« The Bender Post of the Day | Main | Post Debate »

spitting nails, again

Michael Moore's Minutemen killed 35 children today. If the reason for their "insurgence" is that they hate American being there, why are they killing their Iraqi children? Answer: They don't just hate America being there. They hate freedom. And they hate Iraqis who want freedom. We must win this thing. We have to win it and win it right and that won't happen overnight. But we must stay there until our job is done. Remember Michael Moore's words? bq. The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. They are too the enemy, you dumb fuck. They're my enemy. They are the enemy of freedom and democracy. They are the enemy of every Iraqi who wants those things. And they will surely win if you and people who think like you have their way and we pull out of Iraq too soon. I'm looking around at message boards today and seeing people saying things like "we have to get the hell out of there, now." I thought you people were all about the children. If you cared at all about the Iraqi children, you would be pleading with us to stay, not pull out. Don't even bother with comments like "It's the fault of the U.S. for being there." Deal with reality, people. We are there. What's done is done. Whether or not you think it was right to go into Iraq is really a moot point now. What you should not be arguing is whether or not stay and finish what we set out do. Now we have to finish it in a way that provides a good ending to the right people. And here's a clue for you: the right people are not the ones purposely killing kids waiting in line for candy. Here, if you don't want to listen to me, listen to the words of an Iraqi woman:
"Yes, there have been difficulties. Yes, there have been mistakes perhaps many mistakes. No, you did not find weapons of mass destruction. “But for the great majority of Iraqis WMD was never the issue. We don’t understand the criticism of your Prime Minister. All we wanted was to be free.” She added: “I appeal to you all ... to help us build a new democratic federal Iraq that would respect the lives of human beings.” Asked later if she considered Labour members naive about the situation for Iraqis, she said: “Yes I do think so. They don’t know the reality of their lives. “They haven’t lived through Saddam. They don’t know what we’ve been through. “It is not fair of them to ask the British Government to withdraw their forces before completing their mission. “They are going to harm the Iraqi people more. They are going to cause more deaths. “If they are concerned about the Iraqi children they should not be asking the British Government to leave them alone at the mercy of others.”
But when did your like ever care what the Iraqi people think? In your eyes, the real Iraqis are the ones with the guns, the ones who hide out in holy places and throw grenades at soldiers. The Minutemen. It really sickens me to think that there are people out there who believe that the killing of 34 children by TERRORISTS is a sign to cut and run. We are America. We are not cowards. Maybe you are. Maybe your priorities are screwed up, I don't know. Maybe you'd rather see Bush botch this up so bad that Iraq turns into a land of nothing but terror and death. Maybe that would make you really fucking happy because then you could say I told you so. Maybe the death of 34 kids is just another notch in your anti-Bush belt. Get with the program, people. Start recognizing that the enemy is not us. Start learning who our real enemy is. It's the same enemy that ordinary Iraqis face every day. Would you want to face them alone? I doubt it. Why would you want Iraqi kids to do the same? This is not the time to run out on them. This is the time to have more resolve then ever, to say to the people of Iraq, we are not going anywhere. We are staying until you are safe. Unless, of course, you don't feel that way. Go tell that to Omar. Let him know you think he isn't worth it. Idiots.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference spitting nails, again:

» Murderers from Semi-Intelligent Thoughts
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. /sarcasm UPDATE Great minds, etc., etc.... [Read More]

» Martyrs: Trading Children for Virgins from dave's not here
Since Islamist militant terrorists seem to believe that they are becoming martyrs by killing themselves, I suppose they feel they are justified in trading the lives of children for their bevy of 72 virgins. UPDATE: Michele at A Small Victory [Read More]

» Michael Moore's Revolutionary Minutemen Take to Killing Kids from Infidel Cowboy
35 children were killed and many more injured by Zarqawi for accepting candy from soldiers. No word on when MooreOn's movie will be coming out so he can rake in cash off the bodies of dead children. What? It isn't... [Read More]

» She's OUR Bitch from Overtaken by Events
This line sums it up. If i wasn't already married to a gorgeous Italian girl...... [Read More]


what did you think about the rumor floated by novak that bush was going to pull out after elections? do you actually think he will?

A soul-soothing rant. Thank you so much.

Home run, Michele.

Preach it, sister!

Honestly, Michele, I truly don't understand the al-Moore mindset ... it is so full of self-loathing that spills out to encompass everything else, a anti-human acid that delights in destroying every thing that points to the good/happy/successful ideas/morality be fitting individuals. The al-moores rant and seethe about being "for the people" but it figleafs their basic hatred for happy fulfilled individuals because those type of people are independent. Al-moores are about controlling others.

Read about the huge voter fraud being committed by Leftists in Ohio, Michigan, Tennesse, Wisconsin; read on DU and Indiotmedia the calls for "armed" revolution if the "sheeple" stupidly elect GW Bush ...

This is why they apologize for Islamists..why they want to "free Mumia"...why they want Israel marginalized then destroyed ...

They are in love with death.

Oh come on, Michele, give the insurgents some slack they must have planned this operation in advance and these minutemen had very little time to make a decision:

Are the lives of 30-50 children without body armor worth the small possibility of killing or injuring 10 or more US solidiers with body armor? Jeez, thst's a tough call for these freedom-fighters. Just think of the dent to the US military in takeing out 10-20 US soldiers out of 130,000 currently in Iraq!

They really didn't have a choice, 'cus the second bombers were already poised to take out the rescuers who would be, hopefully, additional US soldiers.

(Sorry for the sarcastic rant; I've left my sorrow stage for these innocent children and am in my anger stage now)

"We are there. What's done is done. Whether or not you think it was right to go into Iraq is really a moot point now. What you should not be arguing is whether or not stay and finish what we set out do. Now we have to finish it in a way that provides a good ending to the right people. And here's a clue for you: the right people are not the ones purposely killing kids waiting in line for candy."

I don't agree with you on whether we should be there. I don't think George Bush has a clue about how to get us out of his mess. But you are 100-percent right in every single word of this post.

You only have to give up being a right wing Nazi (and a Yankee fan), and I'll be madly in love with you.

Hear that, Michele? Solonor will be madly in love with you. Lucky Michele.

"Get us out of his mess", indeed. There was a low-level shooting war, and a massacre of and Marsh Arabs, going on since the armistice of '91, of which the Ba'athist regime managed to be in almost constant violation. They committed unprovoked aggression, got slapped down, and did not live up the to the ceasefire. Solonor, doesn't your side understand that the only desirable way out of a war is straight ahead? That Iraq isn't a war, but one of several ongoing campaigns in a war which, if we are lucky, won't take more than one or two decades to win, winning being defined as a noticable cessation of Islamist bloodlust?

Do you have an opinion about what ought to happen when the mullahs in Iran succesfully test an atomic bomb, and start to mate up weapons with ballistic missiles? Would stopping such a thing be an illegitimate attack on a sovereign nation, or the next logical step in fighting Islamist terror? Keep in mind that we only get one chance to guess wrong.

Mike, he was agreeing with my sentiment.

And lucky? Damn straight. Solonor may be a weird leftie moonbat, but he's one hell of a friend.

I asked Rall about the same thing today, and he responded "Why should I answer you?"

Thank goodness Rob Lacey Deeds/Annoying Bastard was there in the Moonbat Dugout to respond for him.

You know, where I wouldn't piss on Rall if he was on fire, I'd piss on Deeds.

You're right that cutting and running from Iraq is not an option at this point ... and that it's glib nonsense to blame America for the murder of three dozen children (although I don't know anyone who's actually doing that ... and let's not drag out Noam Chomsky again). But we can hardly plead innocent in allowing chaos to overtake Iraq - a chaos that's made it easy for these murderous thugs to do their dirty work.

So while we're trying as Americans to figure out the best strategy for protecting the people of Iraq, I suggest we remember the leaders that have spent two years proving they don't know what they're doing, and vote them out of office as the next step in our ongoing struggle to democratize and pacify the Middle East.

After all, the idiots in Washington have a lot more responsibility in all this than the idiot from Flint.

Michele, I consider myself lightly tapped with the ASV Cluebat, and note your raised eyebrow, and the sweet look of potential menace in your eyes.

Solonor, please forgive my ignorant, misplaced snarkiness?

I swore I just read something that said that before Sadr pulled out of the Najaf shrine, his "minutemen" brought in women and children and killed them... hoping that there would be a media nightmare when the US soldiers entered with the media. Has anyone else seen this?

"what did you think about the rumor floated by novak that bush was going to pull out after elections?"

Is that Bob Novak? Jeez, that guy is a douchebag. Why does anyone listen to absolutely anything he says, ever? Is there someone who can explain to me if he has some magnificent achievement in his past that has "earned" him his place as a national pundit? Cos, then I can maybe see him as sort of a Zell Miller figure, i.e., a once-proud politico gone completely crackers.

Until then, or maybe not even then, everything that comes out of his mouth will seem as plausible and real to me as those massive, blazing-white dentures in his mouth.

These are not minutemen. These are monsters.

The intentional murder of children puts them beyond redemption.

Sorry, Mike. That was trollish of me. Even a weird leftie moonbat like me should know that Michele gets a thousand new visitors a day. Not all of them would know that I worship Michele from the ends of her octopus-like feelers to the tips of her prodigious claws. I just can't say it in public or they'll lock me up with Martha Stewart. Again.

Michele, ordinary Iraqis did not face this enemy every day under Saddam. Why can't you comprehend that?

The target is still American troops and the American occupation.

It's interesting that as the election nears the democrats fall silent to attacks like yours.

Hear the crickets??

I never would have guessed the quiet before the election - there's no more debate.

They've got no answer so they don't want their bubble popped. They don't want reality to intrude.

I wish I believe that this weakness was going to translate to a definate loss at the polls, but I don't. People are so GOOD at denial!

Brad, you showed up and made a lie of my last post!

All I can say is, true - Iraqis faced one facist oppressor before the war and now they face the remains of that oppressor PLUS all of the other fascist oppressors in the region, because of course the idea of freedom is a threat to ALL fascists in the region.

Let me tell you - all of those fascists are our enemies, all are a real danger to our civilization in the long run.

And they're all attacking Iraq because our idea "freedom" is an existencial threat to all of them.

The fact that they all feel threatened enough that they all have to attack Iraq is proof that what we're doing is really a threat to them - and there that's proof that we're doing the right thing.

Ahh yes ... the gang's all back.

Here's Michele pretending that the target of the attack was the kids and not the American convoy that drew the kids over with candy. Criticizing the mere atrocity of the violence itself is not enough because then we may have to talk about the collateral damage we have committed by our strategic bombings (remember the 0 for 50 in the early days of Baghdad ... got plenty of civilians; though you probably won't hear that here) and may have committed because of jittery trigger fingers. [RIGHTY WARNING: Link includes picture that may disrupt your pleasant vision of how things in Iraq are going].

Look there's Darleen ... always turning the conversation in a self righteous, pro-Israel direction. Always criticizing the "Theys" and "Thems"; who can remember the names of these strawmen.

And is that Laurence Simon ... remember that classic take down of the LA Times poll which oversampled Democrats. Since he's no hypocrite, I can't wait for him to link us to his take down of the latest Gallup poll that had 48% repugs to 36% dems.

Finally, Brad's back ... stirring up trouble again. I guess the banishment got old in a hurry once the comments section turned into a self-congratulatory, righty circle jerk; the numbers sure seemed to drop.

Michele ... why you bitching about what we lefties told you would happen before the war? And with the "More of the same" strategy aren't we just going to be reading this same rant from you again once every other month for the next decade or more.

Macswain, what we were promised before the start of this campaign was a repeat of anything between the Huertgen Forest and Stalingrad. I seem to remember salivating predictions of hundreds of thousands of body bags. Didn't happen. What did happen is sort of like the end of the Spanish American War, and taking control of the Philippines. The Philippine Insurrection started soon thereafter, lasting for a number of years. That doesn't make deaths in battle more pleasant to contemplate, but I wish you guys would observe a little honesty about your past statements, and quit shaping every damn thing you say with an eye towards its' political impact.

By the way, none of you promised us that Libya would dismantle its' nuclear program. Dismantling the Libyan nuclear program is a good thing, don't you agree?

Who do you think ought to prevail in the current global conflict? Us, or them? Would you mind, please, answering the question I put to that nice fellow Solonor? What do you think ought to be done when the mullahs in Iran (you remember, the nice fellows who pronounce death sentences on authors, execute teenage girls, and arrest bloggers) conduct a test of a weapon, and start fielding nuclear tipped missiles?

Isn't there some way we can arrange a meeting between Michael Moore and Zarqawi?

The resulting video would make a nice coda to F911.

I'm sure glad Brad and Macswain joined the discussion... just when I think the some on the left have some good arguments (read: Solonor), you two remind me how dangerous the thinking by many on the left is.


You apprently don't know many liberals or only read about what we say through consevative filters. More likely, you're engaging in one of Michele's favorite tactics of misdefining the other side's argument to some extreme(usually without any specific attribution) to make your own argument seem better. You should ignore that tutelage and "Rise above your raisin'."

As to Libya, the liberals I know were concerned about Ghaddafi's tyranny over his own people, direct involvement in terrorist activities and interventionist actions in other African countries. Libya did not accede to our demands because of Iraq but got what they wanted -- a trade of their WMD program for a removal of sanctions. Here's some historical perspective.

The deal with Libya was the best of a number of bad choices. But it points out the fundamental hypocrisy of the Bush policy toward Iraq. Bush is willing to live with a brutal dictator, even one with direct connections to terrorist attacks against Americans (Michele constantly harps on never forgetting 9/11 to remind us that bad muslims need to be killed and not appeased, but apparently the same doesn't hold true on the right for Lockerbie or the Berlin Disco bombing. Have you all forgotten?).

Given your stated position, you must agree that invading and occupying Libya was not the right thing to do. Yet, the deal that was made with Libya could have been made with Saddam as well. His WMD bluff was a bargaining chip for the lifting of sanctions. Instead, we traded Saddam for an indefinite chaos with no end in sight that includes daily American deaths. That was a horrible choice.

On Iran briefly, the "Axis of Evil" comment and invaision of Iraq has undercut the Reform movement. Again the Bush team showed no real understanding of Real Politik but showed more concern for short-term domestic political gain. The conservatives and Mullahs have gained greater popular support making us less safe. The foreign policy fuck ups just keep comin'.

The "More of the same" policy will only make things worse.

Plausible denial has been put in place.


Election day is just 30 days away. Local Republicans need any time you could spare, as well as the enthusiasm you are showing here, to help President Bush.

There are all sorts of jobs, large and small, where you can contribute. Last weekend, and I will be doing this weekend also, I walked my local neighborhood contacting registered Republicans from a list provided by my local contact.

I just had to remind fellow Republican neighbors to be sure and vote in this important election, where to vote, and hand out a state party generated card that listed the party recommended candidates for local, state, and federal offices. It is the first time I had done anything like this and I am glad I did. I met like minded neighbors and new friends.

If you would prefer to write opinions for news outlets, etc, various help is needed. If you could contribute some time to help President Bush, just go to:


and enter your zipcode or state for your local contact information.

Thanks so much 'A Small Victory'.

Your post is what people need to find.

The media driven hysteria in this country is unbelievable.

I have never felt for a minute that going to Iraq was a bad thing. I have always felt that it will be good for that entire region and the people of Iraq. And I have always known who is there doing it. Good people. American soldiers just doing the best they can. Not trying to hurt anyone if they don't have to.

I use to tell people my politics were too complex and that I was too far right and too far left on varying issues to ever define my politics.

I scattered my votes in last Novembers election and then listened to the Democratic primary season. And what I heard has changed me forever.

I have always thought of America as a force for good. Period.

Anyways, nice post.

"Didn't happen. What did happen is sort of like the end of the Spanish American War, and taking control of the Philippines. The Philippine Insurrection started soon thereafter, lasting for a number of years. "

For that matter, after the end of the Civil War, terrorists started dressing in white and staging attacks all over the South, and resistance to Reconstruction ran high. Was the Civil War a mistake? Were the former slaveowners angered at seeing those former slaves walking around without chains and acting like they were the equals of white people in the right? Was it the fault of the occupation soldiers whenever a former slave was strung up in the dead of night, since without the invasion, they'd still be safe on the plantation? Should America have heeded the "voice of the people" in the Southern States and leave their leaders free to set up any tyranny that pleased them?

Fighting for independence against a tyrant is one thing. Fighting for independence against the United States of America, and killing people for the express purpose of preventing religious freedom, foreign investment, and limited government is evil. It's not "understandable". It's not "inevitable". Liberty is what makes a society worth living in; independence is sometimes useful for gaining liberty for one's people, and sometimes independence is extremely detrimental to the cause of liberty. Fighting for liberty is good and noble; fighting against liberty (even if it's for the independence that will destroy liberty) is evil, and that means that the insurgents are the bad guys, and we are the good guys.

Thank you for making a point that I had lost sight of.