by: Mr. Mustard

Via Michael Totten, I’m pointed to this article by Khidir Hamza, a nuclear scientist who worked on Saddam’s nuke program before he defected. I’ve seen him make several news appearances befroe reading this editorial, and he has always been adamant about the fact that 1) Saddam would never disarm (he sees his entire destiny bound up with them) and 2) he is most assuredly still working on a nuclear weapon.

In this most recent WSJ piece, though, Hamza gives what I think is the most credible voice yet to the notion that France and Germany are so steadfast in their opposition to the deposing of Saddam because they are grossly complicit in his illegal weapons programs, and are motivated not only by greed but also by the fear of the revelations of their underhanded deals directly in violation of the UN resolutions they voted for. Hamza focuses mostly on the money issue, but he

Now, when Steven Den Beste first speculated about this, he offered what were worst case scenarios should some kind of treachery by Germany or France show up. At the time, I read it and thought, “Hmmm, quite scary, very unlikely pet sex story.”

The “unlikely” part is frankly starting to lose out to the “scary” half in my mind. The end of the UN. The end of NATO. The end of the EU. The US withdrawing from Germany erotic stories with animals. And with what Donald Sensing has written recently…

There were no reporters present, so people spoke pretty freely. During the course of the discussion, Herr Leutnant General said that the only reason Europe had enjoyed its longest period ever of uninterrupted peace was that there were two US Army corps in western Germany, and significant US forces elsewhere in Europe k9 slut. He didn’t quite say that without American boots on the ground there, Europe would have gone to war with itself again, but we clearly understood that’s what he meant. The British and Italian representatives nodded.

.. male animal hardcore.and combined with the anti-growth, anti-prosperity economic policies of the Weasel axis (encouraging crippling economic stagnation - a wonderful catalyst for national aggressiveness if there ever was one) I’d think anybody would be truly daft to not get significantly worried at the prospect of severe German/French treachery in the immediate future.

I know that a lot of people will think of this and simply roll their eyes at the suggestion.

“Come on, Germany and France are the most transnationally progressive of any country in the world. That runs directly against any kind of European war scenario.”

Well, first of all, any actions they have been shown to take with regards to their dealings in Iraq will be pretty good evidence that their tranzi clothes are all for show, and that they’re really just for getting whatecver piece of the pie they can for them and theirs zoo sex photos. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that much of their UN maneuvering of late has been specifically geared towards securing for themselves places of power and influence through the machinery of diplomacy, which just happens to be their weapons system of choice right now. The French particularly, have revealed themselves to be nothing short of nationalistic, and I don’t now doubt for a second that given the correct conditions, they would move in the direction of aggressive geopolitical power plays to secure their interests.

What are those conditions? Well, for instance: a Europe no longer heavily saturated in American stationary forces, one not bound up in the “brotherhood” and etiquette of the EU (even now mostly a pretense, as recent startegically timed letters have shown), a Europe where the declining economic well-being of France prompts them to once again look with a green eye at the prospect of imperialism, certainly not the same kind of imperialism they practiced in the past, but nonetheless a practice of holding spheres of influence over less developed territories. One that particualrly comes to mind would be them exploiting anti-Americanism in Arabia, at first merely making stronger and stronger overtures of friendship, and then attempting to exercise power over the region outright through proxy governments which they would support.

WHat the US would do in such a situation is a good question, but more importantly is how the rest of Europe would react. Would Germany join France in its endeavors or become a rival? It seems that the recent chumminess of their diplomatic alliance against he US is prone to all kinds of quick fracturing, as the confused and recriminatory reactions to the leaked “Mirage” plan revealed. And what about New Europe, who seem much more eager to throw their lot in with the US?

Many more interesting questions than answers, as is usually the case.

by: Mr. Mustard

When I read on Drudge that Madonna is planning a “shocking” “anti-war, anti-Bush” “commentary” of a video that will accompany the media blitz for her latest toilet paper roll of sonic idiocy to be digitized and sold for $16.99, I think of the most succinct summation of just what Madonna is, brought to us by the lads of South Park:

Madonna is an old anorexic whore who wore out her welcome years ago and should just go fuck herself.

That’s actually much more kind than anything I would typically have to say about her.

Like lots of bloggers, I spend a good amount of my time making fun of the stupid things celebrities say, but compared to Madonna, people like Sheryl Crow, Janeane Garofalo and Martin Scorsese are intellectual powerhouses. Also, at least with the likes of Scorsese you can respect his artistic product even if you have to suffer through his political opinions now and then.

This has always been impossible to do with Madonna, however, because 1) her political/public self is inextricably bound with her “artistic” (not enough scare quotes in the world to do that howler justice) image, and 2) because both of those entities (if they indeed are even separate at all) are so horribly painful to endure.

Now, one can distinctly discern how much of this “American Life” salvo of hers is an urgent cry of relevance to a world in which she finds herself as culturally outmoded as jokes about Viagra.

Ever notice how we didn’t hear much from her since Bush was elected, and even less after 9/11? No? Yeah, me neither. But then, that’s the very nature of a respite from the likes of high-profile stupidity: blissful unawareness amazing dog fucking. When an irritating public persona drops down below the signal noise of celebrity culture, the natural impulse is to simply forget that they ever held a coveted spot of public annoyance in the first place. I mean really, that’s the point isn’t it, to not be bothered by them any more? To forget them as soon as the buzzing from their ego has subsided to acceptably unobtrusive levels? And, one is naturally aided in this by the fact that modern celebrities are usually so completely forgettable. Madonna, with her deliberately frenzied mixture of inadvertantly banal poses struck for the purpose of carefully constructed sexual shock-value, is no exception to this rule.

It seems that she perhaps perceived that the world had slipped into a kind of Material Girl lethe of recent and that she simply couldn’t abide by it, with the result being her inflicting a new album and video (more likely a spate of them eventually) on the world, just to be sure and remind everyone that she’s just as vacuous and reflexively outraged by whatever the squares are doing so she can try to once again shock the parents of the 13-year-olds who buy her crap.

Except this, time, she’s trying to make Important! and Serious!-sounding pronouncements about things other than how monogamy is evil and repressive and that pubescent girls should dress and act like the kind of public slut her money and celebrity allows her to be with so little consequence. You have to sort of instantly feel sorry for any effort of hers trying to branch out into becoming an official Concerned Famous Person, something that is pretty much beyond her capabilities (and considering the woefully low standards required for being a card-carrying CFP, the picture becomes doubly pathetic). Immediately, I can’t help but think of a monkey trying to write a novel. It’s possible that with enough attempts he could approach something that remotely resembles one, but only coincidentally and after literally billions of random attempts.

It’s no surprise that Madonna’s profile became significantly lowered post-election 2000 horse sex drawing. Between then and the September of the following year, she only surfaced rarely to give the odd cheap shot against Bush’s party or the Pope, usually for their perpetual crime of being repressed puritans, or something like that. This reduced public presence after the inauguration of Bush’s America makes perfect sense, for if there was ever a president’s tenure that fit harmoniously with the public phenomenom of Madonna, it was Bill Clinton.

In an era when the president is viewed at large as a sleazy, lacivious scoundrel, and is either hated or loved for it, and when the country is fixated on something as squirm-inducing as the big ugly eel’s sexual organ, how could a figure like Madonna not feel right at home? Clinton was glamorous and photogenic (at least, many maintained as much) and always hungry for the spotlight. He was publicly fixated on all the fashionable things that the Beautiful People professed to care about, and openly enamored of all the more shallow qualities that the hordes of entertainistas really did care about, that is: their own egos, and all the things that could feed them. Despite the fact that Reagan actually worked in Hollywood for years, Clinton was much more in line with the Hollywood persona. If he can be called “our first black president,” then he was also surely our first “celebrity president.”

Maybe she saw something was changing after Bush was elected. I’m sure she, like countless other people for whom evidence is no impediment to their opinions, was certain that he stole the election, but even had he not become presidentr, Al Gore wasn’t exactly Madonna presidential material either. If not a devout Christian like Bush, he was at least eager to pretend to be one for the bible-belt rubes and Moral Majority types woman and dog mating. The fact that the Democratic standard-bearer had gone from being someone who used cigars as dildos on his interns to an almost bible-thumper who was, on top of all that, monstrously boring, couldn’t help but signal a shifting pattern of the cultural wind, one where a Madonna didn’t fit as well as before. One simply didn’t see her as often after that.

And then after 9/11, as far as I can tell, she completely disappeared from the public eye. If the typically-Republican, boring and “repressed” nature of Bush’s presidency, and the things that it said about America’s cultural climate made Madonna uncomfortable with engaging the American zeitgeist, then surely the new atmosphere after 9/11 should have, and perhaps did, terrify her.

She’s certainly not all that bright, but she is, if anything, savvy of what sells. And it would be clear to her that the type of aggressively destructive, anti-social sexuality she came to more and more fixate upon (all comically justified as some kind of self-righteous notion of “freedom” or “anti-repression,” of course) as the 90’s wound down would not be as well received in a country debating the issue of war in Iraq and thinking about the next big terrorist strike that could claim thousands of their countrymen’s lives.

But of course, as she is always willing to latch, vampire-like, onto the next cultural wave and greedily suck (in more ways than one) until all the potential for enriching her pocket and her ego has been bled out of it, Madonna is apparently now seeking to reinvent herself as provocative, outraged anti-war activist instead of provacative, outraged slut.

The Drudge article suggests that this new video of hers will be a hard-hitting, political statement, or at least that’s what she wants her thousand or so publicity peons to feed to the media. One of them describes it as a “sweeping commentary,” which, in such a situation as this, usually means that it’s too incoherent or absurd to be understood intelligibly as being about any specific topic AnalBestiality Gallery. When a commentary sweeps, it doesn’t have to make sense.

Dressed in commando fatigues, Madonna throws grenades as the techno terror beat pounds, claims a source. Limb-less men and women are reportedly shown, with bloody babies.

One disturbing clip features Iraqi children.

“The video escalates into a mad frenzy depicting the catastrophic repercussion and horror of war.”

Something tells me there will also be images of rich white guys in suits and pictures of oil wells. The labored pose shifts from a kinky sexual John Brown to techno Noam Chomsky. But that’s assuming, of course, that she’s ever heard of either of those fellows.

If I were you, I wouldn’t be waiting with bated breath for any deeper thought than what will surely be the implicit, “Look at all this gross, ugly stuff! Isn’t it nasty? I’m pretty sure it’s all connected in some way sex with her pet. Probably to the Catholic Church.”

This kind of clueless hodgepodge of elements is Madonna’s standard operating procedure when she tries to send a message and be weightily artistic, although previously her typical ingredients were race, religion and sex. If I had to come up with the quintessentially Madonnic icon, it would have to be an image of her sexually entwined on a cross with a gay, black man dressed up as a priest.

Many people in the past have breathlessly proclaimed that the very act of her mixing these types of elements is a daring, profound and socially significant statement about our world. If you’re one of those people, I’m sure this new video will be right up your alley.

by: Mr. Mustard

The recent capitualtions by Iraq (allowing U2 flyovers, granting limited access to some scientists, etc) of course are a tactic aimed at stalling the US longer, since they have the possibility of giving more rhetorical ammo to the inspection-hawks on the UNSC. Some might take this as bad news, but I don’t really see it as very useful information about when a war could start. Rather, i think it tells more simply about Saddam’s own perception of the situation.

Firs off, everyone knows that Iraq would do everything possible to make sure that whatever concessions they make are as much for show as possible, such as telling their scientists to be interviewed by the UN: “Look of course we want you to cooperate with the inspectors, but if you divulge any information to them that is vital to Iraqi national security we’re gonna have to torture you and your family to death. And, by the way, anything relating to any WMDs is all considered vital to our national security. But by all means, cooperate with the inspectors, k?”

So really, there isn’t a huge probability that Blix and co. would garner anything truly important from the agreements recently made with Iraq. Yet, Iraq is still taking more of a risk in allowing the inspectors the kind of new access (hedged and dishonest as it may be) than they ever have before. Saddam’s capital in this escapade of his has always been the degree to which he was able to hold back any information from leaking out of Iraq about his weapons programs beastiality or bestiality. These recent moves amount to more spending of that capital than he has done since even before he agreed to 1441.

I think that’s significant, because it seems to reveal something about what the current mindset is for Saddam and for his small band of Tikrit thugs. Basically, I think that they are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, meaning that in some way, this current inspections game isn’t going last much longer. Some possibilities as to just what I think that light could be (from most to least likely):

1) Saddam sees the window for a US military campaign closing: Den Beste has said that “if there are no American soldiers patrolling the streets of Baghdad on May 1, we are all royally fucked.” That might be a little too stringent of an assessment, if not only because even if the attack started tomorrow there’s no guarantee it would be basically over by the 1st. But i think his statement is essentially correct if you replace “May 1st” with the “Ides of March.” That leaves us some time, but really only a couple weeks for the war to start before some of the seasonal issues start coming into play, as well as just the operational level of readiness would presumably begin to wear down, assuming it was past the point of top military readiness for our troops in the region (more on that below).

I think Saddam sees, in much the same way that Bill Quick does, that even now we’re coming close to (if we have not already reached and passed it) the point where the momentum for war slows down so much that it can’t be started up again. I personally have no idea if this is actually the case, but I think it is the perception that Saddam is working off of right now: Stall them just a little more males fucking dogs. Give them something that would really cause the inspectors to drool, even if it means putting the programs at risk. They’re almost on the verge of collapse. After they reach that point, it almost won’t even matter what the inspectors can find.

2) The US has reached, or will soon reach, ideal military preparedness for an invasion. I find this slightly less likely than the above because it first assumes that a) Saddam has any means of knowing (or at least thinking he knows) when the US would be at peak readiness and b) that he would think that making more concessions to the UN, and thus giving the French more of a (shallow) reason to carp about the viability of inspections, would actually forestall Bush from unilaterally giving the go-ahead.

Neither of these are really that unlikely as assumptions, but they’re by no means assured either.

With regards to a), the idea that he would have reliable information concerning the our forces’ preparedness that would be detailed enough to give him some hint as to when they would be most ready to attack seems pretty doubtful. However, there is a distinct possiblity, being surrounded by the kind of cowering yes-men that his personal eccentricities have engendered in his advisors, an environment where the messenger is very often shot, after the messenger’s family and friends have also been killed, he might very well think he knows a lot more than he does.

Saddam isn’t stupid, but he’s been living in what is eesentially a fantasy world for 20 years dogsex woman. It was that very environment that led to his disastrous missteps during the Gulf War, so it’s very possible that he’s been fooled into think he knows a lot more than he actually does.

As for assumption b), I predict that, at most, Bush and Blair will try to time their presenting of a new UNSC resolution authorizing military force to coincide with us getting everything ideally in place to launch an invasion. There would, at most, be a couple days of discussion, at which either they would either vote yes, and we would go, or they would vote no, and we would go.

But, as mentioned above, stalling the US after it’s reached prime readiness is a thousand times more important than trying to do so while we’re not even capable of attacking yet, and if this can be done for even 6 weeks, the liklihood of the invasion happening drops considerably. It’s concievable that Saddam (rightly or wrongly) thinks we’re nearing that point, at which point he would be more readily agreeable to taking risks so as to make concessions (or seem to) and thus maybe stall the invasion. And in the same way as before, it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that his warped sense of the world would lead him to believe that such concessions could actually generate enough opposition in the UNSC to actually stay Bush’s hand.

And, even if he has a better grasp on reality than that and doubts the probability of his new stall tactics working in this scenario, the amount of risk involved in a US attack far outweighs the risk he’s taking in possibly exposing a few more secrets of his WMD programs.

3) Saddam is imminently close to getting a nuke: Easily the scariest possibility. It would mean the game would undergo a complete overhaul my aunt fucking dog. Not that it would completely shift to a North Korea-like scenario, where we have to suddenly be content with treating Saddam with some degree of legitimacy and dealing with him as more of an equal, but certainly the situation would move in that direction. Suddenly attacking would be a much more perilous proposition, meaning we might not do it at all, or if we did, it could very well mean some sort of catastrophe: either a spiteful, top-o-the-world-ma type of nuclear strike against Israel or Turkey, or one that could possibly kill thousands of advancing US troops. Even as spread out as the formations would necessarily be, with all the measures that CENTCOM would of course take to minimize the damage from such an act, I still think there’s a chance this could generate thousands of deaths among our troops. Luckily though, I find this to be somewhat farfetched. At least, I’m hoping it is.

So, for what it’s worth, I think these recent moves reveal at least something about what is going on in the Iraqi side of this game. The only problem is that Saddam has virtually no agency when it comes to deciding when the war will start, or even if there will be one at all. That’s Bush’s jurisdiction. You might be able to take his maneuverings as reactionary indications as to what we’re doing or going to do, but as I said before, the information he’s working off of might be much worse than the simple amount of un-knowledge that we all have to work with sheep sex.

As for myself, I’m sticking to the tentative hope that we’re going to attack within a few days after we reach the moment of being in the best state of readiness to do so, with or without UN approval.

When wil that happen?

Geez, I dunno. I’m just a stupid kid. Go ask Den Beste. He seems to know what he’s talking about.

by: Mr. Mustard

Well, John Hawkins has thoroughly dashed my hopes of becoming the proud owner of a warblogger award. For his First Annual Warblogger Awards, I begged him -begged him!- to create a category of “Best Weblog Called Mean Mr brutal horse sex. Mustard Run By Russell Wardlow.” Otherwise, I figured that my chances were slim to Kate Moss beastiality dating. Hell, I’m barely a warblogger. I’m really more of an libido-blogger gay fucking dog pussy. Warbloggers do their bellicose thang for the purpose of rallying the nation for the necessary martial action to protect our lives and freedoms.

Me? I just wanna meet chicks true beastiality stories.

And I figured lots of cool chicks read RWN, so it stood to reason that winning me one of them fancy awards would ratchet me up in the blog dating pool from pondscum to shoescum. The only way I saw there being a remote chance of this happening was for Hawkins to create the aforementioned category beastiality my experience.

Did he do it?

Does Michael Moore leave anything on a plate of spare ribs?

Yeah, that’s right.

Bah, whatever. Lileks still probably would’ve beat me.

Anyway, I can at least say that I got to be one of the 70 or so voters. And, that sense of inflated self-importance that I would normally take from such a distinction would likely be more pronounced had more of my picks actually won (Go Michele!).

by: Mr. Mustard

In addition to this, there’s another reason why I remain relatively confident that no, Bush is not wobblifying, and yes, we’re still going in, and damn soon: “NATO Allies Trade Barbs Over Iraq .”

The article reveals that the rhetorical kiddie gloves are off and there’s quite a bit of angry shouting going on across the Atlantic (or at least, what counts as angry shouting in diplomatic circles). Both sides are waxing pissed at the seeming intransigence of the other. I find this to be very reassuring.

At one point Fischer faced the U.S. delegation to the conference and, switching from German to English, pointedly said, “Excuse me, I am not convinced forced dog sex.”

You’re excused. Now kindly get out of the way.

The French defense minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, joined the counterattack, raising her eyebrows at the “combative tone” of Rumsfeld’s comments. “Ad hoc coalitions” are a “precarious” approach that “can’t replace the alliance,” she cautioned.

Good, we don’t want it replaced. We want this “alliance” over and done with. As Mark Steyn has noted, these kinds of outmoded, teetering international bodies tend to destroy wahtever useful qualities there are in diplomacy and magnify all the worst aspects of it, hence the UN sex with male and female dog. NATO, at this point, with those countries always euphemisically referred to as “certain key allies” infesting it, suffers from much of the same ailments.

At one point, Portuguese Defense Minister Paulo Portas reminded Fischer of the failures of European pacifism, beginning with its inability to counter the rise of Nazism in the 1930s. Fischer responded brusquely, “You don’t need to talk to me about that”

One might think so. One might also think we didn’t need to have our secretary of state present reams of evidence to you to you of Saddam’s continued refusal to adhere to the demands of the UN, since, as so many have argued, it was things that everyone already knew. Yet somehow Fischer’s government seems to be remarkably keen on ignoring the mustached elephant in the living room, so it might do well to remind him of the jackbooted one as well.

Rumsfeld also slammed the United Nations for recently making Libya the chair of a human rights commission and giving a similar position on a disarmament panel to Iraq. “That these acts of irresponsibility could happen now, at this moment of history, is breathtaking,” he said female and stallion sex. Rumsfeld called on the United Nations to move “from a path of ridicule to a path of responsibility.”

Of course, I don’t really think he believes they’ll ever do anything except move from a place of ridicule to a place of utter contempt to a place of non-existence, in the long run, at least. I think that Rumsfeld is simply setting up the UN for the post-Iraq breakup. The worthlessness of the UNSC will resonate only more clearly after the war because of rhetoric like this.

by: Mr. Mustard

Clinton you nitwit.

In an exclusive interview Thursday on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” the former president said he sees a good possibility that the international community will unite to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

“I still hope the United Nations can act together on this, and I still think there’s a chance we can, and there’s still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm,” Clinton said.

No there isn’t, you blubbering bubba. First of all, assuming that anything remotely approaching sense still lingers in his addled mind of latter-day Saladin fantasies, both Bush (for all his necesarry rhetoric about disarming) and Saddam have both made quite sure that disarmament isn’t really an option.

Saddam has painted himself thoroughly into a corner on this one. He has steadfastly maintained that he has none of the weapons that the US has been accusing him of having. Any admissions now will only be more proof of a “material breach,” and thus invite an American attack. He can also continue to dodge and lie, which also would reveal him to be a material (breach) girl (thanks, Lileks).

At this point, he be breached if he do and breached if he don’t.

Now, one might say that since Powell’s speech already made it quite clear to everyone of basically the same facts that would be revealed were Saddam to make real strides towards disarmament, and that since Powell’s revelations were only greeted by calls for more inspections by the United Nations Idiot Caucus, Saddam coming clean now would only offer more rhetorical ammo to the anti-war robots in the UN, those broken records that respond to any argument for military action with, “War! Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!” while they flail their arms mechanically.

But I don’t think so.

First of all, I don’t think it’s very likely that at this point the Bush administration would say “Ok, he’s disarmed. No harm, no foul.” At least they’d better damned well not.

What I think is more likely is that any admissions Saddam were to make would only give more Bush more to point to and prove how dangerous Saddam is women and horses sex story. Not that it would convince any of the Weasels, but would give us enough plausible deniability to start the war, all to the outraged howls of France, Germany, Russia, Greenpeace, whoever.

After the war is (quickly) over however, everything will change, and everyone with any sense knows that. It will be revealed how truly awful Saddam was, how glad the Iraqi people are to be rid of him, how dangerous a figure he was to the Middle East and the rest of the world, and the biggest diplomatic problem we’ll have at that point regarding the invasion will be making sure we don’t let France rewrite history and say that they were actually with us “the whole way, mes amis!”

I see another (what I consider) less likely scenario, though. Bush doesn’t use the revelations made by Saddam as justification to kick the tires and light the fires, but instead floats some resolution about the need for some kind of new inspections regime that will make sure that Saddam told us everything, because, golly, he’s lied so many times in the past, we can’t just trust him now to come clean without some final verification, can we? I mean, he lied for all this time and only came clean (or so he says!) now when there was a shotgun against his face a few seconds from having its trgger pulled. What do you think he’ll do when we take that gun away, huh, Jaques?

That verification will take the form of some US military units, who will ostensibly be there in order to aid some kind of final inspection process.

In short: WMDs gone. Saddam humbled on the world stage. US military around Iraq en masse and within Iraq at least to some extent…

What the name of this song?

Oh, right. “Revolution.”

Again, were we to help facilitate this auto-regime change, there would surely be sputtering howls of outrage from every one of the “sophisticated” nations of the world. And from people in my co-op, to be sure.

But the revolution would be quick (not quick enough, for my tastes, though; I’ll have to keep my head down and hold my tongue for a few days if I want to have any friends left later on), and those voices will also be cowed once it’s over and “The Rise and Fall of the Baath Party” hits the best seller lists and reveals criticisms of the US’ catalystic behavior to be silly and morally repugnant in the face of what Saddam truly was.

The folks at Berkeley, meanwhile, will likely go back to reading Chomsky and accusing Bush of genocide, but hey, that’s what they do sex with your dog. Let ‘em have their fun. It’s a real hoot to actually talk to them and make them feel supremely stupid for a while until they flee and dive back into Big Brother Noam’s books that reassure them about how the US really is a fascist police state.

However, regarding either of these scenarios (which happen to still be warm from when I pulled them out of my ass) are predicated on the possibility that Saddam would ever even consider the route of actually making efforts to voluntarily disarm, which is madness on the level of certifiability if I ever saw it.

Maybe Clinton knows this. Maybe he just wanted to go on TV and sound grave and concerned and remind everyone that “Hey folks, look at me! I’m still here. Remember the good old days when the country’s biggest worry was my dick? Weren’t you happier then when you didn’t have to think about all this stuff going on in other countries? ‘It’s the economy, stupid’!”

Hell, I dunno what he was doing. People continually maintain that Clinton is such a dagburned smart guy. I was never very convinced he wasn’t that much more than a slick talker who could charm the pants off an eskimo, someone who could hit all the necessary talking points and throw out all the right buzz words to make a pose of erudition. I suspect it’s a quality not unlike this that makes him such a devil with the ladies.

Pretend to listen to what she says and nod thoughtfully. Throw out some lines about how you admire some woman whose name you heard on Lifetime for her “courage” to do whatever it is she did in this “male-dominated society.” Talk about how how you find that women make better friends because they’re so open with their emotions and shit. Pretty soon, you’ll be staining her dress.

Anyway, forget Clinton. The real point of this post is thus: whether war comes is not up to Saddam. In the present situation, he really doesn’t have any choices first beastiality experience stories. He’s not an entity that can respond in any meaningful way. He’s a cockroach, an infestation that is either to be tolerated or stepped on, but not debated, and not engaged. You don’t try to convince the little six-legged bugger to just go peacefully out the door. You put your foot down and then wipe him off the sole of your shoe.

And frankly, Bush doesn’t look to me like the kind of guy who gets squeamish at the prospect of a little bug guts.

by: Mr. Mustard

That’s it, after this I want to never again hear a call for the US to work through the United Nations or any other ridiculously perverted international body. Ever. Put a fork in it, fellas, that goose is cooked.

It is now impossible to turn a blind eye to the flagrant hypocrisy represented by the “key US allies” on the Security Council, who continue to make it clear that they’re none too interested in upholding the key tenets of the resolution they themselves voted for months ago, to say nothing of the plethora of resolutions they have sternly issued over the last decade free gay dog sex.

“Moving the goalposts” is too gentle a characterization to describe the gross, atrocious efforts by certain UNSC members at every kind of stalling rhetoric to halt any US action that would actually enforce what the UN itself requested. With their pathetic calls for further inspections in the face of obvious, acknowledged fact that Saddam has been unshakably aggressive in disobeying every single one of the proscriptions in Resolution 1441, in their ability to repeatedly turn their appeasing faces away from the avalanche of evidence shotgunned right into their eyes by Powell on Wednesday (evidence that, even if you are the most disbelieving, cynical and rabid anti-American, cannot be denied as proving that Saddam has flagrantly ignored ever single request made of him by 1441, to say nothing of the more circumstantial yet nonetheless compelling evidence detailing his links to Al Qeada), in their ready-made and instantaneous rhetoric of “more inspections! more!” that would follow any revelation Powell might have made, without even considering what was actually said, by all these things and more, they have proved themselves unwilling to seriously address the issues presented by that mad fuck in Baghdad.

Forget “moving the goalposts.” They’ve taken the