Sadly, No!

The more brainiac visitors may want to read Dr. Seb No!‘s seminal work on the pathology of the Chewbacca Defense, outlined here. Meatball-eyed hoops fans anxious not to waste the break between Arizona-Seton Hall quarters will probably want to forge ahead and get back to their March Madness.

The neo-con plan to militarily give the Middle East an extreme makeover, starting with Iraq, squandered a valuable post-9/11 window to work with moderate Arabs and Muslims in the region. Instead, BushCo buffooned forward from one ill-planned disaster to the next, flaunting some pretty outrageous double-standards about democracy along the way.

Naturally, the so-called Arab Street’s hostility towards the US is at an all-time high, as revealed in a new Pew Research poll. These findings will join data to be archived at the massive No Shit Sherlock Library to be built across from the outhouse-sized GW Bush Presidential Library housing WMD intelligence the President actually read.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo discusses crooked liar Richard Perle’s half-assed dismissal of the findings. Appearing on Hardbawl, Perle went to the Wookie Playbook and ran the basic Chewbacca Defense to explain:

MATTHEWS: But you said last year, [that after] 2001, right after 9/11, that if we go in, the idea that it is going to damage us in the Arab world is nonsense. You think that our going into Iraq has not stimulated a higher level of hostility to us that would support this kind of horrible attitude toward our deaths?

PERLE: Because the Arab world was on Saddam’s side? What is the logic of that? That they object to the fact that we’ve liberated 25 million Iraqis?

They couldn’t possibly be angry. Probably a few caught an awful falafel or something, as an illegal invasion and occupation of an Arab country with no WMDs couldn’t possibly bother anyone.

In a related forehead-smacker, crooked liar Paully Wolf’nutz revealed on PBS Newshour that WMDs weren’t the reason for going to war at all! Honestly, wherever did people get that idea? (Jim Lehrer’s expression was priceless.)

See, the war was actually over technical interpretations of UN Resolution 1441 (which apparently eluded the Security Council and most of the UN, which explains why they preferred head-scratching over going to war about it.) If Hans Blix is bitching it’s because he couldn’t find the WMDs that are sincerely there. Wolfie revealed the Dr. Germ playing card up his sleeve: once that baby started squealing, then we’d see some WMD finding, you bet.

We know the damn things are there because it’s what people always knew before French-roast demitasse-swilling elitists tried to use fancy “facts” and the “Cartesian” investigatory approach to smear the First Gut’s flawless intuition at sensing international threats to down home security.

Should anyone attack Mr. Perle’s logic, the GOP is prepared to release damning antique comical etchings of a French John Kerry ancestor cavorting with a certain Frenchman known as Ren? Descartes, the father of Cartesian method. (I knew you’d be shocked.)

For those keeping score, French-descended Richard Perle joins musketeers Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney and Marc Racicot in the mounting pile of ignored French-descended Francophobes in the GOP. Perle is the French word for a piece of oyster-crap that bored, bottom-feeding marine life cover with a hard, light-deflecting nacreous substance and later paraded in public by rich people hoping to divert attention from their shortcomings. There’s post about media in there somewhere but the teams are back and squeaking up the floor.

Michael Corleone: My father is no different than any powerful
man, any man with power, like a president or senator.

Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don’t have men killed.

Michael Corleone: Who’s being naive, Kay?

Are they capable of knowing (who did it) and not telling us just to win elections? asked the widow of a man killed in the Madrid bombings. Sadly, Yes! Within hours of the attack, the incumbent right wing Spanish government did a little fearmongering about Basque separatists before grudgingly revealing — at the eleventh hour — that Muslim extremist groups might be responsible. (90% of Spain’s population protested JM Aznar’s support of Bush’s excellent Iraq adventure, in part because it would draw foreign terrorists to Spain.)

But Spaniards can at least be grateful for a varied and aggressive press asking the same question even amid the understandable shock of covering the tragedy. Do we have the same benefit of a tenacious Fourth Estate watchdogging our right to an accountable government? Sadly, No!

In order to hoodwink Congress and the public into believing his personal crusade to disarm Iraq of dozens of weapons of mass destruction program related activities — later further downgraded to thoughts of — was vital to the War on Terra and Stuff, Bush claimed that catching Osama wasn’t important. After all, he’s just one guy! The media went along with the new Rove product (not bothering to ask whether Saddam wasn’t just one guy too.)

The Fourth Estate continues to play its comfy self-imposed role as a subsidiary of BushCo’s official public relations department by largely allowing the administration to use the Madrid tragedy for the Spring PR offensive announced last year: the return of the George and Osama show, retooled during a long hiatus. Forget Iraq’s WMDs, really … please. The real real action is back, and better than ever, like The Sopranos coming back after a long hiatus with the enthralling old Uncle June storylines waking up from coma.

While the Bush brigade repeat thoroughly repudiated Saddam/Osama/Terra policies to bobbleheaded TV pundits, Hans Blix has been reiterating what he and most of the world knew before the Iraq invasion:

“It [the invasion] was a reaction to 9/11 that we have [sic] to strike some theoretical, hypothetical links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists. That was wrong. There wasn’t anything.” … And he disagreed that the war had made the world a safer place. …

“The moral of this story was clearly a loss of credibility for the leaders of this war and that they didn’t think the council mattered, that was a mistake,” Blix said.

… In a meeting with Mr. Cheney in October 2002, Blix said he was told the United States ‘was ready to discredit inspections in favor of disarmament,’ unless Blix’s teams were able to find weapons the White House insisted were in Iraq. …

He blamed an over-reliance on defectors and a refusal on the part of the White House to consider the possibility that the intelligence was wrong.

Is it surprising that the media is again letting Bush twist Madrid, Osama and WMDs into his campaign needs of the moment, like a sitcom husband juggling all his poker-night excuses to get past the ball-and-chain’s nosy relatives? Sadly, No!

The new Spring offensive is getting exactly the treatment given the phony crusade in Iraq, illustrated in new study called Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction (pdf format) by Susan Moeler, covered in this wire story:

Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration’s perspectives on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats and policy options.

The other three main conclusions of the study conducted by the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and the University of Maryland:

• too few stories offered alternative perspectives to the official line on WMD surrounding the Iraq conflict
• most journalists accepted the Bush administration linking the war on terror inextricably to the issue of WMD; and
• most media outlets represented WMD as a monolithic menace without distinguishing between types of weapons and between possible weapons programs and the existence of actual weapons.

The American political system is in the early stages of contending with an unwelcome but ultimately unavoidable problem. The United States initiated war against Iraq on the basis of an inaccurate representation of the scope and immediacy of the threat posed, and it did so without international authority. That has prejudiced the legitimacy of the occupation, thereby undermining the single most important ingredient of successful reconstruction. … the American media did not play the role of checking and balancing the exercise of power that the standard theory of democracy requires.

The complete study, also available in summary form, is available at the CISSM web site.

So for now, forget truly alarming security issues like whether the Bush administration put a nation at longterm risk by ignoring CIA intelligence and worldwide allies for pet corporate and ideological campaigns. The media (and at some point, the public) will be fed any relevant news in press releases next year from the Preznit’s hand-picked independent WMD commission stacked with rabidly partisan GOP crotch-sniffers from the Clinton inquisitions. (The inclusion of John McCain as the token maverick on the Bush-friendly commission doesn’t inspire confidence, but his request for subpoena powers does make me hope I’m wrong in this respect.)

There’s not even perfunctory bleating about the commission’s lax schedule, based on Bush’s “concern” that a $200 billion war over non-existent WMDs might be “politicized” during his campaign — code for why won’t the other guys just shaddap and go away already? (BushCo gets the pass owing to a new rule in democracies that an administration doesn’t have to account for their wars during the last 25% of its term if the campaign theme is how great the Preznit is at war. Plus, the other guy is practically a war fag who also made Tom DeLay cry by calling the crooked liars, um, crooked liars.)

Too bad the big girls’ blouses asking us to trust them with national security are ignoring the pleas of BushCo’s own hand-picked WMD sniffer David Kay. In a stunning turnaround, he departed from earlier statements that he personally didn’t believe the Preznit lied and asked the Misleader to “come clean about WMDs.” This is pretty remarkable, considering Kay was the go-to guy for smearing the UN inspectors (and later the CIA) as naive for disagreeing with the Presidential Gut and believing Saddam’s claims that Iraq had no WMDs.

Mr Kay … called for the president to go further. “It’s about confronting and coming clean with the American people. He should say we were mistaken and I am determined to find out why,” he said. A White House official said it was “too early to draw conclusions” …

Now who’s being naive, Kay?

In Iraq, Dick Cheney’s Halliburton and other big Bush campaign donors:

• charged taxpayers for nearly three times the meals actually served
• served troops rotten vegetables and decaying meat, prepared in filthy kitchens
• cheated two countries’ citizens by euphemizing as “rebuilt” ramshackle schools and other facilities that received a half-assed coat of paint, if that
• failed to properly maintain and equip transportation, resulting in troops driving in unsafe vehicles with balding tires and other hazards
• gouged taxpayers for bringing oil to Iraq. Iraq.
• (Iraqi exiles) jobbed contracts to incompetent or unqualified relatives and pals, who didn’t complete the work.
• grossly padded every aspect of already-generous sweetheart no-bid deals.

Martha Stewart:

• greedily went for a stock tip involving a small sum.
• provides durable, cheery, affordable housewares and linens, easily coordinated by a wide diversity of lifestyles.

It could be Martha’s community service for being a first-time menace to society. Cheney and the other professional scumbags should be sent to a facility maintained and catered by their own corporations.

Will the Bush administration take this sound fiscal advice? Sadly, No!

As a special feature for Sadly, No! readers who might not get spam from NewsMax, I will share mine with you.

Today’s is titled:

Sean Hannity’s Crusade — Join It!

Yes, Sean is leading a crusade! And much like the Children’s Crusade of 1212, the Idiot’s Crusade will end in disaster and slavery.

But let’s open the email and see what it says:

NewsMax Magazine’s latest edition ? “Hannity’s Crusade” ? is just out and hitting homes and newsstands across the nation.

NewsMax once again scoops the rest of the media with an exclusive interview and profile with Sean Hannity written by Carl Limbacher Jr.

I’m sure it’s a lovely interview, chock o’ block with quotes from Sean about why we should buy his book, but I think we already know Sean well enough that we can predict what it contains without even buying the mag. Let’s see, won’t we?

In NewsMax’s “Hannity’s Crusade” you’ll find out:

Why Hannity decided to take off his gloves and equate liberalism with terrorism and despotism ? an act that shocked the media establishment.

Because the wingnuts would love it, and he’d sell more copies of his book; and everybody else would find it appalling, and the controversy would sell more copies of his book. So, in conclusion, he did it to sell copies of his book.

How some major politicos are already comparing Hannity to Ronald Reagan.

They’re saying, “That Sean Hannity guy is a bigger dummy than even Ronald Reagan

Why Hannity stands by Bush and even likens him to Winston Churchill.

See above.

What he says America’s appeasement activists have in common with Hitler and Stalin.

A love of musical theater.

Hannity’s real feelings about John Kerry, Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Michael Moore.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that he doesn’t much care for them.

Why the top-rated star decided to place the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton administration.

Because Clinton is responsible for everything bad that’s happened in America for the past 50 years. Damn him and his penis of evil!!!

And how a grossly underreported scandal in the Senate prompted him to write his new best seller.

Everybody knows this one: somebody from the Republican side of SSCI stole a memo written by a Democratic staffer which proposed making political use of information demonstrating that the White House had misused intelligence to justify invading Iraq–you know, if it so happened that such information was obtained. This memo was leaked to Sean, who already had a book in the works, and who managed to mention this memo and how it proved that the Democrats were JEOPARADIZING NATIONAL SECURITY at every chance he got, in order to further his self-aggrandizing agenda.

So, the Sean Hannity Crusade. I feel stupider already.

But wait, there’s more!

As always, NewsMax Magazine has scores of additional articles, including

Dick Morris explains why John Kerry will likely pick Hillary as his VP running mate.

Because believing that Hillary will somehow be a participant in the 2003 Presidential race is Dick’s only reason for living.

An exclusive interview with CNBC star Dennis Miller on why he threw off the shackles of Hollywood’s liberalism to go conservative.

Because he realized that if he started playing to the conservative crowd, not being funny would no longer be a handicap.

New details of George Soros’ plot to topple President Bush ? and the amazing amount of money he plans to spend to destroy the president.

He plot is basically to donate money to liberal political groups, the fiend! He has contributed $15 million already, and has said that since Bush has over $150 million in his war chest, he may give another million or so to try and balance things out. Stop him before he donates again!

What you don’t know about John Kerry.

He’s the one who ate all the Frusen Gladje! He sometimes fails to floss. He hates cuddling by the fireplace, and long walks in the rain. He’s the one-armed man who killed Richard Kimble’s wife!

The CIA’s latest fiasco.

A plot to replace Castro’s shampoo with Nair goes horribly awry.

Sen. Zell Miller’s shocking remarks about his fellow Democrats.

“They don’t believe in the same things I do. They’re, like, LIBERAL or something. I blame Bill Clinton.”

Armstrong Williams’ interview with Lynne Cheney.

Armstrong: Lynne, don’t you think those homosexuals are disgusting!

Lynne: Armstrong, my daughter Mary is a lesbian.

Armstrong: Do you think she could set me up with a strapping gay man? You know, just for research?

Lynne: This interview is over!

A Bush Cabinet member’s dire warning about the U.N.

“It’s evil, I tells ya, EEEEEVILLLL!”

Warning: Sen. Hillary Clinton is winning over her GOP colleagues.

Yes, despite themselves, they find her likable and charming.

How the Patriot Act targets investors in gold.

By putting them on a list of “People’s Houses To Rob, Once We’ve Repealed The Second Amendment and Can Loot and Pillage Like We’ve Always Planned.”

How the NRA plans to sidestep the censorship of campaign finance “reform.”

By shooting everyone who tries to censor them.

The new news network seeking to become the next Fox News Channel.

The Weasel News Channel. Headed by Karl Rove, and with on-air talent to include Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Mark Steyn, and Mickey Kaus. And Jonah Goldberg with the weather.

ABC’s John Stossel exposes the media’s hostility toward conservatives.

“The media is hostile toward conservatives. Take the way they treat me, for instance. Nobody invites me to their birthday parties. They always choose me last when we’re picking volleyball teams. And they say I lack journalistic integrity just because I shave the truth, fudge the facts, and make stuff up. I hate them SO MUCH!”

And there’s much more.

Much, much more. So much more it will make your head hurt to just read the table of contents. So, play it safe and, when you’re at the newsstand, just pick up a copy of Playboy instead. Thank you.

Sadly, No!’s favorite objectivist, Amber Pawlik, is here to reveal the two most destructive subjects taught in the public schools:

If I had to name the two most destructive subjects taught in public schools today, I would name: evolution and sex education.

And I would have named P.E. and band. It all goes to show you how opinions can differ.

I am opposed to teaching evolution in public schools. I say this not as a religious person but as a completely secular atheist. I certainly don?t believe in creationism, I lean towards evolution, but I have to admit: much of the scientific ?evidence? surrounding evolution has been wholly made up.

Well, I can sure see why she’d tend to believe in it, then. You know, I have to admit that much of the scientific “evidence” for the sun revolving around the Earth was wholly made up, but I still tend to believe that’s the way things work, because I’m sick and tired of science pushing me around.

But I wonder what Amber wants the schools to say about the origins of life, if both creationism and evolution are ruled out? Something to do with Ayn Rand, I bet.

The question that has to be asked: what benefit does the study of evolution have for man? Chemistry, biology, physics, etc., have clear benefits to man. But I propose evolution does not, and in fact does more harm than good.

The study of evolution projects the image of man as being an animalistic beast ? driven by nothing but instinct. This cuts right into and denies the need for the moral development of men. To evolutionists ? most of whom regard evolution as more of a religion, i.e. something meant to guide man, than a science ? the evolutionary process selects those traits that are best suited for survival naturally, by various means, therefore whatever species that is produced is naturally perfect. Therefore, there is no need to develop any kind of moral character in man.

Wow, it sounds like Amber went to public school back in the 1920’s (possibly at “Inherit the Wind” High). I wonder why she’s so worked up about evolution?

I have heard some people say they believe that our morals are developed based on evolution ? that through evolution, we developed some kind of knowledge that murder is wrong. If this is true, why should we bother teaching that murder is wrong? More dominant though, are men who use evolution as an excuse for not picking women of moral character, instead rationalizing that, by nature, evolution forces them pick only women of youth and attractiveness.

Oh, THAT’s why it’s a big deal to her — because her blind date told her that he wouldn’t be calling her again, because evolution required him to choose a younger, more attractive woman to take to the Linkin Park concert.

Now, let’s hear Amber’s gripes about sex ed:

The second most destructive subject taught today is sex education. Children who are put through the public school?s sex education program have a tendency to come out with a completely de-mystified and mechanical view of sex. They usually regard their right to attain immediate pleasure as paramount, and feel it is an almost duty that they be having sexual relationships at young ages. The practical result can be seen in the modern day ?hook up? scene on college campuses.

Yes, public school sex ed classes are to blame for the fact that men aren’t calling Amber, because it de-mystified sex for them, and so they just want to hook up with some slutty hottie instead of seeking out a quality woman like her.

So, what is the solution to the grave damage caused to young women like Amber, who can’t get dates because the public schools spend all their time teaching evolution and sex education?

First, let me give what the best, and ultimately, only effective solution is: to completely privatize the public schools.

THAT will teach them the perils of teaching men not to date Amber!

But Amber admits that under the free market, this might not work, since the terroristic teachers union would probably shut down any competition, probably via molotov cocktails.

But here is what you can do: home school your children.There is a home schooling revolution in this country. And the leftists know it. And it drives them nuts.

And that’s why you should quit your job and spend all day homeschooling your children: just to bug the leftists.

The reason people choose to home school their children are much as I listed above. They don?t want to send their children to the anarchy known as public schools, where justice, truth, and intellect are slandered daily. The person who home schools their children doesn?t believe that education is about the ?social,? obviously, but rather to develop the mind and various skills. The idea that the purpose of a school is to develop the ?social skills? of a student is absurd. Social skills are the easy part. I am not sure why they think that dating or socializing are Herculean efforts to overcome. They are not. Dating and socializing are leisure and should be simple and fun. Industriousness, reason, discipline: these are the hard parts, and should be prodded of students. And it is almost laughable to think that the students coming from public high schools have even an ounce of ?social skill? competence.

As demonstrated by the fact that they aren’t dating Amber.

Anyway, there’s a lot more, but it concludes with:

I wouldn?t let my child near the moral relativist, irrational, feminist, liberal public schools as they exist today. And, I know, because it wasn?t too terribly long ago that I was in the public school system. The home school revolution brings a huge sigh of relief to the irrational world of education, as it exists today. It is one step closer to providing children with what the precious little dears deserve: a rational education.

Of course, Amber has no children. But if she did, boy would the little dears be rational, believe you me!

From the LA Times:

WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration and its supporters Monday continued to pressure Sen. John F. Kerry to identify the foreign leaders he claims want him to defeat President Bush this November, adding that if he doesn’t name names, his claim must be untrue.

I think we can see what is happening here if we recall the well-known psychological principal of “Liars believe that everyone else is lying, because that is what they would do in similar circumstances.” But I imagine that BushCo does suspect that there may be foreign leaders who want Kerry to win, and if they can get Kerry to name them, the White House will make sure that the preznit no give turkey to Canada, Germany, Japan, and whatever other traitorous countries said that they liked Kerry More than Georgie.

And from the Washington Post:

But it was the continuing flap over what Kerry said at a Florida fundraiser last week regarding the desire of some foreign leaders to see Bush replaced that continued to reverberate yesterday. White House press secretary Scott McClellan called on Kerry to explain his remarks. “If he’s going to make those comments, he ought to back them up,” McClellan said. “If he refuses to, one can only come to the conclusion that he’s simply making up these assertions to attack the president.”

Um, isn’t this guy paid by the taxpayers to work as a White House spokesman, not a Bush-Cheney 2004 spokesman? And so wouldn’t this kind of thing fall outside his official duties?

Vice President Cheney, at a fundraiser in Phoenix, noted that Kerry had told a questioner on Sunday that it was “none of your business” when asked to name foreign leaders supporting his candidacy. “At the very least,” Cheney said, “we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy.”

Has Kerry been acting all sane and reasonable with them? If so, it’s not fair, because it makes Kerry look better to them than Bush!

Or is Cheney worried that Kerry is going around promising foreign leaders that they can have their choice of Guam, American Samoa, Puero Rico, or Alabama, AND a Tivo machine, if they will support him?

Richard C. Holbrooke, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration, came to Kerry’s defense last night. “The Republicans are just having fun with this,” he said. “They know it’s correct. . . . The overwhelming majority of foreign leaders and leadership want a change in American leadership.”

No duh! I mean, why should foreign leaders be any different than anybody else when it comes to wanting a change in American leadership? And Bush isn’t even promising them tax cuts, so why in heaven’s name would they want him to win in November?

So, I declare this whole “Kerry must tell us which countries said like him better than they like us, or it proves he’s lying” fluffernutter to be bogus, and demand that I never have to hear about it again.

UPDATE: One of those foreign leaders may be God. Per WorldNetDaily, God’s prophet, Mel Gibson, told Sean Hannity that “he has ‘doubts’ about President Bush and his re-election.” And you know that if Mel is saying it, then God is thinking it.

“I am having doubts, of late,” Gibson said, according to the report. “It mainly has to do with the weapons [of mass destruction] claims.”

The hour-long interview is scheduled to run today on Sean’s radio program. Expect Scott McClellan to say that unless Mel can prove that there are no WMDs, then Mel is lying about having doubts.

I heard from Sadly, No!’s founder, CEO, and messiah today. He appears in good spirits, despite the prospect of more icky hospital stuff on the horizon. He is planning to write a script for a TV sitcom pilot based on his experiences — maybe something like “Scrubs,” but from a patient’s point of view, and with Amber Pawlik instead of Tara Reid. Or maybe it would be like “Patch Adams,” only funny. Robin Williams would probably die in the first ep.

Okay, Seb really didn’t say he was planning on writing a sitcom script, but he is planning to someday update us all on his hospital stay with some humorous and life-affirming posts, but maybe not until he has a couple more weeks of medical wackiness and shenanigans from which he can draw upon. He sends you all his warmest regards. He sounds like he coping with with a trying experience with grace and fortitude. I think we should all offer up some Seinfeld quotes in his honor.

Okay, mine is: “Who’s going to turn down a Junior Mint? It’s chocolate, it’s peppermint, it’s delicious. It’s very refreshing.” Seb, this Junior Mint is for you.

You know how CAIR has asked that polite society consider shunning Ann Coulter because her column from week before last strongly implied that Muslims are smelly?

Well, it made Rush Limbaugh laugh. At least, he SAID it was the news item that caused the giggling fit.

Smells Like Coulterphobia

When I saw this headline on Thursday I just busted out laughing: Ann Coulter Says Muslims ‘Smell Bad’; CAIR: Media Should Reject Commentator’s Bigotry.

It’s a story on the PR Newswire, which is where people put out press releases and hope the media will pick up on them and turn them into big news stories, so I’m sort of falling into a little trap here but I can’t avoid it. It?s just too funny. Poor Ann. This is what you get for being out there, my friend.

The story comes from the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. ?A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on major media outlets to end their association with a controversial conservative pundit who recently suggested that Muslims ?smell bad.? The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said syndicated columnist Ann Coulter, who frequently appears as a guest on cable news programs, made that Islamophobic remark in a recent commentary on Mel Gibson’s new film ?The Passion of the Christ.? Coulter wrote: ?Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of ‘kill everyone who doesn’t smell bad and doesn’t answer to the name Mohammed’). She also referred to: ?(The Prophet) Muhammad’s many specific instructions to kill non-believers whenever possible.? [snip]

This headline is misleading. She did not say Muslims smell bad. She has been twisted and turned, which is what happens to much of what Ann says. They have to twist and turn it because she’s so direct that they can’t deal with that.

Rush, if Ann is just “so direct that they can’t deal with it,” and “they” are twisting her words, why don’t YOU tell us what she was saying?

And if your only point is that she didn’t flat-out SAY that Muslims are smell, but merely “suggested” it, like the body of the article says, then what part of Ann’s direct and forthright message is being twisted?

And speaking of Ann’s sensitive nose and her admirable directness, here’s part of a “Hardball” transcript from last summer:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this book [TREASON]. This book is very interesting, and I am not going to comment. I am going to let you comment on it:
“The principal difference between fifth columnists and the cold war versus the war on terrorism is that you could sit next to a communist in a subway without asphyxiating.”
What does that mean? I just want to know. What does that mean? I want to know.

ANN COULTER: It means what it says. The second difference is, that in far more time the enemy that we?re up against now has killed far fewer people.

MATTHEWS: So, but the enemy smells. Is that your knock against Arabs? I mean, that?s your point here. You sit next to them and you are asphyxiated while sitting next to them.

COULTER: I?m just drawing the differences between the old war and the currents war.

MATTHEWS: Is that a way to win friends in the Arab and Islamic world by saying they stink?

COULTER: I think it is a way to get people…

MATTHEWS: Is that deep?

COULTER: … to read my book, so I thank you.

Wow, that was pretty direct of Ann to admit, under interogation, that she engages in racial and religious slurs just to sell books.

But I still wonder about Rush thought Ann was talking about. And I wonder if he was able to recapture the deep spiritual insights he gained from her column after the medication wore off.

It’s time again for another laugh-filled episode of our new favorite sitcom, Everybody Loves Doug Giles.

This week, Doug is railing about those damned Communist/hippie history teachers, always claiming that the Founding Fathers were Deists or Unitarians or agnostics, instead of the Southern Baptists we know they were.

No matter what your Marxist, lesbian, long-toothed, community college history teacher sporting a bad haircut, stretch pants and stale coffee breath says, the vast majority of the founding fathers of our great nation were deeply committed Christians. I?m talkin? deep.

So deep that you can’t see it, even! And if you happen to find quotes from John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Ethan Allen, which seem to indicate they weren’t Christians, then those aren’t the vast majority of the founding fathers Doug is talking about.

Those godly, risk-taking ?rebels with a cause? went into life?s laboratory on fresh American soil, as they looked to heaven for wisdom to build a country that would blow their grandmothers? non-existent support stockings off.

And man, did these Christian men ? you heard me, Christian men, not atheist or agnostic or secular relativists — did they do it right!

And it’s so obvious that these men were Christian — you heard Doug, Christian! — that he doesn’t have to offer any proof of it. I mean, could non-Christian men have created America, the land God favors about all other nations? Of course not! So, the founding fathers had to be Christians.

And we have fallen away from the Christian utopia they created by taking “In Christ We Trust” off the flag, by eliminating the religious tests for public office, and by letting non-Christians be American citizens.

Yes, little Sally secularist, they created, from a Judeo-Christian premise, the United States of America ? a human achievement without parallel. (By the way, my secularist friend, what have you created over the last 300 years that comes close to what Judeo-Christian men have built here in the US ? uhh, France?)

Um, I’m only a secularist in the sense that I don’t believe that religion should be the basis of goverment, just like the founding fathers who created the United States of America believed. And don’t call me Shirley … I mean, Sally.

The re-writing of our history (by denying that God was integral to these godly men?s lives) ? the ongoing offensives to remove the law of God from our country and Constitution ? our ethical rot that?s on a par with Sodom and Rome: America! What the hell are you thinking?

Let us be clear. If traditional Americans don?t wake up, stand up, rile up and build up our original godly foundations, then history will throw up on our ?Great Experiment?, and the U.S. will serve merely as a tourist stop on the way to another new, principled, God-honoring land.

Canada?

Or is Doug saying that he and his fellow traditional Americans who have woken up are going to found their own God-honoring nation? If so, maybe they could do it in Doug’s backyard, and call it Christica. Or Gilelandia.

My ClashPoint is this: Judeo-Christian roots support our luscious American tree. There is a direct correlation between our principled relationship to God and the prosperity of our nation. Currently, atheistic and god-denying, axe-wielders are hacking away at our religious roots like Paul Bunyan on crystal meth, while the Church and many traditional Americans are taking a passive nap. Mr. & Mrs. America, we all should want to protect this heritage and proudly perpetuate the great gift of a richly principled America to coming generations.

And my CounterClashPoint is this: Our yummy American apple tree was planted in the rich, black dirt of seperation of church and state, and there is a direct correlation between Freedom of Religion for all and the lack of a state religion. Currently, wingnuts are picking the apples of freedom off of the tree of America and throwing them at people who don’t want a state religion. And then those wingnuts are making applejack with the apples, getting drunk, and making up crap about the founding fathers. Mr. and Mrs. America, we should want to protect our heritage of freedom by allowing each person to worship (or not) God (or not) according to the dictates of his own conscience, and not try to force America to be something it never was: a country with laws based on Christianity. Now, who wants pie?

Clinton didn’t make him lie about the economy.
The U.N. didn’t make him lie about WMDs.
Democrats didn’t make him lie about homeland security.
Veterans didn’t make him lie about his military service.
The American people didn’t make him lie about Medicare, jobs and education.

So why does he keep doing it?