WMDs, useful or not? That is NOT THE QUESTION!

So we have found several hundreds of shells. Surprise, surprise.

And now we're arguing about potency, viability, etc. Stuff is old ... so I guess they don't count.

Give me a break ... I am a lowly schmuck that plays with computers for a living and I can figure this out ... why is nobody asking the obvious questions?

"Can you use these in artillery?" No, you liberal jackass ... that's exactly why we were worried about them. If they were no longer useful to Saddam, what the hell did you think he was going to do with them? or more specifically, their ingredients?

That was the whole point ... war on terrorists, remember? The terrorists that were wearing a path through Iraq (oh, yeah ... that's right ... they were in the "lawless" region where Saddam had no control ... sure, right). So Saddam is cash strapped (with the exception of all the money in his bribes), chemical rich ... and he's got terrorists beating down the door to his house.

If they were not useful ... why did Saddam hide them instead of destroying them? If he would have handed us the pieces of these things (hell, he could have even given the chemicals out and told us he dumped them) and the libs / UN would have swooned over him ... and he would still be in power. And his terrorist pals would be buzzing around the world delivering the poison. But instead he went down clinging to his "useless" weapons ... yeah, right.

When something doesn't make any sense ... perhaps the obvious is true.

Right on time

So I type up an article on the Supreme Court ... about the ridiculous gyrations we now have to go through when the kooks decide to start interjecting their own agendas ... and the next day we get what could be the whackiest ruling of them all.

I am not even so sure this is a liberal vs. conservative thing ... outside of the fact that the deranged wing (liberals) were the ones that actually carried the day. In this case, the "agenda" was something like "we cannot just leave people in limbo indefinitely ... in the terrorists case it will likely be forever" ... so these judges had to force something. What was AMAZING to me, was that these clowns actually pulled the Geneva Conventions into this ...

you know ... I need to qualify that ... because this is so la-la goofy that I am now beginning to doubt what I think I know about Geneva. My understanding ... seemingly confirmed by EVERYBODY I have ever heard talk on the subject, liberal or otherwise ... is that the conventions only apply to something that can be recognized as a fighting force ... uniformed, and conforming to rules. Everybody I have ever heard talk about the terrorists seems to have validated that they totally violated the Conventions on just about every front ... even pro-terrorist liberals at least acknowledge these violations but insist we grant the terrorists the Conventions regardless, out of the goodness of our heart (nevermind the fact that the terrorist would carve out their heart given the chance).

... so now these justices talk about how Americans are violating the conventions when it comes to the terrorists if we subject them to tribunals.

Wow!!! OK ... looks like we have dozens of issues there ... but let's focus on the RADICAL POWER GRAB ...

Did the Supreme Court unilaterally declare that the combatants qualified for the conventions? Exactly what was the authority that gave them that power?

Did the Supreme Court, both in violation of precedence AND US LAW (other two branches of government) ... make itself SUPREME OVERSEER of military / foreign affairs?

... I could do more ... but I really want to hit that point.

The legislative branch passed a law, and the administration signed it ... CO-EQUAL WITH THE SUPREME COURT ... that said that the Court has no jurisdiction in these matters. The Court specifically ignored it. Now at this point I am wondering ... and nobody seems to be talking about it ... this is in fact a Constitutional crises, is it not? One branch of government has effectively and unilaterally declared itself superior to the other two.

I am not real sure the legal and Constitutional ramifications of this ... but are the Congress and Administration not obligated to "set aside" or "ignore" this ruling? I mean ... they passed the law, and the Court ignored it ... exactly who is it that limits the Court?

Food for thought ... Osama is a happy guy today. He literally has been successful in mastering an indirect overthrow of the US Government.

OK ... but the original article was about the gyrations resulting from the goofy rulings. So let's look at that.

What if the other branches just said "Screw you?" to the Court coup? What could the court do? Free the prisoners? On who's orders (the President is Commander, and the prisoners are held by the military)? Would they swim to Cuba and unlock the doors themselves? And what would they do with the prisoners? The court cannot send them anywhere ... they have no means to do so.

More seriously though ... if this carries forward, and if the terrorists get some kind of good treatment out of this, the unintended consequences will be catastrophic on all sides ... you will literally force the military to annihilate everybody that could even look like they might be a combatant. This would force the terrorists' hand as well ... as they have done to us by brutallizing and murdering our captive soldiers (no American soldier will ever allow himself to be taken alive again). Every fight will be to total annihilation.

This is nuts.

Wesley Clark ... retraction

See the article below.

I looked on the FoxNews website to find the transcript of the interview, but it is not there. Not sure how to confirm what it was that Clark was talking about ... I thought that it was in reference to the Marine trials, however a response to the post that I have received indicates that it was instead a discussion of the terrorists being held by Americans.

So ... I will retract my comments about Clark unless I get other information. I had O'Reilly on during some work that I was doing ... after some pretty late hours this week ... so I do not have as much confidence that I heard what I heard. Admittedly, I was totally shocked by O'Reilly's lack of response ... so now I am even less confident that I heard it correctly.

************************************************************************

Now, assuming I was wrong about what I heard ... and Clark was talking about submitting the terrorists to an international court.

Again ... who does Clark think is going to be on this court? The French? The Russians? The Chinese? The Iranians? Who??? To hell with that! Exactly what "laws" do we subject these guys to ... what criteria? Their "side" has violated any and every rule of law ... terrorizing (specifically targetting) civilians, hiding amongst civilians, no uniforms, etc. So what is the point of this? What will the punishment be? Who will enforce it?

At best these guys are prisoners of war ... and you keep them locked up until whomever it is that they "report" to is subdued or whatever, and you can "release" them with a reasonable expectation that you will not face them again. If I am not mistaken, in a regular war prisoners are "exchanged" ... but since this enemy doesn't adhere to any laws or constraints ... and brutally (the worse the better) butchers their victims (captured soldiers) ... nothing doing there.

And if we do get screwed on the deal and these guys are set free ... and we KNEW that they were dangerous (we have already pretty much tried to cut loose the ones we figured were minimal risk) ... then what? What kind of accountability will we ... the citizens of this country ... get from any international court?

Uh-huh ... right. Bad enough we have a virtual oligarchy with the liberals on the federal bench ... fool me once.

Impeach Bush

Yes ... you heard me right ... I'm following up my last diatribe on Bush (little while ago, where I responded to the moronic "Illegal Alien" speech by indicating that GW had officially ended his presidency) with the call to "Impeach Bush".

OK ... where's the punch line? There won't be one.

Well ... OK ... there is an "IF".

IF the Administration of this country does not wage a full scale war against the NY Times (and anybody else that is exposing classified material) and the 'leakers', he should be impeached as soon as possible. High crime and misdemeanor? Failing as commander in chief to do everything possible to secure this nation against enemy (domestic and foreign) attack.

Because of this insane hate-Bushism ... somebody in this country (probably many) are going to die. Period.

We cannot continue to permit the enemy within to wage a full scale war against us without responding. This is what Clinton did to the enemy OUT THERE ... the terrorists in the field ... that continuously pushed the edge with ever more grand attacks until 9-11. They were emboldened by Clinton's lack of response (or pathetic response) to their bold moves. These new terrorists ... the mainstream media ... are getting ever more bold in their attacks as well.

What to do ...

1) I have to imagine that there is some type of law that permits the justice department to move against ANY entity that may *illegally* possess classified information. Busloads of men in black suits must burst in on NYT headquarters, any affiliated offices, and the homes of all reporters. They need to kick open the locks and lock down every computer, piece of paper, or whatever. Everything should be thoroughly scanned for anything even resembling classified information ... if any is found the "owner" of the media is immediately arrested.

2) Ban NYT reporters from any official government situation ... pulling all credentials. We cannot put these people in a position to get any additional information. Ban any NYT employee from any contact whatsoever with any employee of the federal government (contractors, etc). All contacts initiated by federal employees shall be reported and reviewed. Any indication of a violation of these edicts results in immediate lockdown.

3) Immediately convene a grand jury to investigate from whom the leaks may have come. Any resistance results in immediate prison time. Maybe grants of immunity for information that they reveal is in order, but *very short order*.

Wesley Clark ... put the fork in him, he's done

On O'Reilly, Wesley Clark just advocated for our soldiers to face International Courts for the accused crimes in Iraq (Haditha, etc).

This man is done ... period. I am continuously fascinated at how deranged the lunatics get when they spend too much time in the land of the loons, the Washington beltway. For a former military man to advocate subjecting our fighting men and women to international anything is just beyond anything that I ever thought a politician would be dumb enough to say.

So who sh0uld sit on these courts, Clark, you brainless twit? Iran? North Korea?

"Oh, no ... that couldn't happen" Oh really? And Sudan would never sit on the UN commission on human rights, or Iran on the commission on terrorism?

God that was stupid.

Consequences of Liberalism

A few things have come together at this point as a result of how stupid we have let things become with the courts. Flag burning, gay marriage, political contributions / McCain Feingold ... all show how stupid things are when the relevant authority (in this case, the Supreme Court) loses their perspective and starts "redefining" things according to their own personal agendas.

In the case of flag burning ... you had the loons on the Court saying that torching an object is "free speech" or "free expression". This is just stupid. Torching something is not speech ... and many have pointed out exactly the right point ... there are plenty of "statements" you are not allowed to make or are heavily constrained ... "hate" speech, burning a cross, etc. etc. etc.

If the court did not like any particular law, they could have struck it down using *real* objections ... with the flag issue I would say the most obvious is that it is almost impossible to define what a flag is ... if a buxom babe wears a "flag pattern" thong bikini for her mud wrestling match ... is that desecrating the flag? Hey ... stay focused here ... c'mon ... it was an illustrative point! OK OK ... how about your kindergartener drawing a flag in crayon ... that would make any law regarding a flag totally unenforceable.

But they didn't ... the idiot court totally turned common sense on its head, said that "burning" is somehow the same as speech, and now these silly ass arguments about how to protect an inanimate (and virtually undefinable) object will rage until some court (we pray) will tell us that the idiots were idiots and that we can go back to the sanity of allowing the other branches of governments to do their jobs.

Gay marraige is on the verge of becoming a similar situation, although here the recent swing in the court (and let's just hope that Bush gets at least one more selection to complete the job) will at least put off the issue for a lot longer. In this case, you have the loons trying to codify and legitimize perversion through the courts, and they are finding looney judges to weave new agendas into laws and (state) constitutions.

The perversion, however, is not the problem ... it is everything around it that is problematic. "Marraige" is a construct ... a human (religious) institution ... not a right (in fact, I cannot think of any real "rights" that have anything to do with more than a single person). The various legislatures throughout history created and modified laws literally "defining" the construct ... who could participate : only one man and only one woman ... how : obtaining a license ... at what age : age of consent ... etc. Trying to force this into the arguments about "rights" is again, just stupid, and will ultimately lead to the most bizarre problems.

Hey, if Fred can "marry" Barney, then why not other perversions ... 3 guys, 1 guy w/ a dozen women (God forbid) , lady and her horse (oh, that's ugly), how about a guy marrying his mom (eeee-yeeeww ... oh yeah? Who is Woody Allen hangin' out with these days?).

The reply from the loons to this kind of argument clearly defines exactly how stupid / bankrupt the whole discussion about marriage being some kind of a right is ... that polygamy or group marriage or incest or whatever is somehow simply "wrong" ... but their perversion is "right". Uh-huh. Now, if you *really* want to dig into it, you find out that the whole argument has deeper roots in liberalism ... mainly things like various 'benefits' that government provides to spouses and the like.

Campaign contributions is another one ... where courts really said that money is now speech. First off ... please give me as much of that kind of "speech" as you can! Seriously though ... we end up with the dumbest piece of legislation ever written as a result, where literally *real* rights ... like Free Speech (talking about one of the candidates) is constrained. How nuts is that?


My stands ... given the *current* state of affairs (i.e. loons' rules are in place)

Flag burning ... if you are not going to regulate what is a "flag" ... you should just leave the issue alone and let the ridiculously few morons that want to burn them stand out like, well ... morons. Having said that ... public officials should make it policy to blanket pardon any person (or group thereof) that chooses to knock the living crap out of any jackass that does so, perhaps even throw in a medal of honor. If you have a few cases where Marines have pummeled some pot-smokin', in-need-of-a-bath hippie puke within an inch of his life after desecrating the flag, you will definitely see a quick end to this form of "speech".

Or, more simply ... ban the burning of anything, anywhere near where some jackass might want to protest. You could still "deputize" some Marines as firemen ... with 4" fire hoses ... as a preventative measure ... who are there for public safety (prevent the fire from spreading into the crowd) and to protect the jackass from burning themselves (God knows the loser might sue the city if they did burn themselves).

Gay marraige ... first off, keep your damned perversion in the bedroom ... I don't want to hear about it or see it. And keep your gay agenda out of the kids' schools ... how sick do you have to be to encourage children to be sexual, let alone perverts. Having said that ... if we are going to have these asinine liberal programs, then there is no good reason why the "benefits" cannot go to whomever the beneficiary is living with (assuming there are benefits for "related" individuals).

McCain / Feingold ... idiot legislation written by two idiots. Blatently unconstitutional, but damn the Republicans for going along with that crap because they hoped the US Supreme Court would knock down most of what they wrote.

IRAQ ... dumb song

PS to dave ... alright, thar bud ... here ya go.

So ... looks like some of our boyz were having a little fun, blowing off a little steam.

Earth to soldiers ... earth to soldiers ... the next time you are doing something "fun / stupid / foolish" ... and you see somebody with a camara ... SHOOT THE BASTARD AND DESTROY THE CAMARA!!!!! Can you say Abu-Graib? How many times do you have to be stabbed in the back by our major news media WITH YOUR OWN FILMS before you realize how stupid this is? Who thinks it is a good idea to film yourself doing something offensive / stupid?

C'mon guys ... heresay is one thing ... documented / filmed proof is another. So ... just like when you go to church and the pastor tells you to turn off your cell phones so that you don't interrupt the sermon ... at the beginning of every event that you partake in that you are going to do something stupid ... make an announcement that all jackasses with any film or recording device needs to turn it off!

(is this really that difficult?)

Having said that ...

Some goofy arab or muslim group here (CAIR) is expressing its outrage over the dumb song.

First off ... is anybody else as sick and tired as I am as to the oversensitivity of every little prick (oh, I'm sorry ... special interest group) over things that are obviously done in jest?

Let's try a little perspective here, huh folks? These marines are putting their asses on the line to protect your ass ... so that the biggest thing you CAN worry about is whether or not your sensitivities are offended by a stupid song. The alternative is that they refuse to protect your ass and instead your "sensitivities" are offended when some sick nut cuts your worthless friggin' head off, only after he cuts your daughter's head off after raping her while you watched.

Oh yeah ... suddenly a song doesn't seem all that important, eh?

Once, just once ... I would love to see one of these groups say ... "You know, these are guys working under unbelievably stressful conditions, putting their lives on the line and doing their part to make the world a better place. We hope that they would try to avoid such things, but we would hardly be reasonable if we judge their every move under these circumstances. We support our military and wish them Godspeed and safe return."

Would you just fall down on your ass if that happened? I would.

But hey ... if CAIR wants to express their condemnation ... then let them also express their condemnation of the terrorist / enemy actions ... face-to-face. Jump on a little airliner bound for Baghdad ... wander on through one of the "hot" areas, and let the bad guys know that you are not happy with them. Note: you will generally find the bad guys hiding under the skirts of women, cowering behind children holding a gun to their heads while they force the child to detonate a roadside bomb, or perhaps buried in some 1000 year old mosque taking potshots at soldiers.

Iraq : Murtha Continues meltdown

Been a long time ... sorry ... kinda busy. Had a death in the family ... helps to put things in perspective. You've heard this before, but tell the people you love how you feel, because sometimes you never get another shot. Better yet ... write them a note.

OK ... man things have changed in Iraq, and associated things in the U.S.

Murtha continues his insanity, this time it appears he is hoping to launch himself into a leader position by selling his soul (and his country) to defeat. Let's just hope he achieves a new position as "the former Congressman" by December.

Nevertheless, in his latest attack on our soldiers, Murtha achieved a new "higher point" that I think a whole bunch of people missed ... the context was that Murtha was trying to argue that "flip-flop" on policies is OK and sometimes exceptionally good.

But if you let a democrap talk long enough, particularly a deranged traitor like Murtha, eventually they have the imprint of their shoe sole on the roof of their mouth ... and I bet you Murtha (along with most people) didn't catch it. He was talking about "pulling out" ... coming up with examples to justify doing so by pointing out circumstances where other leaders "changed course". One of the examples that he came up with is Somalia ... and I almost jumped out of my skin. He seemed to be alluding to the fact that this was a good thing.

A good thing? That one act by an incompetent jackass is the trigger event that convinced Osama Bin Laden that he could attack the US with impunity and suffer no repurcussions. This came directly from the devils' mouth ... that when he saw the US turn tail and run after taking a minimal loss in an overwhelming victory (the Black Hawk Down incident was in fact a US victory), bin Laden assumed we are as weak as most Democraps and would cower at his attacks.
Osama was, of course, proven wrong ... thank GOD for GW Bush!!! Osama probably would have been correct, however, with AlGore or JohnFKerry at the helm ... God forbid. Those two clowns would have launched a few missiles into empty camps or buildings, declared victory, and climbed back into their "see no evil" type mindset until the next attack.

Yet, Murtha is so far "out there" that he doesn't even realize how stupid it is for him to quote a situation that, more than anything else, lead directly to the 9-11 attacks. He is literally arguing against his own case: "gee morons ... if we pull out of Iraq the way we pulled out of Somalia (snatching defeat from the jaws of victory) ... we might get the same results ... another 9-11 attack!"

OH BOY!!! Let's all line up for that one! Woo hoo!

The more the Dems talk ... the more confident I am that Republicans will GAIN seats this fall.