Abu Wabu

Just when you think the idiots have stooped as low as they possibly can, they keep right on talking. Case in point: today's attempt on Vice President Dick Cheney's life during his visit to the Baghram base in Afghanistan. Commenters at the Huffington Post did exactly what one expects idiots to do; they aired their bitter rage and hatred to the world. Huffington has since cleansed the comments and shut them down, but they have all been recorded elsewhere for posterity.

Here's a sampling of the best and the brightest of my brother's keepers in Idiotworld:

“Cheney's spokeswoman said he was fine. Fuck.”

“Shit!”

“So Cheney is personally responsible for the deaths of 14 innocent people...and then he waddles off to lunch!! What a piece of shit!”

“To (sic) bad they missed!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“Better luck next time!”

“What a different world we would be living in today if they had succeeded.”

“In 1944 Claus von Stauffenberg's bomb unfortunately missed Hitler. I see the parallel and the inherent risk. This is to that what 9/11 was to the burning of the Reichstag. I am waiting for this effort to obliterate Cheney to be linked to Iran just like 9/11 was purposefully linked to Iraq by the ghouls who control our country.”

“Isn't this the moral dilemma that Deitrich Bonheoffer found himself in when he chose to join a plot to assasinate (sic) Hitler. If we know that Cheney is plotting to light up the entire Middle East region by instigating an attack on Iran, if we know he is lying to do so, if we know that he is launching these wars to line the pockets of his corporate friends, and establish hegemony around the globe, if we know that he intends to hijack civil liberties and destroy constitutional government in this country, should we cheer if someone could stop him before hand?”

"You can't kill pure evil. Like an exorcism you have to drive a stake through it."

Not surprising. Remember, this is the blog of choice for the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Unindicted Ab-Scam Co-conspirator John Murtha when they want to speak to their "base". Nice.

Of course, the Kos crowd, DUh and all the rest are at it too, and contrary to Dean Barnett's initial take, the Kostards are just as vile as the Hufftards:

Why (0 / 0)I’m planning to take a shit on his grave when he’s gone.

Will they find “dick” written all over (2+ / 0-)Cheney’s coffin in 2000 years?I got my crayons and chisels laid out, Whatever it takes.

Well gosh (18+ / 0-)As long as Dick is “safely inside” we can all heave a huge sigh of relief. Big Time’s safety is of utmost importance, of course. To hell with anyone else who died in order to save his pasty hide. My local news just lead with his safety…as if we were all waiting for that particular news.

No, I thought of the young man I know is over there as a medic. I sure hope HE
is safe. This time.
…
should have called [the post] (2+ / 0-)damn, they missed!
…
So unnecessary (0 / 0)Cheney must know that he is a magnet for attack. Unfortunately, other people (U.S. troops and Afghanis) are the collateral damage.

He should go to a permanent undisclosed location, preferably one with iron bars that allows one hour per day of exercise or interaction with others. The other 23 hours should be in solitary confinement so he will have time to think about the death and destruction he’s created.
…
Good point (13+ / 0-)I want him to rot in jail not die in a way that could in any way be construed as bravery, honor or decency.

LGF points out an interesting dichotomy: the idiots absolutely freak when Glenn Reynolds talks about assassinating an Islamist nuclear scientist or a mullah.

Put Dick Cheney in solitary because you hate him- empty rhetoric. It isn't even worthy of a reply.

E.J. Dionne doesn't like what Dick Cheney said about Nancy Pelosi's plan to pull out of Iraq, about which Cheney has recently commented,

Al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy, that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home. And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al Qaeda.

Does Dionne even attempt to demonstrably refute Cheney? No.

Power Line tells the story well:

Dionne accuses Cheney of being "beside himself" over Wilson's column in the New York Times in which the debonair diplomat claimed that his trip to Niger revealed that, contrary to what President Bush had said, Saddam Hussein had not sought nuclear material from that country.

If Cheney was in fact "beside himself" over this he had every right to be because Wilson lied in his New York Times article. As John explained here, Wilson reported to the CIA, which sent him to Niger to investigate, that the former prime minister of Niger had told him that Iraq made an overture that the Prime Minister understood as an attempt to buy uranium. This is just what the administration had been claiming, as in the president's famous 16 words about Niger in his state of the union address.

However, Wilson represented in his New York Times piece that his trip to Niger had not borne out the president's claim. Wilson thus flat-out lied in his New York Times piece in order to cast the administration in a false light. Accordingly, Vice President Cheney had every right to be upset.

Of course, Cheney's anger would not have been an excuse for taking unlawful action against Wilson or his wife. But Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation failed to find that Cheney (or Scooter Libby for that matter) took any such unlawful action against them.

Thus, it is Dionne, not the vice president, who is "spinning" and "smearing."

Meantime, Wilson and Plame are still traitorous liars.

You know you're in political trouble when "unindicted co-conspirator" decribes your standard-bearing fearless leader.

UPDATED
Female Congressman, designated childrens' gavel-holder and speaker Nancy Pelosi beaks off:

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

Except that he can, he did, and it's not at all a mischaracterization; it is in fact an exact description of her position. Pelosi wants to surrender to the terrorists and leave Iraq as soon as possible. That's not just a retreat, that's a full-fledged surrender. Doesn't matter what Pelosi wants me to call it.

Cheney: "I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

That's not a slur against Pelosi's patriotism; it's an indictment of her judgement, and it's bang on. And Pelosi must answer the indictment instead of wasting the world's time with feigned indignation. Is she the Majority Leader or not?

Man up, Nancy.

UPDATE
Dick Cheney is standing firm:

During Friday's interview in Sydney with ABC News, Cheney said, "I'm not sure what part of it is that Nancy disagreed with. She accused me of questioning her patriotism. I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment."

Eleganté.

Cheney's response is devastating. Pelosi was clearly trying to portray herself as the eeeevil VP's Victim of Oppression, but no adult believes that for a second, so the nation has awakened to Pelosi's reactionary and crass insincerity.

And yes, you bet your ass the President couldn't take Nancy's call; doesn't matter who you are, that's what happens when you a) mischaracterize a person as acting against the national security of our country and b) trash the President every other chance you get.

A Love Letter from Iraq to idiots everywhere (NSFW):



HT: LauraW.

UPDATED
The Democrats went after Bush on behalf of terrorist assholes, demanding access to U.S. courts for Guantanamo detainees. Bush answered by forcing the Dems to swallow their bullshit and vote on the issue in Congress. The resulting legislation passed. And the courts just upheld that legislation.

It will now go to the Supremes, who should leave it alone as a Constitutional no-brainer.

Bush has never been afraid of a Constitutional fight with the Democrats, which is why it's going to be fun watching him mop the floor with Murtha and his back-door surrender (a multi-purpose metaphor if there ever was one).

UPDATE
In related news, a Jawa Exclusive: Released Gitmo Detainee Arrested En Route to Iraq.
Gee, maybe if he'd just been given access to a court to prove his innocence, this wouldn't have happened.

...on intelligence, real and imagined.

Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, in a conversation with bloggers, answers questions about the Inspector General's Report and directs attention to the Iraqi Perspectives Report.

Unable to foist their blatant cut-and-run strategy on the American public, the Democrats have decided to surrender in Iraq by other means designed to hide their complicity. The Politico has the details:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field.

Power Line's John Hinderaker is succinct:

So the Democrats will do their best to make the United States' effort in Iraq fail, but without taking responsibility for that action, and then try to benefit politically from the country's defeat. Nice.

No-one should be surprised that the Democrats and their antiwar supporters want to hide their true intentions from the American public; those intentions include riding to power on the backs of a military they will have worked very hard to defeat from home. This is worse than cynical; it is insurrection by a thousand lesser acts, and should be made an issue in the '08 election starting now.

Via Power Line

Islamofascist coward Moqtada al Sadr has abandoned his command of the Mahdi Army in Iraq and fled to Iran. His loyal idiots just watched their Fearless Leader skip town as the US triples its force in Bagdad. Sadr's message to his troops: you're on your own, fools- I'm outta here. Good luck with that "martyr" stuff.

I imagine the mullahs, who are busy denying their involvement in Iraq, must be only reluctantly welcoming Sadr to Tehran. Talk about painting a target.

Note to Democrats: your non-binding resolutions are looking more foolish every day. Just like that global-warming conference that got cancelled by an ice storm.

Via Ace:
Amanda Marcotte resigns from Edwards campaign, remains angrily defiant, or defiantly angry, not sure which. Meanwhile, Catholics have engaged Marcotte with some of that sweet, sweet "satire" she loves so much:



As usual, Michelle Malkin has a great roundup.
Bryan at Hot Air: "Marcotte vows revenge. For…being quoted accurately? Sheesh."
And your little dog, too!

UPDATE
The other shoe has dropped: Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister has announced her resignation from the now thoroughly-doomed John Edwards campaign. Whatever. Truth is, as soon as these two sewer-mouthed poseurs signed on with Edwards, it was already very much over for the Silky Pony. I felt a twinge of compassion for the man when I first learned Marcotte and McEwen had joined the campaign, but that soon disappeared.

I'm talking nanoseconds.

Here's the meat of McEwan's "resignation announcement":

I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I'm letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O'Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.

This is a win for no one.

Yeaahhh. With the notable exception of every adult on Earth.

Confederate Yankee:

I don't think I've read enough of her blog to know much about McEwan, but I can say this: she exhibited more class and dignity than Marcotte, even as I find it somewhat ironic that someone who calls my fellow Christians "christofascists" accuses others of unleashing "frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation."

They did denounce the frightening ugliness, Melissa. You should know.

You wrote much of it yourself.

Enough has been written about the hilarious, if ultimately alarming, WaPo implosion based on Carl Levin's mythmaking, but the event raises once again the recurring problem of antiwar idiocy and the lies upon which it must feed in order to thrive. The idiot left is now so totally invested in their fantasy that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that they must ignore the mountains of evidence confirming that connection during the Clinton years, after which the idiots declared war on their own civilization in general and George W. Bush in particular. Power Line Video reminds us that in the years before Bush Derangement Syndrome, even the MSM was able to get the story straight.

Curt at Flopping Aces points to a recent NYT editorial that again perpetuates the fantasy, and responds with an overwhelming inventory of the evidence that proves the history between Saddam and bin Laden. Here's but one example of the resulting treasure trove, courtesy of Andrew C. McCarthy:

What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

• Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?
• Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?
• Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?
• The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
• Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?
• Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?
• Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?
• Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?
• Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?
• The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?
• Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)
• Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?
• Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?
• Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
• We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.
• Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
• Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
• We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
  Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

Grab a cup of hot black coffee or a glass of your favorite beverage and read on.

Power Line's Scott Johnson pays tribute to America's greatest President in "Remembering Mr. Lincoln".

UPDATED
Soon-to-be ex-Presidential candidate John Edwards has done what most adults only wish they could do- he's made a couple of the left's stock-in-trade angry bigots disappear from the face of the Earth.

LGF's Charles Johnson has the facts of the story, while Michelle Malkin captures the essence (hilarity warning).

How did Edwards pull off this modern miracle? Simple: he hired them for his campaign; once their true natures were bared to the adult world, they had no choice but to run for the hills after tossing their rantings (of which they were so proud mere days ago) down the memory-hole.

UPDATE Feb. 11/07
Edwards is keeping his blogharpies on the campaign, declaring to all who have read their angry bigotry that they would never hurt a flea. Well. I like that news very much, because exploding idiot-circuses are fun.

The MSM is trashing the surge in Iraq, and Democrats and weak Republicans alike are looking for a way to cut and run from President Bush. Meanwhile, the troops are voicing their support for the Commander-In-Chief and their commitment to their mission in Iraq.

The WaPo's William Arkin wants the troops to shut up.

Barkin' Arkin has written a putrid screed that perfectly embodies the idiocy the antiwar left refers to as "thinking":

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

* As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem to be those who are wearing the uniform.

This puke apparently knows how offensive his bullshit is to everyone who isn't as insane as he is with hatred for his country; he has pulled his remarks from the front page of his blog, which I'm not even going to link to.

The best responses to this pathetic garbage come from the military, who know firsthand what this asshole will never know. USAF officer John at OPFOR:

And with that piece, every frustration that I've felt over America's new fifith column, every insult that smug anti-war pundits have hurled at the silent stoics in our armed forces, all the false pity, all the overused meaningless cliches ("we support the troops but not the war") that we in the military have endured, every bit of anger that I've suppressed in the name of good manners and honorable debate, reaches a fist-clenching apex...

...If there is a war that's unwinnable, it's the war on this type of horrid ignorance. The type of uninformed, intellectually lazy thinking that can only exist in the sheltered bubble of cocktail parties and classrooms. Arkin is a gazer. A man forever condemned to peering out the window into the real world, watching the exertions of men better than himself. And yet he fancies himself the educated one. Any logical human being would trade [a] career in journalism for the expertise gained by serving a mere one month in the box, yet this slime fancies his opinion so informed, so expert, so utterly irrefutable that even the very soldiers who are fighting this war are shamefully ignorant for daring to challenge his infallibility.

A remarkably accurate description of the typical leftist idiot.

More reax:
Uncle Jimbo at Black Five: Fuck you, Billy.

Fuzzy Bear:

Mr. Arkin is among those who don't like the volunteer army because it's immune to leftist attempts to co-opt it for the anti-war effort. Yes, if there were a draft the military could then be filled with soldiers who by philosophy, constitution or character/personality were unsuited to it and the anti-war types could use the military itself for their propaganda.

John Hinderaker at Powerline:

The Peril of Newspaper Blogs is that a reporter might say what he actually thinks before an editor catches up with him and makes him stop.

Dan Riehl: "It's official. The press has gone to war."

It's a testament to Riehl's restraint that he only now voices that conclusion.