News From The Stupidsphere!
First, from WorldNetDaily:
Why hasn't Osama bin Laden's terror network executed an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11?
Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives": The U.S. has threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror leader strike America again.
[...]
Writes Wheeler in his members-only column: "There has been a rumor floating in the Washington ether for some time now that George Bush has figured out what Sword of Damocles is suspended over Osama bin Laden's head. It's whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by elliptically conversing about it in their presence.
I'd love to hear how the State Dept. neocons torment their liberal coworkers by "elliptically" mentioning how George Bush will nuke Mecca if bin Laden attacks the U.S. Maybe they stay stuff like, "Well, Percy, that policy paper on the China trade balance is all well and good, but you know nothing will matter when we're all dead, right?"
But back to the Indiana Jones of the Mentally Impaired:
"Osama would have laughed off such a threat, given his view that Americans are wussies who cut and run after a few losses, such as Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Part of Bush's rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq – obviously never expressed publicly – was to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real. Osama hates America just as much as ever, but he is laughing no more."
Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca.
Why does the idea of George Bush, Texas Cowboy from Kennebunkport, playing poker with nuclear weapons seem so scary?
Anyway, the WorldNetDaily readers LOVED the idea of nuking Mecca. Here are the results of a poll taken last Saturday:
What would you think of threatening to nuke Mecca if terror attack made on U.S.?
The threat should include lacing the bomb with pig's blood 43.79% (3669)
The Islamist mentality is so extreme, only a threat of this magnitude is likely to be effective 39.74% (3330)
It would be scary but perhaps necessary 4.15% (348)
The U.S. would never make such a threat 3.62% (303)
The U.S. might make such a threat, but it would never carry it out 2.10% (176)
It would be immoral 1.81% (152)
It would make the U.S. the worst terrorist nation in history 1.69% (142)
It would be an obscene over-reaction 1.42% (119)
Other 1.13% (95)
It would be overkill 0.54% (45)
TOTAL VOTES: 8379
So, 90% of those taking the poll think that such a threat is a good idea. Yup, that's how you win the hearts and minds of the Middle East.
Our next nuttiness comes from a transcript of Thursday's Scarborough Country. It's from JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:
BURKMAN: Well, Joe, the issue, look, with the Geneva Conventions, we all they were never intended to prohibit torture under any circumstance.
The framers of the Geneva Convention could not contemplate a circumstance where there would be something like a dirty bomb or a smallpox epidemic or some type of terrible thing that could kill millions of people.
Yeah, because back in the primitive days of 1949, nobody had ever DREAMED of, say, a bomb that could use the power of the atom to kill millions!
But I would take it even further. Why does it have to be something so extreme, as Senator Specter laid out today? What if 10,000 or 5,000 lives? Do you mean to tell me the president of the United States should refrain from—not killing someone or even maiming someone.
Well, as we know from the Simpsons, every President gets three secret murders. (If you don't use them by the end of the term [smack], they're gone!) So, I guess if George wants to use his three secret murders to save 10,000 lives, or 100 lives, or a really cute puppy, I guess he can. But he should have to carry them out with his own hands.
BURKMAN: Look, Joe, I think Gonzales did a good job today. I think the one thing he should have done, he should have stuck by his guns and said yes. He should have said clearly, yes, there are circumstances where torture is OK. We have a three and a half million vote conservative mandate. I don‘t think we should be coddling Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Pat Leahy. Those guys should be steamrolled.
Basically what Burkman is saying is that the Republicans won the election, so they should damn well be able to torture whomever they please! Isn't that what a mandate means?
P.S. I did a little research on Mr. Burkman, and learned that not only is he a frequent guest on Scar's show, but he's also a trial attorney and a lobbyist ("Mr. Burkman's governmental relations and advocacy practice is based on his extensive experience on the Hill"). Per America Review, he was the Senate Republican counsel on the Whitewater Committee "where he coordinated questioning of Webb Hubbell.' Fiercely pro-Starr, anti-Clinton."
Here are a few choice quotes from him, from the past year or so.
First, on the topic of teaching creationism in schools:
Why do you oppose a local school district determining what is science for itself? Isn‘t that what America is about?
Second, on the death penalty:
If the reason the death penalty is not the deterrent it could be, it's because, A, it's not visible when it's done, and, B, it's not painful.
And third, on how to deal with Iran:
If the Iranians don‘t come to the table soon on the nuclear issue, the United States has no choice but to issue a final warning and then to be prepared to use military force. We cannot allow a barbarian—we cannot allow a barbarian state to become a nuclear state in the heart of the Middle East. ... The reality is, we‘re probably going to have to draft, because incentives won‘t bring it up. We‘re heading for a draft in this country. The choice for the United States is this. Do we have the guts as a people to lead the world? World leadership is not easy.
What we have to do is. You have to issue a final ultimatum to the Iranians on the nuclear issue. If they don‘t respond, we need heavy airstrikes. Now, why won‘t Bush do that?
Yeah, let's start up the draft and invade Iran, because, as Mr. Burkman said on a Scar show from a couple of weeks ago, the Iraq war has been a "brilliant success" (and it's only gloomy gusses and Democrats who keep focusing on Abu Ghraib).
And if our drafted armed forces have any trouble with the Iranians we take prisoner, they can damn well torture them -- because that's what winning an election means.
5:21:04 AM 
|
