October 05, 2004

RUMOUR IS HE AVOIDED VIETNAM

Attention, peaceniks! Hereís your ideal anti-war candidate:

Saddam's lawyer has told a Danish newspaper that the ousted dictator will run in Iraq's elections with the view to become president again, media reported.

The elections, which are scheduled for January, are parliamentary implying that Saddam would not have to run nationwide. It is presumed that Saddam, if allowed to take part, would choose Tikrit, his home town, to fight election.

In Iraq, Saddam's popularity seems to be staging a comeback. He is revered as a hero who sought to challenge Israel and the West.

That should be enough to win Michael Mooreís support. Speaking of Michael ...

Iím getting up at 7am to phone in live to the Howard Stern show. Howard and I resolved long ago that no matter what the Democratic candidate was doing, the two of us were somehow, single-handedly, going to toss Bush out on the curb.

The two of you? Single-handedly? Mike Moore canít count.

UPDATE. Ex-Moore fan Emily Brackett slams the hefty sell-out:

"He pushed us further in the direction of Ralph Nader," said Brackett, who works for Nader's Corporate Crime Busters campaign. "We used to have so much respect for (Moore), and now he's buying into the two party system. It just breaks our heart."

UPDATE II. Remember Moore getting all excited about Dan Rather presenting "new and damning information about how George W. Bush got moved to the front of the line to get in the Texas Air National Guard, and how he then went AWOL"? Well, now Moore is claiming that he received that "new and damning information" before Rather, and he rejected it because it didnít seem authentic. Moorelies.com has the full story.

Posted by Tim Blair at October 5, 2004 07:13 PM
Comments

With Michael Moore counting the vote, Saddam will do considerably better than the 100% he received in the last election.

Posted by: pajama_jihad at October 5, 2004 at 07:19 PM

Let's hope he doesn't follow Milosevic in the list of ousted dictators to enjoy political comebacks.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 5, 2004 at 08:43 PM

Woah! You really landed a hit there, Blair! That'll learn him!

Posted by: Rumsey at October 5, 2004 at 08:47 PM

I'm now officially bored of the election. Iraq burns, Bush down, oh no! Swiftboat vets, Kerry on the ropes! But wait! Kerry stands upright, fails to urinate in trousers at debate, Bush history! No wait, no debate bounce, no, one on Newsweek, booo! Newsweek oversampling Democrats, so typical, a curse on their moustaches!

Fuck it. I'm very busy. If the Democrats win and go back to appeasing the Islamists, the future mega-terrorism attacks are only going to occure in blue states anyway. Who's going to nuke Texas? Sepember 11, 2012 will happen right were 2000 did, in Kerry-voting downtown NY.

Like Moore says in blubbery horror at the injustice of it all, "they killed people who didn't vote for Bush!" Killing people who did would have been a-OK.

Moore lives in Manhatten, let him and the other liberal weeinies have their Carter II, they'll be the ones with a face full of dirty nuke on judgement day.

Posted by: Amos at October 5, 2004 at 09:39 PM

Tomight on SBS News program a reporter (Australian) commented that John Kerry comprehensively defeated President Bush in the deabte. It this true? I was under the impression from other news sources that while Kerry did well but no means thumped President Bush.

Regards,

Baci.

Posted by: baci at October 5, 2004 at 10:07 PM

Tomight on SBS News program a reporter (Australian) commented that John Kerry comprehensively defeated President Bush in the deabte. It this true? I was under the impression from other news sources that while Kerry did well he by no means thumped President Bush.

Regards,

Baci.

Posted by: baci at October 5, 2004 at 10:07 PM

SBS has been known to be a little bit left-of-centre...

For example, after one election (I think it was the one where Howard first got in), the post-vote wash-up piece had 25 minutes in the Labor Party Room, with everyone decrying the result and forecasting doom, gloom, and disaster. Literally crying into their beers (or Chardonnays, Pinot Noirs, or double-Scotchs). To counterbalance this they had... a 5-minute piece filmed at the trash and dumpster area next to the Liberal party room, showing all the empty champagne bottles and commenting on the waste and profligacy involved, and how the country would no doubt go down the gurgler in a few weeks in the hands of these alcoholic bums.

I'm neither joking nor exaggerating.

I wish I had recorded it, it's my favourite piece of blatantly over-the-top media bias. Even SBS were a bit shame-faced the next day. But only a bit.

Posted by: Alan E Brain at October 5, 2004 at 10:50 PM

"Saddam's lawyer has told a Danish newspaper that the ousted dictator will run in Iraq's elections with the view to become president again, media reported."

Won't it be a little hard for Saddam to fulfill his presidential duties after he's been hung for crimes against humanity? Maybe he's hoping to pardon himself..

Posted by: DavidK at October 5, 2004 at 10:51 PM

"The two of you? Single-handedly? Mike Moore canít count."

Michael Moore fanclub contest: "If you can guess how many shitty documentaries I've made, I'll send you a copy of both of them"


Posted by: Arty at October 6, 2004 at 12:28 AM

baci, the MSM is saying Kerry won the debate. Other opinions (various sources, left and right) are that Bush won. A lot of pundits are noting there was no real clear victory for either man.

Bottom line: no clear winner. Anything else is wishful thinking.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 6, 2004 at 12:35 AM

Neither really made much headway, Bush wasn't very articulate and Kerry tried to look like a moderate, and not a millionair socialist jackass from Massachusetts, he did OK.

The general concensus is that Kerry won on points, but it changed nobody's mind. The polls didn't reflect much shift either way, Bush is still leading by about 5%.

If you agree with Bush you'd have thought his points better, if you agree with Kerry you'd believe he made a better agrument. Guess which guy the MSM agrees with? So guess who they reported winning?

Posted by: Amos at October 6, 2004 at 12:51 AM

Howard and I resolved long ago that no matter what the Democratic candidate was doing, the two of us were somehow, single-handedly, going to toss Bush out on the curb.

That has me wondering: How many people will it take to single-handedly toss Moore out on the curb?

Posted by: Dave T. at October 6, 2004 at 01:35 AM

POW! WHAM! That'll fix those lefties! What a predictable, intellectually-desolate little corner of blogdom Tim now occupies. Like a patient at a noggin clinic, he rocks back and forth, drooling and blabbering about Michael Moore, Margo Kingston and Phatty Adams.

Posted by: Klong at October 6, 2004 at 01:43 AM

Klong:"Like a patient at a noggin clinic,..."

I like this latest batch of trolls, Tim. Pure comedic relief. Are you paying them to come over or something?

Posted by: tom beta 2 at October 6, 2004 at 01:54 AM

"Noggin clinic', what is that, some cow-fucking ocker venacular term from the 50's?

What'll 'fix those lefties', or at least sting the little prison bitchs to a squealing new pitch of hysteria, is a Howard win. One looks likely. Oh what a desolate corner of the political world we righties now inhabit, The Lodge, Number 10 and the Whitehouse.

POW! WHAM! That'll fix those lefties! Oh wait, I'm not being sarcastic, we actually did fuck those lefties and take over everything.

Posted by: Amos at October 6, 2004 at 02:32 AM

Re: Update II, I've been wondering about that myself. Was he lying then, or is he lying now?

Posted by: Jim Treacher at October 6, 2004 at 04:59 AM

'peaceniks' indeed. You orcs still think the only way to justify your position on war is to defame its opponents. But when has the right had any other strategy? I seem to remember the nazis got their leg up by expressing a pathological fear of 'bolshevism' (as manifested by Jewish intellectuals and shopkeepers) helped, of course, by sizable handouts from the business community.

Posted by: tug at October 6, 2004 at 08:18 AM

Tug,

You'll have to do better than a Nazi analogy to justify your anti-war view.

Read Godwin's Law

Posted by: Justin at October 6, 2004 at 10:21 AM

Jim Treacher asked:

"Re: Update II, I've been wondering about that myself. Was he lying then, or is he lying now?"

The answer is "Yes".

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 6, 2004 at 10:41 AM

Jesus the ignorance of you leftist jackasses it invincible isn't it? For the last time, the Nazis were A FUCKING SOCIALIST PARTY. National SOCIALISM, you dipshit, SOCIALISM, they were a statist party with an applied Darwinian slant. Not only did they have nothing in common with today's free-market, free speech, free enterprise western conservatives, they were in almost every respect DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to them.

'Tug' you are an absolute, irredemable fucking moron.

Posted by: Amos at October 6, 2004 at 11:58 AM

"Yeah, yeah, well, you're an orc!"*

* tug's imagined reply

Posted by: Sortelli at October 6, 2004 at 12:20 PM

Are we positive that "tug" isn't a parody of a clueless anti-war kiddie? I mean, can anybody really write such moronic posts as s/he does and still be smart enough to turn on their computer without electrocuting themselves?

Posted by: PW at October 6, 2004 at 01:06 PM