JABbering Stooge

• More from Billmon on the Israeli situation: Israel’s equivalent of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan "Enron" Halutz is suspected of engaging in insider trading when the recently-ended conflict began, while Ha’aretz reports that the withdrawl may be more problematic than previously anticipated. (No shit, Sherlock!)

  Helpfully, a commenter on Colonel W. Patrick Lang’s blog suggests a possible means by which the international community can help the Lebanese Army counter the growing influence of Hezbollah, especially in the wake of the recent conflict.

• Incidentally, I hate to be a party pooper, but I find it mildly ironic at best (in the Alanis Morisette sense, anyway) that some liberal blogs have taken to refering to the soon-to-be-former Senator Holier-Than-Thou Joe Lieberman as "Sore Loserman." Come on, guys. That shit wasn’t funny when the wingnuts were doing it to shut down the recount in 2000 - it’s certainly not any better when we do it - even when we actually have a point to make by doing it.

• In the wake of the code brown alert, it helps to remind certain people with a knee-jerk habit of accusing Democrats of politicizing the war on terror (or is it just a jerk habit?) that The Most Holy George W. Christ is not above politicizing national security. In fact, he does it on a regular basis. But when even your most dutiful shill suggests, in so many words, that "‘Hulk Smash!’ is not a foreign policy," perhaps it’s time to seriously rethink both the current political and military strategery.

• Not that that matters to the "librul" media, who have been so insistent on calling Ned Lamont "the al Qaeda candidate." (Gee, why does that remind me of the time when Neal Boortz said that Kerry voters = al Qaeda members? How’s that for being "unserious" about the war on a tactic?)

• And while we’re at it, let’s ask ourselves just who is undermining national security? The NYT for reporting on illegal programs used to spy on ordinary Americans, or Don Wildmon and his propaganda organ for whining that "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" doesn’t go far enough in kicking gay Arabic translators out of the military - even going so far as to pursue legal action against a West Point cadet for daring to disagree?

Yesterday, the local fishwrap took a cue from the McPaper and had a Fight It Out!: Conservatives vs. Liberals editorial battle. The combatants were Paul Krugman - a Princeton economics professor - and Charles Krauthammer - a hard-right neoCon devoted to the "Faster Israel! Kill! Kill!" school of foreign policy. The subject: Sen. Joseph I., Robot Lieberman’s ignominious defeat in the Connecticut Democratic primary.

Krugman’s editorial, not available in the Statesman’s online edition (gee, I wonder why?), is available at truthout.org, with a link to the version behind the TimesSelect paywall here.

Meanwhile, Krauthammer’s "editorial" is available here and here.

The best moments in the Krugman editorial, especially laid side-by-side with the Krauthammer piece, come here:

Many of those lamenting Mr. Lieberman’s defeat claim that they fear a takeover of our political parties by extremists. But if political polarization were really their main concern, they’d be as exercised about the primary challenge from the right facing Lincoln Chafee as they are about Mr. Lieberman’s woes. In fact, however, the sound of national commentary on the Rhode Island race is that of crickets chirping.

here:

Imagine yourself as a politician or pundit who was gung-ho about invading Iraq, and who ridiculed those who warned that the case for war was weak and that the invasion’s aftermath could easily turn ugly. Worse yet, imagine yourself as someone who remained in denial long after it all went wrong, disparaging critics as defeatists. Now denial is no longer an option; the neocon fantasy has turned into a nightmare of fire and blood. What do you do?

You could admit your error and move on - and some have. But all too many Iraq hawks have chosen, instead, to cover their tracks by trashing the war’s critics.

and here:

But in his non-concession speech, Mr. Lieberman described Mr. Lamont as representative of a political tendency in which "every disagreement is considered disloyal" - a statement of remarkable chutzpah from someone who famously warned Democrats that "we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril."

It kind of tells you all you need to know about the butcher-porn addicts on the right, doesn’t it? Remember, kids:

In the recently-ended (and probably soon to resume, since few, if any, of the underlying issues got resolved by the cease-fire) Israel-Lebanon conflict, probably the best source of in-depth analysis on the subject came from Billmon. In the course of several posts, he details several major screwups committed at the highest levels of both the IDF’s and Israel’s civilian leadership. Additionally, he details an incredible level of hubris (Which James Wolcott also notes - oh to get a link from him; I’d be golden!) at the top levels of Israeli leadership, along with an instance of corruption.

Frankly, I’ve seen this toxic combination of hubris, incompetence and corruption in only one other place. Which leads me to ask: when did Ehud Olmert sack Amir Peretz in favor of this man?

Rummy, is that you?

UPDATE: In case you were wondering, the text reads: "Reagan White House Middle East Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld shakes hands with Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein during his visit on December 19-20, 1983. Rumsfeld would visit again on March 24, 1984, the day the U.N. released a report that mustard gas and Tabun nerve gas had been used by Iraq against Iranian troops. The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, ‘American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.’"

Speaking of hubris and corruption, here’s some tips for Likud and Kadima (hat tip, LGF Watch):

• If you’ve bombed civilians, be it accidentally or deliberately, don’t lie about your less-than-pinpoint accuracy. You’ll only look like more of a fool when you’re inevitably caught.

• When going to war, make sure you have the troop levels you need, so that you won’t have to rely on foreign proxies.

• If you’re going to complain about terrorist organizations’ deliberate use of anti-personnel ordinance in their Katyusha rockets and suicide bombs, don’t be a hypocrite and turn around and order anti-personnel cluster bombs from your sugar daddy military hardware supplier, especially if you’ve deliberately blown up civilians in recent weeks.

• For that matter, don’t use terrorist organizations’ deliberate targeting of civilians to justify the deliberate targeting of civilians who "look just like the terrorists."

• Trying to avoid personal culpability for atrocities is no justification for forcing the grunts in your military into a position where they have to disobey orders in order to remain blameless in said atrocities.

Will the Olmert government take these tips into consideration if and when they come into conflict with Hezbollah agian? We shall see.

Care to take a guess at the religion of the victims? If you said Christian or Jew, you’re WRONG. This was a Muslim family in Georgia. The wife is from Pittsburgh, PA, and the husband is from Pakistan. And this is the welcome they receive for trying to obtain the American Dream.

Now, I would be remiss if I were to suggest that this kind of thing is an everyday occurrence. However, it is part of a pattern of increasing hostility towards Muslims in this country. Just today, as everyone goes Code Brown over a plot to blow up America-bound flights from the U.K., a Gallup poll is released, and the results aren’t good:

Thirty-nine percent of respondents to the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll said they felt at least some prejudice against Muslims. The same percentage favored requiring Muslims, including U.S. citizens, to carry a special ID "as a means of preventing terrorist attacks in the United States." About one-third said U.S. Muslims were sympathetic to al-Qaeda, and 22% said they wouldn’t want Muslims as neighbors.

Fewer than half of respondents in that same poll believe that American Muslims are loyal Americans - a significant percentage of which probably believe that Muslims are subhuman scum worthy only of death. There have already been calls to shove every single Muslim into human-sized microwaves, which I’m sure would cause a bit more of this:

Probably the only way she hits the big-O with Jesse, anyway.

But hell’s bells, why stop at making Muslims carry ID (Papers, please!)? Why not make them wear red crecents? Why not vandalize Muslim-owned/operated businesses? Hell, why not go ahead and herd them into the human-sized microwave ovens? We could call it the "Last Answer to the Muslim Dilemma"!

Sweet Jesus. I weep for the future of this country that I was raised to love and defend to my dying breath.

Update: Holy crap. Satire is dead. I just re-read the Malkin post I linked to above, and she quite literally says: "the British Muslim problem"! She really is advocating genocide!!!

The real tragedy of the current situation in the Middle East, beyond the wanton destruction in Lebanon, is that American and Israeli hardliners, along with Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda, are two sides of the same coin: both want a one-state solution - they just disagree as to which one state should exist. And when they fight each other, all too often moderate-to-liberal Americans, moderate-to-liberal Israelis and moderate-to-liberal Muslims get caught in the middle.

As for myself, I would like to see a two-state solution. I also think that in the case of Jerusalem - a frequent sticking point in any such deal, the best solution would be to treat it like a toy that two kids are fighting over: if they can’t share it, than neither one deserves to have it.

In an August 7 post, Jeff Goldstein lamely attempts a humorous vignette:

So I’m walking past the food court at an upscale mall in Cherry Creek this afternoon when I spot a a teenage boy—dark hair, olive skin—wearing Hizbollah colors and chatting up a pair of high school girls. Which, of course, left me little choice but to tackle him from behind—lowering my shoulder into the small of his skinny manboy back and driving him headlong into the counterfront of the Great Steak and Potato Company. Then, once I had him stunned and curled into a quivering fetal ball, I began administering a series of kidney punches that I was sure the little wannabe jihadist wouldn’t soon forget.

Because here’s the thing: in my world, it’s fine if you want to agitate for terrorist thugs at pre-planned rallies, even if doing so marks you as a moral cipher. But when you begin parading your aggressive moral equivalence in front of Panda freakin’ Express, well—then you’ve crossed a line, brother.

Sorry. But that’s just how Jeff rolls.

That being said, it turns out the kid I tackled wasn’t so much a supporter of Hizballah as he was a fan of the 1970 Oakland Athletics, whose road jerseys had the same color scheme as the Hizballah flag—an unfortunate coincidence that, in retrospect, explains both the “Hunter” and the “27” embroidered on the back of his shirt, things I initially took to be a combination of youthful braggadocio and a ghoulish body count tally.

—Which just goes to show that even a committed intentionalist can be fooled by situational semiotics, particularly when he brings with him to the interpretative moment a host of extraneous personal and cultural baggage that serves no other purpose but to pollute the specific authorial context—a lesson that would have proven useful had I reminded myself of these truisms before I landed that last series of flying atomic elbow drops to the poor kid’s thighs.

On his THIGHS?! Jesus Saint Mary Mother of Joseph! Assuming this account is true (and, knowing Goldstein, that’s a pretty generous assumption), wha’d he do next, slap the guy’s face with his monster schlong? Touch his sister in her secret places - lots?

Luckily, what did prove useful, given the circumstances, were my New Balance cross trainers and a parking spot close to the mall exit—both of which allowed me to lose the two paunchy security guards who chased me down the escalator and huffed after me into the parking garage.

At least, I think I lost them. To be honest, it’s difficult to know for certain with all the shades drawn and a stoned armadillo crunching sour cream and onion Pringles on your couch.

Developing…

Yeah…so glad…because we all know that the rent-a-cops will bust him for the crime of being conservative - oh wait, that’s only supposed to happen to libruls - I forgot.

But if he’s this "brave" in "standing up to homegrown Mexislahomolibrulfascism," why is he utterly petrified of a third-rate academic who uses Ann Coulter’s level of rhetoric? I’m sure his +5 Vorpal Cock could keep her at bay…

I’ve been a bit remiss in discussing the powderkeg in the Middle East. I have decided to break my silence on this issue, and let the chips fall where they may.

What can I say? I’m a nerd. And as a confirmation of my inner nerdness, I admit to being a video gamer. And not just your average gamer - I’m what you would consider "old school." My first console? An Atari 2600! My favorite games of all time are old school games. They’re "dated" in the sense that the graphics are not on the par of today’s Final Fantasys or Xenosagas. However, because of hardware limitations, game developers in those days had to be much more creative with the backstory for their games in order to draw in gamers.  My enjoyment of one such game, the classic 4X space opera by which all successors have come to be judged - Master of Orion - continues to this day. Incidentally, there was a fan-made remake of the original underway - a more or less solo operation that ended after the author got too bogged down in bug fixes and real life concerns. There is also an open-source game inspired by the MOO series under development called FreeOrion, about three-tenths of the way through their planned roadmap, that grew out of the disappointment of many fans with the rather lackluster Master of Orion 3.

I’ve been a bit slow in joining in on the YouTube fad - I’ve kinda always been a man a few minutes behind my time - and I have all the more reason not to, since I have to temporarily disable one of the WordPress plugins to post YouTube videos, but I just couldn’t pass on this video posted by John Aravosis over at AmericaBLOG.

Remember this line from then-Governor Bush’s 2000 convention speech (which turned out to be one of the many lies of his 2000 campaign that the "librul" media ignored)?

Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, "Not ready for duty, sir."

Whoops. Whoops. Whoops. And mega-OMG-whoops!

And by the way, when Bush said this in 2000:

To point out that our military has been overextended, taken for granted and neglected, that’s no criticism of the military. That is criticism of a president and vice president and their record of neglect.

not one conservative commentator accused him of "blaming America first," "hating the troops," or "helping the terrorists." Yet now, whenever some liberal makes a similar criticism of Bush and his Rubber-Stamp Congress, these are the exact labels applied by conservative pundits from Pillz-E on down.

Guess what changed between then and now?