The Peacenik Top 10
  A look at the ten most popular objections to war
  and some common-sense responses to them.
    by Fred Barnes, dumber than a chimp and I have proof


 First of all, blow me with your candy-ass title, Freddie.
 This isn't a set of real arguments, this is a moron (you) throwing red meat to the ditto-monkeys.

 Second, remember I'm usually a hawk. I wanted China handled when they shot our spy
 plane out of the sky, but President Weak & Stupid has an uncle making billions in China
 and he didn't want to upset the B.F.E.E.'s power to earn, so we begged China to forgive us .

 Third, if there was a reason to go to war, I'd be cheering our boys the loudest.

 Enough foreplay - let's get to it

 Fred Barnes will start, his words in blew - I mean blue.

 Those opposed to military action in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, destroy his WMD,
 and liberate the 24 million Iraqi citizens under his control cite at least 10 objections to going
 to war now. These objections range from the arguable to the totally absurd. Let's examine them.

 Freddie, the farther you go, the farther you're going to have to come back because
 I'm going to make you eat each one of these silly reasons that make no sense.

 (1) Rush to war. This is a favorite of congressional Democrats. But the rush is more like a baby crawl.

 You're lying.
 The "rush to war" has nothing to do with time.
 It has everything to do with Bush needing to win a war.
 "Find me a war! Quick!"

 Of course he wants to avenge his daddy's hueueueueueueuge fuck-up in Iraq.
 The dumb SOB told Saddam he could take Kuwait in the first place, then when he realized
 his bungle (or did he do it on purpose, to make money for the B.F.E.E.?) he had to put
 550,000 Americans in harms way, the action that caused September 11th.

 Please - somebody argue with me on that.

 Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war:  getting the approval of Congress,
 getting another U.N. resolution and building a coalition of supporters. He's hardly rushing.


 Bush had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the UN.   He was fully prepared to invade Iraq on
 his own but Powell threatened to resign if he did.  THEN he started slowing down his eager rush to war.
 Why are you trying to re-write history that's only six months old?
 Do you think none of us were here six months ago?
 Do you think none of us were paying attention six moinths ago?
 You got caught, Freddie.

 We're still on Question One and already you've been caught in two major lies
 and a whole lot of lies by omission.  It's going to get worse for you, I promise.

 (2) It's a war for oil. The United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by lifting the
 sanctions and helping to reconstruct the Iraqi oilfields. It's the French and Russians who have oil
 deals with Saddam and thus are fixated on that issue. They don't want a war that would upset those deals.

 ha ha
 Why buy oil from Saddam when you can steal it?

 Of course this is a war for oil - it's the only thing the unthinking pinhead knows. More oil, more oil!
 Right now, Bush can't get his bloody hands on that oil, but watch what happens after we invade.
 This is going to be the biggest cloud of secrecy ever to visit the planet Earth.

 Maybe France and Russia don't want to pay B.F.E.E. prices for that oil. Look what B.F.E.E.-ally Enron
 did to California, making $500 million dollars in one day. How's Bush gonna make that money without a
 war that requires intense secrecy and a multi-year, multi-trillion dollar re-building effort from Halliburton and
 the Carlyle Group?   The French and Russians are smart enough to avoid B.F.E.E. price-gouging.
 Wish we could.

 (3) War with Iraq will bring more terrorism. This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war
 and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan.
 Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States.
 Terrorists will be increasingly fearful.

 You're lying again, Freddie.
 Bush 41's tremendous fuck up costs hundreds of American lives in 1991, and it cost 10,000 men
 the ability to have a life free of dozens of different and unexplained ilnesses and hereditary defects.
 Bush's fuck-up is what turned bin Laden from Poppy's friend into the monster he is today.

 September 11th was about revenge for the Gulf War, you lying whore.

 On the other hand, as a hawk, I gotta say that we can't take a punch like 9-11 and go to sleep.
 We should go after the real terrorists, not "could be someday" terrorists. If we did that, the entire planet
 would be with us, but we're not.  We're going after some easy target that Bush can use to score cheap
 (if you think the lives of our soldiers are cheap) points with his ditto-monkey base for his re-election.

 (4) The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens.
 A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street. So far, only the American
 street has erupted--against the French and Germans.

 Ok, now you're forcing me to do something really ugly.
 Regular readers know what's coming.
 I want you newer readers to meet somebody - his name is Chippy.

 Chippy is a chimp in some zoo, for Christ's sake, but is he smarter than Fred Barnes?
 Steve Brill's Content Magazine did a scientific analysis of predictions made on talk shows.
 Since Chippy is just slightly smarter than the president, they had Chippy point to blocks or balls
 (whatever) with "yes" and "no" written on then. Using this method, Chippy scored an impressive .517,
 which means he was right more than he was wrong. How did Freddie Barnes do?


 Look at the numbers!
 Chippy was right more oftne than McLuaghlin, Kondracke and George Will.
 And dead fucking last on the list, the guy wrong more often than anybody, the guy who is
 scientifically .119 percentage points more stupid than a goddamn chimp in a zoo!

 And Freddie the Chimp is going to predict the future and guarantee our safety from terrorists?

 Swear to Koresh, you have to TRY to be as stupid and wrong as Freddie Barnes.
 But remember,  Barnes doesn't believe the hate he spews any more than Rush does.
 Barnes is a millionaire because Murdoch likes the way he spews hate at liberals.

 So, if Barnes says the Arab streets will NOT erupt, we can be pretty sure they will, because
 Fred Barnes isn't even as smart about predicting future events as Chippy the zoo monkey.

 (5) Bush is doing it for his dad. President Bush the elder stopped short of deposing Saddam in the
 Gulf war and to this day believes he did the right thing. So do his top aides, such as national security
 adviser Brent Scowcroft. Instead, they agreed to a truce with Saddam conditioned on Iraq's full
 disarmament. Also, consider the source of this charge: Martin Sheen.

 Well sure, Dad always liked Jeb best. Jeb wasn't the family fuck up.
 Was Jeb arrested for cocaine?
 Was Jeb drunk for decades at a time instead of raising his kids?
 (No wonder they turned out like he did)
 Was Jeb responsible for a 15-year old girl having an abortion?
 Was Jeb the dumbest box of rocks in the history of Yale?
 Was Jeb the bad seed who got drunk and challeneged Dad to a "mano a mano?"
 Was Jeb a draft-dodger who went AWOL during wartime?
 Was Jeb the idiot who said "make the pie higher" and "put food on your family?
 No, Jeb was Daddy's favorite, and George is still scarred by the early years.

 "George the moron,"
 "George the idiot,"
 "George the hothead"
 "George the drunk driver,"
 "George the coke freak," man, that's gotta get reeeeeeally old after a few decades.
 Of course he's doing this for daddy, and so the B.F.E.E. can rape the world on energy costs.
 Once they control the world's energy supply, who can stand up to them?  Wait, I take that back
 - they're already too big to stop, but depending on the impossible-to-verify Diebold voting machines
 (owned by Republicans) in November 2004, they could lose trillions if that election goes bad.
 That's why George needs this war, and it doesn't hurt to distract the jobless millions, either

 (6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed
 out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the
 conditions are violated. By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it.


 ha ha


 Another "future prediction" by the wrong-most-often pundit working today.

 (7) Containment is working. The problem is the right threat is not being contained: the spread of WMD.
 Sure, with U.S. troops and U.N. inspectors in the area, Saddam won't attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors.
 But he could slip chemical or biological agents to terrorists without anyone knowing.
 And that's the threat.

 Well, so could North Korea.
 Well, so could Cuba.
 Well, so could Libya.
 Well, so could Pakistan.
 Well, so could India.
 Well, so could Russia.
 Well, so could Algeria.
 Well, so could Saudia Arabia.
 Well, so could Iran.
 Well, so could North fucking Pago-Pago, but Bush only has eyes for Saddam.

 He's a short-tempered twit who can't think, surrounded by insane power-hungry maniacs.

 And let's all remember - Bush was not elected. He LOST the popular vote and his brother Jeb
 certified the quick count and the whore court threw away state's rights to appoint our first-ever King!

 Bush has no business leading us to f-ing Pizza Hut for lunch, much less a possible world war.
 No wonder all our allies have deserted us, all except Blair, who's people have turned on him,
 but boy, he's gonna make uber-millions once he gets on the board at the Carlyle Group.

 (8) America doesn't have enough allies. What? Forty or so isn't enough?

 ha ha
 Freddie must've had somebody else frame this argument for him.
 Somebody - anybody - show me a high-profile elected Democrat who said,
 "America doersn't have enough allies."

 That's never been the arguement and everybody knows it.

 The argument is France, Germany, Russia, China, Turkey - you know, the important countries,
 are against King George's stupid oil war - everybody but Great Britain, which makes it a Coalition
 of one bought with a mountain of gold for the soon-to-be-former Prime Minister Blair..

 Sure, we've got lots of "allies," the tiny countries who were the cheapest to buy.

 Let's see, on Bush's side we have Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon - Cameroon? Is that a country?
 It sounds like a fancy vokda bar at Mandalay Bay.
 What other global powerhouses to we have on our side?
 Chilea, Guinea, (where is Guinea?) Namibia? Is that a country?

 For George, it's like the old days, buying hookers in Boy's Town over the Rio Grande.
 The cheap ones are easiest to buy, right George?
 If it wasn't for all the dead Americans (and other innocents) this would be funny.

 (9) Win without war. That's a nice goal. Unfortunately, it's Saddam's goal. With no war, he wins and
 emerges as the new strongman in the Middle East, forcing people to come to terms with him.

 Freddie, since Cheney stopped doing business with him, what's Saddam done?
 C'mon, Fredie, give us a list.
 And don't go back twenty years and tell us what he did with the WMD Bush 41 sold him.
 Tell us what he's done since the Gulf War that warrants more dead Americans in the sand.

 You can't, can you Freddie?
 If you had any reasonable arguments, I suppose you would've brought them up in, oh, I don't know,
 maybe when you took a look at the ten most popular objections to war and some common-sense
 responses to them.  If you had anything honest or smart to say, why didn't you?
 Why give us these half-baked, nonsense reasons that any comic with an IQ of 64 can easily destroy?
 (10) Bush is seeking a new American empire. This is a favorite accusation of Dennis  Kucinich, the man
 who once recited the Gettysburg Address in Donald Duck's voice.

 There you go again, no substance, just more red meat to the ditto-monkeys.
 If Kucinich did that Donald Duck thing, why not tell us where and when?
 Tell me Freddie, was the alleged Donald Duck recital as dignified as this?


 Yeah, it's Red-Ink Reagan, the patron saint of massive foreign policy fuck ups.
 This is what the goofy Reagan clown did for America.

 Beirut, October 23, 1983: Simultaneous suicide truck-bomb attacks
 were made on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon,
 killing 242 Americans and 58 French troops were killed, too.

 Look, the "cheese-eating, surrender monkey" French died with our boys.
 Maybe that's why they don't want a brain-dead US president starting a war in the Middle-East,
 so shove that Donald Duck crap up your ass, Mr Barnes.  If we need some good ideas,
 we'll call Chippy the Chimp - at least he's 119 points smarter than you.

 No doubt opponents are capable of coming up with new arguments against war with Iraq.
 They'd better do so soon because so far they haven't convinced anyone outside the reflexively anti-Bush crowd.

 ha ha

 The "reflexively anti-Bush crowd?"

 That would be the world community!


 Is that how you guys do it?
 You turn on FOX News and say, "There's over 1,000 people in the street!"
 Is that how you do it?  You pretend you can't see what's going on?

 Fred, I think I've proven it several times over.
 You're a brainless liar who gets paid to mislead the extra-stupid.
 Animals in the damn zoo are right more often than you, Fred.

 You watch your ass, because next time I won't be as nice.

 Once we get BartCop Radio going, expect a lot of this. I don't mean the cursing, I'm just upset that
 people take this shit-for-brains moron seriously when Chippy proves he's an incompetent liar.
 I'm talking about the take-no-crap-from-lying-ditto-monkeys that this page represents.
 We're going to be a different kind of liberal radio show.

 Trust me, in print, you can't hammer away at somebody like you can on the radio.
 Expect a lot of hammering come mid-April.

  back to

Privacy Policy
. .