Archive for January, 2007


I Support The Troops, But Not The War

January 31, 2007

I saw this over at hot air, and thought it’d be worth a comment… 

The debate over whether one can “support the troops” and not “the mission” isn’t exactly a black and white, I’m-right-and-you’re-wrong issue.  Certainly, vocal opposition here at home doesn’t exactly enhance the morale of the soldiers who are risking their lives to complete the mission that has been laid before them.  On the other hand, what sort of democracy would they be defending if there are those in this country too timid to speak out against what they feel is wrong?   It’s a complex issue, really.

Personally, I hold no animosity toward our soldiers.  I fully supported (and continue to support) Operation Enduring Freedom.  I sleep well at night knowing those guys are out there for our country.  As far as I’m concerned, they are brave and worthy of respect for what they do.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why I never supported the Iraq invasion.  Our soldiers are too valuable to be sent on a mission based on hype, political opportunity and greed (as opposed to necessity).  This was an ill-conceived war.  Whether you believe that the war was waged with ulterior motives (oil, no-bid contracts, God, Israel, or simply the thrill of the military industrial complex), or was a well-intentioned but ultimately incompetently timed and/or managed exercise, one shouldn’t be afraid to voice their opinion on it.  To condemn those who do so carries a whiff of totalitarianism.  I think even the most ardent Iraq war supporters could dream up a conflict that they wouldn’t support sending our troops to engage in.

I think it’s disappointing to see everyone lumped into the same group as often as they are.  Brent Scowcroft, for example, was against the invasion because he felt it was a tactical mistake.  Does he support the troops?  If the “anti-war” crowd was just a bunch of pinko pacifists who root for America’s failure, why do they only talk of Iraq, and not Afghanistan?  Would Scowcroft be considered part of the “anti-war” crowd?  What about the the same viewpoint coming from the troops themselves

Like I said, it’s not a black and white issue.  I support the troops who are doing their best to make a difference over there.  I think there is still hope for Iraq.  If they succeed, however,  it will be despite the actions of Bush and his cronies, not because of them.

Read the rest of this entry ?


Guest Bloggers

January 30, 2007

I’m currently working on getting a few more like-minded (and possibly some unlike-minded) bloggers  to contribute to the site.  I think it will be fun and interesting to have a few different points of view on here.  

Stay tuned!

Update:  Welcome eviltwinfelicia!

Update 2:  Welcome spawn03!

 I’ll also be adding a guest blogger section to the sidebar.  Should be neat.


What The Hell Is A Moonbat?

January 29, 2007

I cruise a lot of blogs.  You really don’t need to visit too many before you run into this word on virtually any right-leaning blog out there.  A lot of those sites hardly go a day without talking about some ‘moonbat’ did, or is doing, somewhere.  In fact, there are bloggers using it in their handles, and even whole sites dedicated to it.  As widespread as it seems, the term is used almost exclusively on the Internet.  So what does it mean?  According to wiki:

Moonbat (also “barking moonbat”) is a term often used as a political epithet. Some Iraq War supporters use it to insult opponents like Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchanan. More generally, it is used as a pejorative for extremists, especially those who believe in conspiracy theories.

Some sites that use the phrase often, like LGF, actually have their own definition:

moonbat – An unthinking or insane leftist — in other words, most modern leftists. Moonbat can also be used as an adjective, e.g. a moonbat professor. According to the Wikipedia entry for moonbat, the word was coined in 2002 by the Editor of Samizdata, Perry de Havilland, and was a variation on the name of radical British activist and columnist George Monbiot. Originally, the term “moonbat” was intended to be more politically neutral, and described wackos on the left and the right, but it quickly acquired its current usage of being applied almost exclusively to those on the left. The term also references the moon much in the same way that “lunatic” refers to the insanity-causing powers of the full moon (luna = moon). LGFers occasionally analyze the behavior patterns of various moonbat “species” as if they were actual animals, and even give them satirical Linnaean taxonomical names, such as moonbattus berkeleyensis. According to Charles: “Moonbat was originally coined by Perry at Samizdata, I believe. But LGF probably played a much bigger part in popularizing it.” The entry in the Samizdata glossary indicates that Perry originally coined the full phrase “barking moonbat”; apparently “moonbat” is just a subsequent shortened version of “barking moonbat,” rather than being a pre-existing term that was lengthened to barking moonbat.

I suppose it’s worth noting that the wiki entry has changed since LGF’s dictionary entry was written, and they have since traced the word back to the 19th century.  No matter.  Its just a political slur here in the 21st.  An ad Hominem.  A childish way of projecting inferiority onto others and their viewpoints as a substitute for validating one’s own (in this case, the viewpoint that the Iraq war was a good idea).  No wonder you see it everywhere.

During my travels through message boards and blog comments, I have been referred to as a moonbat many times.  It just makes me chuckle.  There’s something amusing about some poster out there calling people moonbats, who turns around in the next post to spout some rant about how the entire American media is conspiring to do everything it can to make sure that the U.S. loses the war (and by extension, destroy America).  The term has been used so liberally, and has become so watered down that I’m really not sure what it means anymore (hence this entry).  Any of my fellow bloggers want to help me out?

Maybe, the real moonbat is the person who thinks everyone else is a moonbat.

Update:  Good to see I wasn’t the only one who was wondering.  Here’s an old post from Chris Clarke: A token of my affection for my fellow moonbats


 Update: In addition to Moonbattery, there is also Barking Moonbat Early Warning System


Great Moments In Flame War History

January 28, 2007

Reposted from July 2006, cause it was so damn funny:


To have a little fun in the forums I decided to host the first FearBush Forum Skills Competition. The purpose was to call out two of our more senior (in age) members and see if, after thousands of posts, either one of them had learned very much about how the message board works (posting links, images, bold, italics, etc.). The results are in, and they are disappointing. Unfortunately, neither of them were able to complete any of the challenges. Plenty of excuses were made, and plenty of flak was delivered by the other members. The competition did bring out some very funny responses, however. I promised that the loser of the competition would be put into the FearBush Hall of Shame (this blog). Since the final score was a pathetic 0-0, I am going to highlight both members here. It should be noted that these members fall on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Let’s meet our two contestants…


Quick to post and unafraid to speak his mind, Rocky represents a kind of ‘shoot from the hip’ commentor. He has never started his own thread, and has never even posted a link to back up any of his statements. He simply calls it like he sees it, and moves on. The poor guy doesn’t even have an avatar. He claims he’s not ‘right wing’ , but has no admiration of ‘librals’. His best quote from the competition:

I told you before, I won’t lie to you. I consider it an honor to be able to jerk off twice a day at my age.

Tom Brady

Tom used to go under the handle of Bilhar, and with both entities combined he has well over 6,000 posts. In his recent interview, he divulged that he has been a Democrat for 60 years. Often picked on for his garbled posts and lack of proper grammar, Brady can often find himself fending off jabs from other members (even those who generally agree with him). Tom’s skills using the message board are notably more advanced than Rocky’s (he can use smileys, attach images, and has an avatar), but are still far behind the average member in terms of linking relevant material and using the quote feature properly. It was for this reason that he was included in the competition. Tom Brady’s most memorable quote from the competition was directed at….me:

If I really wanted to do this, I would just have a Worm like you do it for me, thats what worms who work in holes are for.

Frickin hilarious!


What Will Come Out In The Libby Trial?

January 28, 2007

I know a lot of bloggers out there are on the edge of their seats watching this Scooter trial from the sidelines.  I’ve been following the whole Plame thing off and on for the past few years.  Today, a familiar name popped up in the Raw Story feed: 

 Newsweek: Rove could testify in Libby case as subpoenas delivered

But the Rove account could cut in other ways. Fitzgerald would likely argue that Libby’s comment to Rove merely shows that the vice president’s top aide “was even lying inside the White House,” according to the legal source. Moreover, Rove is likely not eager to recount the story either. The reason? He would have to acknowledge that shortly after he had the chat with Libby, he went back to his office and had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in which he also disclosed the fact that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. The disclosure was potentially illegal since, at the time, Plame was employed in the Directorate of Operations, the agency’s covert arm…

Grab the popcorn folks.  I think there’s going to be a lot of unpleasant revelations laid bare in the next few weeks.  What will be exposed is an administration that was either a) so determined to cover their Iraq deception that they would risk exposing a CIA agent to discredit the critic, and send a shot across the bow of any future challengers, or b) were legitimately trying to “correct a story” (to whatever degree), but wound up outing the agent inadvertently (the old “cover up worse than the crime” scenario).  Either way, it looks like Libby is going with the defense that someone else is lying to make him take the fall.     Like I said….grab the popcorn.


Super Bowl Game (for pride)

January 26, 2007

I saw this on the fearbush message board, and I thought it’d be fun to repost it here for everyone:

This year lets see how well you know what will happen. Points will be award for the correct answers to the following questions:

1. What will be the result of the coin toss: Heads (1 point) / Tails (1 point)

2. Who will win the coin toss: Colts (1 point) / Bears (1 point)

3. Who will score the first points of the game: Colts (1 point) / Bears (1 point)

4. Will there be a turnover before any points are scored: Yes (1 point) / No (1 point)

5. Who will score first: Colts (1 points) / Bears (1 points)

6. Who will be leading after the first half: Colts (2 points) / Bears (3 points)

7. Which team will use their challenge first: Colts (1 point) / Bears (1 point)

8. What will be the first song sung by Prince at the halftime show (only one guess): (2 points for the correct answer / 1 point if the song is sung but not first)

9. Will either team score on their opening drive of the game: Yes (2 points) / No (1 point)

10. Will either team score on their opening drive of the second half: Yes (2 points) / No (1 point)

11. Will there be more or less than three and a half turnovers in the game: Over (1 point) / Under (1 point)

12. The over/under for the game is at 49. Will the total score be under or over that amount: Over (1 point) / Under (1 point)

13. Will there be overtime: Yes (6 points) / No (1 point)

14. Will the Colts cover the 7 point spread: Yes (1 point) / No (1 point)

15. Who will win the game: Colts (3 points) / Bears (5 points)

16. Will the first points of the game be the result of a touchdown, field goal or a safety: Touchdown (1 point) / Field Goal (1 point) / Safety (3 points)

17. Will there be a punt or kickoff return that results in a touchdown: Yes (3 points) / No (1 point)

Read the rest of this entry ?


Cheney vs Blitzer

January 26, 2007

I can’t believe that this one slipped by me. I would have thought this scenario unlikely after the whole Lynne episode, but there they were, Wolf and Dick:

Here is the full transcript.

It pretty amazing to watch. Wolf just goes on and on. I’m not quite sure what answers Wolf is expecting out of Cheney. I mean, he’s asking all the obvious questions, but he keeps getting the same triple-back-flip spin in response. I think Cheney’s most belligerent section was this one:

BLITZER: What, that there were no blunders? The President himself says there were blunders —

CHENEY: Remember, remember me — remember with me what happened in Afghanistan. The United States was actively involved in Afghanistan in the ’80s supporting the effort against the Soviets. The Mujahideen prevailed, everybody walked away. And in Afghanistan, within relatively short order, the Taliban came to power, they created a safe haven for al Qaeda, training camps were established where some 20,000 terrorists trained in the late ’90s. And out of that, out of Afghanistan, because we walked away and ignored it, we had the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the embassies in East Africa, and 9/11, where the people trained and planned in Afghanistan for that attack and killed 3,000 Americans. That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East.

I’m not sure what argument he’s trying to make.  Perhaps he’s suggesting that if the Soviets had invaded Iraq, we would have supported Saddam?  Or, is he saying that we should have let the Soviets win in Afghanistan?  Supported them even?  When he says “walked away”, what does that mean?  We didn’t have troops there, and Cheney doesn’t suggest what we could have done otherwise.  Cheney thinks he’s making a point here.  Afghanistan was the Soviets’ Iraq, a trap apparently sprung by us.

Now you might have been able to do that before 9/11. But after 9/11, we learned that we have a vested interest in what happens on the ground in the Middle East. Now, if you are going to walk away from Iraq today and say, well, gee, it’s too tough, we can’t complete the task, we just are going to quit, you’ll create exactly that same kind of situation again.

What did we really learn from 9/11?  Lock the cockpit door?  Cheney makes it sound like all the previous presidents and their counter terrorism gurus had their thumbs up their collective asses this whole time because 19 jihadi’s managed to sneak by (on their watch, mind you).  Of course everyone knew we had a vested interest in what happens in the Middle East.  Jesus H.  It was our vested interest that led to 9/11.  He’s kind of admitting that they were completely ignorant.  It makes you wonder how we’re supposed to believe them now.   But, hey, he got to drop “9/11” one more time while discussing Iraq.

Now, the critics have not suggested a policy. They haven’t put anything in place. All they want to do, all they’ve recommended is to redeploy or to withdraw our forces. The fact is, we can complete the task in Iraq. We’re going to do it. We’ve got Petraeus — General Petraeus taking over. It is a good strategy. It will work. But we have to have the stomach to finish the task.

(Trust me)

I’m not sure why it’s even worth analyzing (the rest of it).   For the good of America, impeach these guys before they do any more damage.  Seriously.