Tag Archives: attacks

Wingnuts and 9/11 pride

The bodies of Ambassador Stevens and three others killed in the attack on the Benghazi consulate were flown home recently. The President and the Secretary of State were present at a somber reception at Andrews Air Force base.

It was an “amazing ceremony,” [Chris Matthews] insisted. After an Obama clip, he said, “There was a moment in American history right there. Last week, when Obama spoke at the Democratic National Committee down in Charlotte, he said, ‘I am the president.’ Well, this week, he showed what it means to be president.”

Matthews’ commentary drove Brent Bozell crazy.

“This was a moment for pride? . .

If George Bush had been president, the arrival of these four caskets would have been painted as a sickening sign of failure and incompetence, of public servants needlessly losing their lives because the White House couldn’t piece together their intelligence reports. Matthews would have railed against Bush and “Cheeney” for failing to protect their diplomats in unstable Arab nations. Now it was time to tingle over the unified Democrats instead.”

I recall George W. Bush being president when three thousand people were killed by the bad Muslims. And the failure to save those lives was unequivocally Bush’s fault. He knew exactly who Osama bin Laden was. He knew Al Qaeda were planning to kill Americans. He knew a spectacular attack was imminent. But he never did a thing to prevent it.

Yet among the wingnuts you still hear crap like this:

“President Bush had at Ground Zero probably the most important moment in, uh, maybe in American history. It was when this wounded nation watched their commander-in-chief stand on that rubble and say they will hear us, we are going to avenge this . .”

Bush literally stood on the bodies of the people he failed to defend and did a tough guy routine. It was one of the most appalling spectacles in American history. But to fans like Bozell, Bush and his bullhorn beat the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Factually speaking, it was really Condoleezza Rice who liked it better than the moon landing, but why quibble? When Bush’s incompetent National Security Adviser can weigh in on Bush’s incompetence with tingling awe, we’re way out of Chris Matthews’ league.


They say the second 9/11 is easier

This was too good to pass up. The op-ed professionals at the Washington Examiner had to weigh in on the embassy violence. It wouldn’t be patriotic of them to remain silent while the rest of us were piling up dead bodies. Picking through smoking rubble. DNA testing the remains.

It’s the sequel. “9/11: Muslims Never Sleep.” Vote Rudy Giuliani in 2016.


Okay, brand new strategy. Let’s attack Sandra Fluke.

News reaches us from the Cotton-Mather-C.H.U.D.s. Can you believe it? They’re still digging.

To wit: At the top of Renew America’s charts this morning, the Christian go-to site for politics, its the righteous refrain of Selwyn Duke and his Pasted Chastes. Fire up the old Firestone Air Chief, gals, and huddle ’round. Let the sound of sex panic wash over you like the pneuma of a plague.

A woman close to me once characterized the sea change in our society well. “Years ago you knew who the bad girls were,” said she. “Now you know who the good girls are.”

So it begins. The giant god-fearing blog decides, today, to attack Sandra Fluke.

Now, I’ll leave it to you to determine her implication, but I’ll say that if a female law student is engaging in so much sexual congress that she’s spending a mint on birth-control, I wouldn’t reflexively assume she’s a slut.

. . 2 . . 1 . .

Because I’d wonder how she was working her way through law school.

You thought we blew past this days ago. You were wrong. These topics, women’s reproductive health and contraception, are freighted with moral complexities you, so far, have refused to understand. That’s why the fire drill for crotch politics stretches into, what, week 3? Where are you going? Get back here. Square people want to tell you about the coitus. Square people really need to, apparently.

Really, though, if such a woman doesn’t deserve slut status, who does? Is the word now obsolete? Have we become like a Barbary-pirate nation where the term “thief” may be out of style because its use may offend the majority?

So get out your textbooks on civil rights, social justice, healthcare’s role in modern society, human behavior, and whatever you’ve got on privacy issues. After so many days of one side simply calling Fluke “a slut,” the tenor of discussion is about to ratchet, ehh, somewhere. I sense something’s about to get plenty deep (never mind the discussion).

Remember that copulation among unmarried people that requires birth control used to be called fornication; now they call it recreational sex. But it’s called “recreational” for a reason.

It’s done for recreation.

Ba-doom-pah. Yes, the First Annual Colloquy for Serious Chatter About Your Sex Life opens today. You’re invited. And look who’s offering the plenary lecture of the debut assembly? Duke! Selwyn Duke, everybody.

So the question is, why should taxpayers be forced to fund someone’s salacious conception of recreation? Hey, pay for my golf, too, okay? That can be expensive also.

This is much better. The petty fears and hang-ups pushed aside. Our two sides finally generating an adult discussion about sex.

Meanwhile, oh-so chivalrous Barack Obama placed a phone call to feminist Fluke to offer his support — and increase his among the fairer sex. I guess he’s that certain type of man who uses loose women for personal gain.

I anticipate some sort of porque detente soon. Maybe later today.


The Washington Post Imagines Rush Limbaugh, Stomps its Slippers

Just look at this. The Washington Post went after Rush Limbaugh. My, the analgesia. Warm linguini lashing hide.

Mr. Limbaugh is angry at President Obama’s efforts to require the provision of contraception under employer-paid health insurance and the White House’s attempts to make some political hay out of the policy. His way of showing this anger was to smear Ms. Fluke, who approached Congress to support the plan, as a “slut” seeking a government subsidy for her promiscuity.

We entreat Viscount Limbaugh tolerate her promiscuity. We’re not off our fancy rails, are we, in suggesting Fuck-all Fluke’s knee-high undulating and grasping be rounded without comment? The sluts have their place. Just between us, wink-wink.

Like other “shock jocks,” Mr. Limbaugh has committed verbal excesses in the past. But in its wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this episode stands out. Mr. Limbaugh’s audience, and those in politics who seek his favor as a means of reaching that audience, need to take special note.

Tonight, on “Universal Truth,” the vicious media expose’ written and produced by John Stossel, Ann Curry and Mark Burnett. Three seconds before midnight, a Special Note: “That Rush Darn Limbaugh.” Do people that people listen to, sometimes, sometimes go too far? (cue “The Entertainer,” by Sometimes Joplin).

In response to listener complaints and, apparently, the promptings of its own corporate conscience, Sleep Train Mattress Centers has quit advertising on Mr. Limbaugh’s show.

*door opens* You guys like sushi? It’s forklift Ed’s birthday, and H.R. reserved the Jubilee Room at Tuna Time. *carpet trample*


Michael Steele is Beginning to Look Like Malcolm X to Me

If you thought like me that Herman Cain was the strangest black man in the Republican Party, you were wrong. Months ago, when I called Allen West a ‘Walking Anger Management Problem,’ I sensed that he was even more…unique…than that. At the time, he was completely losing his shit over the diminutive, post-cancer chemotherapy patient Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The optics may have been bad, but he really had no choice. She is a woman and she questioned his authoritah! He is A Real Man.

But remember this? He got mad at NBC, too:

West has denied NBC News’s reports of his involvement with the gang, and recently told Hotline On Call that the story can’t be true because the Outlaws do not “accept blacks, Jews or gays” into their ranks.

The West campaign has responded to the reports, denying their veracity and accusing NBC of a biased reporting:

“In what can only be described as a political hatchet job by the liberal mainstream media, NBC News – through reporter Lisa Myers – made an outrageous claim that LTC(R) Allen West condones criminal activity. Myers clearly has an agenda to try and stop good people like Allen who oppose the far left policies that are wreaking havoc upon our country.”

Turns out he just gets mad. Ask him about Herman Cain:

Scott Hennen: Is it an attack on a black conservative because he’s a black conservative?

Congressman West: Oh come on, I mean you know I was the only black member of a white supremacist motorcycle gang, so liberals and there are certain others I would say even within our party that are not comfortable with strong black conservative voices, and I would say there are people that feel very threatened by that because we do stand on principle. We are someone or entities that are out of the mainstream, if you want to call it that, so liberals are definitely going to come at you.

So I guess Herman Cain is not the only black man in the GOP who would get a special kind of thrill if somebody called him “Cornbread.” Or something. This is why we can’t have nice things, like participatory democracy. It is also why the following is all over the interwebs these days:  “2012–It’s Not Just an Election, It’s a Restraining Order.”

One thing is sure, we are going to have to stop cracking jokes about Michele Malkin winning the award for being the white supremacist with the darkest skin.


An Obama hater so right-wing he’s somewhere to my left

Harsh words for the President:

So according to President Obama’s own template, the answer to the question, “Why do they hate us?” is easy. They hate us because of you, Mr. President. You’re the one ordering these drone attacks and radically increasing their frequency since you took office. The drone attacks have now surpassed Gitmo as the chief recruiting tool for terrorists. You, Mr. Obama, recruited Shahzad yourself by bombing the homes of his countrymen.

Can’t really argue with that assessment, but it’s pretty much to be expected in a war with terrorists. If it’s the Pakistani Taliban we’re talking about, terrorist exporters and violent local thugs, some and maybe much of the action is justified. But the collateral damage is appalling, granted. Who’s the lefty critic?

Would you believe Bryan Fischer, the ultra-right-wing lunatic? A guy who advocated imprisoning homosexuals?

So case solved. Shahzad tried to bomb Times Square first because of his hatred for George Bush, a hatred constantly inflamed by the loose bloviating of Barack Obama. And, secondly, he tried to bomb Times Square in retaliation for drone attacks on his countrymen ordered by Barack Obama. So we’ve got a tidy little package here. It’s all Barack Hussein Obama’s fault. Obama himself says so without even realizing it.

He started out the post by running his mouth on the new meme: Obama inflamed the ‘liberal’ Pakistani by bashing Bush. Laughably, he extended the inflammation to include Obama’s drone strikes, the real reason, but did so in the guise of “you caused the bombing you bastard” gambit. By doing so, Fischer is painting the Taliban killings as reckless politics as opposed to military actions. It’s a stupefying stance from a guy so right-wing as to be ephemeral. I’d have loved to see him drill George W. Bush for such callow politicking: killing the Taliban.

. . So the president’s position on civil rights appears to be this: you have no rights of any kind except the right to get blown to kingdom come in your own home, unless you’re lucky enough to survive and get captured, in which case we’ll find you the best lawyer taxpayers can buy, you won’t have to say a word, and we won’t even touch you. We will provide you with gourmet halal meals, handle your Korans with white gloves, and let you play soccer in a tropical breeze. We won’t even pour water over your face lest you scream “Torture!” at us.

Bryan is a newborn babe. He’s never seen anything so mystifying a group of behaviors as this ‘War.’


To Marc Thiessen: you can shut the fuck up

This sort of careless shit pisses me off. Marc Thiessen wonders aloud why Al Qaeda haven’t used more traditional methods of terrorism: after all, those schemes would produce more kills and be extremely effective in terrorizing us.

marc thiessenThiessen is entirely too clever, glib and ghoulish here. I don’t need to read this stuff, and I don’t want to see it. And unless you can make a strong, rational argument that this sort of very visible blogging about the future deaths of Americans serves a valuable purpose for us, the potential victims, I stand by my opinion.

I believe that this medium just isn’t a proper forum for it. Yes, I will speak of such things with friends or with fellow politics junkies and bloggers, but I’ll do it away from the public, and I’ll probably do it in hushed tones. I assume anti-terrorist and homeland security people have discussions like this all the time, and that’s fine, but there are good reasons we haven’t seen those in public either. The people who read Thiessen are far more likely to be regular old Republicans clicking his links to see what Cheney’s buddy thinks of the Tea Party or Sarah Palin, not CIA agents honing their anti-terrorist strategies. And I certainly don’t understand why, given their bogeyman obsessions, a wingnut like Thiessen wouldn’t worry that the terrorists might choose to take the advice from a national security genius like him.

I certainly don’t end up thinking Marc Thiessen is any smarter, I think he’s senseless and coarse.

Why Haven’t There Been more Car Bombings?

By Marc Thiessen
May 3, 2010, 2:00 pm

It is still unclear who is responsible for the attempted car bombing in Times Square, but the attack raises an interesting question: Why has al Qaeda failed to carry out scores of car bombings, assassinations, and other smaller-scale attacks in the United States in the years since 9/11?

Yes, interesting. I’m still alive and so are you, I just don’t understand it. I should have been killed by now, something’s up.

Such attacks are highly effective in terrorizing large populations. We saw a few years ago how a man and a teenage boy terrorized the entire Washington area with a series of sniper attacks.

Yeah, man, that was awesome.

It would be easy for al Qaeda to carry out similar attacks in Washington, New York, and other cities in the United States—assassinating political leaders, or setting off IEDs and car bombs in major metropolitan areas. Yet thus far al Qaeda not taken this route. Why?

Jeezus, Marc. Yes, why aren’t we completely terrified, demoralized and hopeless? We’ve had surprisingly few suicides. Why haven’t I buried more of my loved ones? We need to dwell on this at length. Perhaps we could use a week-long symposium on terrorism entitled “The Paltry American Death Rate Quandry .”

One possible explanation is that the severity of the 9/11 attacks has worked in our favor.

MAN. It’s right about here I started thinking “Why has this guy’s personal editing function not kicked in?”

In striking the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, al Qaeda set an extremely high bar for itself.

Alright, that’s enough. You can read this garbage here.


I can do this far more easily than you can continue to lie . .

April 6, 2010

The face of hate
By J. Matt Barber

j“Progressives” are like pig farmers. In an effort to bury opposing viewpoints they sling pejorative slop, labeling as “bigot,” “hater,” “wingnut” or “racist” those with whom they disagree. It’s the height of intellectual sloth . .

We’ve seen this tired tactic abused ad nauseum in recent days by the mainstream media and Democrats. Aided by hard-left outfits such as the Southern Poverty Law Center — all too eager to provide “expert analysis” tailor-made for jaundiced journalism — liberal elites have been desperate to throw poison on bourgeoning grassroots opposition to Obama’s careening Marxist agenda. It’s straight out of the “progressive” playbook: Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

Hence, in the face of zero supporting evidence, “Tea Party” conservatives, Constitutionalists, pro-life and pro-family Americans, and generally any patriot who disagrees with the Obama administration are smeared with “hate’s” broad brush.

Prosecutors: Enraged by health reform, man threatens to kill Murray


A central Washington man was so enraged by the passage of federal health care reform that he threatened to kill U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, prosecutors charged Tuesday.

“I want to …. kill you,” court documents say Charles Alan Wilson of Selah said in one of his foul-mouthed calls to Murray’s office.

“Kill the …. senator! Hang the …. senator! I hope somebody puts a …. bullet between your …. eyes,” court documents say he said in another call.

Wilson, 64, was charged Tuesday morning with threatening a federal official. He was undone, in part, by an FBI agent who posed as being with a group that wanted to repeal health-care reform . .

healthcare meet carrying gun“It only takes one piece of lead….Kill the ….. senator! Kill the …. senator! I’ll donate the lead,” court documents say he said in the first recorded and saved message . .

“Since you are going to put my life at risk, and some bureaucrat is going to determine my health care, your life is at risk, dear. Yes, your life is at risk,” court documents say Wilson said in one of the calls on March 23 . .

On April Fool’s Day, an undercover agent called Wilson, pretending to be a representative of Patients United Now, a group that wanted health-care reform repealed. Wilson agreed to have the call recorded . .

During the call with the FBI agent, Wilson said he hated health-care reform and that he called Murray and her fellow Washington Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell, every day.

He called them both “Pike Street whores,” which is a phrase that court documents say was used in the messages left at Murray’s office.

He allegedly told undercover FBI agents that he regularly carries a gun and that he has a concealed-weapons permit . .

ADD: FBI arrests Calif man for alleged Pelosi threats

The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 7, 2010; 7:09 PM

SAN FRANCISCO — A California man angry about health care reform allegedly made threatening and harassing phone calls to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including at least one call in which he got through and spoke to her directly, law enforcement officials said . .

Several federal officials said [Gregory Lee] Giusti made dozens of calls to Pelosi’s homes in California and Washington, as well as to her husband’s business office. They said he recited her home address and said if she wanted to see it again, she would not support the health care overhaul bill that since has been enacted . .