that someone thinks the draft is coming because he has more traffic to his web site. That must be the new form of polling these days.

And it's about as pathetic as the NYT spin doctoring.

We are all greatful that the NYT doesn't own a television network. Otherwise they would have on the spot reporters and camera crews chronicling every AlQueda beheading and insurgency movement.

Thank you Divine. I'm so glad someone finally said it. It needed to be said.

Can you inagine the amount of words, NY times pundits had to trash when all prepared for Le June 30 and then had to eat all those disks, and wipe clean all those HD's so no one could ever know their just a bunch of stupid fucks! I have no doubt when GWB heard about the big NYT con, he said, oh you can't, chuckle, chuckle fuckem like that, they will cry!

It does give some standing to the suggestion that the WH media strategy intends to go around (ignore) the media, and go straight to the electorate. What better proof than to pre-empt the to-be-expected media coverage, i.e. routinely negative, than to move up the hand over by two days. The media, then, has to cover a story after the fact, rather than their usual coverage of interviewing themselves, in the build up to some kind of made for TV event, such as it would've been.

The military situation here in Afghanistan is deteriorating? I haven't laughed so hard in weeks, or at least since Robert Novak spoke to the "Disgruntled, Bearded Former SOF Soldier"...

Great quote from the article:

" In the short time since the September 11 attack on New York, the Americans and their allies have eliminated Afghanistan as terrorism's homeland and safe house. They have put boots on the ground in the region that bred Islamist extremism and thus greatly diminished the attractiveness of state sponsorship of terrorism. They have given this region a challenging glimpse of representative government and have rid Iraq of one of history's most brutish dictatorships.
Pretty good early progress, I'd say, in the war – a real war – against terrorism. Suppose progress continues? Oh, woe!"

It amazes me that our own Western press want to see us fail SOOOO badly, they'll spin whatever they have to in order for the public to believe we have failed. It's sad that the truth is most of our Western press think progress is something to bemoan ("woe") rather than celebrate.

We've taken a gamble in Iraq as we fight the WOT (War On Terror). To me, it seems worth the risk of failure. If things go south in Iraq I will not view it as losing the WOT, Iraq is just one battle. There are more to be fought. If we don't fight the WOT now, we'll have to fight it in the future. It ain't goin' away.

Dear Tim, HOLD THE PRESSES - forget the Iraq stuff...that's all over. Move On! Now it's (from today's Times) "President George Bush, if re-elected, would continue his War on Terror by toppling Iran's ruling theocracy, but has no plans to use military force, a senior official has told The Times." Here's Howard's big chance to demonstrate his leadership and independence. Here's how....support this proposal before either Dubbya or Tony ring up. Send a diplomatic mission to Tehran and snatch the initiative.

This is just sooo good. Timbo, looks like we're in for another tough year. Love always. Offie

You should read this month's Vanity Fair. Neal Pollack has a ridiculously out-of-date article about the June 30 handoff. Aw, too bad.

Last month's had an article about "Bush's women" that used every misogynistic insult about women, written by an alleged liberal. I haven't read so many insults about women since the last time I looked at Hustler's jokes page. Also woefully out of date, since the Twins are campaigning for their dad...

OTesque, what the hell is offenbark saying? I can't make it out.

I don't understand what offenbark is saying as well, ushie. Maybe his words are muffled because his head is up his ass?

It's a nice piece and makes some good points ... but what's the Times to do? NOT focus on the bad? Y'know what - they feel duped into believing at face value all the bullshit pre-war ... i think this is Tony Montana style reveng-a.

I mean, hell, you've got Fox and the Rupert Empire for war on Iraq cheerleaders ... there's gotta be a counter-balance, just as this Blog's a balance to ... ... good!.

Hey, how come this one didn't get a run in Spleenville, despite coming from Rupert's evil empire and written by the Ed of the Conservative ... something or other...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10146938%255E7583,00.html

No criticism of Iraq allowed in here Tim? Just support? That's a bit hypocritical, isn't? I mean you and Frank have just slandered the NY Times for doing the same thing to the Administration ... wazzup wid dat? You pioneering good journalistic standards or propping up more boosterism for the war in Iraq?

And who does this remind you of?

"White House strategists have concluded that acknowledging error is not an effective political tactic."

"A Washington Post poll revealed that 70 per cent of Americans believed that Saddam played a direct role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

How'd they get that idea?

"Vice-President Richard Cheney has -- as recently as last month -- claimed before campaign audiences that Saddam and al-Qa'ida had a working relationship."

Hm. Waddya reckon kids? Maybe more of ye should be reading the NY Times.

And just finally ... you think with all this:

"And what has been the result? No weapons of mass destruction uncovered; no connection to al-Qa'ida. America's enemy Osama bin Laden allowed to escape from Afghanistan; the Iraq occupation turned into a huge recruiting poster for new terrorists throughout the Muslim world; a US military stretched to the breaking point."

That the NY Times shouldn't be getting stuck into the Administration? That they should instead highlight the good?

Kids - c'mon. Remember Superman? Truth, Justice and the American Way? You aint gettin it from this Administration.

no sah.

Waddya reckon kids?

I reckon you're a juvenile and incredibly uninformed bozo who gets off on hearing his own voice in a blog comment section. And what's worse, you actually seem to believe you're presenting anything here that hasn't already been debunked hundreds of times before.

I suggest you move on to a site where you might feel more at home with your delusional rantings, like Democratic Underground.

And please, lay off the speed before you intend to post. This rapid-fire stream-of-consciousness style of posting makes you look as though you aren't quite in control of yourself.

...and who does this remind you of? "White House strategists have concluded that acknowledging error is not an effective political tactic."...

McGeough?

..and what has been the result? No weapons of mass destruction uncovered...

St. Petersburg Times (Florida) May 18, 2004 U.S. commanders said Monday that they had discovered an Iraqi artillery shell last week containing sarin, one of the deadly nerve agents that Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed before the war began last year....

I'll take your apology now, Steve.

No weapons of mass destruction uncovered

False.

no connection to al-Qa'ida

False.

America's enemy Osama bin Laden allowed to escape from Afghanistan

He's dead, Jim.

the Iraq occupation turned into a huge recruiting poster for new terrorists throughout the Muslim world

Unsubstantiated opinion

a US military stretched to the breaking point.

False.

offenbark:

"President George Bush, if re-elected, would continue his War on Terror by toppling Iran's ruling theocracy, but has no plans to use military force, a senior official has told The Times."

Why does this bother you? Toppling the Iranian regime without using military force would be one of the better things that could occur in the next few years.

Do you like the Mullahs, or something?

No, I think offenbark's problem is that he'll actually have to think to come up with a way to turn a non-violent overthrow of the mullahs into some ammunition against Bush. If Dubya simply invades Iran instead, things get much easier for guys like offenbark, as he'll be able to mindlessly recycle "militaristic warmonger", "Bushitler" and other epithets.

Somebody has to say Offenbark's worse than his bite.

Same can't be said for the dark utterances issued by the Iranian mullah overlords. They've been hiding nuclear bits and parts in their beards for a while now and the IAEA wouldn't dare lift their skirts. One would hope the Bush administration has a wary eye on Iran, and that come November 3, it still has an eye to cast their way.

If Bush is going to campaign on going after Iran next, I'm going to feel even better about voting for him again. But yes, it will be hard, sad years ahead for the enemies of freedom. Boo hoo, Offenbark! BOO HOO!

Steve, you fucktard:

"Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran—just weeks after the Administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001."

(From Instapundit)

Go learn to read, you goddam fool, before you come out onto the porch to hang with the big dogs again.

Please - no more "War on Terror". It's political bullshit - just like the "War on drugs" and the "war on crime", "war on poverty" etc etc. If your enemy is a concept - then you can only fight a metaphorical war. What we have is a real war against revolutionary islamic fundamentalists who wish to expel western influence from the Middle East. The Iraq campaign, whilst well-intentioned, has so far not helped in this real war. The madrassahs of our erstwhile allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, are still producing thousands of fanatics, and the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iran has a real (as opposed to Saddam's defunctive) nuclear program. Getting rid of Saddam may have been a great boon for the Iraqi people, but it has done us no favours in the short to medium term. Saddam was being effectively contained and his regime, if managed correctly, could have been useful as a counterbalance to Iran. If we can secure Iraq as a stable and compliant western ally, then the strategic situation will improve - but that looks a long way off at the moment.

Saddam was being effectively contained and his regime, if managed correctly, could have been useful as a counterbalance to Iran

Fuck you.

You can have a lot of fun substituing words...like this:

Hitler was being effectively contained and his regime, if managed correctly, could have been useful as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union

That's a better effort - but still meaningless. Hitler wasnt being contained - he invaded Poland (although that didnt bother the US at the time - they waited until Pearl Harbour before they joined the war against tyranny).
You seem to think that foreign policy is some kind of fratboy game.
When politicians send soldiers to die, they have an obligation to get it right. Bush didnt - so he fully deserves to be skewered by the odious Moore.

You seem to think that foreign policy is some kind of fratboy game.

Someone who derides the already accomplished liberation of Iraq because "it has done us no favours in the short to medium term" has nothing to say about that.

FUCK YOU.

Ha ha! I left the remember personal info on. Oh well, the exclimation points added charm.

Seriously, kimbo, my sincere gut reaction to your sick selfish heartlessness is fuck you.