« naming names: why the Bryant case is different | Main | what the hell was i thinking? »

to hell and back

Apparently, the Power Twins are very, very much dead. Here, you can see for yourself.

That was appetizing, wasn't it?

In a way, I believe it was necessary to show those photos. There are too many people out there who need substantial, signifcant proof in order to believe anything that comes out of the White House. Well, that looks like proof to me.

Of course, there will always be those moonbats who will cry PHOTOSHOP! Because nothing is ever enough for them.

Perhaps we should put their heads on spikes and have a cross-country caravan tour the country, and a DNA Lab-On-Wheels will follow closely behind the spiked heads, spitting out proof of death the whole time. Then a Winnebago modded out to look like a small movie theater inside can show a constant film on the brothers' exploits: Q & U: The Decadent Years.

Nah, that wouldn't be enough, either. The moonbats would just be asking where the all the ancient urns and statues have gone to.

Pardon the caustic mood. I just spent 40 minutes in DMV Red Tape Hell, which, as everyone knows, is the unamed circle of hell in Dante's Inferno: The Lost Episodes. At least the good Dr. will be happy to know I am no longer driving around with an expired registration.

Hmm...I'd be happy to take the dripping, oozy, bloody heads of the brothers myself and tie them to my bumper. Then I can drive around with expired platelets! Hah!

Excuse me while I go engage in some sugar therapy.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference to hell and back:

» What's New Around the Blogosphere? from On the Fritz - Observations of Modern Life
Uday and Qusay - The Lighter Side by Suckful sheds light on the "kindler, gentler side" of the decidedly dead duo. a small victory has started a thread of comments based on a grizzly premise with to hell and back... [Read More]


Just what I needed to compliment my cheeseburger!

Best lunch of the week, thanks Michele!

i guess i'm confused why it's OK for our media to show these graphic images of their dead bodies when not so long ago everyone here was enraged because the Iraqis were showing American POW videos on TV.

Perhaps because people weren't asking whether the POWs were POWs, and people =were= asking if the dead men were really Q&U.

Great. Now, for some reason, I can't get Weird Al's "Amish Paradise" outta my head.

Agreed. The Iraqis were showing POWs and US servicemen's bodies was for publicity, bragging rights, and shock value.

The reason these photos were released - not without a measure of debate - was to give the Iraqi people, still fearful of the former regime, proof that their oppressors were truly gone. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I don't mean to be personal, this is more a generalization, but it seems that dissenters from the left are not happy unless they are dissenting about something. Why is that ? Why do you have to look for the bad side of things ?

I saw at your site that you believe your hope that we could end the cycle of violence makes you an optimist. I would say you are wrong. For one you are naive in thinking the world, a place of 6 billion people of vastly differring backgrounds, religiously, economically, etc., is simple enough for some magical utopia to suddenly erupt. It's just NOT going to happen. Finding the bad in everything is pessimistic, not optomistic. Two horrible, evil rapists, torturers, and murders are no longer. How the hell can that be a bad thing ? Finding the bad in it is simply hard to do, meaning it must be pessimism at work.


... it seems that dissenters from the left are not happy unless they are dissenting about something.

And it seems that bloodlusters from the right are not happy unless they're wrapping themselves in the flag and calling their opponents "anti-American". Why is that? Why do you make such assumptions about people you don't know?


There are too many people out there who need substantial, signifcant proof in order to believe anything that comes out of the White House.

Well, let's go down the list:

They lied about the chemical weapons.

They lied about the uranium.

They lied about the aluminum tubes.

They lied about the al-Qaeda links.

They lied about when the 3rd Infantry can come home.

The question here is not "why do I think they're lying?", it's "why do you think they're telling the truth?"


You lied when you said your name was easy to pronounce.

But, beyond that, you're guilty of oversimplification to the point of lunacy.

Chemical and nuclear weapons? They didn't lie; they were going on intelligence gathered for years (hint, hint, Clinton), and all indications pointed to an active weapons program. I don't qualify it as lying. A substantial fuck-up, perhaps, but not lying.

Al Queda links may not have been directly established, but enough evidence exists to show that indirect Al Queda handshakes were almost certainly taking place, and Saddam's ties to terrorism in general were well-known and documented in the form of kickbacks to the families of Palestinian "martyrs" (a.k.a. dead idiots). Remember, this is a war on terrorists and terror supporting regimes, not just Al Queda.

As for the 3rd Infantry, now you're really grasping at straws. Who, really, is surprised that the rebuilding effort has taken unexpected turns? Not me, and probably not any level-headed realist. So, keeping military personnel on a little longer than expected shouldn't be construed as a lie. Remember, this is their job. They volunteered for military service, and all the wondrous joys that come with it, and sometimes they don't get to come home exactly when they anticipated.

You think they're lying quite simply because you want to believe they're lying, and no other word will do. That, and it's a simple way for you to explain things.

'Expired platelets'? Boo hiss. That was very, very bad.

In the best possible way.


And leblanc, here's why.