Wednesday, April 07, 2004


Today they are holding memorial for the victims of the Rwandan massacre of 10 years ago.

Big #%$^@ deal.

Am I heartless? Cruel? Racist?

NO. I am pissed off at the fucking useless memorials for people for whom NOTHING WAS DONE AT THE TIME THEY NEEDED IT MOST!

Oh, sure, the goddamn memorial will get coverage, and everyone will speak in hushed topnes about tragic it was and never again and blah, and blah and blah.

Meanwhile, the dead still lie in their graves, their screams and cries for mercy and justice echoing through Africa.

No one did a thing. According to who you quote, 600,000 to 1 million people were murdered over the course of, what? The course of a few months?

The self-righteous United Nations, arbiter of what is right and wrong, did NOTHING! Some say a few thousand peace-keepers could have prevented the whole thing. No one could be bothered.

Oh, and does anyone recall the massive protests of ANSWER and all the other left-wing "activists" decrying this wholesale slaughter? I seem to have not caught the coverage of all the "concerned" filling the streets to protest.

Saturday, April 03, 2004


Les Payne, who is one of most favorite columnists to despise and ridicule (both for his views and lack of logical consistency) writes today, proclaiming the deaths of Uday (the really violent, evil one) and Qusay (he even more violent, evil one) equivalent with those of the 4 Americans killed in Fallujah. His "point" is that the overbearing firepower used to bring these two murderous bastards in, and the fact that we displayed the bodies to prove to a frightened populace brutalized by them that they were dead, is equivalent to what happened in Fallujah:

"This space wondered at the time whether Americans were embarrassed by the Bush administration's release of those photographs. Or whether they were repulsed by their government hiring assassins to hunt down fugitives as if the world's lone superpower is some tin-horned, nuclear-crazed vigilante state. Or whether, alas, the White House had lost its Wild West, bounty-hunting mind.

My mail suggested that the Hussein brothers, their bodyguard and the Iraqi teenager were oxen that Americans should not care about, even though soldiers had gored them bloody and celebrated over their corpses. Such morbid exultation King would have denounced.

Last week in Fallujah, several other oxen were gored and burned and strung up on a bridge over the Euphrates River. This time, the gloating is on the other face.

It is the White House's turn to take the next eye-for-an-eye in its mad march to blindness."

Just so happens I am reading Victor Davis Hanson's Between War and Peace, and he discusses the rot of amorality in the Israel/Palestinian question, but it certainly applies here:

"...we live in a society in which playground fights in our schools are often adjudicated by concepts such as 'zero tolerance' and 'equal culpability'. Rather than exercising moral judgment-and investing time and energy in such investigation-our school principals simply expel any student caught fighting, as if the bully and his victim occupy the same moral ground.

Our schoolbooks devote more space to Hiroshima than to the far, far greater casualties on Okinawa. Students are not told that the two tragedies are connected-as if the American bombing to prevent an enormous bloodbath on the Japanese mainland is somehow not a direct result of the Japanese imperial military's efforts a few weeks earlier to unleash thousands of kamikazes, and through suicide attacks and banzai charges kill every American (and tens of thousands of civilians) on the island rather than surrender."

Here we have Les Payne's "argument" exposed by Hanson. United States troops (hired assassins to Payne) finally catch up with two of Iraq's former leaders, men responsible for rape, torture, oppression and large scale murder. Because we do not take them alive, because we have more firepower than them, because we show they are dead to frightened populace who thrive on conspiracy theories, their deaths are somehow a crime. This then allows Mr. Payne to explain away and excuse the murder and butchering of 4 men who were in the country to insure the delivery of food to the same mob which murdered and tore them apart. See, those four men deserved it, at least by extension because of what Bush and the U.S. did, you see.

There is no moral dimension for Mr. Payne, because if there were, he would like a blatant fool, rather than the slightly more subtle one he is. The deaths of two fascist, murderous thugs and their bodyguards trying to escape justice (yeah, a 14 year old could still wield a weapon, and if he was truly an innocent bystander, than the blood is on Dead-ay, and Gone-ay, not the U.S. for not sending him out) who shot the troops coming to arrest them is the same as 4 men killed while trying to rebuild the country destroyed and raped by the two said thugs. The displaying of Hussein's sons in photographs is the equivalent of burning, butchering, dragging and hanging bodies of security guards.

But you know, I have to take that back. Mr. Payne is not a fool. To declare him as such is both false and absolves him of his responsibility as a 'journalist' or even commentator. What he does is carefully craft the situation so as to make some moral equivalency appear where there is none. In the article, Mr. Payne makes great reference to amount of military hardware used to kill the four people inside the house where they were hold up:

"With a $15-million bounty on each of their heads, the brothers were gunned down allegedly in a "fierce gun battle." They were up against the 101st Airborne Division armed with limitless anti-tank rockets and supported by Apache helicopters, a pack of A-10 Warthogs belching death fire, and a squadron of impatient laser-smart jet fighters. Pulled from the house the U.S. firepower had shredded like a termite mound, the playboy sadist, Uday, and his more sedate brother, Qusay, were displayed in the full-color bloom of blood and gore as front-page trophies for President George W. Bush's den."

There are a couple of things here to take note of. First, Payne says there was "allegedly" a "fierce gun battle." I could be wrong, but I seem to remember reports of several U.S. servicemen being wounded when they initially tried to enter the house. So does

"Four coalition troops were wounded in the six-hour operation at a residence on the northern edge of Mosul, Sanchez said.

TV cameramen who witnessed some of the fighting said U.S. forces attacked from all sides after being refused admission to the house, and charged into the villa, encountering fierce resistance."

So, first Payne tries to diminish the threat these two psychos posed to our troops. It’s the old "police brutality" bit redone for the Iraq war. He then rattles off all the hardware supposedly used against the house to get at the men. I am sure about the 101st airborne (God Bless them) and I think the Apaches may be right, but "A-10 Warthogs belching death fire, and a squadron of impatient laser-smart jet fighters."? The article I found does make reference to air cover, but no where does it indicate the use of either a 20mm cannon, or jet laser guided bombs being used on the house. All this is hyperbole which leads to this line:

"Pulled from the house the U.S. firepower had shredded like a termite mound, the playboy sadist, Uday, and his more sedate brother, Qusay, were displayed in the full-color bloom of blood and gore as front-page trophies for President George W. Bush's den."

See the slight of hand here. First, Payne tries to paint a picture of a house reduced to rubble. Here is a photo from You decide if it looks as bad as he describes. Then, he says the bodies were "pulled from the house", again evoking the all too frequent line "Pulled from the rubble". I think, again, we are meant to draw that conclusion without Les saying so. He then declares the house was shredded and quickly goes back to mentioning the two Husseins, again, leading anyone reading it quickly to surmise that the bodies were "shredded".

The reason for this last bit is most important. See, again, Payne is trying to draw a moral parallel between the deaths of Bye-ay, and Corpse-ay, and what happened to the Americans in Fallujah. In Fallujah, yes, the Americans were cut to pieces, but did not the U.S. forces shred the likes of the 4 men in that house in Mosul? See, it’s the same, you see?

Of course, it is not the same, either in physical reality when you check the facts, or in any recognizable moral universe, but to write it any other way might lead Mr. Payne to support his own country, his own countrymen and maybe even the whole war. And, well, Mr. Payne can't do that, can he?

What really makes this all the more ludicrous is that the article starts off with the assassination of Martin Luther King. So, is Payne saying King was the moral equivalent of Saddam’s murderous sons?


See, I told you I have a hard time with consistency. Over a week, no post. Bad blogger, BAD!

Okay, so I might comment on the Fallujah massacre, but I could not say anything more incisive than U.S.S. Clueless, so check it out. Remember, revenge is dish best served cold...

One thing I will say is; keep in mind that these people, the Baathists are the ones who were running this country until we liberated last year. This kind of savagry was ROUTINE in Saddam's Iraq, and all the worse because there was no shelter from the horror, or justice in its wake. Times have changed. Our troops are poised outside the city. Some of those who were cheering and clapping over the death of our fellow Americans are soon going to see that Saddam is truly gone, and their time is over. Forever.

So, listening to Laura Ingrahm last night, and she has a soundbite from Senator Dodd emphatically praising Senator Robert Byrd, saying "you would have been a great senator at any time in our history" and other effusive terms. I am trying to find the actual quote, but trust me. Okay, quick, guess why I am mentioning this?

Time's up. Well, you may not know, especially if you are one of the clueless left, but the doddering old DEMOCRAT fool Senator from West Virginia used to be in the Klan. That's the motherf***ing Klu Klux Klan! For YEARS! So, what DEMOCRAT Senator Dodd was saying was that Byrd would have been a great senator for this country, even during those years when he was denouncing nigras, calling for lynching, and burning crosses. Nice!

Here's the kicker. Everyone pay attention to the general media over the next week. Let's see how much of a broohaha gets raised over this matter. Remember Trent Lott, and what happened to him when he made remarks at a birthday party praising Strom Thurmond? Lets compare the reaction to that to this open praising of a hood wearing, cross burning asshat who is the only national politician in recent times to have used the word "nigger" on national TV. We'll come back to this in a week.