Nostalgic For Saddam OR Shoe Throwing Idiots

To the Bush-hating left, the shoe-throwing idiot in Baghdad is a hero--a hero that prompted more than 200 lawyers to offer their services, for free.

Imagine if the man had thrown his shoe at Saddam. If you've forgotten about Hussein's reign of terror, consider this short anecdote that relates what happened to a couple of young men who "competed" with Saddam's son, Uday, for the affections of some unfortunate young woman.

A chief executioner to one of Saddam's sons has revealed how he helped drag two victims into a cage to be devoured by lions.

The executioner said that he was ordered to seize two 19-year-old students and take them to a farm of Uday Hussein, Saddam's oldest son who was killed by American forces last week.

As soon as they arrived the students were dragged to a cage containing the lions and forced inside. "I saw the head of the first student literally come off his body with the first bite," he said. He then had to stand and watch the animals devour the two young men: "By the time they were finished there was little left but for the bones and bits and pieces of unwanted flesh."

He was told later that the two young men "had competed with Uday where some young ladies were concerned."

Yeah, things were a lot better back in the good ol' days.

The shoe-throwing idiot should be glad that instead of being fed to lions, he'll have America's best trial lawyers defending him in court.

(h/t James Taranto)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Man Among A Bunch Of Wimps

Reader Branden B. brought the following quote to my attention:

Fox News quotes Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus:

Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.

(from Taranto)

Like many congressman, Davis is probably elected from such a safe district he could quite literally drive drunk off a bridge, killing his car-mate, and still get elected.

But hey, at least he's honest. You won't get that kind of honesty from Barack Obama or Chris Dodd or Barney Frank.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Whitewashing History, New York Times-Style

Sometimes we ask ourselves, "why do we still read the New York Times?"

And then we remind ourselves, "oh yeah, it's so the hypocritical haters don't accuse us of getting all our info--persuasive or otherwise--from the (what do they call it again? oh yeah, the "natty review." so clever, so original.) "Natty Review." It's the same reason we peruse the Daily Kos & Huffington Post, watch the Daily Show & The Colbert Report (genuinely funny, sometimes) and skim the angry-left ranting of the Seattle PI message boards.

Nevermind that the aforementioned hypocritical haters never read any of our stuff.
(And by that we don't mean this blog.)

Anywho, we ask ourselves these questions about our continued reading of the NYT because of ridiculous things like this, courtesy of James Taranto and Best of the Web:

The Jerusalem Post reports on a happy event for the Palestinian Authority:

President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday sent his regards to the families of Samir Kuntar and the other four Lebanese prisoners scheduled to be transferred to Hizbullah.

Abbas praised the prisoner swap and congratulated the Kuntar family.

Kuntar was in an Israeli prison for an attack that took place on April 22, 1979. Two years ago we quoted a survivor, Smadar Haran Kaiser, who described the attack:

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border.

Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer.

As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat.

They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. "This is just like what happened to my mother," I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.

By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

If smashing a 4-year-old girl's skull with a rifle butt makes Kuntar a hero, you have to wonder what one would have to do for the Palestinians to consider him a coward. The New York Times, meanwhile, describes Kuntar's attack this way:

Perhaps Israel's most reviled prisoner, Samir Kuntar, will return to a hero's welcome when he crosses into Lebanon this week, 29 years after he left its shores in a rubber dinghy to kidnap Israelis from the coastal town of Nahariya.

That raid went horribly wrong, leaving five people dead, a community terrorized and a nation traumatized. Two Israeli children and their father were among those killed.

What does the Times think would have happened if the "raid" had gone right?

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Hillary beat nobody!

We've been pounding on this pretty much all week (here, here, and here) because the issue just wont go away. Al Sharpton has weighed in (thank goodness for that) and according to Bill Clinton, a truce has been declared, but black voters don't seem to agree.

From James Taranto's 16 January Best of the Web, per the exit polls:

Mrs. Clinton won big among whites (63% to 31%) but lost even bigger among blacks (30% to 68%). Among white voters, Mrs. Clinton did better among women (71% to 25%) than among men (54% to 38%). But among nonwhite (mostly black) voters, she did better among men (45% to 54%) than women (34% to 64%).

Running against nobody, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly against Hillary Clinton. As we've written before, we're glad to see black voters reject the white-liberal-knows-best non-sense. We wish they wouldn't reject it in favor of identity politics, but as has become of the theme of this election, any change is good.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

We Made Best of the Web!

Since the Spring of 2004 we've been subscribed to James Taranto's Best of the Web. His is a unique blog that is part survey of the web, part political commentary, with lots of humor added.

Mr. Taranto and BOTW first showed up here at OL&L in one of our now-defunct Top 10 lists. Since then we've drawn on his work numerous times.

Best of the Web draws on numerous sources for its web commentary and since our subscription (it's free!) we've submitted several suggestions, with no results. Today, while perusing One Cosmos, we came across a link to a particularly insane post by the moonbats over at dailykos. The kossacks make a living as the leading Angry Leftists so crazy stuff like this is normal fare--only this one comes from way, way out in left field.

Saddam [Hussein] had achieved almost universal adult literacy and Baghdadi meant "wealthy"in Arabic slang when his administration became a target for devastating sanctions and war. Lebanon had rebuilt a vibrant economy, drawing large numbers of sophisticated young professionals, when it was bombed back to the stone age this summer. Iran's educational progress and economic scale now invite our wrath and destruction.

Iran must be attacked soon to prevent it becoming an examplar [sic] of economic progress and a regional power, and the plan is to permanently impoverish Iranians by stealing their oil wealth. . . .

Iran has invested its oil wealth in universal education, healthcare, infrastructure bringing clean water and electricity to more than 98 percent of its people, and economic progress. . . . The social and economic achievements of the revolutionary regime in Iran in the past 25 years look quite progressive in reducing poverty and social inequalities. . . . Compared to rising inequality in the United States and Israel, ranked numbers one and two for social inequality among developed nations, the Iranians look pretty damn good.

So we copied and pasted the link into an email and shot it off to James Taranto and the rest of the Best of the Web crew.

If you look scroll down today's Best of the Web to subheading "Real or Satire," apparently Dean Barnett beat us to the punch and got the "hat tip." But if you scroll down some more and examine the credits at the end, you'll notice a name we hope becomes household--you guessed it, Jacob Lybbert.

We feel about how we imagine the assistant to the assistant to the food table preparer must feel on the set of the movie who goes to the theater only to see his name mentioned in size 6 font on the big screen after the guy who held the stunt double's cup of water.

But still, there it is. We made Best of the Web.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Lieberman: Making Us Proud

An article today from the Associated Press (hat tip: James Taranto) addressed the idea of Senator Lieberman switching parties.

Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.

"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said. "And I must say--and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut--nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,' and I appreciate that." (emphasis added)

Senator Lieberman recognizes, as this blog has pointed out numerous times (here, here, here, and here), that he was elected over Lamont because of his ongoing support for the war in Iraq. People in Connecticut were given a choice between two candidates who are about equally liberal with the only discerning disagreement between the two being the war. Connecticut is a liberal state that was won by John Kerry. And they voted for a Senator who supports the war. We repeat again because some of you aren't listening: last week's election was not a call to bring the troops home. It was a justified reaction to corruption and perhaps mismanagement in Iraq. But it was not a call for immediate withdrawal.

If, as voters left their local polling places in Connecticut, they told interviewers that the most important issue driving their vote was Iraq and they voted for Lamont, we would be discouraged. This would have signaled that voters were electing people they thought would bring our troops home immediately.

But that wasn't what happened. They left their polling places, and told exit poll workers that the most important issue was corruption. Iraq was a close second. So, Republicans lose because of corruption and mismanagement. Liberal, pro-war Democrats like Lieberman beat liberal anti-war Democrats like Lamont and signal to us and everyone else that Americans want a change in Congress, but they recognize the importance of winning in Iraq.

And we hope that now Democrats will engage the war in a constructive way rather than the critical posture they adopted once things started looking bad. With any luck, dems follow the example of Joe Lieberman, rather than opportunists like John Murtha.

It's unfortunate that good men like Senators Santorum (a particularly outspoken leader in the War on Terror) and Talent and Senate hopeful Michael Steele lost, but we are relieved that it wasn't because Americans want to leave Iraq ASAP.

Even then, the numbers weren't that much of a landslide, as Time magazine blogger Mike Allen pointed out on the 10th of November (hat tip: Taranto, again):

The Republican National Committee has been pointing out that a small shift in votes would have made a big difference. A shift of 77,611 votes would have given Republicans control of the House, according to Bush's political team. And a shift of 2,847 votes in Montana, or 7,217 votes in Virginia, or 41,537 votes in Missouri would have given a Republicans control of the Senate.

But you wont find us shrieking for a recount a la Angry Left circa 2000, 2004, et al.

It's enough to know that the election wasn't the tsunamitidalwavemassiveshift of a vote as sold by the spinmeisters in the MSM.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

After Action Report--don't pronounce the t

It's a busy day today but we didn't want to miss the chance to post a few links.

Leading off is a new website devoted to exploring the special relationship between Britain and America. BritainandAmerica.com seeks to explain each country's politics to the other. Because of the recent elections, the focus of the website has been on American politics. We occasionally attend a seminar on the history of Anglo-American relations. Watch for us to revisit this topic.

Yesterday while pouring over our website information at statcounter.com we came across the blog of an American clinical psychologist who opines and theorizes on American politics. From the conclusion of one of his recent posts:

One of the geniuses of the American system is that it accounts for both our civilized and our primitive natures. In holding national elections every two years, it provides an outlet for primitive anxieties that historically toppled regimes. In other words, it institutionalizes the logic of human sacrifice, which is stage four of the group fantasy cycle. Thus it is no coincidence that President Bush performed a human sacrifice and held up the head of Donald Rumsfeld to the baying MSM fantasists on the morning after the election. If you keep up with the ranting of the infantile left at dailykos or huffingtonpost, nothing less than some form of human sacrifice would have answered their homicidal rage. But one thing we can know with certainty: it won’t work, for magic is a symtom of that which it purports to cure.

We found several of his posts rather insightful but we understand that his writing wont appeal to everyone--for those of you who fancy yourselves intellectuals, enjoy!

Over at townhall.com Michael Medved (one of Raisin's favs) believes that popular assumptions about Red and Blue states are just flat wrong. He writes:

The media emphasis on regional differences always distorted reality but this election should force the permanent abandonment of the meaningless red/blue distinction. Montana, supposedly the reddest-of-red states, may well end up with a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators. California, theoretically the bluest-of-blue states, not only re-elected its Republican governor in a landslide, but also appears poised to elevate GOP candidates (including some outspoken and cantankerous conservatives) to three or four other statewide offices. In Kansas, which gave Bush 64% in 2004, Democrats enjoyed sweeping victories, and so on. The definitive designation of an entire state as either “red” or “blue,” Republican or Democrat, ignores the impact of circumstances, personalities, and issues.

We're not ready to completely write off Red and Blue state designations, but as Mr. Medved points out, this last election does provide strong evidence supporting the erosion of these traditional political markers.

Lastly, a little humor from a man calling himself Jim Treacher. Those of you who read James Taranto's Best of the Web on a regular basis will have read this in yesterday's edition. Apologies to fans of Nancy Pelosi who take themselves too seriously; you probably wont find this funny.

Questions from a political dilettante

* Does this mean Bush is still Hitler? I'm pretty sure Hitler never let his opponents win an election, did he? Unless... this is all part of Rove's plan.

* A major concern of the last few elections has been that Republicans need to cheat to win, and the problem was going to be even worse with the new Diebold machines. What happened? Did Cheney forget his password again? That darn Cheney, always forgetting his password.

* What happened to Ned? I thought Lieberman was Public Enemy #1. Now Kos must feel like the kid on Christmas morning who's surrounded by toys... except for the one he really wanted.

* Does Nancy Pelosi ever wear a fake flower on her lapel that shoots acid? Because that would really be a surprise for Batman when he's hauling her to Commissioner Gordon's office.

* So the world likes us again, right? No more terrorism? YAY!!!

Hey wait a minute, this last question looks familiar. Didn't we end a recent post in much the same way...?