Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Do We Need Another Terrorist Attack?

ABC is reporting that Al Qaeda cells are already in the United States or on their way preparing for the next terrorist attack. Of course, no one wants another terrorist attack on American soil, but many conservatives are coming to the reluctant conclusion that, regretfully, another terrorist attack may be just what we need right now to wake the country up.

You could almost see former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum shake his head sadly as he told Hugh Hewitt on his radio show, "Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we're seeing unfold in the UK." While a series of "unfortunate events" even worse than the ones in the Lemony Snicket books would certainly be unfortunate, it wouldn't be all bad news since people would start supporting the War in Iraq again. Sometimes, you just have to take the bad along with the good.

Another terrorist attack, terrible as that would be, would not just reverse the war's bad poll numbers, it would also help the President. "At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ]," said the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan, last month, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country." I don't think Mulligan is saying that he necessarily wants another terrorist attack, he's just saying that if there was one, there would at least be an upside.

And let's be frank, if there was another terrorist attack, it isn't likely to take place in Arkansas. Nor is it likely to happen Santa Clara, California, although I am sure they are grateful for the grant they got from Homeland Security to buy new Segway Scooters, or Outagamie, Wisconsin, where those brand new chemical suits might yet prove useful. Another terrorist attack is most likely to happen in New York or San Francisco or Los Angeles or Washington, DC, places where the people really could use a wake-up call.

Michael Fumento has an even better suggestion for the terrorists, if any are reading his column. Noting the regrettable lack of Muslim villains in Hollywood blockbusters, he writes, "A lot of people have suggested that, pathetically, it's going to take another terrorist attack to wake us from our slumber. Wouldn't it be fitting if it were in a movie theater?" Of course, he isn't one of those pathetic people who would suggest that we need another terrorist attack, but if we are going to have one anyway, a movie theater would be the perfect place especially since it would suit the terrorists' finely honed sense of irony. And while he is not exactly welcoming another terrorist attack, he thinks liberals would love one. As he tells Scott at World o' Crap in the comments to a post "I'll bet you all split a gut laughing when those Twin Towers fell." According to Fumento all of those liberal New Yorkers who screamed when the World Trade Center collapsed were actually screaming with laughter. Who knew?

In contrast to liberals' glee over the prospect of terrorist attacks in their hometowns, conservatives are all torn up about it, the way we are about wars that kill a lot of civilians and torture and other regrettable necessities. Unfortunately, there seems to be no other way of convincing people how wrong they were to vote for the Democrats and what a disaster it would be to leave Iraq. "The sick, twisted fact is within a year of a Democrat taking office, the terrorists will have the chance to launch another terrorist attack on US soil," says Alexander Cornswalled in an eloquent piece called "Democrats Are Part of the Enemy." "The people will see the error of turning to the Democrats, and the democratic party will be dead in the water for the next 20 years. I'm disgusted that it's going to take another terrorist attack on US soil to accomplish that, but the people are being mislead by false promises of peace and roses if we leave Iraq." Is there anything besides another terrorist attack that will convince voters how irrational they were to for Democrats?

But just any terrorist attack will not suffice. It's going to take a really big one. And a failed terrorist attack would be even worse than a successful one as Jonah Goldberg pointed out in reaction to the latest bombings in Great Britain. "Anyway, the irony is that from a policy standpoint, it seems to me that security officials have to view things like the failed London bombing as basically no different than a successful bombing," he wrote on The Corner. "But because the bombing failed, the policy options to security officials are far narrower precisely because the bombing failed and therefore didn't rouse the sort of political reaction it might otherwise have." So if we are going to have a terrorist attack, let's hope that it is a good one.

If it turns out that we are lucky and that despite Democrats winning the last election and diminishing support for the War in Iraq, we avoid a terrorist attack for now, that doesn't mean we are safe. As Rudy Giuliani has pointed out, voting for a Democrat for President practically guarantees another terrorist attack. Only by voting for a Republican, or even better, for him, can we avoid this likely scenario. "America will be safer with a Republican president," says Giuliani, who promises to bring us back to those halcyon days of September 11, 2001 when everyone was united behind the President, before Democrats stopped rubber-stamping everything he did. Remember how great that time was? Unless the American people wake up, it may take another September 11 to return us to those bygone days. Not that we want that to happen. Of course not. How could you even think such a thing?

Update: Michael Fumento (if, indeed, it is Michael Fumento) responds in the comments and I respond to his response.

Share This Post

blinkbits BlinkList del.icio.us Fark Furl LinkaGoGo Ma.gnolia NewsVine Reddit Shadows Simpy Spurl TailRank YahooMyWeb

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

82 comments:

Anonymous said...

I sure hope the good intel they have now is better than that shitty "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" garbage they wasted George W. Bush's rime with in August 2001.

Anonymous said...

"time," not "rime." dammit

Anonymous said...

If there is another terrorist attack, I'm sure most Americans will use common sense and realize it happened BECAUSE of Bush's failed, antagonistic policies not in spite of them.

All the same, thanks for the inane nonsensical post. It bought a few laughs.

Anonymous said...

After all these years, still trying to link Iraq to the terrorists..... Makes me embarassed to be a Republican

Anonymous said...

So...how's the search for Osama Bin Laden coming along there? Wouldn't it just be peachy if another terrorist attack could successfully divert the American public's attention from the TOTAL failure of the Bush administration to accomplish even the most basic of its goals? I leave you to your macabre fantasies, Mr. Swift.

daphne said...

Wickedly brilliant. Deliciously convoluted. You just may have a future in this satire business.

Jay B. said...

A Swifitan post indeed, Jon. I can't think of a better guy to write one. Well, except maybe Kafka. Or Lewis Carroll. Or maybe Joseph Heller.

Just as a failed surge is proof that we're winning in Iraq, a spectacular terrorist attack is proof we need the Republicans to stay in charge of homeland security. The net good in all of it is about negative Eleventy Billion, but that's just peachy for those determined authoritarians on the right who see endless destruction as either a neccessary end, or a neccessary lesson, which is good, because they're destroying everything in sight.

I've never seen anything quite like it in all my days. The level of cognative dissonance involved in the posts you've linked to would power most midwestern cities. If only stupid could be harnessed and made into electricity. That'd get the US on top again!

mw said...

"Anyway, the irony is ... because the bombing failed, the policy options to security officials are far narrower precisely because the bombing failed and therefore didn't rouse the sort of political reaction it might otherwise have." - jg

I am not too concerned. Because the real irony is that we have not had any attacks here precisely because the Vice President has strengthened the presidency with unlimited war time powers which is now being undermined by the pussification of the presidency by those who do not understand how important it is for the President to be able to eavesdrop on anyone and arrest and hold and torture anyone he thinks is a terrorist, but now that Congress is taking those powers away we will get another terrorist attack and the president can get his power back until... wait ... I think I lost track... umm ... nevermind. You know what I mean. Whats for lunch?

purvis ames said...

Unfortunately for Our Glorious Leader and the brave patriots who surround him, another so-called "terrorist" attack would only further highlight his incompetence. The ugly word "conspiracy" might also raise its ugly head.

Julio said...

I'm not worried. We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here.
There's no way they can spare 20 guys and some boxcutters while we've got them pinned down in Iraq.

Jill said...

If you did not exist, we would have to invent you. This would be hilarious if we weren't so utterly and completely FUBAR.

Anonymous said...

but that's just peachy for those determined authoritarians on the right who see endless destruction as either a neccessary end, or a neccessary lesson, which is good, because they're destroying everything in sight.

Great comment Jay B!!!

Another great comment by anonymous is"If there is another terrorist attack, I'm sure most Americans will use common sense and realize it happened BECAUSE of Bush's failed, antagonistic policies not in spite of them."

Has President Bush been in office since 1973? That's how far back we have been attacked by terrorists! Was he in charge when the twin towers was attacked the first time? How about when I lost so many brothers in the USS Cole attack?

President Bush has done more to protect this country than the last six president's put together. He is consistently being undermined by the Bush haters. Let's take the eaves dropping on suspected terrorists that President Bush has taken so much heat over. The policy of eaves dropping on suspected terrorists was enacted by Slick Willy!!!

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr. Anonymous,

I knew that President Clinton disgraced the Presidency for all time by getting a blow job in the Oval Office, but I did not know that he dropped eaves, also!

Is there any depths to which that man did not stoop! Really!

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

P.S. Another excellent analysis, Mr. Swift! Huzzah!

Jay B. said...

Has President Bush been in office since 1973? That's how far back we have been attacked by terrorists! Was he in charge when the twin towers was attacked the first time? How about when I lost so many brothers in the USS Cole attack?

Huzzah? Thanks anon for proving my point about cognative dissonace. In this fun houe mirror of Swift's, I want to assume you're using secret-double sacrasm, but, actually, I don't.

I don't know, really, what you're doing. Bush was in charge when we suffered the worst terrorist attack in history, right? And we went to war to oust the Taliban, capture bin Laden and destroy Al Queda, didn't we? And then we went to Iraq to (choose one of the 50 or so bullshit excuses) and, at least in part, 'fight them there so we don't fight them here'? And didn't we destroy/compromise/ignore basic civil liberties, eviscerate habeus corpus, embrace torture/severely coercive question time, spy on ordinary Americans, boost our intel and defense budgets AND create a Department of Homeland Security just so Al Queda/terrorists/Chucky/Leatherface/FuManchu WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ATTACK US?

OK then, follow along -- if we've done all of this for six long years, and by the administrations own definition we're still not safer, isn't that a colossal -- and I mean all time historic -- failure? We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars, cost Americans, our allies, Afghanis and Iraqis hundreds of thousands of lives and the best we can say for our efforts is that Mike Chertoff has a "gut feeling" we're in for a major attack?

So all those brothers you lost on the Cole (17) -- how many more have you lost for this admitted failure?

Anonymous said...

Jay B.
You seem to think that this is black and white! There is much more involved in this effort than to kill a few Al Queda. This is a movement that is hell bent on destroying everyone that is not part of radical Islam. You cannot apease them, you cannot make them happy unless you convert! I DO NOT WANT TO CONVERT!
You talk about how we torture the enemy combatants, because they do not wear a uniform, they do not fall under the Geneva Conventions. Did they follow the Geneva Conventions when they sawed the head off of a US Citizen? Or when they burned 2 others and drug them through the streets?
Since you are so concerned about the money we have spent on the war, let me see if I can explain this so that you can understand. First, EVERYTHING COSTS MONEY. Second, our economy is booming and even with this war going on, our deficit will be in surplus by next summer simply because of the tax cuts even with the war.
Third, we may be a lot further along in this if Slick Willy had not cut our defense by 50%. How do you think he got rid of the deficit during his administration?
If you are so concerned about the Americans who have died since the beginning of the war, then why don't you fight for the 5.5 million babies/fetuses that have died since the beginning of the Iraq war without being able to chose life or death?
The men and women fighting for this country have a voice. We have a volunteer military. Reenlistment has never been higher! Who are you to decide what they should do?
I am so sick of hearing the same liberal talking points. If one republican agrees with the left, they run it into the ground. The left is so pathetic. They have no solutions just talking points and raising our taxes.
My brothers on the USS Cole were murdered just as the people that died on 9/11 and all of the other attacks since 1973 by faceless cowards not by a countries military.
My name is Jeff P. from San Antonio, Texas

Baldie McEagle said...

Poor Jeff P

First, the Iraq war would be "farther along" if only Clinton hadn't gutted the defense budget:

Third, we may be a lot further along in this if Slick Willy had not cut our defense by 50%.

Then, cutting defense saves money:

How do you think he got rid of the deficit during his administration?


Then, money is "free," and Bush saved money by SPENDING it:

EVERYTHING COSTS MONEY. Second, our economy is booming and even with this war going on, our deficit will be in surplus by next summer simply because of the tax cuts even with the war.

But the winner is when you conclude that a big military doesn't help us fight terrorism anyway:

My brothers on the USS Cole were murdered just as the people that died on 9/11 and all of the other attacks since 1973 by faceless cowards not by a countries military.

And you did all this between dinner and the nightly news!

A word of advice however---You would be wise to recall that soldiers do not make political decisions in our country. Civilians do.

Anonymous said...

Another terrorist attack is most likely to happen in New York or San Francisco or Los Angeles or Washington, DC, places where the people really could use a wake-up call.

I'm a liberal and a New Yorker and I worked down the street from the World Trade Center in 2001 and was four blocks away when the towers fell and I can assure you I don't need any more "waking up." I knew our foreign policy was to blame that day. Most New Yorkers are worldly enough to recognize that. President Bush was given the benefit of the doubt from that day but he hasn't earned it. A competent leader could have used the world's symapthy and goodwill to turn opinion against groups like Al Qaeda. Instead, his unnecessary war in Iraq has made the world's view of America immeasurably worse in the last five years and rallied many more militants against us, who are now killing our troops in Iraq, and will all too likely turn up here at home as well.

If another terrorist attack takes place on his watch, I suspect more people will blame him and his administration's bungling than rally around him again.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for allowing comments.

Grace Nearing said...

If there is another terrorist attack, I'm sure most Americans will use common sense and realize it happened BECAUSE of Bush's failed, antagonistic policies not in spite of them.

Anonymous @12:02PM -- Let's hope it doesn't take 4 or 5 years for that commonsense to kick in to high gear.

Anonymous said...

Bush was in charge when we suffered the worst terrorist attack in history, right?

It took many years to plan and execute.

Then, cutting defense saves money:

NO! Cutting defense makes us weak!!

But the winner is when you conclude that a big military doesn't help us fight terrorism anyway:

Well then genius! What will help us fight terrorism. Kiss their @@@? Do you have a solution?

And you did all this between dinner and the nightly news!

A typical one liner from a feeble mind!

A competent leader could have used the world's symapthy and goodwill to turn opinion against groups like Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda doesn't care about sympathy or goodwill. They want to kill us all! If you are not a muslim you must die. Which part of this don't you understand?

Jeff P.

Bukko_in_Australia said...

I agree that another terrorist attack within the borders of the United States is a 100% Jeff-P-from-San-Antonio-certain eventuality. This will absolutely destroy the fabric of life in America and make all cowering liberals immediately convert to whatever ideology the terrorists want. It happens to every society that terrorists attack. That's why everyone in England became Irish during the IRA terror bombings during the 1970s and 80s, and their economy collapsed to the point where people were EATING BABIES! (I didn't say it was all bad...) The U.S. would be no different.

The point is, "How can good conservatives make sure this does not happen?" It's not enough to wait until liberals are elected and throw open the borders to every Mexican and terrorist who wants to walk across. Because we know that's what liberals do, stop enforcing laws and start singing "Kumbaya" until some terrorist saws their head off. Conservatives must abort this error before it's born. (Note -- aborting an error is not wrong because it's NOT a fetus!)

We must make it clear -- through clever hinting in blogs like those linked by Brother Swift -- that conservatives WILL NOT WAIT for the terrorists to attack if liberals are elected. WE will do it first. Our blog-brethren have already hinted where we will attack (San Francisco, movie theaters, other dens of liberality). We should also hint how we will attack (weaponised anthrax, anyone?) Only hinting, of course. Unless we need to spell it out more clearly. And stage a few demonstration attacks to prove we're serious.

Because only conservatives can protect America from attacks by terrorists, or conservatives. I was in New York City BEFORE the Twin Towers fell, and I learned all about this tactic from some Italian-American friends. They had a special name for it -- "rotection packet" or somesuch...

Lurch said...

Poor Jeff P.

Everything costs money, but apparently your education didn't costs very much.

Anonymous said...

Typical liberal answer Lurch.

If you can't argue the facts then attack the person.

Anonymous said...

Apologies in advance if this gets is a repost ...

Dear Mr Swift

Thank you for this, particularly for introducing me to the thoughts of Mr Cornswalled, when previously I did not know of his existence.

It is always useful to know where these people are to be found. However, there appear to be a large number of liberals commenting at his site. I hope this does not happen here.

Disinterested Observer

Al said...

The reason for the Al Qaeda resurgence is because we have been in Iraq instead of going after Bin Laden and his training camps in Pakistan. DOD ( Rumsfeld) didn't provide enough support to the soldiers in Afghanistan (CIA Operation} when they were engaging Bin Laden towards the end of the invasion, Bin Laden escaped because of Rumsfeld's petty arrogance , territorial and glory seeking ways.
Whatever needs to be done has to be handled by more capable people. Middle East is FUBAR. Congress needs to leash Bush until we get a new President. This President has shown that if nothing else, he is very incompetent.

Brando said...

The withering tone was just perfect for this post. Great job.

Jaesoreal said...

May Allah's will be done.

purvis ames said...

Dear Mr. Anonymous

"EVERYTHING COSTS MONEY. Second, our economy is booming and even with this war going on, our deficit will be in surplus by next summer simply because of the tax cuts even with the war."

Why don't you take your head out of your ass and stop listening to the flatulent, Repug rumblings therein. The very idea that a multi trillion dollar deficit will be in surplus a year from now has a particularly pungent odor. I assume you are being ironic. Now, please explain to me why with our "booming economy" the Euro, which traded for 88 cents when Baby Caligula entered office, now trades for $1.36. In other words, even if the stock market seems to be going through the ceiling, it is barely keeping pace with inflation. On second thought, put your head back up your ass where it belongs.

Anonymous said...

Purvis says:
Why don't you take your head out of your ass and stop listening to the flatulent, Repug rumblings therein. The very idea that a multi trillion dollar deficit will be in surplus a year from now has a particularly pungent odor.


It's just possible that before you make uneducated remarks you should research the topic. I have!

It is a proven fact that democrats are the highest educated people in this country but I believe that for that reason, they have so much of their education running through their heads that they are either naive or stupid about reality. They are in their own world worried only about themselves.

You may want to dump your Euro's soon because the same thing is going to happen. IMHO

What you and most liberals do not understand no matter what your education, is that our enemies want to destroy us first financially and then destroy us.

Try watching the news on stations other than NBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN with an open mind. You may learn something.

Bukko_in_Australia said...

Last anonymous, who I will assume is the tough-minded, patriotic conservative Jeff from St. Antoine:

Please tell me what you mean about You may want to dump your Euro's soon because the same thing is going to happen. IMHO Because when I emigrated here in 2005 to escape the flood-tide of liberalism that was swamping the United States, it only cost 75 U.S. cents to buy one Aussie dollar. Now the rate is 86.02 U.S. cents, and the exchange rate is tipped to go to 90. This is wonderful for me, because Mrs. Bukko and I dumped all our U.S. dollar assets when we left the country. That is the conservative thing to do, abandon your country's money, because a right-thinking patriot operates with
an accountant's mind, not sentiment.

So I've been sneering at all the simps in the (other) States about how the Administration's liberal economic policies have made their money a laughingstock. Please enlighten me about how I'm wrong. I have not had the benefit of a good education like those snotty liberals with their college degrees who lord it over conservatives just because they're smarter than we are.

And what is this "other" source of TV news you mention? The only other main channel I can think of is Fox, but it advertises itself as "fair and balanced" and I don't want any ot that crapola. I want CONSERVATIVE news and views, which is why I turn on to JonSwift.

Anonymous said...

Bukko says:
And what is this "other" source of TV news you mention? The only other main channel I can think of is Fox, but it advertises itself as "fair and balanced" and I don't want any ot that crapola.

But you must be curious about what the liberals views are!!! Alan is a real hater. At least 5 times a show he says that liberal views are taken out of context. I have to laugh. Entertaining TV!!!

I'm glad you have had 2 years of good gains with the Euro but In My Honest Opinion be careful!

Bukko_in_Australia said...

Anonymous, I thank you for the courtesy of your honest opinion. However, I was hoping for an insightful comment about future ForEx trends.

The Mrs. and I are planning a month in Europe around the time of the Northern Hemisphere wine crush. (These damnnable lazy Australians give workers like me 6 weeks' holiday each year, and they won't let me keep working and take that time in cash like a good American business would, so I'm practically forced to have long trips overseas in addition to my sojourns on this continent.)

I need guidance on potential currency fluctuations to determine whether it's best to pre-pay our airline tickets, hotel reservations and such on our euro-denominated credit card, the Swiss franc bank account or with some of our residual U.S. assets. We've got a three-month time window here, and if I pay now in a currency that's going to depreciate substanatially in the meantime, it's that much better for me. It matters when one is talking about a trip that will cost upwards of $20,000 U.S.

I'm all for trusting gut reactions when it comes to conservative savants like Nicholas Cherkoff predicting a terrorist attack on America, or George Bush deciding to invade Iraq because he had a hunch that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. After all, those men have a track record of making exemplary decisions. However, I cannot base my currency speculation on your track record because you are, after all, anonymous.

So I'm afraid I'll have to follow the counsel of my banker in Zurich, who advises us "nicht tokken der Amerikanischdollar vor aucunst vor anusvipen." Translated from SweitzerDeutsch, that means "don't touch the U.S. dollar for anything except to wipe your arse with." Those earthy Teutonic types!

I must say, I have qualms about your veracity if you advise watching Alan the Colmosexual. He IS a rabid leftist hate-machine. Anyone who would suggest giving him a minute of eyeball time, even for a laugh, has questionable conservative credentials in my opinion.

Are you sure that you are not actually a liberal pretending to be a conservative? I've heard that people sometimes do that on the Internet...

Anonymous said...

Bukko says:
I must say, I have qualms about your veracity if you advise watching Alan the Colmosexual. He IS a rabid leftist hate-machine. Anyone who would suggest giving him a minute of eyeball time, even for a laugh, has questionable conservative credentials in my opinion.

I just like seeing Alan clinch his teeth and throw out those repetitive one liners that the liberals have been using for many years when they don't have anything intellegent to say. They cannot debate the issues without throwing out one liners and never have any ideas.

I am very conservative!

Jeff P.

Anonymous said...

Jon Swift, archly condemning what he sees as a bit of prospective schadenfreude, writes:

" I don't think Mulligan is saying that he necessarily wants another terrorist attack, he's just saying that if there was one, there would at least be an upside.

And let's be frank, if there was another terrorist attack, it isn't likely to take place in Arkansas. Nor is it likely to happen Santa Clara, California, ... Another terrorist attack is most likely to happen in New York or San Francisco or Los Angeles or Washington, DC, places where the people really could use a wake-up call."


Thus Jon Swift wrote, regarding what Jon Swift saw.

But has not Jon Swift ever seen this question asked?: Why didn't the terrorists of 9/11, who were surely just responding to American injustice, make certain to kill mostly Republicans or their Red State supporters? Why attack cosmopolitan, tolerant, sympathetic, and progressive Blue State New York City?

Regarding the World Trade Center attack, Michael Moore famously wrote:

" Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California – these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

http://www.marxists.de/war/wtc/mmoore.htm


Did Jon Swift see that? Sure he did.

Or, maybe not, since it has since been taken down by its courageous author; hence the admiring marxist site link. It was, as earlier mentioned, Michael Moore: wailing on his web site that it was the Anti-Bush part of the country that unfairly suffered.

Now, good and feeling lefty that he is, Moore was quick of course to subsequently offer an exculpatory sentiment: "Why kill them? [the good Anti-Bush types] Why kill anyone? [even Bush supporters he means here] "

So, spare everyone the implicit moral outrage Jon.

Even masked as it is behind your veil of simpering irony, it is an hollow exercise.

new day said...

anonymous at 7/16/2007 2:07 PM:

Nice analysis, but unnecessarily wordy. Next time, just say "Clinton got a blow job" and be done with it.

cognitorex said...

Cheney's Leer & the Glint on the Cross
Among all of Dick Cheney's distasteful contorted facial expressions the one that was most chilling and evil was the leer he transmitted to a GOP faithful audience when he disclosed that AQ franchise in Iraq now numbers fifteen thousand.
His leer fully transmitted that he used the propaganda lies, that AQ was connected to Iraq, to get our guns and oil companies into Iraq. It also transmitted the, to him, deliciously evil twist that the lie has now morphed into the truth.
That AQ is now several thousand strong in Iraq is a grotesque result of the pathetically naive Neocon misadventure. It's also a plank in their arguments that we need to stay.
"The dolts, (meaning the American public and the MSM), don't have a clue as to what evil we will employ to accomplish our goals," is what the leer beams to the mightiest of the Bush base.
...as the sunlight flickered on the cross in his lapel...

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr. Swift,

You have too many anonymouses! Anonymice? Anonymi?

At any rate, it is impossible to tell them apart. I'll just assume they are all the same person -- that makes it more amusing!

And to the anonymous who mentioned Bill Clinton's blow job, it should also be added that he disgraced the Presidency of our fair nation for all time and beyond all hope of redemption.

Thank you,

Doodle Bean

Anonymous said...

new day said...
anonymous at 7/16/2007 2:07 PM:

<<< Nice analysis, >>>

Thanks, new day.

"Nice", has a few different senses. I'll accept a more positive one, as in "well-executed".


<<< but unnecessarily wordy.>>>

Given that 40 plus % of the words were Jonboy's or Mike Moore's, your pose is certainly "precious"
... that's in the not so good sense, unfortunately.


<<< Next time, just say "Clinton got a blow job" and be done with it. 7/16/2007 3:04 PM >>>

Relax. I'm not interested in who you or Jon or Bill are fellating; just as long as you don't spread your viruses into the public spaces.

The actual topic, your waspish attempt at misdirection aside, was the uncloseted malevolence of the progressive class, and its implications for Jon's tendentious attempt at irony.

I guess that ultimately includes yours too.

Lord Straf-Bilderberg said...

Tempting fate, Jonathan, tempting fate. They might just bring the agenda forward.

Mike said...

It fascinates me how some bloggers will make a statement and supply a link that ostensibly backs them up, but when you simply click on the link you find that what they claim somebody said and what the original writer actually said have no correlation. So it was when you wrote "Michael Fumento ... Noting the regrettable lack of Muslim villains in Hollywood blockbusters . . ."

I said no such thing. I objected to the lack of Islamist terrorists; hardly the same thing as "Muslim villains." Nor was it a column, as you write, but clearly written as a blog and posted where? Yes, on my blog. In fact, you never read my piece at all but rather somebody else's misrepresentation of it, namely Scott at the aptly-named "World o' Crap." Hey! Why read the book when you can read the Cliff's Notes, huh?

And you're about as conservative as Arianna Huffington and David Brock.

Finally, maybe you want to tell your readers about how Hollywood changed Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" so that Islamist terrorists became neo-Nazis? Why? Because the Islamist front group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)demanded it. Take a bit of time and read about it, rather than getting all your information from a World o' Crap.

As he tells Scott at World o' Crap in the comments to a post "I'll bet you all split a gut laughing when those Twin Towers fell."

Sam Thornton said...

At long last, another terrorist attack. Bring it on! My question, will the terrorists be able to find that undisclosed location?

Anonymous said...

mike said:
And you're about as conservative as Arianna Huffington and David Brock.

Wait -- has Jon been fooling us all along? Or was he only fooling mike?

Jon Swift said...

Thank you for commenting, Mr. Fumento. (If, indeed, you are Michael Fumento. If I were Ann Althouse, I would would be very suspicious and require that you Fed Ex me your passport to confirm your identity, but I don't share Ms. Althouse's issues with trust, as I have not suffered from the personal traumas that she apparently has.) Anyway, we have missed you since your last visit. Welcome back.

I'm not sure why you take issue with my use of the phrase "Muslim villains" instead of "Islamic terrorists." I honestly thought the terms were interchangeable. Aren't all Muslims terrorists or vice versa?

If you were a regular reader of my blog you would know that I don't have time to actually read books or the Cliff Notes either. Cliff Notes are almost as long and tedious as the books themselves!

I must apologize, however, for thinking your piece was a column and not a blog post. I know you did write columns at one point and had no idea you were now merely a lowly blogger. I do regret the error.

It is certainly distressing that the movie "The Sum of All Fears" decided to defame neo-Nazis instead of Islamist terrorists after pressure by CAIR. Why don't neo-Nazis have their own advocacy group? Perhaps you can start one.

You are not the first person to question my conservative credentials. It seems that I am entirely too reasonable for some conservatives. I hope you will visit my modest blog again, and not just when I mention your name. I think you will find my arguments very persuasive and you will also find me very open to persuasion especially if a large corporation pays me to change my opinion. Perhaps you might have some advice on how I could go about finding a large corporation that would be willing to persuade me.

Bobbie Suzanne Marsh said...

For shame, for shame, for shame. I have to admire the cretins in a twisted morbid "staring at the trainwreck" kind of way. Who thinks this shit up. If it wasn't so ridiculously "last gasp of a murderous bunch of liars and thieves" that I would place my orange terror alert warning sign on my front lawn immediately.
Oh, wait, I don't have an orange DHS approved terror alert warning sign (coming to a Wal-mart near you just in time for the 2008 "scare the holy crap out of the base and the other idiots who poop themselves at the merest rethug Chicken Little impression) election season.) Yeah, the "undecideds." Never in my life have I ever thought of forced sterilization or revoking voting rights.
At the least a person knows where the mouth breathing base stands on an issue. They are like a choir that has learned one song and they repeat it over and over again just like they heard on the wireless.
The undecideds believe voting is like economics and dammit they is gonna make some money and they is gonna be comparing candidates clothes and beerability.
Anyone at this point who votes rethug has one concern; I got mine, fuck everybody else, and nobody is gonna take it from me. The new american standard for a patriot.
i've made myself ill...
lastly, the tools don't even see the irony in wishing for another "Pearl Harbor" to save them, nor the limited world view it takes to think of this crap, let alone speak it out loud in front of people with video cameras.
Posterity's gonna be a bitch for these criminals. If we survive.

Anonymous said...

Jon Swift said, about what Mike said:

"Thank you for commenting, Mr. Fumento ... I'm not sure why you take issue with my use of the phrase "Muslim villains" instead of "Islamic terrorists." I honestly thought the terms were interchangeable. Aren't all Muslims terrorists or vice versa?"

What Mike actually said was:

"It fascinates me how some bloggers will make a statement and supply a link that ostensibly backs them up, but when you simply click on the link you find that what they claim somebody said and what the original writer actually said have no correlation. So it was when you wrote 'Michael Fumento ... Noting the regrettable lack of Muslim villains in Hollywood blockbusters . . .'

I said no such thing. I objected to the lack of Islamist terrorists; hardly the same thing as 'Muslim villains.' "



Again, for the progressives among you, for whom verbal distinctions are something of a mystery, or rhetorical nuisance, as the case may be:

What Mike said was " ... Islamist terrorists ..."

What Jon claimed Mike said was : " ... 'Islamic terrorists.' ... "

Notice the difference in the actual words used?

Recognize the important political difference in meaning between
"Islamic" and "Islamist"?

Notice Jon's misleading use of quotation marks around "Islamic", nonetheless?

Who is it our smug friend Jon supposed to be quoting?

Himself?

Anonymous said...

Bobbie Suzanne Marsh off on an emotional rant said...

" Never in my life have I ever thought of forced sterilization or revoking voting rights. "


Sounds like you are thinking about it as a solution now, Bobbie.



" ... i've made myself ill..."

They used to call it "hysteria"; and a supposed constitutional susceptibility to it, was part of the reason women were not seen as fit to vote.

Try and relate the first quote to the second one.

Then take a valium.

Jon Swift said...

An unfortunate typo. I meant to write "Islamist terrorics," of course.

Anonymous said...

Jon Swift said...
An unfortunate typo. I meant to write "Islamist terrorics," of course. 7/18/2007 9:44 AM >>>

Oh, but of course.

Now about " ... 'Islamist terrorics,' ..."

Is that more clever ... unfathomable in fact ... irony; or just another typo?


Anyway, good excuse Jon!

Oh wait. No, it's not a good excuse.

It's an incoherent excuse.

This is because if you had really meant to use Mike's term, and if you did understand the significant political difference in meaning between "Islamic" and "Islamist", then, your profession of bewilderment over Mike's objection, would have been pointless. See?

The distinction would have been obvious, and your supposed ingenuousness, nonsensical. Get it?

So, basically the options are that you engaged in a deliberate misquote for rhetorical effect; or, that you didn't understand what you had read and were replying to; or, if we accept your story of a "typo", we are then forced note your baseless and rather dishonest profession of puzzlement.

How ironic.

Fozetti (Fozzy Bear's girlfriend) said...

But, what if there is another attack on U.S. soil, and 1) it turns out NOT to be Islamaterrorists, but Neo-Nazis, or someone like the unibomber or the Oklahoma City bomber? or 2) what if the islamiterrorists do attack the US successfully, and the american people BLAME Bush? Huh? (as Mr. Furmento says)

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Ms. Fozetti,

1.) It wouldn't get much media attention, so wouldn't generate enough hysteria to require valium-taking

2.) I love the "Furmento"!

Do you think that last "anonymous" was "Mike" again? Do you suppose he hasn't figured out how to log in properly?

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

Smell the "fumento" said...

HA HA HA HA! "Michael Fumento" -- I love it! Do you have any idea what "fumento" means in Portugese?

Anonymous said...

Doodle Bean said...

<<< Do you think that last "anonymous" was "Mike" again? Do you suppose he hasn't figured out how to log in properly?

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean >>>


Dear Sincerely Doodle Bean,

The last anonymous poster was not "Mike".

As your mind is now relieved of at least that worry, you and your fellow progressive magpies may safely go back to your vaporous cackling.

Say, I do have a question for you though.

It's regarding Jon's recent missteps. As one of his groomers, you might be in a position to know the answer.

Is Jon being intentionally stupid (with the misrepresentation, the misspellings, the misfired excuses and all), in a devilishly subtle attempt to heap even more ridicule on the "compassionate conservative" character he has adopted as his pose?

Is that it?

Because, truth be told, Doodle, it sure looks unintentional. It seems more like an author's failure of execution than it does clever mockery. It looks redounding.

Don't you think that that kind of blatant technical stupidity - call it negligence if you prefer - is counter productive; especially in parody?

See, it looks Doodle, as if some not really very bright fellow's well-rehearsed act has begun to fray. We don't know whether we are laughing at the "compassionate conservative" fool he has set up, or whether we are finding ourselves actually laughing at the real guy behind the mask, as his act begins to fall apart.

So, which is it, do you think?

M. Bouffant said...

Last "anonymous:"(Can't you people even think up good pseudonyms? Try "Idiot McPee-in-my-Pants.")
I believe Mr. Swift is a self-described "reasonable" conservative, not a "compassionate" conservative. No one believed "compassionate conservative" from the alcoholic closet case when he first trotted it out, and the six plus yrs. of "compassion" we've seen have certainly finished putting the lie to it.

David said...

6:23AM Anonymous said:

It seems more like an author's failure of execution than it does clever mockery. It looks redounding.

OK, Mr. "I'm think I'm so smart I can condescend to everyone even though I don't know shit from shinola" (or Mr. "Arrogant Stupidity" for short): Do you have even the slightest idea what the word "redound" means?

Merriam-Webster tells us that it means:

1. (archaic) to become swollen;
2. to have an effect for good or ill;
3. to become transferred or added (accrue)

So, are you telling us that Mr. Swift's "failure of execution" is:

a. becoming swollen;
b. having an effect for good or ill; or
c. accruing?

Obviously, I am nowhere near as smart as you because to me all three of those alternatives are utter nonsense.

Please advise.

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr. Swift,

It seems one of your anonymouses has promoted me to the position of your "groomer". Oh, excuse me, one of your groomers.

When do I start? How much does this position pay? And most importantly, who are my fellow groomers? A job description would also be nice. For example, do we have to clip your toenails or does your valet take care of that task?

Thank you for any information you may provide for this exciting new opportunity!

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr./Ms. Anonymous,

I was addressing Ms. Fozzetti. Are you her?

Also, please address me formally until such time as I become better acquainted with you. 'Doodle Bean' will do nicely.

Despite your excessive familiarity, I will answer your questions: what M. Bouffant and David said.

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

Anonymous said...

David said...
6:23AM Anonymous said:

["] It seems more like an author's failure of execution than it does clever mockery. It looks redounding. ["]

OK, Mr. "I'm think I'm so smart I can condescend to everyone even though I don't know shit from shinola" (or Mr. "Arrogant Stupidity" for short): Do you have even the slightest idea what the word "redound" means? >>>


Yes I do know what it means.

And I don't condescend to everyone: usually it's just to indignant lefty epiphenomena.


<<< Merriam-Webster tells us that it means:

1. (archaic) to become swollen;
2. to have an effect for good or ill;
3. to become transferred or added (accrue)

So, are you telling us that Mr. Swift's "failure of execution" is:

a. becoming swollen;
b. having an effect for good or ill; or
c. accruing?

Obviously, I am nowhere near as smart as you because to me all three of those alternatives are utter nonsense.>>>


Is that what Merriam-Webster tells you? Then obviously you are not very smart, because your presentation of alternatives is transparently deficient.

Thus you are stupidly dishonest; or, you can't read; or, your particular version of the dictionary you cite is a poor one, and you don't know enough about the word "redound" to recognize it.

My personal opinion, is that you are simply stupid enough to think that you can get away with a deliberately deceptive presentation.

" redound: i. Middle English redounden < MFr redonder < L redundare, to overflow ...

2. to come back; react; recoil (upon): said of honor or disgrace ..."

In short dictionary definitions one sees it noted as the correct word to be used when someone means to say something has "rebound (ed)" negatively upon the actor.

Now, David: Feel the shit you mentioned flowing back over your own head?

Anonymous said...

M. Bouffant said...

<<< Last "anonymous:"(Can't you people even think up good pseudonyms? Try "Idiot McPee-in-my-Pants.")
I believe Mr. Swift is a self-described "reasonable" conservative, not a "compassionate" conservative...>>>
7/19/2007 7:25 AM


Dear Bouffy:

If you believe that Mr. Swift has not described himself as a compassionate conservative in these pages, then you believe wrong.

But then perhaps you haven't actually read enough of what Mr. Swift has written to recognize this, or you really don't care either way.

If so, feel free to continue the ignorant backslapping and groundless expressions of outrage to your heart's content.

It costs me nothing, and provides me with laughs in return.

[I didn't describe Jon's fan base as magpies for nothing.]


As for your desire and taste for "good" pissy cognomens, I can only recommend that you get together with David.

He seems to share not only your indignation, but also your tendency toward coprophilia ... as do many so-called progressives for that matter.


Now, you will have to excuse me while I go out exploit the downtrodden, the "marginalized", the excluded, and those who embrace "alternative lifestyles".


" I hate to pile on John Kerry because I am a compassionate conservative and I think he has suffered enough ..." Jon Swift

Penh said...

Normally I'm content to just read the posts here, but one of my pet peeves is people who think that all the words under a given heading in the thesaurus are interchangeable. There's nothing inherently negative about "redound." Even if there were, to simply say "It looks redounding" makes no sense at all. Why not give your poor Roget's a break, and focus a bit more on making your points and a bit less on impressing us all with your vocabulary?

ichomobothogogus said...

its a sad state of affairs when michael fumento has used so many sockpuppets that he runs out of names for them. i for one was hoping for a reappearance of the legendary Tracy Spenser, but it was not to be. we have to make do with "anonymous" which frankly, kind of sucks. combine this with the fact that his previously unanswerable "ha ha ha you're just a sad blogger and i'm a proper journalist who gets published in newspapers and everything! i dont have to listen to your feeble criticisms!" riposte has gone the way of the dodo, and things start to look bleak.
if he goes downhill any further he'll be unable to talk at all

fairlane said...

Anonymous,

I do not believe, in all my years, that I have ever seen such a display of, "Hey everyone, look at me! I'm impressive aren't I? Mommy did you see? Mommy..."

You sir, are nothing more than a five year old with a $15 vocabulary. And like a five year old you seemingly have no control over yourself as you spill out across this page for all to witness.

But that's what children do is it not? They have yet to learn restraint, humility, when to be quiet and when to speak up. Children simply want to be heard and context be damned.

Who cares if Jon is sincere or not? One would assume such trivial matters would be of no importance to a person of your stature.

Yet, here you are stumbling everywhere, knocking over tables and spilling other people's drinks.

Your sense of self-importance is childish, and you seem to confuse being "clever" with being "intelligent", but children have no depth to their intellect do they? They are forever impressed by the superficial unable to grasp more than what they see, taste, smell etc.

You have never exploited anyone in your life. You are a coward, a husk hiding behind words like some bitch dog barking from the other side of a fence.

Words are nothing but a tool. It seems you'd understand this considering you have so much in common with them.

Anonymous said...

fairlane said...
<<< Anonymous,
I do not believe, in all my years, that I have ever seen such a display of, "Hey everyone, look at me! I'm impressive aren't I? Mommy did you see? Mommy..." >>>

Land sakes alive. Not in all your years?

<<< You sir, are nothing more than a five year old with a $15 vocabulary. >>>


And you, madam, could probably use a somewhat more expensively purchased vocabulary. That would free you from using lengthy and tortuous paraphrases, where one insulting word would do.


<<< And like a five year old you seemingly have no control over yourself as you spill out across this page for all to witness.

But that's what children do is it not? >>>


That is what Jon Swift is doing on a much larger scale. Is he a child?



<<<... Who cares if Jon is sincere or not? One would assume such trivial matters would be of no importance to a person of your stature. >>>

Well, fairlane, one would logically assume Jon cares. That is because the success of his whole routine is predicated on the assumption that those in the know will understand that he is definitely not sincere when he claims to be a "reasonable" or "compassionate" conservative.

That's his gag. Didn't you know?



<<< Yet, here you are stumbling everywhere, knocking over tables and spilling other people's drinks. >>>


Finally, your real gripe. You were having so much fun, mordantly braying into each other's faces, laughing at "compassionate conservatives", and celebrating your imaginary perceptivity. And then someone came along and, with good reason, began laughing at you.



<<< Your sense of self-importance is childish, and you seem to confuse being "clever" with being "intelligent", but children have no depth to their intellect do they? They are forever impressed by the superficial unable to grasp more than what they see, taste, smell etc.

You have never exploited anyone in your life. >>>

Thanks. I try not to. The trouble ensues when members of the albatross class look up, notice they are adrift, and begin to claim that indifference equals exploitation.


<<< You are a coward, a husk hiding behind words like some bitch dog barking from the other side of a fence.

Words are nothing but a tool. It seems you'd understand this considering you have so much in common with them. >>>


What you are using is called invective, isn't it. Tremulous, confused, senile even ...

But, you made the effort.



"I am not Michael Fumento" (Really)Anonymous


" I hate to pile on John Kerry because I am a compassionate conservative and I think he has suffered enough ..." Jon Swift

I'm Cranky said...

Alex Rawls, is that you? I honestly can't think of anyone else who writes and thinks that way!

Penh said...

And you, madam, could probably use a somewhat more expensively purchased vocabulary. That would free you from using lengthy and tortuous paraphrases, where one insulting word would do.

All right, I'm calling "troll." There's no way the author of such a prolix barrage of high-falutin' verbiage (I have a thesaurus too!) could possibly say that seriously without his head exploding with such force that it would have been heard around the world. No huge boom means he's having us on. Either that, or he's so utterly lacking in self-awareness that his minders had to remove all the mirrors from his room lest he batter himself unconscious trying to fight off the intruder.

Anonymous is SO funny! said...

Doodle, I think what Michanonymous Fermento means by "groomer" is "fluffer" (as per the porn definition of the word.)

And someone seems to think he's the orthographical reincarnation of William F. Buckley. (I know he's not technically dead yet, but he sure as hell looks that way.)

Lastly, one way you know you've REALLY gotten under someone's skin is by looking at how much effort they expend on fighting back against you. I used to do that all the time to my sisters when we were pre-tens. I would say someone's skin feels like he's under a chigger attact! Too bad he can't yell "MOM!"

fairlane said...

Okay Anonymous, you nailed me.

I must confess.

I wrote the last paragraph first and tried to think of way to meander for a minute or two before reaching my preordained conclusion.

"You are a tool" is what I meant, and I should have simply stated that outright, but where's the fun? I want to get my money's worth.

Apparently you didn't mind so much as you obviously sucked down every crumb, and golly gee I'm truly flattered since I'm "senile" and all.

I'm not convinced you're authentic. I don't know anything about this Mike Fumento putz, but I did notice Jon has not posted in 8 or 9 days.

Now, I only come over here occasionally so maybe that's his usual pattern, but who knows?

The ultimate point is your writing style is about as genuine as Paris Hilton's "I learned my lesson" appearance on Larry King. It's utterly contrived.

Any monkey can look up a word and use it in a sentence as Penh so rightly pointed out.

I apologize profusely that my "vocab" ain't up to your epicurean standards, but this is a "comment thread" on a "blog", not the United Nations.

There is more than one way to play with language Anon. Haughtiness is impressive, but as you can see from the response you're getting it grows tiresome. It's sterile.

However,if you are authentic and feel a need to impress people in here; then for the record I stand by my initial observation.

You are a tool.

new day said...

There's been altogether too much testiness in this comment line. I say we all make up and go out for nice juicy burgers made from illegal alien babies. We could talk about Clinton's blow job.

What do you say, mr. anonymous fumento? You are welcome to bring your thesaurus.

melior said...

I want to go for burgers, too!

We can talk about weightier matters, like the candidates' haircuts, and the anniversary of Chappaquiddick.

Oh, and Clinton's penis.

Davebo said...

Bear in mind this is the same Fumento that was to Neoconny for even WindsofChange.net.

But I understand he's getting feelers from LGF. There's always a future in wingnut welfare I guess.

Doodle Bean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr./Ms. Day,

I am responding to your kind invitations for 'burgers' and conversation. I am certainly up for it as I could talk for days about the Clenis's blow job situation!

I am free a week from next Monday...


And Dear Mr./Ms. Is So Funny,

I'm not so sure one of those anonymice meant "fluffer'. Just take a look at Mr. Swift's photo! That long, luxuriant wig must require a lot of grooming.

At any rate, I will take the high road and hope Mr. Swift answers my missive.

Otherwise, I quite agree with your post. Thank you! And you may call me Doodle!

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

Anonymous said...

fairlane said...

Okay Anonymous, you nailed me.
I must confess.>>>

Ok ... then do so if you must.


<<< I wrote the last paragraph first and tried to think of way to meander for a minute or two before reaching my preordained conclusion.

"You are a tool" is what I meant, and I should have simply stated that outright, but where's the fun? I want to get my money's worth. >>>

Since you paid nothing for the privilege of leaving that message, I suppose you did.

I know that your opinion is certainly worth what I paid for it.


<<< Apparently you didn't mind so much as you obviously sucked down every crumb, and golly gee I'm truly flattered since I'm "senile" and all. >>>

You didn't really mean "in all your years" ?


<<< I'm not convinced you're authentic. >>>

That is fine. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just amusing myself by watching you climb on your high horse in order to complain about mine.

<<< I don't know anything about this Mike Fumento putz, but I did notice Jon has not posted in 8 or 9 days.

Now, I only come over here occasionally so maybe that's his usual pattern, but who knows?

The ultimate point is your writing style is about as genuine as Paris Hilton's "I learned my lesson" appearance on Larry King. It's utterly contrived. >>>

That is a bizarre remark.

If you don't care if Jon is sincere or not, ("Who cares if Jon is sincere or not?") then why would you care if my writing style is genuine?

I'm sure that you wouldn't and you don't. It is just that complaining about it is the only recourse you feel is left open to you; and as a result, you didn't notice how absurd you had become.

If you cannot comment intelligently on, or rebut my criticism of Jon's work, you can, you believe, at least accuse me of hauteur and a lack of the common touch.

I guess it is references to feces that prove the bona fides of your crew, as well as being the literal lubricant of progressive fraternity.




<<< Any monkey can look up a word and use it in a sentence as Penh so rightly pointed out.

I apologize profusely that my "vocab" ain't up to your epicurean standards, but this is a "comment thread" on a "blog", not the United Nations.

There is more than one way to play with language Anon. Haughtiness is impressive, but as you can see from the response you're getting >>>



What I see from the responses I'm getting is that Jon is running a kind of cyberspace salon for lefty poseurs.

The drill is that Jon sits down to the keyboard and laboriously pounds out the same old sarcastic theme he's always playing, with perhaps some minor embellishments.

When he finishes, it is then the turn of his superciliously twittering audience to exclaim in amazement and appreciation, and to themselves chime in.

"Oh Wicked!!", one leers. "How will those Repugs withstand it!"

" Deliciously mordant " lisps another."We are so subtle!"

" Did anyone say 'penis' yet?", inquires a third.

This starts the rest of them off crying out: "blow jobs", "shit"
"fuck everyone", "sterilize the repukes!".

The ease with which they do this, reassures them that they are indeed adults; and witty ones at that.

And of course, they have you there to reinforce their belief.



<<< it grows tiresome. It's sterile.

However,if you are authentic and feel a need to impress people in here; then for the record I stand by my initial observation.

You are a tool.

7/19/2007 9:02 PM >>>


By the way: You will note that your jabbering friends are now reduced to consoling themselves with the thought that they have if nothing else, at least become annoying.

And of course, failing that, they do have nothing else ...

You are right about one thing though. This is a sterile exercise.


Oh, but I am still not Michael Fumento.

OutOfContext said...

I'm sorry that anonymous has had to carry the water for conservatives on this site so I'd like to offer my two cents. Face value is the only way to go. If I've learned anything from Dick Cheney its the value of face value. The ifs ands and buts are the tools of relativists. Don't let them draw you into contingent arguments. Of course, A, you kind of invited it with your comment to Jay B.:"You seem to think that this is black and white!"
Saddam harbored terrorists, was intent on providing them with a platform to attack the US with weapons of mass destruction and had to be dealt with. Just like with Qaddafi, we could not tolerate state sponsored terrorism. Saddam is gone, no attacks in the US and the Dow Jones hits a record every month. Fight them over there and continue to be good consumers. Case closed.
As one of the smart Arabs said, "The dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on."

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr./Ms. still not Michael Fumento,

You have quite an imagination there! And I love how you set up some imaginary comments and then castigate us for them! Bravo!

Also amusing is that you criticize those who write on this comment thread, then use the fact that it "...is a "comment thread" on a "blog", not the United Nations" to defend your own writings.

It is decent satire, but it is spoiled by your obvious hostility. That kind of things does tend to alienate ones audience.

Do keep trying. Pick on somebody everybody dislikes - Tom Delay, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Ricky Santorum - instead of your audience and see if your writing wins more admiration than scorn.

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

Anonymous said...

Doodle Bean said to "still not Michael Fumento" ...

<<< Dear Mr./Ms. still not Michael Fumento,

You have quite an imagination there! And I love how you set up some imaginary comments and then castigate us for them! Bravo! >>>



Dear Sincerely Doodle Bean,

Despite your feigned insouciance, your emotions have obviously clouded both your judgment and your vision.

(I am of course generously assuming that you are usually more competent.)

Whether you consider it castigation or not, the fact remains that the parodic quotes I posted, followed, not preceded, my characterization of Jon and his chorus.

And while the quotes I provided may seem especially imaginative to you - assuming for the sake of argument that you are not instead really suggesting that they are unfair - the phrases are quite representative of the kind of noise put out by Jon and his drintling fans.





<<< Also amusing is that you criticize those who write on this comment thread, then use the fact that it "...is a "comment thread" on a "blog", not the United Nations" to defend your own writings. >>>

This, Doodle, is where you go from sloppy rhetoric and a deceptive pose, to being totally confused.

That defensive remark, was not mine.

It was a bit of attempted sarcasm offered up by my indignant critic: the quivering in-all-my-years "fairlane", who managed to sandwich a facetious apology in between his ad hominem attacks.


That said, I won't bother to comment any further on your affected attempt to offer advice; since, it is demonstrable that you didn't even understand what it was you were reading before you began objecting.

You, Doodle Bean, are clearly confused.

And I, am still not Michael Fumento.





" .... It is decent satire, but it is spoiled by your obvious hostility. That kind of things does tend to alienate ones audience.

Do keep trying. Pick on somebody everybody dislikes - Tom Delay, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Ricky Santorum - instead of your audience and see if your writing wins more admiration than scorn.

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean "

ichomobothogogus said...

i'm really starting to hope that anonymous really isnt fumento. much as i hate the spastic fuckwit i'm not cruel enough to happily imagine him reduced to throwing week-long hissy fits on humorous blogs. i hear back in the day he had a proper job and got published. in newspapers no less. fahsands of em.

Nikolay said...

mike:
Finally, maybe you want to tell your readers about how Hollywood changed Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" so that Islamist terrorists became neo-Nazis? Why?
Hey, I've not read the book, but the wikipedia's summary makes it look like something quite implausible. "The book ends with the terrorists being executed by beheading in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Ryan being presented an ancient sword held by the Saudi royal family." Beheading in Saudi Arabia as a good ending -- do you really think that's the way to "represent the nature of the enemy"? The whole book was very anachronistic by the time the movie was made, it needed a rewriting anyway. If they tried to stick to the book, they would be accused of being too PC and of "undermining the war effort".
How about this piece:
"A curious twist is that the terrorists devise a backup plan in the event of failure. When this indeed happens and they are captured, they put it to work by implicating the Iranian Ayatollah as responsible for the attack."
It's like saying that Iran is not responsible for all the evil in the world.

Anonymous said...

Save bandwidth. Don't feed the long winded trolls

crazyloko said...

cell phonesThis phenomenom is typified by mobile phonethe rise ofbusiness. Incredible range of products available with China Wholesale “Low Price and High Quality” not only reaches directly to their target clients worldwide but also ensures that cheap cell phones wholesale from China means margins you cannot find elsewhere and China Wholesale will skyroket your profits.cosplay costumes
cheap cell phones
cheap cocktail dresses
Cheap Wedding Dresses
cheap jewelry

crazyloko said...

I’m a Wholesale Polo Shirts huge fan of Fiber Gourmet pasta’s; Cheap Ed Hardy clothingthey taste great and Air Max Chaussures are healthy not only for you but your entire family. Polo shirtThere’s really no difference in the taste between thisTn Requin pasta and your standard pasta, Chaussures SportI couldn’t tell the difference, Polo shirtneither could any member of my family including my picky children. chaussure sportIt’s nice to know that even while dieting and watching my calorie intake there Chaussures Nikeis an alternative out there that allows me to eat the pasta I want, Wholesale Polo Shirts
when I want without the guilt.

longge said...

Once you’ve finished a life Coach handbags
course, this step is particularly important. Many clients and businesses will not hire a life Coach Ergo
without credentials. It's a well known fact that women love Coach Gallery
perhaps this is because Coach Hamptons
understands high fashion.

Anonymous said...

http://tuan.pcpop.com/7732550
http://phlog.net/onlyuggc
http://onlyuggc.busythumbs.com/
http://onlyuggc.insanejournal.com/
http://onlyuggc.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://onlyuggc.21classes.com
http://onlyuggc.blogge.no/
http://glowindia.com/onlyuggc
http://onlyuggc.blog.bokee.net/
http://profile.typepad.com/onlyuggc

Google