War on Terror

Reason Morning Links: Osama Story Confuses, Levee Breaks, Canadian Tories Stomp

|

The latest from Reason.tv: "Bollywood vs. Bin Laden."

NEXT: Read Our Complete May 2011 Issue

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler…..tion-team/

    New Yorker magazine called SF team that killed Bin Ladin “Cheney’s Personal Assassination Team” Now they are American heroes. My what could have changed?

    1. GO TEAM BLUE!

    2. Um…the mission?

      If CIA guy X on Monday kidnaps someone in Rome that the Italians won’t extradite, and then on Thursday jumps out of a helicopter in Afghanistan to rescue a literate 11 year old girl from the Taliban, he’s a criminal and a hero in the same week.

      Nothing odd about that at all.

      1. You can’t say it is okay to whack some criminals extra judicially but not others. Bin Ladin is a bad guy. But either it is okay to hunt down our enemies and kill them or it is not. Why is Bin Ladin entitled to any less due process than the guy in Rome?

        1. Sure I can.

          We have every opportunity to employ due process against somebody living openly under the jurisdiction of the court system of an ally.

          Bin Laden was an armed fugitive actively engaged in evasion and flight [albeit while staying in one place for the last several years]. We have every reason to believe that elements of the intelligence, defense and legal establishments in Pakistan would have helped bin Laden evade capture and prosecution if we had enlisted their aid.

          “Hitler’s brain is being kept alive in London” requires and justifies a much different response than “Hitler’s brain is being kept alive in a secret Nazi fortress in the Himalayas”.

          1. But where has Seal Team Six ever gone and whacked anyone in London? All they have ever done is raids similiar to the Bin Ladin raids. Colbert and company were complaining about those raids. They just think it is great now because getting Bin Ladin helps Obama. If the raid had been for any other criminal living under the protection of Pakistan whose death didn’t help Obama, they would still be calling them assassins.

            1. I personally was complaining because the Bush administration claimed the authority to order such raids even in the absence of active armed resistance or the breakdown of legal authority in a given region. The way the policy was proposed, if the Egyptian government said, “Well, the Americans won’t show us any evidence that Sheikh X is a criminal, or provide us with a valid extradition request, so they can’t have him,” and the CIA walked into the guy’s hotel and shot him in the head, the policy would support that action. And if you can’t see how that’s different than Osama hiding for a decade and then popping out a doorway firing an AK, there’s a problem.

              BTW: I’m not accepting as a given the notion that bin Laden’s surrender would not have been accepted. If when the helicopters landed he had come out of the house wearing handcuffs and carrying roses and they shot him anyway, then yeah, they’d be assassins.

              1. Yes the case you give in Egypt is different. But there is no evidence Seal Team Six was doing anything like that or that is what Colbert and company were complaining about.

                And as far as Bin Ladin walking out with handcuffes, maybe. But the only way he would have been captured alive would have been in the extreme case that there was no plausible denyability that he didn’t surrender. I guarantee you, that guy walked into that room and shot him and didn’t give him the opportunity to surrender.

                1. I guarantee you, that guy walked into that room and shot him and didn’t give him the opportunity to surrender.

                  And I have a serious problem with that. As I said yesterday, killing him was the #2 solution, but capturing, trying and executing in America would have been #1.

                  If the only opportunity had been a sniper shot, take him out. But in the room, if at all possible capture should have been the priority.

                  1. “If the only opportunity had been a sniper shot, take him out. But in the room, if at all possible capture should have been the priority.”

                    Why? He was neither citizen nor resident nor captured/killed in US jurisdiction. Punitive raids against brigands in foreign territory by the military ought not be subject to police rules. Its the inverse problem of police paramilitarization. It blurs the lines and creates more excuses for military “police” actions.

                    1. For the same reason that we didnt just off the nazi leaders but tried them instead.

                      It isnt a police action, which is why I allowed the sniper shot. I dont want the police using that (except in hostage situations and that isnt applicable here). I dont see how capture for a war crimes tribunal would blur a military/police line.

                    2. Piling on, isn’t the whole point behind the hasty burial that it wouldn’t inflame Muslim passions, particularly Al Qaeda’s? How inflamed do you think they’d be with a trial in downtown N.Y.C? As it is, I’ll be happy if the KSM trial doesn’t end up shitting all over every federal criminal rule of evidence that we currently have.

                      It’s wartime, sort of. I’ve no problem with killing UBL out of hand. Not too mention that trying to take alive a guarded, high value, armed combatant from a compound like that strikes me as potentially very difficult and running the risk of killing a few of your people in trying to do so. (Yeah, yeah, they’re volunteers, shut up and solider, etc…)

                      If it turns out that he actually was taken alive and is being telling everything he knows at some black site in E. Europe or elsewhere—with a future as pig feed at some point—I don’t have a giant problem with that either. Despite knowing the history of extraordinary powers like that growing and biting a republic in the ass. I guess that makes me a bad libertarian.

                      Be really interesting if he gives up who in the Gulf was continuing to back his people with $, intelligence, and other assistance. But I agree with Brett L, in that he’s not a citizen, resident, nor in the U.S, and we weren’t sending cops to arrest him on an arrest warrant. As the AUMF covers this situation, it seems perfectly appropriate to treat it as a military action, not a police one.

                    3. And, to respond to robc’s point about Nuremberg, a significant difference is that by Nuremberg, the Nazi regime was done. There wasn’t a risk of starting up a guerrilla campaign in Germany by having a trial. The Allies had complete and total control throughout Germany, something we still don’t have in Af-Pak after 10 years. Moreover, with the death camps, you had the perfect evil deeds to justify the preceding 4-6 years of war. The Trials were primarily a way to publicize those deeds and thereby, help convince the populations of the Allies and Germany that the War and Occupation would be justified, wherever it ended up going.

                      For 9/11, the evil deeds were nowhere near as hideous, we already know their extent, and cynically, I think that TPTB would rather not have it be known who helped out UBL when. Also, AQ is just as alive and well now, as they were on April 30th: the war isn’t definitively over, like it was at Nuremberg. We still should bring the troops home, of course, while still looking for Zawahiri.

                      I just think the down side of a trial and the difficulty in grabbing him outweighs the merits of just killing UBL out of hand.

        2. John, you need to change your name. Your stupidity is an embarressment to the Johns of the world.

          1. Glad to see you got up early and added so much to the conversation there slick.

          2. Calling someone stupid while misspelling “embarrassment” in the same sentence? Gold.

    3. If Cheney had a personal assassination team, would Keith Olberman still be alive?

      1. Yes, because they were keeping Olberman alive to embarrass the left.

  2. http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler…..tion-team/

    New Yorker magazine called SF team that killed Bin Ladin “Cheney’s Personal Assassination Team” Now they are American heroes. My what could have changed?

    1. And Colbert got into the act to.

      http://www.colbertnation.com/t…..tion-squad

    2. So apparently the EU has found that the slaying of OBL was not an extrajudicial execution because there was a slim chance of taking him alive. Lol.

      1. European Leaders Condemn Yassin Killing.

        So next time Israel plans such an attack again, just include the language that you will offer the remote possibility of taking the target alive.

  3. Bin Laden’s death, sea burial, arouse conspiracy theories.

    That easily forged Certificate of Dead Death ain’t helping matters.

    1. They are surprised by this? I don’t know why they didn’t let twenty or thirty reporters see the body so there was no doubt and no room for conspiracy theories.

      1. I have to assume the disposal of the body was worked out well in advance and not a spur of the moment decision. I just can’t figure out what went into their calculations.

        1. I am sure they had it planned in advance. And I don’t understand it either. I would have invited a few reporters on board the Vinson without telling them why. That way if things went wrong you wouldn’t be embarrassed. Then let them look at the body and watch the Navy feed it to the fishes.

          1. If they had it planned well in advance, it’s even weirder that they chose to immediately hurl the corpse in the ocean. Unless they wanted to encourage conspiracy theories, it was an odd thing to do.

            1. They had been rehearsing the raid for weeks. The point of the raid was to kill him and take the body as proof. They had to have planned what to do with the body.

            2. Evidently, there are photos of corpse Bin Laden. There is a debate within the adminstration whether to release them or not.

              1. Why is there any debate on that? Release them and shut the idiots up.

                Unless Obama just wants something new to feed the conspiracy nuts now that he’s released his birth certificate.

                1. “Release them and shut the idiots up.”

                  Just put them on a CD labeled “bin Laden Death Proof Pictures” and then “accidentally” leave them on a pile of notes after a White House press conference.

                  1. The release of a photo or two will not quell the conspiracy theories. They’ll only spark talk about photoshopping.

                    Obama & Co. have just created the next JFK assassination with this dumbass burial at sea.

            3. It’s hard to say if the Obama admin is incompetent or evil in this case. They seem to go out of their way to encourage conspiracy theories about his birth certificate and now Obama’s death.

              Either they’re doing it out of sheer incompetence and indifference or they’re doing it deliberately to give the tin foil hat crowd enough rope and as a bonus, anyone else who questions either becomes a nutter by default.

              1. “They seem to go out of their way to encourage conspiracy theories about his birth certificate and now Obama’s [sic] death”

                1. Why I’ve taken to just calling him UBL. How many RC’s lawz Obama/Osama typos (or is it joe’s law?) were there yesterday?

                  I do cynically wonder if the burial was calculated to start a deather movement.

          2. The whole “But his grave would become a shrine!” thing is silly to me.

            OK, so store the body in a freezer at Langely.

            Or bury it somewhere and take a picture of everyone who walks up with flowers.

            1. You have to understand how out of touch the people at the levels high enough to make that kind of decision are. First, I am sure they were terrified of being accused of desecrating or exploiting a body. PC concerns override all at that level. And second, they don’t live in the world you and I do. They know Bin Ladin is dead. And it would never occur to them that anyone would not believe the government when it said so. So I am sure their thinking was “we don’t want to be accused of exploiting the body so lets get rid of it as quickly as possible.” They never even considered the possibility of conspiracy theories lingering.

              1. These are the same dumbasses that thought a .gov website debunking conspiracy theories about the .gov was a good idea.

            2. The whole “But his grave would become a shrine!” thing is silly to me.

              We should have gone ahead and created the Bin Laden grave shrine. It would have been the greatest mother lode of intel on who is a Muslim terrorist and sympathizes with Muslim terrorists on the face of the earth.

            3. The whole “But his grave would become a shrine!” thing is silly to me.

              Even sillier is the idea that no jihadist anywhere in the world can afford deep sea diving and salvage equipment.

              1. Il Duce’s tomb attracts a large following of neo-fascists.

                It really wouldn’t matter to me if UBL was buried on land ~ it would be difficult to find a willing host country.

                1. Apparently we offered him to the Saudis. Can’t imagine why they didn’t want him.

                  1. They could have buried him in a giant shoe.

                    1. They could have buried him in a giant shoe.

                      Made of bacon.

          3. The quick burial was too good of an opportunity for the Great Divider to pass up. Just as with the birthers, the deathers will eventually be shown evidence that makes them look like nuts.

            1. Unless it consists of the actual body of OBL, all photographic and video evidence can be fabricated. DNA evidence can be faked as well as long as you have DNA from a close relative or something.

              Dumping the body in the ocean was the exact right thing to do if you wanted to intentionally stir up conspiracy theories.

        2. They had to make sure all the proper Islamic rites were done eventhough every Muslim has been saying for 10 years that the guy isn’t really one of them.

          1. Except that some of them are complaining anyway that he wasn’t given a proper burial.

          2. And of course when it comes to the body of Osama bin Laden, the first priority should be the observance of religious tradition.

        3. At least they could have cut out the heart so Cheney could get the transplant he needed.

      2. They would have marked his grave. The fucker probably has a GPS shoved-up his rectum

        1. The reason no reporters saw the burial was that he he went into the sea done up as Doctor Frankenfurter.

          1. I’ll think of him next time I watch Rocky Horror 🙂

      3. I don’t know why they didn’t let twenty or thirty reporters see the body so there was no doubt and no room for conspiracy theories.

        By their very nature, there is always room for conspiracy theories. There is more evidence for the moon landings than there could ever be that the dead “bin Laden” wasn’t a body double and there are plenty of moon hoaxers around.

        1. True, 9-11 happened live on world wide TV and the troofers are still convinced the towers were blown up. Sometimes there is no fixing stupid.

      4. There is always room for conspiracy theories.

        1. They are the Jello of human reactions.

          1. You mean there’s always room for them?

      5. I think the body was desecrated. Which isn’t surprising at all, given the atrocities he was responsible for. Can’t let the world see it, though.

        1. No way. The Seal teams are too professional for that.

          1. I doubt they were the only ones with access to the body, and, for that matter, this guy is pretty reviled, so anything is possible.

          2. Absolutely. They’ve got a new professionalism that would knock your socks off.

            Of course, they’re so hush-hush that we can’t tell you how professional they are.

            So, trust John. Seals can do no wrong.

          3. They were probably the only ones in the room professional enough to know how to handle the situation.

    2. If Elvis Presley were buried at sea, the same doubts and rumors would swirl too.

      1. why would you bury a live man?

  4. America’s fastest growing faith “Born Again Waterboarders”. I love Iowahawk.

    http://legalinsurrection.blogs…..-from.html

    1. “We needed waterboarding to find a guy living in a giant fortified compound down the street from the military academy of one of our allies, under skies patrolled by our death robots.”

      1. Apparently so. Without it they would have never figured out who the couriers were. That is what happened. It is not like the place had a sign on it. There are a lot of compounds in the middle east. Sure, the Pakistanis probably knew. But they clearly were not telling.

        1. We give them $2 billion in military aid each year, shouldn’t they be telling us?

          1. Probably. But such is life.

          2. We give them $2 billion in military aid each year.

            Sounds to me like an opportunity for an easy spending cut that folks of all political stripes can agree on.

          3. Actually 3.4 b last year, and 3 b has been requested by them this year.

        2. Without it they would have never figured out who the couriers were.

          This also is post hoc reasoning that can never actually be proven.

          The problem with assigning any success to the practice of torture is that we’re talking about events that took place over a period of years, and we can’t go back in time and rerun the whole sequence of events without including the torture.

          1. No. but you can say that about anything. What we know is, we tortured KSM and got the information that lead to Bin Ladin. You can whine all you want about “well we maybe could have possibly gotten it anyway we will never know” all you want. But you can’t claim that the torture wasn’t effective. It clearly was. All you can claim is some speculative counter factual where we get the information through some other unknown means. The facts are what they are.

            1. The issue is really whether it was necessary, not whether it was effective.

              If you let me torture every prisoner being held in the US penal system right now, I bet I can solve LOTS of crimes. I bet I’d give you lots of evidence of the effectiveness of torture pretty much on the first day.

              Especially since I could just bury the news of any effort that was wasted chasing down bogus information offered up under torture.

              If we wasted billions of dollars hunting down BS, or bombed a few Afghani weddings based on BS, all we need to do is focus on the time that the information we got was good, and we look “effective”.

              The Gestapo probably caught LOTS of agents of the French resistance with torture. But I bet they picked up a lot of hapless shopkeepers and prostitutes, too.

              1. And if they hadn’t tortured they would have picked up a lot of hapless shopkeepers as well. That is the nature of intelligence. It is never going to be fool proof. There is no evidence that not using torture will make you any less likely to get the wrong person. Or if there is, it doesn’t exist in the case of Bin Ladin.

                And you can’t answer the question of “was it necessary” in any ultimate form because we will never know the counter factual of if we would have captured Bin Ladin without it. All we know is that we did use torture and got Bin Ladin. You are just assuming we could have had him anyway without torture because that is what you want to believe not because there is any reason to believe that or any way to know for sure if there was.

                1. According to Rummy, it wasn’t necessary.

                  “It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.

                2. And if they hadn’t tortured they would have picked up a lot of hapless shopkeepers as well. That is the nature of intelligence. It is never going to be fool proof.

                  If you’re asking for the moral privilege to torture, and relying on the effectiveness of an individual case as evidence that you deserve that moral privilege, it has to be foolproof.

                  Otherwise why not just randomly bomb buildings in the hope that maybe a serial killer lives in them?

                  “Hey, look, our random bombing campaign blew up Ted Bundy’s house. Of course, the campaign wasn’t foolproof – but nothing ever is, right?”

                  1. “If you’re asking for the moral privilege to torture, and relying on the effectiveness of an individual case as evidence that you deserve that moral privilege, it has to be foolproof.”

                    No it doesn’t. It just has to be more effective than the alternative. Sure, it has to be a lot more effective than not torturing. But there is no reason that it has to be fool proof. You are just making that up.

                    1. It just has to be more effective than the alternative.

                      I dont get to do this often anymore, since I incifed MNG, but thanks for the opening:

                      FUCK UTILITARIANISM.

                      The ends NEVER justify the means. NEVER. NEVER. Use moral means and accept the ends that follow.

                    2. FUCK UTILITARIANISM.

                      The ends NEVER justify the means. NEVER. NEVER. Use moral means and accept the ends that follow.

                      +a million

                      There is no evil and no atrocity that Utilitarians can’t justify.

                    3. Indeed. The ends ARE the means.

                    4. But there is no reason that it has to be fool proof. You are just making that up.

                      Are you fucking kidding me?

                      The moral argument for torture is “We’re sure we have the right guy in custody and we need to force him to confess and tell us the rest of the plot. Ordinarily, we believe in due process, but we’re totally sure about this guy and we really need the information. So we’re going to go ahead and torture him.”

                      That moral argument completely collapses if you’re ever wrong, once.

                      Otherwise you’re going beyond your usual talking point and claiming that you need the authority to torture even in cases when even you admit you’re not really sure, and that’s pretty repulsive. Another leg down on your slow descent into Stalin’s Dante level.

                  2. Our bomb targeting is not fool proof. And no legal standard would expect it to be. If you can blow people up without a fool proof method, why couldn’t you waterboard them?

                    1. We can blow people up when they are engaged in active armed resistance and we have no other way to fight them.

                      Or are you saying that the fact that the air force bombed North Viet Nam means that police can throw bombs into holding cells at Rikers?

                      Or the fact that Marines shot Japanese on Okinawa means that police can randomly fire at people walking down the street on the chance they might be criminals?

                3. I would argue that the torture was unecessary regardless of whether it played any role in finding bin Laden for the simple reason the killing bin Laden means jack shit other than some bullshit form of revengeism.

                  Him being dead makes no difference in either the threat that terrorism poses or their ability to carry it out, and can only be used as an excuse to continue the erosion of our rights because what we’ve been doing is “working”. The trillion dollars we’ve spent in finding him and building up that shithole of a country, torture, black sites, Guantanamo, et all is now in the works of being justified. Remember, for both Team R and D, the ends justify the means.

                  Though some may get some level of personal satisfaction that the fucker is dead, as a nation we may actually be worse off because of it.

              2. “But I bet they picked up a lot of hapless shopkeepers and prostitutes, too.”

                Who hasn’t?

            2. Do most ticking time bombs have a timer of 10 years? Because this seems to indicate that torture isn’t super expedient.

              1. It can’t ever be expedient if the other side uses proper compartmentalization like they did here. It didn’t matter what KSM told us, he only knew part of the puzzle. The rest we had to figure out on our own.

                1. After the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the Japanese tortured a captured B-29 pilot for information about further bombs. The pilot, who knew nothing on the matter, said that America had hundreds of bombs only to stop his torture. That misinformation hastened the Imperial J’s surrender.

                  KSM sounded like he was full of shit and misinformation, though there may have been some useful info retrieved from him.

                  1. The pilot, who knew nothing on the matter, said that America had hundreds of bombs only to stop his torture.

                    Even the Spanish Inquisitors knew that tortured prisoners would say anything to end the torture and that it would like be what they wanted to hear.

              2. Do most ticking time bombs have a timer of 10 years? Because this seems to indicate that torture isn’t super expedient.

                Do you know who Whitey Bulger is?

                Finding people who are determined not to be found isn’t nearly as easy as some people seem to think. I would love to see all the carping critics do better.

                1. The whole ticking time bomb justification for using torture is that it gets results fast. It’s been 8 years since KSM was captured, which is not getting results fast.

    2. Donald Rumsfeld, who was only SecDef at the time, said that the info did not come from enhanced interrogation. Considering that this happened under DoD auspices, he would probably be the one to know. Also, unlike “unnamed sources” he’s willing to say so publicly and probably isn’t trying to secretly push an agenda.

      http://www.newsmax.com/Headlin…..ode=C30F-1

      1. Parse his words more carefully.

        “Asked if harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay played a role in obtaining intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts, Rumsfeld declares: “First of all, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a myth that’s been perpetrated around the country by critics.”

        He is saying that no harsh interrogation techniques at GUITMO resulted in the information. His words don’t rule out information from such techniques used elsewhere.

        “The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone.”

        Okay. DOD doesn’t. But we know the CIA does.

        “It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”

        All he is saying is that none of the information that came from GUITMO came from waterboarding and the like. He doesn’t mention where the other information came from.

        Read more on Newsmax.com: Rumsfeld Exclusive: There Was No Waterboarding of Courier Source
        Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

        1. There have been lots of sources saying that the key information did not come from torture victims and the info gleaned from waterboarding was not required to get the leads. The thing is, you need this more than I do. I’d be happy if our nation never tortured and OBL was still stuck in the compound. OTOH, if OBL was captured and it didn’t require torture, you’ve been advocating an evil policy for naught.

          1. Lets see those sources? The one you provided isn’t saying that. Meanwhile, I have this.

            Officials say CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

            Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.”

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

            And no, you are the one who needs it. First, there was nothing evil about waterboarding KSM. And if it turns out that doing so is what produced this, you are on the hook for explaining why all your claims that such techniques don’t work have been proven to be false.

            1. I actually have no problem admitting that torture can occasionally work. But at what cost? As Fluffy said, carpet bombing is effective too, but there’s a lot of collateral damage. You have no idea what the signal to noise ratio is. In addition, I do not believe it is worth the stain on our national character to do it.

              I don’t know what American values you were raised with, but to me, torture was something the Soviets, the Nazis, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and all sorts of other assorted baddies did, but the US was better than that. Turns out all it takes is one attack for a significant proportion of the right to get pants wetting scared and throw all those values out the window.

              I’m guessing you don’t care about no knock raids and various violations of the 4th Amendment either? Sure it leads to a few dead dogs and old people, but it works and we catch bad guys with it.

              http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42…..bin_laden/

              “While some current and former U.S. officials credited those interrogations Monday with producing the big break in the case, others countered that they failed to produce what turned out to be the most crucial piece of intelligence of all: the identity and whereabouts of the most important figure in bin Laden courier’s network.

              So if we could get the most important information using normal interrogation techniques, what evidence is there that we couldn’t get the other info as well. Since we essentially started torturing KSM from the bat.

              1. I have a problem with the no knock raids because I don’t think we should make war on our own people. I have no problem with waterboarding KSM because he is making war on the US. I don’t consider him to subject to the protections of the Constitution. So I really don’t care what they do with him.

                And as I pointed out above, while carpet bombing may not be legal, bombing that results in innocent deaths is in some cases. We don’t expect perfection in our bombing, why do we expect the same in interrogation techniques? We didn’t kill KSM> We didn’t leave him any worse for ware. He was in no danger of actually drowning. I really don’t care that it sucked for him and he had to cough up the names of who he knew. And clearly it was effective.

                1. I don’t consider him to subject to the protections of the Constitution.

                  This is true.

                  So I really don’t care what they do with him.

                  I do, because I value human rights. And human rights have nothing whatsofuckingever to do with the Constitution.

                  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…

                  The DoI defines America much more so than the constitution. Constitutions change (it is our 2nd one after all). Founding documents dont.

        2. Why even parse them? The guy was one of the supporters for “enhanced interrogation techniques”. If that was what worked and got the intel, he’d be one of the ones trumpeting it now. Instead, he’s saying that’s not what led to this.

          So parse all you want, but any honest reading of his words would lead to the conclusion that we don’t have to torture to get intel.

  5. U.S. officials say OBL’s hard drive contains “mother lode of intelligence.”

    It was also a mother lode of Tom of Finland drawings.

    1. 😀

    2. I thought he preferred Thomas Kinkade

    3. This brilliant strategist never heard of disk encryption or is it all really back-doored or subject to brute force?

      1. His password was “Bieber”.

      2. Or maybe he was using Windows Vista?

      3. Dude has been on the most wanted list for a decade and has been hiding out in a giant compound right under our noses for 5 years. I doubt he concerned himself with proper IT security and figured he’d never be found.

        1. How’d that work out for him?

          Hell, I don’t figure my laptop will be stolen but my hard drive is encrypted.

  6. Why Muslim clerics will lose
    http://rctlfy.wordpress.com/20…..ass-woman/
    hattip warty….gag

  7. Science kills the unbelievers.

    CAPAF’s Brad Johnson makes an appeal to authority:

    “Given that global warming is unequivocal,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’ ”

    Actually, Johnson goes a step further. He ends his post with this observation:

    The congressional delegations of these states–Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky–overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..35116.html

    When the global warmists start acting like someone besides Pat Robertson, I will start taking them and their pronouncements more seriously than I take Robertson’s.

    1. OK, fine.

      Then the “null hypothesis” is that all SUNNY days are due to global warming also.

      As are all successful wheat and rice crops.

      Nice null hypothesis, douchebag.

      1. Back off Man, I’m a Scientist.

      2. Right.
        A) Assert Global Warming Sky Faeries.
        B) Assert that tragic weather events are due to Global Warming Sky Faeries.
        C) Call Global Warming Sky Faeries the null hypothesis.

        Awesome.

          1. You are really bringing the in depth argument today aren’t you?

    2. When the global warmists start acting like someone besides Pat Robertson, I will start taking them and their pronouncements more seriously than I take Robertson’s.

      They’re more Cotton Mather than Pat Robertson.

      1. That is an insult to Cotton Mather who was actually a first rate philosopher. They wish they could think that clearly.

    3. Environmentalism is the world’s newest monotheism. And all young monotheisms go through a phase where they need to show how awesome they are by murdering nonbelievers, or if they’re a little nicer, relying on their deity to do the murdering for them.

    4. It is kind of sad the a self described scientist has such a simple picture of causality. Of course climate change is a cause of every weather event (good or bad, as Fluffy points out). There is no single cause for any complex natural phenomenon, and in some sense, everything causes everything else. So yes, every weather event is affected by global warming (to whatever extent it is happening). But that is not an interesting or useful fact. All weather has always been affected by climate change.

  8. Army Corps of Engineers blow up Mississippi River levee.

    Fr?d?ric Bastiat is rolling over in his grave.

    1. Water has to go somewhere. Better farm land than a town. And I keep reading about the Mississippi changing course and running down the Atchafalaya and leaving Baton Rouge high and dry. They say it would leave New Orleans the same. But the river channel at New Orleans is well below sea level. I would think the Gulf would just flood in and the old river channel would turn into a lagoon.

      1. Cairo IL is an armpit. The farmland was more worthy of being protected. At the least the flooding might have put an end to the weekly arson fires.

    2. River apocalypse.

      http://www.dailyimpact.net/201…..lypse-now/

      1. Very interesting. I have always thought the idea that we can somehow control rivers like the mississippi is absurd. It seems like what we really do is postpone serious floods etc. and make them much worse.

        1. Bullshit. MAN WILL WIN! No mere mud and water can oppose us.

      2. I think he gets a little apocalyptic about it but his point is a good one.

        1. I don’t see how it would destroy the economy. Just build a new port and pipeline.

      3. That was an interesting article, but I must be missing something. Why wouldn’t dregging the Mississipi around the port of New Orleans stop the river from changing courses? If the Mississipi river is going to change its course due to silt being deposited on the river bottom. Dregging the river should solve the problem.

        1. The Atchafalaya is the quicker route to the ocean. The Mississippi changes course every thousand years or so. It builds up silt at its mouth. Meanwhile the Gulf erodes away at the rest of the coast of Louisiana. Eventually the river changes course and takes the short steep route created by the erosion and abandons the existing channel.

          1. Yup.

            See the Nile, the Euphrates, the Yellow, et al.

            1. I have to go to the bathroom.

        2. You just don’t get it, do you? New Orleans is such a shithole that even the Mississippi River hates it.

          1. The Mississippi River hates chocolate?

    3. They need to blow up a lot more levees on the Mississippi. The farmland along the river is some of the best in the country exactly because the river floods the land regularly.

    4. Its technically a berm. A levee is a natural widening of the river bank above the main channel, formed by river swells.

      1. Maybe they’re dikes.

  9. I have yet to see this questions asked
    http://rctlfy.wordpress.com/20…..dens-lair/

    1. The brothers who were his couriers owned the land I think.

      1. I want to know the previous owners. They likely were not of the land owning class

  10. “A different guy’s wife was killed,” a different official familiar with the briefing for TV reporters said Monday night. Bin Laden’s wife was “injured but not killed,” the official said.

    Take a shot at my wife. Please.

    1. Sadly, she was probably 12.

        1. U.S. faces a quandary in proving the Al Qaeda’s leader death without inflaming his supporters

          I humbly suggest anime with Ayman al Zawahiri providing voice-over.

          1. Something like OLBL?

            1. Huh?

      1. Have some respect, John. Osama lost a wife and a sister at the same time.

        1. No problem; he had plenty of spares.

  11. Four Old Women Share an Apartment
    Why The Golden Girls was sitcom genius.

  12. “I am sorry, but if you believe the newest death of OBL, you’re stupid,” antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan Episiarch posted on her his its Facebook page.

    1. If the federal government can pull of 9-11 and put a Kenyan in the Whitehouse, they can sure as hell fake Bin Ladin’s death.

      1. I believe it.

        1. The Cheney/Biden junta continues its reign of terror.

    2. Fuck off, rather.

      1. Not even close.

        1. Different boring is still boring.

          1. So “boring” you were compelled to respond.
            You lose.

      2. did you say something? I incif you.:-)

        If you can live with diverse opinion, then go take your misogyny to your ‘feministing’ site. They engage with your pathetic nature there but I’m ignoring you.

        Frankly, you are a bore

        1. Yell louder! You’re all grey and stuff.

          1. The truth is you two have been married for 30 years.

            1. My throbbing monster of an alpha cock would commit suicide if it got within 20 yards of her morbidly obese, zit-covered, shit-reeking, squalid latrine of a body.

              Assuming I could even find her before the CDC does.

            2. Do I look like I have freezer burn?

            3. “Strangers in the night, exchanging glances…”

              1. I’ll admit to a few healthy hate-fucks here and there, but they weren’t with someone that maggots would turn down.

                1. SugarFree and rather, sittin’ in a tree…

                  1. Whatevs. I would never try and steal her from Episiarch, her one true love.

                    1. Is he still talking about jerking-off thinking of me………ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwe

              2. “Strangers in the night, exchanging gland juices…”

  13. I’m sure the plan was to make sure Bin Laden was not taken alive. Could you imagine the mess that would have come from deciding where to keep him, hold his trial, etc? It would be like KSM times a million.

    I guarantee that the contradiction in chief wasn’t going to impose that level of brain damage on himself, if it could be avoided.

    1. They were sent there to kill him. They can say all they want about how they would have taken him alive had he surrendered. But the only people in the world who know if he tried to surrender are him, his wife and the Seal who shot him. The first two aren’t telling and the third would be admitting to murder if he said Bin Ladin tried to surrender and he shot him.

      1. It’s not murder when you put down a dog.

        1. Except when a cop does it.

        2. Bad people are still people.

          1. True Zeb, and as painful as it will always will be, we need to live with our morality. The gift is that we may witness a person’s understanding of the difference

    2. I still think the greatest propaganda victory we could have achieved would have been to catch him, detain him for trial under humane conditions, provide him with savage ACLU type counsel, produce him in an orange jump suit in northern VA for trial, convict him, give him his fruitless appeals, and then hang him.

      That would have been a systemic victory, and not just an operational one.

      1. Maybe. Or maybe he would have been a charming and charismatic defendant and turned the case into a circus and a propaganda platform.

        We did what you suggest to Ramsey Jusef the first World Trade Center bomber. I don’t see how it was much of a “systematic victory”. And it certainly didn’t do anything to stop 9-11.

        1. The reason it would be a systemic victory is because we’d let him try as hard as he could to be charming and charismatic, and he’d get a fair trial and humane treatment, but he’d lose anyway and hang anyway.

          That would prove that we mean what we say about the superiority of our system.

          How good can our system be if the time it’s really important, we don’t use it?

          1. No one ever said our system was perfect. Yes there are situations where our system doesn’t work very well. And a case where you have a defendant accused of a crime of enormous monstrosity, it doesn’t work very well. We didn’t exactly give the Nazis fair trials. Their judges included Soviet judges who were guilty of equally heinous crimes. We convicted them of ex post facto crimes. The Nuremburg trials really were not very fair. But no fair trial judged by the civil standard would have convicted all of them. And their crimes were too massive for them to be let go. So, we used a different system.

            1. The Nuremburg trials were not analogous.

              Because the Nazis were in possession of a state, they could – and did – simply assert that their actions were legal under local law. Nuremburg was a response to a jurisdictional problem, and not somehow a statement that fair trials are inappropriate for “really, really bad” criminals.

              9/11 happened on American soil. There is already a legal machinery in place that does a perfectly fine job of disposing of criminals who kill thousands of people on American soil.

              It’s not like acquittal is some kind of concern here. Are you seriously worried that a jury would acquit him? I thought your main concerns were providing security for a trial and allowing bin Laden the opportunity to speak and be “charismatic”. And it honestly doesn’t say much for our system if we’re too frightened to provide security to keep one court open to try one man, or if we’re afraid of what will happen if we let a murderer speak at his own trial before we hang him and leave him for the crows.

              1. No. I don’t think a jury would acquit him. But I would worry that a judge would bend over backwards and set terrible precedents to make sure evidence got admitted. Bad cases tend to make bad law.

                I see your point. It would not have been the end of the world. But as you point out above, he was living under the protection of Pakistan making his arrest impossible. So killing him was really the only option.

                1. Eichmann?

                2. I actually agree. But if we’re talking about what we would have wanted to see happen, I think putting him on trial would have been a great opportunity for us to assert the moral high ground, and I regret the fact that two-faced Pakistani intelligence fuckers made that impossible.

                  1. Is it really the high moral ground to engage in trial theater? We all know that no jury would have acquitted, which means that the entire thing is a sham put on stage, and tweeted live.

                    Hardly the high moral ground on which to show the inherent superiority of our system.

                    I agree with you in theory, but the desired result can only happen in a trial that isn’t predetermined.

      2. I have two words for you:
        Johnny
        Cochran

        1. …ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
          Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending a major record company, and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberatin’ and conjugatin’ the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

        2. I hear he’s defending bin Laden as we speak.

          1. The temperature is a bit higher in that courtroom though, I believe.

      3. No, Holder would have screwed up the prosecution and he would go free

      4. NoVA?

        Trial should have been in NYC.

        1. Pentagon is in VA.

  14. Did Senior Military/Intelligence Officials Overrule President Obama Regarding Mission to Kill Osama Bin Laden?
    …When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat ? this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate….

    1. I don’t believe it. If it were true, God help us all.

    2. Now this is a fun conspiracy theory.

      1. Almost believable that BO vacillated and the military said “fuck it we are killing him anyway”. Almost believable.

        1. BS, they were watching it live. Are you saying Obama had to call everyone back into the room because the party was still on?

          1. Unless this happened some time before they started watching.

          2. They actually have a picture in the link of them watching it, and Obama looks pissed. They suggested this is because his authority was basically usurped, and there isn’t shit he can do about it without political consequences.

          3. Watching it live? Really? So that means there’s video of the whole thing? Well, let’s fucking see it, people!

    3. I’m lovin’ it. The more BO does, the more conspiracy theories pop up.

      1. Let me be clear.

        I enjoy it, too!

      2. Does Ben Laden’s death mean Obama now moves to the top of the most wanted list?

        1. Someone crack a window; it smells like shit in here.

  15. It makes warms my heart to know that the man who exhorted millions to become human bombs and sacrifice themselves for jihad chose to go out like a total bitch trying to hide behind a woman when his time came instead of facing his fate.

    1. Well, I guess I should actually read ALL the links before posting.

    2. That’s a nice fable. I think I saw a James Cagney movie with a similar theme.

  16. Has anyone noted that America was the victim of the most damaging attack ever under the watch of our last GOP President and the perp was brought to justice by our current Democratic President?

    Just sayin’

    1. brought to justice by our current Democratic President

      Some SEAL gets shot at, risks his life, and your War Leader gets credit? You almost sound like a GOP chickenhawk.

      1. When a the workers of a company put in a great effort and pull off an amazing feat the CEO gets credit.

        1. And everyone thinks that CEO is an ass.

          1. Read Dilbert sometime.

            1. The Dilbert Principle is a *great* book.

          2. Major terrorist acts on US soil under Bush: 1

            Major terrorist acts on US soil under Obama: 1

            Al Qaeda leaders killed under Bush: 0

            Al Qaeda leaders killed under Obama: 1

            Hurts, don’t it?

            1. Major terrorist acts on US soil under Bush: 1

              Major terrorist acts on US soil under Obama: 0

              Al Qaeda leaders killed under Bush: 0

              Al Qaeda leaders killed under Obama: 1

              Hurts, don’t it?

              Fixed it.

              Still hurts I’m sure.

              1. The overarching goal of the Bush administration which it failed to achieve in nearly eight years in power has been accomplished by the Obama administration two years into his first term.

                Yummy!

                1. The overarching goal of the Bush Administration was to weaken Osama’s network and the network of other Islamic nutters, dipshit. Boiling the whole thing down to Osama is childish.

              2. I know a few dozen people in Fort Hood who would disagree with your scorecard. And everyone knows that if there is God forbid another 9-11 tomorrow, you would not blame it on Obama or be putting up such a scorecard. And of course 9-11 was years in the making an the result of US polices and mistakes going well into the Clinton administration. So for once, stop being a hack and enjoy good news.

                1. Number of essentially retired terrorists Obama watched get shot from the safety of his office: 1.

                  Go Team Blue.

                  1. Pretty much Johnny. And I am so sure if we had gotten Bin Ladin when Bush was in office, MNG would be so quick to give personal credit to the President.

                2. Why is Fort Hood different from Virginia Tech? Because one is a military base? Why is one a terrorist act and the other just a case of a nut going on a rampage?

              3. Why would a Democrat winning out over a Republican matter to libertarian commenters at a libertarian website?

            2. KSM and Zawahiri were not Al Queda leaders?

              1. Strain harder John. OBL was the main one as Bush himself acknowledged.

                1. So the others don’t count? they were not “leaders”? And of course KSM was as much responsible for 9-11 as Bin Ladin. And they would have never found Bin Ladin had they not waterboarded KSM. Don’t you kind of feel dirty taking political points for something that was the result of torture? You know those acts you claim Chaney and Bush should have gone to jail for?

                  1. Because we all know McCain wouldn’t have wanted OBL shot or anything….

            3. Fort Hood massacre doesn’t count? And lest anyone misunderstand me, W. Bush was a fucking jackass.

              1. …Hurts, don’t it?

                This is rather low-grade trolling, wouldn’t you say?

                1. I call spoof. Even MNG is not this much of a dick.

              2. No. The Ft. Hood massacre does not count as terrorism.

            4. fap, fap, fap…

            5. Wrong again, shit for brains. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed during the Bush regime.

              Honestly, I don’t know how you can even speak with Obama’s dick in your mouth all the time.

              1. Zarqawi was not a member of Al Qeada. He was a member/leader of Al Qeada in Mesopotamia, which is just a ripoff and not the same group at all.

      2. I don’t think Obama should usurp too many of the accolades due to the people who actually carried out the operation, either.

        But considering the fact that the last President put on a fucking flight jacket and flew on to an aircraft carrier so he could collect “Mission Accomplished” high-fives, it’s hard for me to accuse the current idiot of grandstanding or showboating.

        1. Politicians grand stand and take credit for stuff. That is just what they do. If this had happened under Bush, the Left would have been full of wet blankets and sour grapes about how it sucks that Bush got credit for it. I would have hated that. And I refuse to be the same way. I am glad they got him and if Obama wants to grandstand and take credit for it, good for him. I don’t think it will do much good anyway. But regardless, I refuse to let my partisan dislike for him ruin good news.

          1. “I issued a memo…”

    2. “I am a partisan shitbag.”

      1. We’ll argue with you anyway.

      2. MNG is turning into a bigger partisan idiot than Tony. He used to make some half-way intelligent arguments but now he’s not even trying.

    3. Brought to justice using a team that was created by the last president and called a private assassination squad by many of the President’s supporters. And that was acting on intelligence obtained using interrogation techniques that those supporters said were criminal.

      Yeah, Obama played you and those like you for suckers and continued all of Bush’s anti-terror policies. For that he deserves credit.

      1. Barack. Call us. Thanks.

      2. “private assassination squad by many of the President’s supporters”

        Aren’t they? Now they’re saying bin Laden wasn’t armed when he was shot in the face. There’s no way they didn’t have explicit orders to kill on sight.

        1. Whatever, fuck it. I don’t really see how there is anything wrong with that.

          John, Bush’s anti-terrorism policies were extremely weak and misguided. He was pro-Palestinian self-determination and negotiated instead of invading Iran. Both disastrous!

    4. When Clinton refused to take bin Laden when offered, which political party was Clinton in?

    5. Fuck you MNG, you stupid shit.

      1. It did hurt then, eh?
        Major terrorist acts on US soil under Bush: 1

        Major terrorist acts on US soil under Obama: 0

        Al Qaeda leaders killed under Bush: 0

        Al Qaeda leaders killed under Obama: 1

        1. If you want to play that game.

          Al Qeada leaders captured alive under Bush: at least 3

          Al Qeada leaders captured alive under Obama: 0

    6. Oh, please. You don’t even mean that, you’re just trying to start a war with John. Which is boring for the rest of us.

      1. ^^THIS^^

        Clearly, MNG has issues.

        1. Think of the make-up sex. Why are you denying them their foreplay? Do you hate sex, boys?

    7. Come on, MNG. You aren’t that fucking stupid.

  17. Some religious leaders have said it is inappropriate to rejoice in bin Laden’s death. Is it moral to celebrate a person’s death, even if he is guilty of heinous crimes?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..l?hpid=z10

    1. Yes.

      I would pretty much have to say yes.

      Anyone who loves justice should mourn when bad things happen to the good, and celebrate when bad things happen to the bad.

      The machinery of the moral universe is working properly in this instance. Raise a glass.

      1. Of course, a shot in the head didn’t just “happen” to OBL. Justice doesn’t just happen. It takes an objectively defined code of ethics based upon the nature of humanity (your “moral universe”). But you knew that.

        1. Well, sure.

          I was giving the short Francisco D’Anconia answer here. “Don’t you believe in the operation of the moral law, madame?”

          The long answer is naturally implied.

      2. I would be more than happy to celebrate his death if it actually resulted in a major drawdown of US forces in the region and a repeal of the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, his death only reinforces the notion that the War on Terror is “working”, rather than exposing it for what it really is, just another war on the rights of Americans, like the War on Drugs. The death of Pablo Escobar didn’t change anything, and neither will the death of bin Laden.

        1. Escobar is a good analogy. And no this won’t stop terrorism anymore than killing Escobar stopped drugs. But justice being done is still not a bad thing.

          1. So we continue to justify? Continue to escalate? Continue to rob people of their rights? Where does it end?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM3Z1lWMeRI&feature=player_embedded

          2. I don’t think Bin Laden was just a figurehead. That courier was going there for a reason and that intel there to me says that he still did stuff.

    2. What’s the PC term for funerals? a “celebration of one’s life” or some shit like that?

      I was fist-pumping to celebrate his life.

      1. No, it’s just what people do at some funerals.

    3. It’s more moral to do that than to take part in the world’s ultimate long con, fleecing stupid people of their hard-earned money for a shot at a fictional afterlife.

    4. If his death were likely to actually change anything, the celebrations would be great. But it isn’t. I don’t think it is immoral to celebrate a bad guy’s death, but I do think it is in bad taste.

  18. lol, yeah thats kinda crazy when you think about it. Wow.

    http://www.real-privacy.es.tc

  19. The birth certificate thing couldn’t have been better timed, could it? Royal wedding then long-simmering Bin Laden assassination. Birth certificate? What birth certificate?

    1. What wedding?

      1. Leaked sex tape, or it didn’t happen….

        1. I, for one, do not want to see Prince William naked.

          (sidebar to Reason: FIX YOUR FUCKING SERVERS)

    2. I don’t know, between OBL being dumped into an ocean where no one can ever confirm it was him, and the “obviously fake” long form cert, this has probably been Alex Jones’ best week of all time.

      1. Oh, I agree. But it has been pushed off the front line of mainstream news, even the dread pirate Murdoch’s empire. Perfectly executed tactical PR maneuver. Even had the cherry-on-top of interrupting the last 15 minutes of Trump’s show.

    3. Greetings Alpha dog dick! What are your orders this morning?

      1. GO EAST! DESTROY!

      2. I see you have chosen sides Tim. Good luck with your ass

        1. No, I haven’t chosen sides. I hate it when mommy and daddy fight!

    4. What the real birth certificate shows, of course, was that Osama was Obama’s twin brother. Which is why the real birth certificate could not be revealed and why the body had to be utterly destroyed.

      1. So that’s where they got the DNA to confirm Osama’s identity.

        1. It all fits. The Man in the Iron Turban.

  20. Well, I think the Liberal Party of Canada has been suitably punished for forcing yet another election in Canada. The Conservatives now have an outright majority, and the New Democrats are the Official Opposition. Now the Conservatives just need to follow through on the end to public financing of political parties, and the Liberals won’t even have any money.

    1. It would be nice if Canuckistan would reform itself. It would be a nice place to escape if the US goes belly up.

      1. Saint Catherine Street is pretty cool. It should be it’s own country.

        1. It is. But the last time I was there they had closed down a lot of the strip clubs. The humanity.

          1. The girls were always bruised up from having $2 coins thrown at them.

          2. Take away the clubs and all you have left are vomit soaked streets.

      2. Don’t count on it John. Our conservatives have all the fiscal sensibilities of GW, as well as his civil liberties and WoD ‘sensibilities’ too. God we are fucked here.

    2. It’s over for Canada. After the coming 4 years of Bush lite will result in the victory of the Socialist NDP in 2015.

    3. This is really, really bad for teh WEED.

      Seriously, this is so depressing.

    1. These schools have federal handgun subsidies. Anyplace else in New York that gun would be over $20.

  21. Bin Laden’s death, sea burial, arouse conspiracy theories.

    I just saw him pumping gas into a 1955 pink Cadillac convertable. He must have shaved his beard because he had these really cool sideburns. He was wearing a silver sequin studded jacket and a cheap pair of sunglasses. All he said was, “uhh thank you, thank you very much”.

    1. Gotta call BS on that one. Steve would never stoop to using vulgar human tools.

  22. Now, about that Debt thingie: November 6, 2012 is a-comin’.

    1. And your point is … ?

  23. Jezebel Contributor Gives Up Looking In Mirrors For Month, Mirrors Breathe Sigh of Cautious Relief

    As of 12:01 a.m. Sunday, May 1, 2011, I’ve embarked on a monthlong mirror fast. Thirty-one days of no mirrors, store windows, shiny pots, spoons, or the dark glass of the subway.

    1. That’s a lot of reflective surfaces. Sounds like her budgie ass needed to take a gazing hiatus. A spoon? Really? Who checks herself out in a spoon.

      1. Neo.

        1. Now that’s just mean, SF. He was trying so hard to appear serious and contemplative in that scene…”Duuude, I’m all upside down. Awesome.”

          1. “Whoa. It’s me. But in a spoon. Wha? I’m trapped in a spoon, Morpheus!”

            Poor Johnny Utah.

            1. *giggle* Though it has been years, I may never entirely forgive my mother for insisting (her guilt-tripping skills are legend) I watch A Walk in the Clouds with her.

    2. You you’d the link.

    1. Tim clone is back.

          1. If only I dared to click.

        1. I thought I was the only DZ aficionado left.

          Suspicious Minds was the best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

          1. I had that first album when it originally came out and they faded from memory. I was shocked to find out just how many albums they’ve released since.

    1. When somebody tells me that, I tell them that voting means they consent to whatever fucking they get. It usually confuses the hell out of people.

  24. US official: Bin Laden skull blown apart

    Over/under on the number of people who will masturbate to the pictures is 65,000.

    Funeralopolis

    1. Good. Show us.

  25. 3.5.41

    Their scruples about attacking neutrals ? and that is the chief strategic difference between us and Germany in the present war ? are merely the sign of a subconscious desire to fail. People don’t have scruples when they are fighting for a cause they believe in.

  26. U.S. officials say OBL’s hard drive contains “mother lode of intelligence.”

    And, sadly, a Groupon for the Islamabad Red Lobster that will never be used.

    1. Is it wrong that my biggest question about the Bin Laden raid is whether the computer they seized was a Mac or a Windows box?

  27. The overarching goal of the Bush administration which it failed to achieve in nearly eight years in power has been accomplished by the Obama administration two years into his first term.

    Yummy!

    Translation:

    THROW THE STIIIIIICK

    Fuck off, you useless twat.

    1. Yup, defintely hurts.

      Major terrorist acts on US soil under Bush: 1

      Major terrorist acts on US soil under Obama: 0

      Al Qaeda leaders killed under Bush: 0

      Al Qaeda leaders killed under Obama: 1

      1. Al Qaeda leaders killed under Bush: 0

        Terrible spoof.

      2. So Bush’s post-9/11 policies prevented domestic attacks?

        Also, look up Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (killed) and Khalid Sheik Muhammed (captured.)

      3. Al Qaeda leaders killed under Bush: 0

        Really? It seemed like we could hardly go a week without hearing that AQ’s No. 2 or 3 guy had just caught a Hellfire.

        1. Yes, I think I remember some jokes comparing being the #2 in AQ and the drummer for Spinal Tap.

  28. Washington threatens to prosecute state regulators in states with medical marijuana laws.

    Ominious shit.

    As long as we’re all thinking philosophically about when to celebrate death, am I wrong for hoping we have a second civil war involving all 50 states just gang-banging D.C. and the feds? Mass graves filled with DOJ persecutors and DEA/BATF paramilitary thugs and TSA rapists. Probably too much to hope for.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.