Sadly, No!

Paul Wolfowitz may have lost his job and his special lady friend, but sources say his heartache is soothed by the knowledge that his last act at the World Bank was done in serving his first, best and truest love: Fucked Up Iraq.

WASHINGTON – The World Bank has appointed a new country manager for Iraq despite security and corruption concerns, according to a leaked document. The news emerged just days after outgoing World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz promised not make any major new appointments at the institution.

[…]

The new appointment, which had not been formally announced by the bank at this writing, appears to confirm what many analysts have long suspected about Wolfowitz’ relentless attempts to move the bank back into Iraq – and to boost US policy there – despite internal opposition and the continuing high security risk.

Although he has served for the past two years as president of the bank, Wolfowitz is best known in many circles for his role as a primary architect of the US invasion of the Arab country and as a staunch neo-conservative ideologue promoting US military interventionist policies, especially in the Middle East.

In February, IPS reported that Wolfowitz had been secretly negotiating a contract with a new resident director in Iraq, despite some objections from staff and the board of directors.

[…]

Although Wolfowitz announced his resignation last Friday, the new development indicates that he is still attempting to steer the course of the institution.

[…]

“The timing of this appointment is surprising. Although Paul Wolfowitz did not explicitly say he would ‘recuse’ himself from ongoing personnel decisions at this level, he strongly implied that he would do so,” GAP said in a statement.

Wolfowitz’s on-again, off-again relationship with Fucked Up Iraq has been torrid and explosive. At the time of their first split, Wolfowitz was alleged to have commited domestic battery; he was served a restraining order, but pleaded emotional distress at the loss of the couple’s first puppet, Ahmed Chalabi, who was stillborn.

Read the rest of this entry »

Think for a moment, if you will, of the freeing of the slaves, of the great and costly liberation of millions of savagely oppressed people from cruel bondage. Whose face leaps to mind when you think of this noble deed? Is it the graceful brow of Abraham Lincoln, weighed down with the terrible knowledge of what he had to do to keep the Union alive? Is it the stern, hard-set glare of John Brown, who thought the freedom of all men important enough to kill for — or to die for? Of course not! It is the not in any way equine visage of America’s greatest abolitionist, Ann Coulter!

Above: Due to an internal server error, this is a picture of Eternian
strongman Skeletor and not Ann Coulter. No confusion between
the two or comparison of one to the other is implied or should be
inferred.

There is no end to Ann’s good deeds, it seems, as she writes an exciting new think-piece about how she intends to help save the Mexicans from heinous exploitation at the hands of a sneering Simon Legree class of exploitaitive liberal masters, the same way she saved the coloreds lo! those many years ago.

Read the rest of this entry »

Uh.

Woo.

Holy shit.

Anyone see Lost tonight?

So exclaims surgically-enhanced Atlas Juggs:

Holy shia! Breastfeeding Muslim Men

From the you can’t make this shia up department. The money quote on this Islamic nightmare, “if a man [is] nursed from a co-worker, it would establish a family bond between them and allow the two to work side-by-side without raising suspicion of an illicit sexual relation.”

OK let me get this straight, sucking a woman’s breast eliminates suspicion of a sexual relation? I am confused. But thrilled I am not a muslim woman. There is a G-d.

Above: The sons of Ishmael are likewise relieved.

The inspiration for Harpy’s latest hategasm is this JPost story about an Egyptian cleric who issued the pro-breastfeeding fatwa and was reprimanded for it. See, when they are sexually restrictive, they are subhuman, and when a few of them loosen up, even in a subconscious way, well then to Pammy they are …still subhuman. Whatever they do, her preferred solution is final:

Gotta crush this plague on humanity.

Read the rest of this entry »

How stupid- how deeply, deeply stupid- does this administration think we are?

President Bush, trying to defend his war strategy, declassified intelligence Tuesday asserting that Osama bin Laden ordered a top lieutenant in early 2005 to form a terrorist cell that would conduct attacks outside Iraq — and that the United States should be the top target.

The information mirrored a classified bulletin from the Homeland Security Department in March 2005, reporting that bin Laden had enlisted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, his senior operative in Iraq, to plan potential strikes in the U.S.

So wait. Bush is saying that we’re justified in occupying Iraq forever because bin Laden sent a singin’ terror telegram to al-Zarqawi there ordering him to attack the United States? Does this mean we’re justified in invading every country where bin Laden is sending orders to his lackeys to attack us? Wouldn’t it be better to, oh, I don’t know, find bin Laden?

But wait! She gets so, so much better:

The warning was described at the time as credible but not specific and did not prompt the administration to raise its national terror alert level.

Wow! So we’re justified invading and occupying other countries for four years simply based on vague and unactionable threats! Jeepers! I’d hate to see what’d happen if bin Laden stopped at an Iranian gas station to take a shit!

Apparently, some possibly Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist dude in Europe who uses the possibly fake name of Abu Hafs Al-Tikriti is under suspicion of being a close relative of Saddam Hussein’s, because Tikrit was Saddam’s home city, and. . .well, there you go.

Saddam Relative Running al-Qaeda in Europe?

On the other hand, ‘under suspicion’ means that ol’ Mark Noonan found something in a fringe anti-Saddam site run by this guy:

Above: Typological depiction of Freeper Mark Eichenlaub

The story goes on to note that there’s no way to tell for certain that this is a close relative of Saddam’s, or that this person is just making up a name to hide his true identity; but it would be odd to take the name “Al-Tikrit” if he wasn’t at the very least from Saddam’s hometown of Tikrit, Iraq. It should also be kept in mind that back in 1998 the US Government noted al-Qaeda’s Atef was involved with Saddam’s regime.

Oh yes, I thought that factoid sounded familiar. That would be some of that oft-mentioned ‘bad intelligence’ by which the CIA misled President Bush into invading Iraq, or whatever the story is now. But let the naysayers sneer! As with the WMDs that were (cough) stashed in Syria, someday America will know the truth about Saddam and 9/11.

…Unless we invade Iran, in which case, you know, Musharraf.

When we get into the dark world of terrorism, we can’t take anything as a for-certain other than the fact that they hate us and wish us dead. To claim, as some on the left do, that certain persons and groups will never work with other persons and groups due to idelological/theological differences is a downright stupid way to view the problem of terrorism. These people are evil and what they want to do is evil – when you’re like that, you’re not too finicky about who you work with, at least in the short term.

I can say categorically that Noonan would never work with me. But maybe he’s just not that evil.

In a related matter, Jeff Baker of the Colorado Rockies (born 1981 in Bad Kissingen, Germany) is possibly a close relative of Henry Kissinger’s, thus indicating a close operating relationship between Christianity and criminal extradition.

The Howler (again) points us to this astonishing exchange about Bill and Hillary Clinton, with Chris Matthews leading the charge:

ROMANO (5/21/07): I think they’re extremely close. They’re of one mind. And I, I—

MATTHEWS: I’m not asking about that. Are they living on the same planet? Do they ever see each other physically?

ROMANO: They’re completely—oh, yes, yes, yes.

MATTHEWS: Where?

ROMANO: Come on! They`re a partnership! Because—look, she’s a senator. She goes home on weekends. He’s traveling around. But they are—they are—make no mistake about it, they are a partnership, and they are a love story. I mean, regardless of anything else that’s happened—

MATTHEWS: Well, how many is it? Is it 20 days a year? How many days of the year are they actually together in the same roof overnight, if you will? […]

ROMANO: Because—what is your obsession with logistics here? Of course he’s going to live in the White House! And—

MATTHEWS: Because I’m talking to three reporters, and I’m trying to get three straight answers, so I don’t want attitude about this. It’s a point of view—I want facts. Tell me what the facts are, Lois, if you know them. If you don’t, I don`t know what you’re arguing about.

Dear MSNBC: please, please, please, please fire Chris Matthews. If you really must employ somebody who has creepy obsessions with other peoples’ sex lives, I’d recommend Ace of Spades.

Bomb Plot Thwarted at Falwell’s Funeral
Student Arrested With Homemade Bombs, Three Other Suspects Sought

Even in death, the Rev. Jerry Falwell rouses the most volatile of emotions.

Authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car.

The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service.

The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News’ Pierre Thomas. They were “slow burn,” according to the official, and would not have been very destructive.

“There were indications that there were others involved in the manufacturing of these devices and we are still investigating these individuals with the assistance of ATF, Virginia State Police and FBI. At this time it is not believed that these devices were going to be used to interrupt the funeral services at Liberty University,” the Campbell County Sheriff’s Office said in a release.

Three other suspects are being sought, one of whom is a soldier from Fort Benning, Ga., and another is a high school student. No information was available on the third suspect.

The victims would most likely have been Fred Phelps’s crew, who were planning to disrupt the funeral (.pdf) with their famous God-hates-X iconography, accusing Falwell of being soft on fags and thus writhing in Hell, or some variation of that basic line.

Above: Westboro Baptist Church crew with regalia

Honestly, in contemplating Fred Phelps getting blown up by a right-wing terrorist while waving anti-gay placards at Jerry Falwell’s funeral, ‘a tragedy averted’ is not the phrase that comes most readily to mind.

On the plus side, not even Debbie Schlussel is likely to shriek, this time, that the alleged bomber is a stealth-Muslim exhibiting ‘sudden jihadi syndrome.’

Then again, she’s surprised us before.

Update: Read the rest of this entry »

I’ll take ‘steaming legal turds’ for $200, Alex.

Oh cool, it’s the Daily Double.

No Man Can Be A Judge In His Own Case

It is a fundamental legal maxim — recognized in Federalist No. 10, for example[*] — that no man can be a judge in his own case. This seems to me the precept that Jimmy Carter most flagrantly violated in his condemnation of George Bush as the worst president in history.

James Taranto correctly notes the inversion that Reuters inserts into its account of the White House response to Carter. Reuters absurdly asserts: “Sunday’s sharp response marks a departure from the deference that sitting presidents traditionally have shown their predecessors.” In truth, Carter’s conduct violates the discretion that ex-presidents have generally observed regarding their successors in office.

Among observers commenting on the Judgment of Jimmy are Christopher Hitchens, Gabriel Schoenfeld, Paul Beston, and Roger Kimball. Joshua Muravchik’s February 2007 Commentary essay — “Our worst ex-president” — is also on point, as is Steve Hayward’s more comprehensive The Real Jimmy Carter.

When it comes to pronouncing America’s worst president, the venerable legal maxim disqualifies Jimmy Carter from sitting in judgment.

Posted by Scott at 09:08 PM

Except it isn’t a legal case, and if it were, Jimmy Carter isn’t acting as a judge. Also, if it were a legal case and he were acting as a judge, he isn’t on trial. Furthermore, it looks like somebody’s been hitting this a little harder than usual:

Above: “Federalist Nosegay”

Scott Johnson, a graduate of Dartmouth college and the University of Minnesota Law School, is a senior bank vice president and a fellow of the Claremont Institute. He is the Larry among the three stooges blogging at Powerline, Time Magazine’s 2004 Blog of the Year.

* The passage in Federalist 10 actually reads, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause.” The sense is that in a democratic system, powerful factions should not have free reign to legislate toward their own interests — i.e., that America is to be a nation of laws, not men. As an additional irony in Johnson’s analysis, the fact that no founding document specifically says something like, “By the way, the whole laws-not-men thing specifically includes George W. Bush, should anybody with that name ever become President,” has led to all sorts of fun wordplay and pretzel-twisting by right-wing-authoritarian legal outfits such as the Federalist Society, the tenor of which is that George W. Bush inherently possesses the powers of a king (i.e., is the sole judge in his own cause). [Hanx! J–]

Update: Part of the magic of Powerline is that they’re rarely wrong in just the normal, oops-I-wasn’t-thinking way. The wrongness usually goes all the way around the block, through the woods, and down a familiar rabbit hole or another.

We stand reminded (hanx, Steve!) of the rich and sumptuous history of recent Republican presidents criticizing Bill Clinton, including a stupendously brazen op-ed by Ronald Reagan — or rather, written and published under his name. The occasion is explained as follows:

I had every intention of holding back any comments on the new Administration until it was well in place and its policies became clear. Unfortunately, the policies are already becoming alarmingly clear. With campaign promises dropping like autumn leaves, I can’t refrain any longer.

The op-ed appeared less than a month after Clinton took office.

Thus contextualized, Johnson’s essai reduces to a single proposition, which might be expressed as follows:

Jimmy Carter said something I don’t like. I say poopy on him.

Fred Thompson is starting to remind me of an LL Cool J song, because he’s something like a phenomenon:

Having watched the second Republican debate the other night, it’s clear to me the subject today is Fred Thompson, the man who wasn’t there. While the other candidates bang away earnestly in a frozen format, Thompson continues to sneak up from the creek and steal their underwear — boxers, briefs and temple garments.

Setting aside Noonan’s bewildering metaphor (sneaking up from the creek to steal underwear???), she’s actually onto something, in her inimitable, nightgown-and-highball syntax. Without spending a dime, Thompson has built up a base of support and established his brand as the sort of feller who keeps a pack of cigarettes and a Kenny Rogers cassette in his glove box. He’s managed to carve out a place in the conservative imagination similar to the one Mariano Rivera has occupied for the last decade in Yankees fans’: “No matter what happens in the first eight innings, we’ve got a chance as long as he’s waiting in the bullpen,” they assure themselves.

I’ve read nearly all of his columns published over the last month, trying to determine whether Thompson’s anything more than a guy with a deep voice who talks on the teevee, but that misses the point. The man’s an actor — which is actually a huge plus to an audience which claims to despise Hollywood and its values, but with the ache of the obsessed: “Why don’t you love me back?”

To his eager-to-be-pleased audience, the grizzled character actor’s playing the role of Dad — except you guys totally get along now and you didn’t even have to work through all the guilt and disappointment and untaken fishing trips that drove you apart in the first place. He just pulls up in his Toronado (without his new wife this time), eases into a chair on the front porch, swirls his Scotch-and-soda around a couple times, and unspools a yarn about current events, interrupted only occasionally by a polite but phlegmy cough or a wry, raised-eyebrow glance to underline some point about the rank foolishness of liberals and foreigners:

Now, I have no expectation that [Michael] Moore is going to tell the truth about Cuba or health care. I defend his right to do what he does, but Moore’s talent for clever falsehoods has been too well documented. Simply calling his movies documentaries rather than works of fiction, I think, may be the biggest fiction of all.

But it’s not all Old Spice and Pall Malls; Fred Thompson knows something that the other authoritarian candidates — your Rudy Giulianis and your John McCains — don’t.

Read the rest of this entry »