Bomb Throwing Pacifist

If you took that happy, smiling guy from the box of Quaker Oats, handed him a bottle of gin and a rifle, and pissed him off to a point where he decided he wasn't going to take it anymore, you'd get a little something like this.

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

I know it's been a while...

But blow me. I blog for myself suckas, and not for any of you cobagz!! Marc with a C will update when Marc with a C feels like updating, and no sooner! (Although Leftrants might take some time to unbury the tomahawk and collect some fresh scalps should he ever stumble upon another Michael Weiner-Savage rant on the air)

In any case, it was the general concensus here at BTP that while there was plenty of interesting stuff going on in the world, such as the civil war in Iraq, the Dubai ports deal and Mardi Gras bringing the botched Katrina response back into the picture, these were really too fascinating to comment on. Seriously. I mean, reading the headlines and watching the T.V. news these past few days as it chronicles the collapse of everything the Bush administration has worked towards is kind of like watching the Hindenburg going down in a huge ball of 2000-dgree celcius fire. Oh sure, you can add your commentary to the scene, but in 50 years you'll just sound like a moron repeating "oh the humanity" over and over again.

Mein Gott! Who took down ze "No Smoking Around Karl Rove" sign?

However, it has recently been brought to our attention that just because an event of earth-shattering historical significance is occuring does not mean that one should completely refrain from adding one's own historical contribution, if only via the distant medium of an anonymous, banal soundtrack. And while I was pondering just letting the zeppelin-disaster that is the GOP extinguish itself in its own beautiful blaze of white-hot glory without adding a word, some of the recruitment-dodgers over at Reagankinder have decided to add their own smoke to the mess in what can only be seen at the beginnings of "Operation Obfuscate '06" wherein the observers standing around the NYC aerodrome nervously shuffle their feat, look at the sky, and murmur "lovely evening isn't it?" to the sound of rapidly approaching ambulances and firetrucks.

More on WMD
As I commented yesterday, the recently translated Saddam tapes vindicate the administration's original case for war in the following sense: they demonstrate that, although Saddam did not possess massive stockpiles of illegal weapons, his development of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs rendered him an international outlaw, and his regime a potential enabler of terrorist operations...

Kinda fun to look at, isn't it? This is the sort of paragraph that must power the matter-antimatter recations in the engine room of the U.S.S. Voyager: a perfect combination of diametrically opposed truth and untruth so seamlessly blended together and that the fusion causes a fissure in the time-space conituum, providing the ship with a nearly limitless reservoir of crisis energy.

In layman's terms, the paragraph above can be interpreted as follows: 1) The tapes prove that Saddam did not have WMD 2) The tapes prove that Saddam developed WMD, ergo 3) The tapes validate the administration's original claims for war. Kinda neat, eh?

How's abput we try another one? *Ahem* 1) The car in front of you does not have wheels, 2) The brochure that came witht he car shows it has wheels, ergo 3) The car in front of you has wheels. Why, it's so brilliant, it may just cause all those moonbat academics over at MIT to reconsider the acceptable definition of what constitutes their so-called "reality."

As former chief weapons inspectors David Kay and Charles Duelfer, hardly neoconservative hawks, have both suggested, Saddam’s clandestine development of large-scale WMD programs, his ability to attain illegal weapons if he needed them, and his swindling of the UN Oil-for-Food program may have made him more of a danger than the Bush administration had even supposed.

There it is again! 1) Iraq had no WMD, and 2) Iraq had WMD, 3) Iraq was stealing, ergo 4) Saddam was even worse than the administration told you the first time around (bastards!)!!

I mean, the fact that Saddam had no WMD, no intention of aquiring WMD, no ability to aqcuire WMD, no real interest in aqcuiring WMD and was diametrically opposed to Al-Qaeda...BZZT!WHRR*Regankinder filter on*BZZT....can only mean that Saddam was whole-heartedly seeking WMD, had WMD and hid them so well we still can't find them after 3 years, and was probably responsible not only for 9/11, but also the U.S.S. Cole bombing, the OKC bombing, the Olympic Park bombing, the Khobar Towers boming, the Valentine's Day Massacre, the destruction of Alderaan, and the attempt to assassinate Our Dear Leader via booby-tapped pretzel. All your base are belong to us!! USSR pWN3d11!1!!!

Marc with a C, 12:05 PM


Add a comment