Paris -- Future Nobel Prize Winner?: Someone call Russell Simmons, I've found a new musician for his Musicians United to Win Without War group.

Rapper Paris has offered up this tasteful cover art for his new CD, Sonic Jihad'. I know some of you may be upset by the grotesque pic, but remember, as we've learned from the anti-war movement, dissent is patriotism!

As if that weren't enough dissent, here are some of the lyrics from his song, "Bush Killa" which was written in 1992 off of his album, "Sleeping with the Enemy." You may not have heard of this one because according to his website it was, "intentionally suppressed by the recording establishment."

"Yeah, tolerance is gettin thinner
Cause Iraq never called me "n*gger"
So what I wanna go off and fight a war for?
You best believe I got your draft card!
So bad to hate somebody else
But much worse to hate yourself
Victim to the mentacide of the devil why
must black folk be made to die?

...Yeah, so where's he at? I might wait
for his motherf*ckin *ss on a rooftop next tour
Buckin stone cause I'm known to play for keeps
Lay low to the flow and keep it neat
And send his *ss home belly up
Should've listened to the facts that the black's been tellin ya
It's no suprise that a brother got wise
Now rat-a-tat-tat, it's an eye for an eye I'm in it, got to die before we see
the motherf*ckers don't give a damn for you or me
So wear a vest on your chest and the rest stand still
For P-Dog the Bush Killa, yeah!"

You may also want to read an article called, "Paris, Patriotic Terrorist" that was linked on the press page. It's from a page in New Zealand called NZhiphop. Here's the closing paragraph...

"Needless to say, Paris is far form an 'enemy of the state', much rather a patriot in true definition, something the powers that be fear and will definitely be threatened by in some form or another "I will say that most people who are chest-beating with the Amerikkkan flag right now are victims of propaganda. Being a 'patriot'is supposed to mean one questions the system here, not buckles under it. Blind faith in any government always leads to tragedy and hardship."

Think of the possibilities that are open to this guy right now. As I mentioned, he could hook up with Russell Simmons and company, maybe he could do a duet with George Michael, Noam Chomsky might need a musical opener for his lectures, or Paris could even play a few anti-war rallies. I'd bet this guy could build a real following in Germany and Belgium -- heck, France might even make him and honorary citizen. And dare I say it, could a Nobel Peace Prize be in this man's future? I mean if Jimmy Carter got the award to present a, "kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States," imagine what kind of a "kick" giving the award to this guy would be. I know that may be a longshot, but if Yasser Arafat can get a Nobel Peace Prize, why not Paris?

***Update***: RWN reader Derrick from Daily Generic pointed out a small bio of Paris by the All Music Guide that was apparently written before the latest album was slated to debut. It concludes with this line...

"When he returned with Unleashed in 1998, he'd largely abandoned his trademark political fury in favor of watered-down G-funk and gangsta clichés. He retired from hip-hop not long after and put his economics degree to use as a successful stockbroker."

Yeah "the man" is really keeping him down huh? All that anger, all that rage, all that fury about what a rotten place America is and this guy is a "successful stockbroker." In light of this, you know who this guy reminds me of? The angry black comic book artist from "Chasing Amy." The only thing worse than someone who believes all this incendiary rhetoric is a cynical scumbag who's just saying it to try to make a buck...

Iraqi Disarmament Argument By The Mad Swede: This is based on Monty Python's "Argument Clinic" skit. If you like Python, you should like this...if not, I make no promises as to how much you're going to enjoy this...

USA: (Knock)
Saddam Hussein: Come in.
USA: Ah, Is this the right place for disarmament?
Saddam Hussein: I told you once that I've disarmed.
USA: No you haven't.
Saddam Hussein: I've already disarmed.
USA: When?
Saddam Hussein: Just now.
USA: No you didn't.
Saddam Hussein: Yes I did.
USA: You didn't
Saddam Hussein: I did!
USA: You didn't!
Saddam Hussein: I'm telling you I did!
USA: You did not!!
Saddam Hussein: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Do you mean full disarmament or just a couple of missiles?
USA: Oh, full disarmament.
Saddam Hussein: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
USA: You most certainly did not.
Saddam Hussein: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely disarmed.
USA: No you did not.
Saddam Hussein: Yes I did.
USA: No you didn't.
Saddam Hussein: Yes I did.
USA: No you didn't.
Saddam Hussein: Yes I did.
USA: No you didn't.
Saddam Hussein: Yes I did.
USA: You didn't.
Saddam Hussein: Did.
USA: Oh look, this isn't compliance with UN Resolution 1441.
Saddam Hussein: Yes it is.
USA: No it isn't. It's just defiance.
Saddam Hussein: No it isn't.
USA: It is!
Saddam Hussein: It is not.
USA: Look, you just contradicted me.
Saddam Hussein: I did not.
USA: Oh you did!!
Saddam Hussein: No, no, no.
USA: You did just then.
Saddam Hussein: Nonsense!
USA: Oh, this is futile!
Saddam Hussein: No it isn't.
USA: I came here for a full accounting for destruction of your weapons.
Saddam Hussein: No you didn't; no, you came here for compliance.
USA: Compliance isn't just saying "I've disarmed."
Saddam Hussein: It can be.
USA: No it can't. Compliance is revealing and destroying weapons of mass destruction in full view of U.N. inspectors.
Saddam Hussein: No it isn't.
USA: Yes it is! It's not just empty statements.
Saddam Hussein: Look, if I comply with the UN, I must say I've disarmed.
USA: Yes, but full disarmament isn't just saying "I've disarmed."
Saddam Hussein: Yes it is!
USA: No it isn't!
USA: Disarmament is an open process. Declarations of de-weaponizing absent records or hard evidence of actual destruction of WMDs is useless.

Pause

Saddam Hussein: No it isn't.
USA: It is.
Saddam Hussein: Not at all.
USA: Now look.
Saddam Hussein: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
USA: What?
Saddam Hussein: That's it. Good morning.
USA: I was just getting started.
Saddam Hussein: Sorry, the inspections are done.
USA: That was never disarmament!
Saddam Hussein: I'm afraid it was.
USA: It wasn't.

Pause

Saddam Hussein: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowing inspections anymore.
USA: What?!
Saddam Hussein: If you want me to allow inspections, you'll have to pass another UN resolution.
USA: Yes, but that was never compliance, just now. Oh come on!
Saddam Hussein: (Hums)
USA: Look, this is ridiculous.
Saddam Hussein: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've passed another U.N. resolution.
USA: Oh, all right. (passes 18th resolution against Iraq)
Saddam Hussein: Thank you.

Pause

USA: Well?
Saddam Hussein: Well what?
USA: That wasn't really compliance, just now.
Saddam Hussein: I told you, I'm not going to allow inspections unless you've passed a UN resolution.
USA: I just did!
Saddam Hussein: No you didn't.
USA: I DID!
Saddam Hussein: No you didn't.

If you liked this skit by the Mad Swede you can see more of his work at Viking Pundit.

Bill Moyers Cynical Display Of The Flag: I cannot tell you how offended I was after reading the following repulsive, taxpayer funded rant from Bill Moyers. Really -- it sickens me. It started out -- well OK -- as Moyers said...

"I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans.

Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15."

I could point out that you can vote, pay your taxes, speak your mind, etc, and still not be patriotic -- but that's really beside the point. Furthermore, you don't need a flag to prove that you're patriotic and that's not why most people wear them. See Moyers may not get this, but many us LIKE patriotic songs, symbols, etc and that's why we wear/display them. It's not to prove anything -- in fact ,if you really do have a deep and abiding love for our country, you don't need a symbol to show it, it'll just show through as people get to know you. But, I'm getting ahead of myself -- back to Moyers gibbering...

"So what's this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo - the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval."

I always find it odd when I hear this sort of whining about people wearing flag pins. The people who wear those things choose to do so and absolutely nothing is stopping Bill Moyer or anyone else from wearing a flag pin if they want to do so. However, Bill Moyers and his ilk just don't like the idea of wearing them. But, simply not wearing them isn't enough, they have to complain about the people who do. Here's more from Moyers...

"When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little red book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread."

See, now we're getting to the real root of this. Moyers thinks of "Mao's little red book" when he sees a flag, which is a ludicrous comparison by the way, but that's what Moyers sees. So the real issue here is that Moyers doesn't like the flag and doesn't want to wear it. But, rather than admit that embarrassing truth, he'd rather attack the people who do want to wear the flag.

Moyers then goes a trite little rant about, "people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting." Hey, WW1 is over Moyers. Although combat is of course, extremely dangerous, Conservatives over the protests of the left, have helped build our military up to the point where we no have to toss our young men into a sausage grinder to fight a war. In fact, we lost more civilians on 9/11 than our military lost in every conflict since the Vietnam war COMBINED. Now on to the offensive line in the whole piece...

"I put it on (the flag pin) to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us."

So we're going to do, "to the people of Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us." So, I guess that makes President Bush the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden right? Also, doesn't that make our armed forces morally the same as Al Qaeda? Furthermore, since a majority of the American people support this, isn't Moyers saying we're just as bad as the people who support terrorism?

You know, I find that to be a disgraceful and sickening example of moral equivalence and I honestly believe that only a depraved person with a warped view of America & the world could come to that conclusion. Furthermore, if you believe that thr majority of Americans are no better than Al Qaeda, then not only will I say that is grossly incorrect, but it's also a position that only someone who has a deep dislike for this country and what it stands for could believe. Last but not least, if Moyers was trying to get across that wearing a flag lapel pin doesn't make you patriotic, well, he proved his point -- although probably not in way he thought he did.

What Do Iraqis Think About The Coming War?: Although we can't take anything the Iraqis in Iraq say because of the government "minders" who monitor their conversations with people from other nations, we have had every indication that the Iraqi people would be thrilled to be liberated from Hussein. Not only have Iraqi expatriates in the West tended to strongly support the war, Iraqis who have just come into Syria are perhaps even more enthusiastic. Just read these Iraqi refugees have to say...

"...If the Americans try to reach Baghdad, all the people will come out on the streets to join them. What we don't want is for them to stop in the middle, so that the government can kill us again," said Zaid, 26, who traveled last week from the southern Iraqi city of Nassariyeh.

..."We will be angry with America if they don't come to remove Saddam Hussein," said Aqil. "They could have removed him before, and all the Iraqi people were behind the Americans, but they didn't do it. This time, we pray that they will"

Not only are we going to remove a hostile dictator who supports terrorism, we're going to free 24 million people & help them form a fledgling Democracy in the process. Furthermore, we're going to do it over the objections of the anti-war left, the majority of the Democrats, and much of Europe. When that day of freedom comes for the people of Iraq, remember who advocated helping these people become free and who for the most part wanted to leave them in chains.

Chancellor Gerhard Claims The U.S. Knows Nothing About Brutality And Torture By Marni Malarkey: German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has stated that everything must be done" to prevent war in the Persian Gulf. In a blow to President Bush's attempts to forge a coalition in support of military action, Schroeder further said Washington shouldn't "expect Germany to approve a resolution which would give legitimacy to war. Particulary a war we didn't start. After all, Germans have a long and proud history of starting up mindless aggressions and it's humiliating for us to have to support one which we did not trigger. Especially since this war isn't even really all that mindless."

The rejection of Bush's plan is, according to a White House spokesman, the result of a perceived snub on the part of the President towards the German leader. In a phone conversation last week, Schroeder apparently told Bush that if he wanted to wage a successful war, he should allow Berlin to "run the show" because "you wussy Americans know nothing about brutality and torture. I mean, who do you think you are -- Germans or something?" When the President declined Schroeder's generous offer, the Chancellor, in a controversial attempt to relive his country's "glory days," allegedly told Bush Germany would fully support an attack on Iraq if "you would at least let us run all the POW camps, ok?" According to the White House spokesman, Schroeder went on to argue -- to no avail -- that Germans were "really good at that stuff," and would "make those Iraqis wish they had never seen a jackboot."

If you enjoyed this satire by Marni Malarkey, you can see more of her work at Broken Newz.

Our Top Referrers This Year: I wanted to give a little thank-you link back to the pages that have sent RWN the most traffic in 2003. So here they are...

15) Broken Newz
14) Scrappleface
13) Steyn Online
12) Eject! Eject! Eject!
11) The Corner
10) Newsfilter
9) IMAO
8) The Daily Hmmmm
7) Rachel Lucas
6) Ernie's House Of Whoop*ss (Some Obscenity And Porn Links)
5) ZCPortal
4) Little Green Footballs
3) Andrew Sullivan
2) Fark
1) Instapundit

Words From The President On The Coming War & The Aftermath: GWB gave a speech last night at the DC Hilton and he said several things that need to be reiterated. Here are a few quotes of note from the speech...

- "On a September morning, threats that had gathered for years, in secret and far away, led to murder in our country on a massive scale. As a result, we must look at security in a new way, because our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century...We learned a lesson: The dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully, before we see them again in our skies and in our cities."

We go forward with confidence, because we trust in the power of human freedom to change lives and nations. By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty. Free people will set the course of history, and free people will keep the peace of the world."

That's potent, spot-on, and exactly the sort of thing I want to hear from the commander and chief right before we go into war...

Saddam Hussein -- A Force For Stability In The Middle East: As I was perusing Damian Penny's blog, I ran across this link on the Guardian.

The Guardian went to 48 prominent anti-war and asked how they would deal with Saddam. As Damian Penny said, the answers generally ranged between, "Give the inspectors more time," "Lift the sanctions", "Keep the sanctions," "We have no obligation to say what should be done to Saddam, because that's up for the Iraqi people to decide" I'd also add to that grouping, "fix the Israel/Palestinian conflict," and quite a few of them either didn't answer the question at all or acted as if this were an intervention based almost entirely on human rights (that's probably because Tony Blair is emphasizing that aspect of it).

I'd encourage you to read these responses, mainly because they're so mediocre that I think it highlights how completely incapable the left is of dealing realistically with threats.

Here are some snippets from these responses that caught my eye along with my comments afterwards...

===

Peter Kilfoyle MP: "With weapons inspection there is always the implicit threat of force, I accept that but we should deal with what is. The prime minister's line is that we now need to use that force but I don't accept that."

When he mentions the "threat of force," he means just that -- the "threat" of force. Not actual "force" mind you, just the "threat" of force no matter how empty it may be...

===

Douglas Hogg, MP:"...Right now, I don't think we should be threatening war, in fact I don't believe we should be in this position at all. I do not believe in war and I am not prepared to support this immoral action.

I would only support a war in Iraq if Saddam had attacked one of his neighbours if he involved with terrorist and if he was found to be harbouring a substantial amount of weapons. Really, a war can only be justified if you can invoke the principles of self-defence."

He does "not believe in war" -- except under the circumstances we're dealing with now -- but he doesn't support this war. This guy made my head hurt...

===

Andrew Motion: "I think the French/German position on this is quite right and that if we find chemical and nuclear weapons, bone pits and thousands of innocent people locked in jail then maybe we should go in but not until that time."

Well, they have already found mustard gas tipped artillery shells and since this is Iraq we KNOW there are thousands of innocent people locked in jail. So we're just a few "bone pits" away from bringing Mr. Motion on board.

===

Susie Orbach: "If we are talking about preventing human rights abuses, we don't need an invasion, we need Human Rights Watch teams. They could have judicial authority if necessary, and it probably is more than necessary, to prosecute Saddam in the court of human rights."

If we're not willing to use force, how are these human rights teams going to enforce their "judicial authority", much less "prosecute Saddam in the court of human rights?"

===

Haifa Zagana: "I don't believe that the military threat has been a factor in access for the inspectors. But the single most important thing is to lift the sanctions. If we want to empower the people of Iraq, to help them regain their dignity, that is the only answer.

How can you possibly think about overthrowing the regime or implementing democracy when your first thought is how you will feed your children tomorrow?"

Not only is she completely delusional (I don't believe that the military threat has been a factor in access for the inspectors), but she doesn't even have the will to continue the sanctions.

===

Jeremy Hardy: "The threat of force could work if he was a rational person, but he doesn't seem to have shown much fear of getting killed. If he had been clever and bent over backwards for the inspectors, then he could have got out of this. But he hasn't."

Great, so since he isn't a rational person, we should allow him to continue to build his WMD and cooperate with terrorists. Nothing to worry about there.

===

Andy Kershaw: "What we need to be asking ourselves is why now? I am amazed that no one, not even one of my fellow journalists, has asked this question. Saddam poses no more threat now than after the Gulf war, no more threat than in 1997 when Blair was elected, no more than in 1998 when the inspectors came out, and no more a threat than when Bush got himself fraudulently elected.

We also need to lift sanctions immediately, and they should have been lifted as soon as we realised what they were doing. I've been to Iraq, and what we are doing to these people through sanctions is disgusting. It's grotesque."

I can enlighten Andy as to, "why now?" On 9/11, terrorists backed by a rogue state that hated us, flew jets into the WTC and Pentagon and killed a lot of people. After that, we decided that it would be a good idea to get rid of as many terrorists and the rogue states that support them as possible in order to avoid a repeat. I'm afraid calling off the war and lifting the sanctions isn't going to make any of the people who want to kill us quake in their boots.

===

Katharine Hamnett "Weapons inspectors should be given the extra time they are asking for. Saddam has already decreed that no more weapons of mass destruction are to be manufactured or imported into Iraq."

I take it that Katharine is the trusting type since she believes Saddam's decrees. I wonder if she keeps buying into those Nigerian spam letters?

===

Hans von Sponeck: "To say I am against war is an understatement. What is required is dialogue and disar mament, with a concurrent lifting of economic sanctions, as well as very strict controls at Iraqi entry points. The best way is to continue with resolution 1441. I totally agree with the French and Russian and German proposal to continue with the disarmament and monitor thoroughly.

Iraq is the most X-rayed country in the world. We need to accept it is a threat to nobody, even if it would be good to have a new government."

Lift the sanctions because Iraq "is a threat to nobody." The headache is coming back again.

===

JG Ballard "I think there are great dangers in going to war now and one has to accept that the world is not a perfect place. It may be that we have to accept that Saddam's Iraq represents one of the world's blackspots that we can't do very much about...

...In a paradoxical way, Saddam may be a force for stability in the Middle East, in the sense that the playground bully - like the drunk on the aeroplane - concentrates the mind of everyone else."

A "blackspot" that, "we can't do very much about?" Well obviously we can do something about him, that's why we're going to go to war. Furthermore, how much chutzpah does it take to put forward the idea that a sociopathic, aggressive, dictator who cooperates with terrorists and has WMD will be a "force for stability" in the Middle East?

"U.N. Courage Index Lowered To 'Yellow'" By Scott Ott: The United Nations courage index level was reduced to 'Yellow' today as the Security Council continues to delay enforcement of 18 resolutions commanding Iraq to disarm.

The index is designed to give citizens of U.N. member nations a reliable guage of the effectiveness of the global body.

A U.N. spokesman said the courage index "Yellow" rating means it's unlikely that the U.N. will contribute to world safety by disarming the Iraqi dictator's regime.

However, the "Yellow" rating also means it is likely that U.N. member nations who oppose threat-of-force against Iraq now will take credit for the eventual disarmament when it happens.

If you like this satire by Scott Ott you can see more of his work at Scrappleface.

Cutting Away The Chafe -- Why Are We Really Hitting Iraq?: Let me cut through all the propaganda, hype and spin to get down to the root of why we need to invade Iraq.

After 9/11, it was clear that we could no longer continue to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the threat that the entire global terrorist network (not just Al Qaeda) poses to us. That's because as bad as 9/11 was, it could easily be much worse in the future given the spread of WMD.

Since it's impossible to destroy the global terrorist network as long as they're backed by rogue governments, it's essential to convince these governments to no longer support terrorism by any means necessary.

That leads us to Iraq. Can we convince Saddam Hussein to stop supporting terrorism through diplomatic methods? Since the answer to that question is obviously "no," we need to remove Saddam via military force.

Everything else, his cruelty to his people, the threat Iraq presents to the region, his violation of UN Resolutions, hopes that Democracy will spread throughout the region, being able to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia, etc, are secondary considerations to the fact that he supports terrorist groups and will continue to do so unless we stop him.

If this is really why we're going in, why are we talking about the WMD & the breaking of UN resolutions so much and why aren't we hitting Iran first, since they're an even bigger sponsor of terrorism than Iraq? Simple, because we can get a lot more worldwide support for invading Iraq than we can for hitting anywhere else. If that means we have to emphasize Hussein's defiance of the UN to get more nations on board, so be it. You don't catch flies with vinegar. Furthermore, once we're in Iraq, we'll have access to Iran and we won't need to go begging and bribing other nations in the region to get a place to launch our troops from -- if we can't help the people of Iran rise up in revolution first.

As far as the nations we need to deal with go, North Korea, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya, etc -- I think the diplomatic approach has a good chance to prevail in those nations -- especially if they can look at Afghanistan, Iraq & Iran and see what a dead end siding with the terrorists against America can be.

We have several years to go in the war on terrorism -- at least -- but I think history will regard getting rid of Hussein as one of the key events, perhaps the key event, in winning the war and reducing terrorism, like piracy, from a dire threat to our country to merely a dangerous nuisance.

Your Whacko Of The Day: Ladies and gentlemen, your whacko conspiracy theory of the day follows from a page called Who & Why and it's a doozy...

"...On November 20, 2001, I notified the FBI, and the US Postal Inspector General in Las Vegas and Washington DC., that George Herbert Walker Bush, Former President of the USA, was behind the Anthrax Murders. (18 USC 4 Federal Reporting Crimes Act) And that this was a Bush Shadow Government Operation, to eliminate some of his enemies, (General Media, who broke the story on the Bush/Clinton Crime Family Presidential Pardon's, the 28 page expose on Clinton's Crimes, and Tim McVeigh -- CIA Contract agent for Bush Sr. -- getting a Narcotic Induced Injection-Not Death, Sept 18th 2001 Weekly World News, which appeared on 7-11 news stands Sept. 10, 2001. 2 days later they reported the Anthrax to the FBI) and to put a general scare into the camps of those Congressman and Senators (Daschle and Leahy) that have opposed him and his son George W. Bush the current President of the USA. George Jr. takes his orders from his father George Sr., George Jr. is too dumb to be President. (Dick Cheney is in control for Bush Sr.)

Thank You
Stew Webb"

That right folks, Bush Sr.. who's apparently a "Satanist, Knight's Templar (who's) bent on One World Government" is planning on tainting all of our money with anthrax to force us to switch to "National Id/Credit-Debit/DNA Cards." This guy gets 10 points for creativity. In fact, I'd suggest letting him play with finger paints when they lock him up in the insane asylum.

Diplomatic Crisis Escalates Between France and U.S. as Rumsfeld Brands Chirac a "Trick-*ss B*tch" By Ryan Clancy: As the Iraq crisis continues to widen the rift between the U.S. and the French, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has taken the diplomatic barbs to a new level by characterizing French President Jacques Chirac as a "trick-*ss b*tch." The statement, made at Rumsfeld's daily press briefing was just the latest sign of rapidly deteriorating Franco-American relations. Rumsfeld, who just two weeks ago created a stir by characterizing Germany and France as "Old Europe" pulled no punches in expressing his distaste for Chirac. When asked what he thought of Chirac's recent statement that certain Eastern European countries would be well-served in keeping their support for the U.S. quiet, Rumsfeld retorted "Listen, Chirac is just a whiny, trick-*ss b*tch, just like Napoleon and De Gaulle. Always talkin' smack and then getting' they *ss kicked at Waterloo or lettin' Hitler run up on 'em. I talked to all my homies in Eastern Europe and they be like 'Yo, former states of the USSR don't play that.' And than I be like, word, D-Rums bout to set the record straight."

The unprecedented outburst left the Washington Press Corps gaping in awe at the steely-eyed 70 year-old, who despite being an elderly white man fond of the Glen Miller Orchestra, had resorted to Tupacian terroristic gangsta threats to express his displeasure. Sensing that he may have overstepped his bounds, the veteran Secretary quickly adopted a more conciliatory tone, "Look, even though the French always getting' whooped on in international conflicts, and the Germans are led by that anti-war Kaiser Soze b*tch, the U.S. don't want to East-West playa hate. We just want to smoke Saddam. That ain't asking so much, just a couple hundred cruise missiles and booyaka; Democratic Iraq in the hizzouse and mad cheap oil for all the homies drivin' Escalades wit' phat dubs." Neither France nor Germany has officially responded to Rumsfeld's inflammatory comments but public reaction has been expectedly hostile. In eastern Germany, protesters are threatening to reconstruct the Berlin Wall in a ploy to convince the U.S. that it is reverting to Communism, and a French souvenir company has decided to cease exports of miniature Eiffel towers to the U.S. Despite these radical measures, Rumsfeld says that he stands by his comments, "One way or another, the U.S. is bout to cap Saddam and if the French and Germans don't want to come along, that's cool, 'cause Latvia and Bulgaria got our back."

If you liked this satire by Ryan Clancy, you can see more of his work at Broken Newz.

Dove Hunting In Iraq By Ron Marr: It strikes me that Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton have something very much in common. That said, before the smoke pours from liberal ears, let me state that I'm not comparing the infinite inhumanity of the former with the sleazy egocentrism of the latter. Miles of distance exist between butchering your own people and fooling around with a fat chick.

While Clinton damaged this country in innumerable ways - curtailed civil rights with gusto, joyfully violated the law and acted like a jerk - I don't think he ever gassed his own people. He nauseated many of them with hot air, but such is better treatment than that received by the Kurds. (Cont)

Refuting The Top Ten Most Annoying Anti-War Cliches: 10) Why Is The U.S. Going To War With Iraq And Not North Korea? Let me answer that question with some questions. Why did we go to war with Hitler during WW2 and not Stalin immediately after? Why is Milosevic at The Hague today while Castro is still living in a palace in Cuba? Why is it that Mexico and Canada are in NAFTA, but Britain is not? For that matter, why are we going to invade Iraq and not France? Simple, they're different countries, different situations, and they require different tactics to deal with them. If you don't know what the differences are, it's not because there are no differences, it's because you're not sufficiently informed. If you do want to find out more about the differences, here's an editorial I wrote about the subject. If you don't want to learn more about it, but you want to keep claiming that we should be threatening to invade N. Korea and not Iraq, then go ahead. That's like putting an "ignorant and proud of it" stamp on your forehead and it should warn sensible people that they don't need to waste time paying attention to you.

Joke Of The Day: Currently, I'm reading Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism, but next I'm going to be reading David Horowitz's How To Beat The Democrats And Other Subversive Ideas. Today, I actually read the preface & first chapter of Horowitz's book and it was excellent. It began with a joke that Horowitz swiped from former Congressman Jim Rogan. I hope Horowitz won't mind me reprinting it on RWN -- I'd be willing to ask him that myself if he'd ever agree to an interview =) (**hint hint**), but here goes...

"A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. Reducing his altitude, he spotted a woman on the ground below and asked for help. "Excuse me," he said when she was within earshot. "Can you help me? I don't know where I am and I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago."

"Easy," she answered. "You don't know where you are, and you don't know where you're going. You've risen to your present position on a large quantity of hot air, you've made promises you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. Moreover, you're in the same position as when we met, but you've found a way to blame your predicament on me."

Our Sliding Education Standards In Tennessee: I was reading Ravenwood's page and I came across a link to this ridiculous item in the Tennessean...

"No more zeroes.

''I think we have to be really careful about grading, that we don't do things that really devastate children and don't give an accurate reflection of their work.''

So apparently "Chief Instructional Officer Sandy Johnson" thinks we should give a kid who misses 100 out of 100 questions on a quiz a 50, because giving them a zero wouldn't be an "accurate reflection of their work???" Oh boy, if this is the, "Chief Instructional Officer" these kids are in trouble. But wait, it get's even better (or worse for the kids)...

"Under the proposals, teachers would be encouraged to give a minimum number of assignments to average for the final grade. Letter grades would be assigned on a 10-point scale, with 90-100 equal to an A and grades 59 or lower rating an F.

''We didn't want homework to become a major component of the grade (because) children might not have support at home or help at home,'' said Martha Hayes, Metro's executive director for grades 4-12. ''Sometimes it's appropriate to grade homework, especially in terms of long-term projects. But we don't want that to be the major part of a child's grade.''

So they don't want to give kids grades lower than 50, they don't want homework to be a factor, and you only have to get a 60 to get a passing grade? I couldn't disagree more strongly with letting kids slide by like that. As a matter of fact, I genuinely feel sorry a kid who passes a class after doing pathetic work that he deserved to be held back for. You know why? Because once you start making excuses for people's mediocrity, they come to expect it. Yeah, they say this is for 6-9 year olds, but those kids are going to turn 10 one day and then what are they going to do after coasting through three years of school? What happens when they're asked to do homework? What happens when that zero does count as part of their grades? If anything, they're going to be less prepared than they would have been otherwise because they haven't been challenged.

Even if the teachers let these kids skate all the way through school, eventually little Johnny and Janey are going to have to face the music when they get into the real world where they have to compete with people and organizations that are smarter, more experienced, more talented, better financed, and better connected than they are. When you do get to that point, you better be able to suck it up and keep on going. Take it from someone who hated high school and college with a passion, all that homework and strife and struggle to get decent grades pays off beyond the knowledge you acquire from it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the kids who worked their butts off to get Cs are probably better off than the kids who made straights As with no efforts. That's because persistency, consistency, and discipline are in many respects, much more important than raw talent. So by giving some of these kids a free pass, these teachers aren't doing them any favors and I hope the parents will step in and say so.

A Little Help Here: Four things...

1) I'm planning to put together a list of annoying celebrity quotes since 9/11. That includes American & maybe even foreign celebrities. If you have any that you think should be included, feel to put them in the comments section.

2) You see the slogan on the RWN banner, "Fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American way?" Well, I am working on a little PHP includes script that will rotate banners so I can have roughly 20 slogans, one which will come up each time you refresh the page. If you have any slogan suggestions, feel free to add them in the comments section as well.

3) I have another advertiser -- Kimberly Swygert's Number 2 Pencil is on board with us. Make sure to give her page a look.

4) Last but not least, we currently have 3 open advertising slots for the month of March. If you'd like to have an 88x31 button in the support section that links to your website, simply deposit $10 in my paypal account (also in the support section) and send me a 2kb or less button via email. That's not so bad for a full month of advertising on a website that's averaging just over 4,000 daily uniques per day in March. Of course, I reserve the right to reject any advertisers, etc, etc, pretend that there is a lot of long, boring, legal stuff in small type here.

***Update***: Since I have this post up, I thought it would be a convenient place to brag. Yes, I had the interview up with Mona Charen on Monday & O'Reilly interviewed her tonight. When I'm pulling off the same guest list as O'Reilly, that's not too shabby...

Richard Perle On What We Should Have Learned From 9/11: On Sunday, Richard Perle debated Representative Dennis Kucinich, (D-Ohio) on Russert's show. While Perle was thoroughly demolishing Kucinich, he made a point that those of us on the pro-war side should be repeating more often. Here's the key exchange...

Rep. Kucinich: Tim, I have to say this, that I voted on September 12 of 2001 to give the president authority to be able to respond to the attacks on this country. I think this nation has a right to defend itself, but Iraq did not attack this nation and that has to be said over and over. It did not attack this nation. And building a cause for war against Iraq is something the administration has tried to do but frankly it hasn't done it very effectively.

Mr. Perle: Excuse me, the lesson of September 11 was that you shouldn't have been voting on September 12 because we should have acted against al-Qaeda before that. We saw the camps. We heard the communications. We knew that they were planning additional acts of terror as they had undertaken previous acts of terror. And we waited. We failed to take action in a timely manner and the congressman is now saying that we have to wait.

Rep. Kucinich: Are you saying that to be critical of President Bush? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Perle: I'm critical of the failure to recognize the threat that Osama bin Laden posed before- everything we did after September 11 could have been done before September 11. But if we had proposed doing that, I have no doubt the congressman would say, "There's no evidence. There's no imminent threat."

If there's one lesson everybody should have learned from 9/11, it's that we cannot fail to address known dangers while we sit around sucking our thumbs. Quite frankly, that's exactly what both the Clinton and Bush administration did with Bin Laden before 9/11 (although Clinton had much, much, longer and many more opportunities). As Perle said, we knew Bin Laden was a danger, we knew he was plotting attacks, and yet we did very little of consequence about it.

Before 9/11, we could say that we weren't fully aware of the danger, but that is no longer the case. If we sit by and allow belligerent nations with ties to terrorist groups and WMD to build their strength while we do nothing, history will judge us to be fools. Because one day down the road, one of these nations will do the unthinkable, and an American city or cities will go up in a mushroom cloud or tens of thousands of Americans will die in a biological attack perpetrated by terrorists tied to these countries. If that happens we're not going to be able to say, "Oh, we didn't know that could happen." To the contrary, after 9/11, it shouldn't take a genius to figure out there's an excellent chance that we're going to face cataclysmic terrorist attacks in the future if we don't take on these terrorist groups and the regimes that support them in the present...

***Update***: I forgot to mention that Perle dropped a nugget of information in this interview that may take on much greater significance down the road. Perle said,

"We know that al-Qaeda operatives have been trained in Iraq by Iraqis. And there is still additional evidence involving meetings and arrangements and substantial numbers of operatives. ...Not only in northern Iraq, the training took place at Salman Pot, a training facility in Iraq"

I believe that whoever transcribed that made an error when they wrote, "salman pot" (google turns up 0 hits on "salman pot" & Iraq"). I believe what Perle actually said was "Salman Pak" which could turn out to be quite significant because of a story that broke several months ago...

"(Salman Pak) That's the name of the Iraqi training camp located south of Baghdad where, according to the accounts of at least two Iraqi defectors quoted in the New York Times last November, terrorists from around the world rehearsed airline hijackings aboard a parked Boeing 707 that bore an eerie resemblance to what transpired on 9-11.

The former Iraqi agent, codenamed Zeinab, told the paper that one of the highlights of Salman Pak's six-month curriculum was training to hijack aircraft using only knives or bare hands. Like the Sept. 11 hijackers, the students worked in groups of four or five, he explained."

At the time, the story didn't get a lot of traction because there was no Al Qaeda link to it. However, if one were to turn up, then we might actually have something that could for the first time tie Saddam himself to 9/11.

It's important to note that Perle himself doesn't make that connection, possibly because it's simply not the case and possibly because the intelligence isn't strong enough. However, could this not be the ultimate example of Bush's "rope-a-dope" strategy? How embarrassing would it be for all of the anti-war people if it came out after we invaded Iraq that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11? Then we'd have Bush, the principled leader going against stiff opposition from the clueless anti-war lefties who were unknowingly protecting the man responsible for 9/11. That's pure speculation, but it might be worth keeping an eye out for more info about a Salman Pak/Al Qaeda connection in the months to come.

The Greys Are Mutants From Atlantis Who Bred With Lizards And Survived Earths Cataclysms: While perusing various conspiracy sites to get material for ACPOTI (Anyone can post on the internet), I've run across various references to a guy named David Icke. After doing a little checking around, I found that his web page is quite popular. According to Alexa.com, it's the 23,170th most popular page on the internet which is fairly impressive.

However -- how shall I put this -- David Icke is howling at the moon, gibbering in a straight jacket, mad as a hatter, goofy as a pet racoon INSANE! He actually believes that there are reptile people running the planet -- it just doesn't get much crazier than that. Yet his page is pulling traffic, he's selling books, and he's even on a speaking tour. Apparently, being out of your mind pays better than it used too. Well, just to prove that I'm not exaggerating, here are a few clips from various authors on Icke's website that will give you an idea of how far out this guy and the people writing to him are. So prepare yourself for freaky new edition of ACPOTI.

Louis Farrakhan's Last Hurrah?: Louis Farrakhahn is back and sounding as unbalanced as ever in what he calls his, "final appearance". That could be because of health reasons (a bladder infection that led to an inflammation of his lower abdomen was mentioned) or perhaps the following statement from Farrakhan explains why he thinks he won't be around...

"When they come, they will come under the guise of Homeland Security," Farrakhan said. "They'll take our property and freeze our assets."

You know, considering that Farrakhan runs a anti-American Muslim organization and has ties to pro-terrorist regimes in Iraq and Libya (among others), I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that the Nation of Islam was actually cooperating with terrorists.

But let's get on some of the more interesting things Farrakhahn said...

..."Once the bombs start falling, America will start rolling down the hill towards destruction," he said. "The America you now know, you'll never know again."

"The anger of white people is growing," he said. "You are taking their children with the hip-hop generation."

I'm tempted to fisk this idiocy, but it's basically self-fisking. White people are coming to get blacks after the war starts because of hip-hop & the, "evils of the white people?" Come on, those are just the bizarre rantings of a demented man.

But, you know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see all the Democratic Presidential candidates asked about what Farrakhahn had to say. After all, Farrakhahn has campaigned for more than a few Democrats running for office. In fact, just last election cycle he hit the campaign trail for Cynthia McKinney.

So wouldn't it be appropriate to ask Howard Dean whether he agrees with Farrakhahn? Wouldn't you like to know what John Kerry would say if he were asked if it was appropriate for Louis Farrakhahn to be campaigning for Democratic candidates? Farrakhahn had good things to say about Al Sharpton, he said, "he'll never sell you out." So shouldn't we get to find out more about what Sharpton thinks about Farrakhahn's comments? If the Democrats are going to use a piece of human debris like Farrakhahn to try to pull in black votes at election time, shouldn't they have to answer for it when he shoots off his mouth?

History Of The World 1 -- George Clooney 0: Celebrity George Clooney has taken time out from his busy schedule to explain to all us "little people" why all war is pointless. Let's see what he has to say...

"You can't beat your enemy anymore through wars; instead you create an entire generation of people revenge-seeking. These days it only matters who's in charge. Right now that's us -- for a while at least. Our opponents are going to resort to car bombs and suicide attacks because they have no other way to win. ...I believe (Rumsfeld) thinks this is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore. We can't beat anyone anymore."

"We can't beat anyone anymore," huh? I bet the Taliban, the Serbs, and the Iraqis who fought in the Gulf War must be shocked to hear that. Oh have I just been missing all the newspaper reports about Japanese Kamikaze pilots & goose stepping Nazis threatening to land to do a massive "Red Dawn" style invasion out in the Mid-West somewhere? For that matter -- is Italy still being trouble by angry Carthaginians and does Greece fear the wrath of an angry Persia (Iran)? Of course not...

Unfortunately, Clooney's ridiculous fatalism is far too common on the left these days. It's part of that same oft-disproven "an eye for eye makes the whole world blind" philosophy that so many people on the left swallow hook line and sinker. This is why so many people on the left are completely paralyzed in the face of terrorism -- they believe if they actually go after the terrorists, it'll only cause more people to join terrorist organizations.

However, there's a fatal flaw at the root of Clooney and his ilks assumption. It's found within this statement, "Our opponents are going to resort to car bombs and suicide attacks because they have no other way to win." Actually, you can't WIN with terrorism. Blowing yourself and killing a bunch of people waiting to go home on the bus isn't really accomplishing anything militarily. In fact, unlike the ultra-restrained Israelis (yes, I mean that), more terrorist attacks against the US are likely to produce ever more violent responses. We've already invaded Afghanistan, we about to invade Iraq, and if I had my way we'd be hitting Iran a week after we finished Saddam (although regrettably I see little evidence that the Bush administration is willing to go that far at present). In actuality, this willingness to commit acts of unspeakable violence against groups that attack us and nations that sponsor them is our greatest protection.

That's because there may be a few nihilists who are willing to blow themselves up, but they're few and far between and to judge that all terrorists share their motivations & dedication is a big mistake. Most people, even terrorists, don't want to end up in prison for the rest of their lives or dead at a young age just so they can strike out at the United States...or anyone else for that matter. If there are all these armies of potential suicide bombers ready to give their life for a cause, how is it that all these potential revolutionaries are kept in check by the despots and Islamo-Fascists who run the show in the Middle-East?

So don't buy the little variation on the "violence never solves anything" cliche that Clooney is selling. It's just wishful thinking that no student of history could ever buy into...

Ordinary Americans Getting The Message Out In Iraq: You want the embodiment of that, "be a pack not a herd" phrase that Glenn Reynolds likes to talk about? Then simply go to the, "Iraq Daily News." It's an Iraqi run website -- one that generates a lot of traffic judging by the fact that it's the 9,987th most popular website on the net according to Alexa. But, if you click on the, "Watch Live -- Iraq Satellite Channel" button you get a nice little Pro-American/anti-Saddam message to the Iraqi people that reads in part...

"The American People are a loving people. We do not seek to take your oil or your wealth. Look at our history. Did we not help Taiwan and South Korea? We did not colonize them or control them or steal their wealth. We can make a gasoline substitute out of our corn from our millions of acres of land that is not even under cultivation now. We are a very powerful wealthy country that only wants your government, under an evil dictator, to stop threatening his neighbors and the world."

Now, my first thought was, "hey, the CIA is cranking up the psywarfare, good for them." But, there's a strong pro-Christianity message on there which doesn't seem like the CIA's style. Then I was thinking that the page may have been hacked, but again, hackers would have probably posted something like, "Super Pikachu clan ownz j00 Saddam!!! W00T!"

However, there was an email contact button on there and I decided to actually get the word about what happened straight from the horse's mouth. The person who put all this together was one Robin Poole and here's what he told me when we corresponded via email...

"...I didn't really hack it. I purchased it legally over the net as it was advertised for sale. I read an article in the Providence Journal by Sheila Lennon that indicated that the site had lapsed due to UN sanctions against the hosting company doing business with the Iraq government. I don't know if that is true or not. I have received many emails with the majority of them supporting my efforts and quite a few congratulatory emails from French, Spanish and Arabic people, not all of which I could read. I have received a few "flames" but no major threats. I am in correspondence with a few of the people who were not in agreement initially and some of them seem to be coming around from being nasty to being cordial, yet in disagreement."

"I am trying to get the Iraqi people to see that Saddam is the next Hitler and that now is the time to stop him... I hope the Iraqis will learn from history and know that the free world will not tolerate another Hitler."

"...The link to www.iraqtv.ws was still active on the Iraqi Daily site last time I checked and one email friend even told me it had been propagated more widely in Iraq since I got the link. God has a way of opening his own doors as He has shown me so many times in the past. ...We must all work together to get rid of this new Hitler, before he can strike."

If you like what Robin did, check out his website, TechTrainingInAudio.com and you may even want to shoot him an email. But whatever anybody else thinks, Robin, RWN salutes you!

An Interview With Mona Charen: I was very pleased to get a chance to do a phone interview with Mona Charen. For those of you who aren't familiar with Mona's work, she has been a speech writer for Nancy Reagan & Jack Kemp, she's a CNN commentator, her syndicated column appears in more than 200 newspapers, and her brand spanking new book, "Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First" is sitting at #25 on Amazon as I type this.