What a complete loon.

The second’s to what seems to be a Brent Bozell-related outfit, and he’s stupid.

You must like Brent Bozell a lot to come to such a generous conclusion.

jcobble posts four links, the bottom two I didn’t bother with as the function of those two seems pretty obviously political. The second’s to what seems to be a Brent Bozell-related outfit, and he’s stupid. I was interested in the first, as I think Frontline does a pretty decent job. From the right-hand margin of that link:

[Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. In fact, U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Since the original broadcast, Khodada has not publicly addressed questions that have been raised about his account of activities at Salman Pak.]

Geez. I’m astounded that she is ever sober enough to find her way to the keyboard.

(Or am I getting her mixed up with Debbie Schlussel?)

[slurp]

My wine glass is very vaginal. Va-gin-al.

[slurp]

Gavin, where do you live?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200410/SPE20041004a.html

http://husseinandterror.com/

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

Yea, sure Saddam had no links to terror; you should see the stuff on his WMD, just hilarious.

It’s been a tough week in terms of Freepers and other trolls coming over to plant nasty stuff in comments, so I apologize, but I’m being a bit vigilant in moderating things that even seem to rub up against the basic no-assholishness policy (see posted policy re: personal info, threats, and all that).

Althouse is having another of her hissies about people using her name. Our reply, every time she does this, includes the fact that anyone is allowed to use anyone’s name they want here, if it’s done as satire and not maliciously — e.g., not as a way to fool people into thinking that somebody is saying things that they’re not really saying.

She seems determined to misunderstand this, which is fine, but I think it’s a good idea to restate it here, so that any new people who come by will know how things customarily work, etc.

Just a note in passing. G-

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a staple of neocon “reasoning”, as is from-a-distance minimalizing of the human suffering they put into motion.

Sweet Lord Soros, I had no idea that the old constitution barred Islamofacisists from getting insurance! Why, liability for the Nurembemberg Rally alone must have given Osama an ulcer.

I’m an infernal optimist. I learned a long time ago that I can be kind of therapeutic in my ability to move the clinically depressed to homicidal wroth by being a completely Pollyanish git.

And I’ve been kind of down this week wondering, “What the fuck? How many more wheels have to fall off the fucking wagon before the conversation starts moving towards, ‘Wow! All the wheels have fallen off the fucking wagon!’”

Or maybe it’s just the dry spell (not water) here in NoFlo that’s got me off my feed. [See, that's the kind of thing I do that really drives people spare.]

Gerbils don’t have pockets, good luck with teh suit.

Putting up a front that is blatantly inconsistent with reality and with their own previous statements and rationales has been the hallmark of this Administration. And that’s not just about the war; remember, after Katrina, N.O. had the look of a cheap “Earth-being-destryed-by-Martians-and-all-hell-breaks-lose” movie he came up with “heckuva job Brownie”… How is that different from “Pervez is not so bad, yo”?

it’s in human nature, though, that such behaviour elicits very strong reaction. See, after a few thousand years of civilization, humans have generally adopted the notion that adherence to neutral reality and to someone’s own proclamations is kind of needed for normal social functioning. If you fail on that, that’s OK, but you need to make some acknowledgement of being wrong.

That’s the whole genesis of the Bush Derangement Syndrom. It’s really simple, you can experiment it at home, for example: borrow you S.O.s I-pod and delete all their songs. Then look at them in the eyes and say, “no I didn’t”, and then say “besides these songs were not good for you, anyway”, and then top it off with “you still have an I-pod, what are you complaining about?” Then watch what kind of reaction you will get.

That’s what it is, really. There is some buzz going around about a liberal radio-host (forgot the name) that said he had violent thoughts when watching ScotMcclelan/Snow/DanaPerrino. The right is trying to milk it again (O’Reilly had a piece), to show how deranged these people are. It has worked in the past, however, things maybe changing. Watch Bush approval ratings: the 30% is not going to go lower, that’s the hard core; however, The other 70% are shifting noticeably from “somewhat disaprove” to “strongly disaprove” with “strongly disap” now over 50%. The country is getting angrier…

The funny thing about the whole “Democracy is good only some of the time” line of reasoning is that it contradicts all his writings about Iraq previously, and the neo-con line in general, which is that more democracy = more happy happy.

Either democracy is inherently superior or it isn’t. It can’t be both.

If so, I’d like to wish him a happy and prosperous Diwali.

I know what you mean about local news, though. The letter-writers and “newspaper” editors in my neck o’ the woods make asshats like Krauthammer sound sane.