Classless Warfare is closing it’s doors.

Jay can be found blogging at ‘Mr. Blonde’s Garage’

Jane will be doing blogging at Scott Chaffin’s site.

THANKS.

….to my faithful readers, including those who have managed to keep the word “moonbat” out of their vocabularies. I assume that the banner will read “Classless Warfare with Jay” by tomorrow.

From now on, I’ll be guest posting here. What it means is that you may describe me as from Far North Texas but never as “The Fat Gal".

The usual suspect members of the Anti-US Sewing Circle are at it again with regard to AIDS:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who joined the French delegation and other skeptics this week in criticizing the United States, urged Washington to show the same leadership in fighting AIDS as it has in fighting terrorism.

Of course, the criticism is mostly about money.

Whether or not the United States should contribute more to fight AIDS globally is a debatable issue. What’s not debatable is the fact that at this time, nobody donates more to the global fight against AIDS than the United States. In fact, the US contributes 50% of the total monies spent on fighting AIDSworldwide.

What about France? According to this piece, the government of France spent less on HIV prevention programs than a private foundation.

Just for once, I would like to hear ingrates like Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac say two words to the United States:

Thank you.

Over at The Rant, Dietz asks a pertinent question regarding election postponement talk:

“For those of you on the right who think the left is just being paranoid about this, imagine what you would have been saying if the Clinton administration had tried the same thing?”

I think I can guess…wasn’t it a solid anti-Clinton rumour that the Clenis was going to declare martial law to hijack the 2000 Election? And, unlike the postponement talk, that fiction was based on absolutely nothing.

Somehow I doubt it originated with the Enemies of America……

UPDATE: Why I love Tom Burka:

U.S. officials discussing the idea of postponing Election Day to prevent a terrorist attack instead held it nearly four months early, in order to prevent what they called “a possible terrorist-related disruption of the democratic process."…..

Although turnout was at a record low – only a little more than 50 votes were cast – George W. Bush carried every state, and won every vote except one

Alex Knapp has a must-read post on the issue.

Jonah Goldberg on his choice of dinner companion:

But everyone keeps talking about how likable John Edwards is and how unlikable Dick Cheney is. But truth be told, I would much rather have a drink and a meal with Dick Cheney than with John Edwards. I don’t think this has much to do with partisanship. I honestly believe that Cheney’s the more interesting and entertaining guy. Yes, I can see the appeal of Edwards and he seems like a perfectly nice guy. But in terms of the classic test – who would you rather have a beer with? – the winner is Cheney far and away. I could go on explaining why, but I think is the sort of thing you either agree with or don’t.

Uh huh….partisanship hardly has a thing to do with it. Hell, given the choice between an interesting, charming southern legal cutie and a surly oilman guy who can’t tell the difference between al-qaeda and Saddam, why would I choose the latter? We’re not talking voting here, we’re talking dinner and drinks. No wonder Jonah couldn’t go on explaining why…….

This from a semi-review of Fahrenheit 9/11, but Cranky makes the following points:

One of the arguments of Michael Moore’s film is that George Bush and most of his administration has compromised the security of the United States because they are so beholden to Saudi Arabian interests. The Bush family’s own wealth is directly tied to the Saudis. Furthermore, the Bush family has also bedded down with the Bin Ladens, being that they too are Saudis and their wealth is generated from oil. When Osama Bin Laden attacked the United States on September 11th and George Bush responded by jacking up military spending, he increased the wealth of Osama Bin Laden because Bin Laden (and Saudi Arabia) are investors in the major United States defense contractors.

While this is obviously a salient point, what exactly is the alternative to being friendly with Saudi Arabia? Based on the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, ignorant members of the Left suggest that the object of our hatred and military might should have been Saudi Arabia and not Iraq. To say this suggestion is foolish is a mild understatement. While I firmly believe that George Bush is a colossal dickhead, suggesting that his family could have possibly known that their relationship with the Saudis would have turned into the fiasco we face now is to ask them to predict the future. George W. Bush can barely form a coherent sentence. I don’t think he’d be able to predict the future. If anybody were paying attention, the goal of the Bush administration in Iraq is completely clear: they are trying to create a country based on the Saudi model. They want a friendly leadership so that they get at Iraq’s oil. Given our tenuous foothold in the Arab world, the Saudi regime’s relationship with its own people, and our country’s ability to suck oil from the world like a kid sticking a straw in a Slurpee, this isn’t the worst idea.

And then this:

Our Democratic leadership in this country is a loose conglomeration of ball-less fucks. It’s easy for the Left to be outraged by George W. Bush and the Republicans, but in many ways, the target of much of their hatred ought to be directed at the Democrats and their weak leadership. With these gutless weasels forming the agenda for the so-called “Left” in this country, it really is no surprise that so many people are voting Republican. Democrats simply don’t believe in anything, don’t stand up for anything, and there’s really nothing Americans despise more than somebody who won’t take a stand. That’s why George W. Bush, despite his lack of intelligence, is so well liked. Despite all his failings (and there are many), at least he stands for something. At least he went after somebody (even if it was the wrong person). At least he tried. Meanwhile, there’s John Kerry who voted for the Iraq invasion and then pulled his support and now can’t seem to utter a complete sentence without changing his position on something. You know, take gay marriage for instance. Everybody knows that Kerry, if he truly is a liberal, supports gay marriage, but he can’t say that he does because he thinks it’ll kill his campaign (which it very well might). Yet that’s precisely the thing that’s killing the Democrats right now – they won’t stand up and say they believe in anything. They don’t seem to have a message. I ask in all seriousness: where the fuck are their balls (with apologies to the female Dems)?

Heh.

Hoping to dispel election-year doubts about his case for war with Iraq, US President George W Bush has defended the invasion and insisted “Americans are safer” with him in charge.

“Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq,” he said here after touring a facility that houses nuclear materials recently handed over by Libya….

“We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them,” Mr Bush said.

Yeah yeah…that “capability of producing weapons"…depends on what the meaning of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” is.

As for “safer"….and please save the hoary “how many attacks have been on US soil since 9/11″ talking point….why is there so much fear-mongering about “postponing” the election if it’s so safe now?

Honestly, this guy knows no shame.

Jillian sent me a link to Homer from the My Cat Hates You site.

Warning: it disses the Most Fearless and Bravest Leader Our Country Has Ever Known (thanks, Arthur Silber!).

Tom Burka’s pushing to get on the Homeland Security Watch List too:

Sinking Bush Poll Numbers Increase Likelihood of Terrorist Attack, Says Ridge

Connection Unfathomable, Say Rove, Cheney

Even Michael Moore couldn’t make this one up about a guy who ends up on the Homeland Security Watch List for doing absolutely nothing.

(via Kevin Drum).

The Kerry campaign is trying to spin it, but they have to be concerned that they didn’t get a traditional bounce in the polls when he selected Edwards.

The contradictions keep on coming. There’s too much to excerpt, so just read the entire thing.

Link via Tom Maguire.

Also, read this and then read this.

The next attraction in Fantasyland? See President Bush flip somebody the middle finger. One great part is, you’re the only one who sees it along with a man that has no face, but is sporting a ponytail. Your friend takes a picture of the event, but glare and tint prevent it from being seen.

The best part of this new attraction?

You become dumb enough to present it to thousands of people as a truthful story.

I saw “Fahrenheit 9/11″ last night. Much to the dismay of the Drudge readers and 101st Keyboarders, like in many venues the theatre was packed and people clapped at the end.

My take? Sure it was polemical. Sure Moore is bombastic. Sure he played fast and loose with images. Sure he was obnoxious when he mused about what GW was thinking at a given moment. But the take-off on the opening to “Bonanza” was spot on. And isn’t it special that GW can have dinner with the “haves and have mores” and joke that it’s his base? And some Bush supporters thought Whoopi was vulgar.

And it showed just how close the Saudi ties are with the Bush administrations, both father and son. And how Afghanistan wasn’t really the object of the Bush so-called ‘war on terror". And how Americans have been deliberately played with with vague but dire warnings of terror threats and lack of safety. And how only one Congressman’s offspring is serving. God Bless America!

Do I believe everything in the film is accurate? No.

But I just wish that one of the anti-Moore brigade (looks at Jay) would go see this movie so that there could be the debate about it that it needs. I don’t give a rat’s red ass what “Hitch” says. Or Drudge. Dismissing the entire film as a pack of lies shows just how desperately some people want to believe that Bush will somehow “protect” them.

You babble about values and complain about the length of time it takes to indict somebody.

John Kerry:

“Values are putting the full force of the Justice Department on day one in an effort not to take three years and a few months before the election before you bring Ken Lay to justice.”

That’s probably because they needed the time to get Lay off the Heinz Center Philanthropy board.

John Edwards:

“They [middle class families] represent the values of America. Not Enron. Not Ken Lay, who it’s now taken the Bush administration over three years to indict,” Edwards said. “We need somebody in the White House who shares the values that most Americans believe in.”

You’re right John. Why just the other day, my wife and I, along with thousands of other middle class families sat around the dinner table lamenting the lack of values in the Bush administration for not getting an indictment against Ken Lay much sooner.

Go back to hugging fellas.

In celeberation of Derek Jeter getting his first All-Star Game start (Yeah yeah, A-Rod’s at third and that’s why, but who frigging cares), Sports Illustrated has Jeter’s top ten clutch moments.

The Flip is number one of course.

I thought I heard thunder outside the office today, but it was more likely it was the explosions of many heads after hearing about this.

While the usual suspects are whispering that Tom Ridge’s warning about an election terror plot is nothing but a political ploy, it’s been revealed that John Kerry was offered a briefing by the administration about this, but he didn’t have time for it.

I guess he was too busy getting ready to go to has-been celebrity gatherings.

How often was the administration accused of pressuring analysts at the CIA to form assessments to fit the agenda of the administration in order to go to war with Iraq?

Quite often. Ad nauseum.

Of course, those making the accusation were wrong. Again. From the NY Times:

The unanimous report by the panel will say there is no evidence that intelligence officials were subjected to pressure to reach particular conclusions about Iraq. That issue had been an early focus of Democrats, but none of the more than 200 intelligence officials interviewed by the panel made such a claim, and the Democrats have recently focused criticism on the question of whether the intelligence was misused.

Of course, it takes the Times four paragraphs where they suggest the administration ‘politicized’ the intelligence before they get to this, but what does one expect from the NYT?

Tom Maguire has more on this.