Recently, lefty pro-war (i.e., he's just "on the other side") agitator Micah Wright had the "courage" and "guts" to admit he'd perpetrated a "hoax" about being a combat-veteran Ranger in order to claim victim status when arguing against America's right to defend herself.

It is time to for us to follow Mr. Wright's example. We too have committed certain "hoaxes" in order to advance our positions.

First of all, it is not true, as we have long maintained, that we jumped the Snake River Canyon on a rocket-propelled "Sky-Cycle" in 1973.

This hoax began innocently enough. We were arguing with someone on-line about who had performed this stunt. Our opponent claimed it was Evil Kenevil: for some reason, we had it stuck in our heads that it was actually the actor Ken Berry of F-Troop. So we told our opponent he was a "jackass" for saying it was Evil Kenevil.

Well, within thrity seconds, our opponent presented us with ten yahoo search-matches proving that Mr. Kenevil had performed the stunt. But we of course didn't want to simply lose the argument, so we claimed "Yes, we knew of course that Evil Kenevil is credited as making the jump, but you big dummy, we're talking about his stunt double, the man who actually performed the stunt in Mr. Kenevil's famous red, white, and blue jumpsuit."

Our correspondent then told us that Mr. Kenevil didn't use a "stunt double," since stuntmen do not, in fact, themselves have stuntmen. At which point we said "Now who's being naive?"

We then claimed we knew for a fact he had used a stunt double, since we ourselves were that stunt double. You don't know what it's like soaring over the Snake Canyon at 200 mph, we raged against our opponent. Until you've been there, in the "shit," flying over a canyon in a kinda-gay jumpsuit that looks like the outfit Captain America would wear if his secret identity were Harvey Firestein, you have no right to question us on this.

As you can see, perfectly innocent and understandable. We began our "hoax" because someone, quite plainly a fascist of some variety, called bullshit on us.

We apologize profusely on behalf of that fascist.

Next, somewhere along the way our friends kinda got the notion stuck in their heads that, as younger men, we had lost our virginity to Queen Noor of Jordan. We're not sure how they got this idea.

As near as we can tell, it may be because we said we did.

The facts are these. No young man ever likes to admit he is still a virgin, especially when his buddies are telling hero-stories. So we claimed we'd already "done it." Our friends disputed this, and wanted the woman's name. So we just said, "You guys wouldn't know her. She lives far away." But still they pressed us for details. So we said, "Okay, fine. If you must know, she is a foreign princess who earned her education at Princeton University and then married into the Hashemite Dynasty."

We figured that was vague enough to avoid getting pinned down. But then one of our friends said, "You mean Queen Noor of Jordan?" and we were forced to say, "Well, gentlemen never tell, of course. But yeah, we nailed her. She's got nipples the size of circus-peanuts."

Again, a perfectly innocent "hoax." We attribute the hoax to immaturity and peer pressure. In Amerikkka today, it's hard for thirty-two-year-old men to admit they're still virgins.

We apologize for the uncouth peer pressure of our friends.

Finally, it is simply not true that our collective dicks are so big that movie-theaters have begun selling popcorn in the sizes Small, Medium, Large, and Our Dick. We really have no idea at all why we started saying this. It might have been because of some dispute we had with our Mother.

Furthermore, this isn't even our claim; it's actually Drew Carey's. And we suppose we should say right now that no, it isn't true that we were long-time "male companions" to Mr. Carey, or that we successfully sued him for $30 million in a palimony suit. We think we might have just been high when we said that.

Again, we apologize profusely for the media and fascists who are to blame for these hoaxes. We hope you admire our courage and guts for coming clean. And we promise that, from this point forward, we will be perfectly honest and candid with you, our dear readers.

Sincerely,

Ace of Spades HQ

President and Founder of Apple Computer Corporation

1993 NHL Rookie of the Year

1990 Oscar-Winning Best Actress for Driving Miss Daisy (deceased)

PS: We are a medical doctor working for a major UN relief agency in Niger. Please send us money so we can transfer $243 million in gold bullion out of the country.

Posted by: Ace at 04:24 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 811 words, total size 5 kb.

That's not just what Michele at ASV says, that's what this fucking douchebag tool now admits in a sad-sap Oprah confessional.

Who is Micah Wright, you ask? Good question -- he's a nobody.

But he's a nobody who got a book contract based on his anti-war agitation and his claim that he knew the horrors of combat, having served in war as an Army Ranger. Here's Our Ranger Hero Micah in typical form:

I've seen combat to "liberate" people before in Panama. Have you? Did you volunteer to fight for your country? I fucking doubt it. I especially doubt your leg ass ever made it through Airborne School and I KNOW for a fact that you wouldn't have survived one week of Ranger School.

Except he wasn't a Ranger. He wasn't in war. Heck, he wasn't even actually in the actual Army-- he spent some time in ROTC.

No matter how low you think the Hysterical Left has sunk, they've got this habit of consistently surprising you by sinking lower.

And guess what the response is to his confession -- which, in all likelihood, comes two days before he was about to be outed?

"I do know one thing. It took a lot, A LOT, of courage to come forward. "

"This confession, if true, doesn't affect my feelings about your talent either way."

"It took guts to confess. Good show."

Courage. Guts.

Well, it seems the fucking lying douchebag Micah Wright did learn something from all that time he didn't spend as an Army Ranger.

Michele has more-- including all the links you know you've got to click on.

Update! The lying douchebag says that all the stuff he claims in his foreward happened to him in the shit in Panama didn't actually happen to him... since he wasn't there. But he's proud to say all those things DID happen... to other people. Or so he's heard.

It Just Gets Fuckin' Better and Better! Jim Treacher, of Mother May I Sleep With Treacher?, deadpans:

I liked when the Washington Post reporter asked him if he'd ever killed anyone:

"'That's one of those questions that I really don't like to answer,' he says after an uncomfortable pause. 'You're shooting at people and other people are shooting and people fall down. Put it this way: I never shot at anybody who hadn't shot at me first.'"

None of which is technically untrue.

Nope. Not technically untrue at all!

Okay, enough of that! Pretty soon we'll just be reprinting everything on Michele's site.

And... We just guessed that his "confession" conveniently comes two days before his exposure by someone else, and it turns out, of course, that we were right.

REAL Rangers and Special Forces guys saw right through him, and were calling him a liar to his face (well, through email), and there were websites exposing him and even the press was getting hip to his lie.

So, there's the "courage" of a leftist shitbag for you.

It's Too Good To Stop Updating Now! In this Washington Post article profiling him as a world-weary warrior who's now waging peace, this nasty shit does his best Rambo impression:

"I was highly intelligent but emotionally isolated," he writes, "perfect, I found out later, for the Special Forces."

Yes! Perfect for the Special Forces!

These days he focuses on creating video games and writing a comic book called "StormWatch: Team Achilles," which harks back to his Special Forces experiences. "It's left-wing pastiche masquerading as right-wing military fiction," he says. "It's a team of humans working for the United Nations who kill superheroes when they go out of control. Because it's a U.N. team, I get to bring politics into the book."

Indeed! How thrilling it must be to read of his "Special Forces experiences," like getting a Vente moca frappachino at Starbucks, or "going behind enemy lines" to make color-copies at Kinko's!

Next up: Ranger Micah uses his deadly Special Forces training, and Shaolin-kung-fu expertise, to buy some fucking stamps at the Post Office!

Posted by: Ace at 07:51 PM | Comments (11)
Post contains 682 words, total size 4 kb.

One of the cheapest but most enduring rhetorical moves is to deny that there's any downside to your advocated plan of action. Race-quota or race-preference advocates routinely argue that quotas help minorities get jobs they wouldn't have but for quotas, but simultaneously argue that quotas never result in a non-minority not getting a job he otherwise would have.

Errrm, how could this possibly be the case? How can helping a minority get a job not also simultaneously hurt the chances of a non-minority from getting the same job?

In the war on terror, leftists, who are anti-war (or at least anti- Republican-led war) claim that we can increase our security by doing nothing at all. There's no tradeoff, they claim, between pacifism and security; no tradeoff whatsoever between vigorous and sometimes intrusive internal security and protecting the nation against terrorism. Again and again, they claim that we can have, simultaneously, maximalist civli-liberties and minimalist police action while simultaneously enjoying maximum security.

That seems pretty dishonest to us. We can imagine an honest case being made for maximalist civil-liberites and minimalist police or military action, but we think that such an honest case would have to begin with the admission: More of us are going to lose our lives to terrorism due to this approach than would lose their lives under a different approach. But we think civil liberties and pacifism are more important that the marginal rate of additional deaths which will be suffered under this regime, and here's why.

Those of us on the right, however, are sometimes prone to the opposite impulse. We've read -- and we've thought and written, ourselves -- that there is almost no tradeoff between killing bad guys and security, either. Killing bad guys, as efficiently and ruthlessly as possible, is always, under all circumstances, a good thing and only leads to increased security, because the bad guys get the message that you're serious.

That's probably more accurate that inaccurate, but we sort of doubt it's an iron-clad rule, always correct under all situations. Simply because we doubt there are many such iron-clad rules in life at all.

Which brings us around to Fallujah.

On the right, there is an impulse -- shared by us -- to say that the best way to deal with these bastards is just to go in there and kill every goddamned last one of them, damn the consequences, and damn the bleatings from Imam Sistani.

Maybe that's true. But it also may be true that by doing so, we would sacrifice the likelihood of success for another important priority, to wit, making Iraq into a somewhat-stable sort of place, the sort of place we can leave to govern itself, and then get the hell out of there.

It is almost too tempting to say that just blowing the living hell out of Fallujah would actually work to increase the stability and security out of Iraq. It's almost too tempting, because it promises us the possibility of doing both what we desperately want to do (kill the bastards) and the result we desperately want to achieve (a stable Iraq that we can leave without regret).

Again, it's possible that going in there and killing everyone is the right move. We don't know. But we also can't dismiss the possibility that doing so would actually lead to a bigger mess than we currently have, and which would then jeopardize the June 30 transfer-of-power date.

It's not that we trust Bush's judgment on this, or the judgment of the Marine commanders negotiating this deal. It's more that there are so many unknowns in the situation that it's difficult to say, with a straight face, that we know Option X is wrong and we know Option Y is right. We don't trust Bush so much as we have too little information upon which to vigorously contradict him.

We think it's important that we transfer power on June 30th.

We think, for one thing, we're sick of Americans dying in order to secure a decent future for these ingrate bastards.

We think, as we said below, that people will behave irresponsibly until they are given responsibility and are forced to confront the consequences of their irresponsibility.

We think our forces are now tied down in Iraq, which undermines the seriousness of threats we may wish to make against North Korea and Iran and Syria; one can't threaten a thug when one is already grappling with a different thug. We want to be done with these thugs, if only to draw back our fist and let the other thugs know we're ready to hit again.

Some will say that letting the terrorists off the hook here undermines the "moral clarity" and absoluteness of the Bush Doctrine.

But the doctrine isn't absolute; no doctrine ever is. There are, of course, a lot of terrorists operating in Yemen, for example, but we're not invading to catch them. Instead, we're working with the Yemenis, pressuring their government and providing military assistance and covert operators, so that we can get, say, 30% of the total possible terrorist-fighting bang for only 1% of the terrorist-fighting buck. We could invade Yemen and catch 70% of the terrorists, but that would obviously entail a very steep price; we've decided, as a nation, it's better to reap a modestly-sized reward which is nevertheless outsized in comparison to our smallish investment.

Will there be terrorists who escape Fallujah do this deal? Of course there will be; probably quite a few. But in world in which resources are simply not infinite, it is sometimes a wise military decision to take a modest gain (reduced, but not eliminated, terrorism eminating from Fallujah) if one can incur a smaller cost (fewer troops actually fighting in Fallujah) doing so.

The Bush Doctrine isn't absolute, either, in Pakistan. Yes, we could simply send 100,000 American troops into the Pakistani tribal areas, violating their sovereignty. We'd have a good (or better, at least) chance of killing Osama bin Ladin, but we would, of course, provoke an immediate coup d'etat which places Pakistan's nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamist maniacs.

We always find it amusing to listen to cheap, moronic partisans like Oliver Willis scream that we should just invade Pakistan. Apparently the rule that "fighting terrorists only makes more terrorists" doesn't apply in the Pakistani tribal areas. And it's always funny that tough-talking liberals always claim they're all gung-ho willing to go to war against the bad guys... just in a different country than the one currently being discussed.

At any rate, Pakistan is once again an example of a situation in which the strong-form of the Bush Doctrine -- wipe the bad guys out, no matter what the consequences, and damn the torpedoes -- is shown to be inoperative. We don't want to radicalize Pakistan.

And neither do we want to radicalize Iraq.

We plan to transfer power on June 30th. After June 30th, many of these problems will be less our problem and more the problems of Iraqis themselves. It's out mission to create a stable and decent Iraq; it's not our mission to create for them a paradisical New Eden on the Euphrates.

Posted by: Ace at 07:06 PM | Comments (10)
Post contains 1222 words, total size 7 kb.

So, we've done what Sistani and all the other "moderate" Iraqi clerics wanted: we negotiated a truce that essentially lets the terrorists continue terrorizing.

It's not necessarily all bad.

It's been angering us for some time that the Iraqis are engaging in an irresponsible-verging-on-childish politics for some time. One one hand, they do nothing but complain that their security is poor, and that they're being killed by Baathists and foreign fighters.

On the other hand, they rage against their American "occupiers" and demand piously that we not touch a hair on one of the precious heads of their murderous Muslim brethren.

These two demands are plainly irreconcilable. Their complaints are incoherent; we could not satisfy both demands simultaneously, no matter how hard we endeavored to do so, because the more one is satisfied, the less the other is. And that's unavoidable.

This is what makes their complaints irresponsible, incoherent, altogether worthless. And that's sort of what separates a critique from a mere childish complaint. A critique is a coherent criticism which offers a new suggested course of action. A mere complaint is a childish temper-tantrum of someone whining, "I don't like things the way they are, and I want you to make all of my troubles go away, but I will continue complaining no matter what course of action you choose."

We've got a whole essay about this phenemenon, and how universal it is -- the Democratic Party is currently past-masters of childish complaining -- but leave that aside for now. It's not necessary to make the instant point.

The Iraqis have thusfar been permitted to be irresponsible and utterly incoherent in their complaining because we have shielded them from the consequences of their own inconsistencies by simply ignoring them and doing what is, more than likely, the right thing. But that has earned us no goodwill; indeed, it only sets them complaining all the louder.

It's time, we think, to actually do some of the things the complaining Iraqis claim they want us to do, and do them the favor -- it's a favor in the long-term -- of letting the suffer the consequences of their own childish tantrums. Perhaps they will soon learn the often brutal relationship between cause and effect, a relationship which has thusfar been obscured from their eyes by the presence of an all-purpose scapegoat, the "occupier" Crusader armies.

You want us to negotiate, Imam Sistani? Very well. Here's what happens in a negotiation, bub: We negotiate with the former killers and thugs who kept you down for forty years, and we grant them concessions and political power. Political power that would otherwise reside in your hands; but hey, you wanted a negotiation, right? Well enjoy the fruits of your ingrate complaining. One of Saddam's generals is now in control of Fallujah; isn't negotiating grand?

At some point -- and usually this point is reached extremely early -- attempting to protect people from their own self-destructive stupidity becomes counter-productive. They don't thank you for your kindness, and indeed they only blame you for everything that goes wrong in their miserable lives.

That's one of the tenets of conservatism: Everyone has the right to be stupid. Everyone has the right to engage in self-destructive behavior. And it is wisest to allow people to do so, if their minds are so set, because you just can't dictate that people smarten up.

Either people will ultimately kill themselves or they will wise up right before doing so and learn a lesson, a lesson which a government or liberating army is incapable of instilling in them. They have to learn themselves.

There is only one tonic for such irresponsiblity: Give them the responsibility and let them learn to swim or else drown in their own juvenile incoherence. They will almost certainly make the wrong decisions at first, but hopefully they will learn.

The Iraqis will have to put up with these people, long after our troops have retreated into their bases and concern themselves chiefly with force-protection and border security.

If they want to keep these people around, fine (up to a point). When the Iraqis themselves have primary responsibility for their own internal security, they can deal with the problem. Their will be more bloodshed, of course, especially more blood shed from Iraqis loyal to the new government, but that is the consequence of "negotiating" with people who want to kill you.

If the Iraqis wish to die by the score learning that lesson, it's fine by us.

Rather they who volunteered for such mayhem than our American heroes who are doing the jobs of ingrates -- ingrates whose scapegoating and incoherence and cowardice in making even the most basic decisions about their own futures make them mere spectators in their own fates.

Posted by: Ace at 06:03 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 825 words, total size 5 kb.

We know we should probably do a different look. But we've kinda gotten accustomed to this design.

You have no idea how proud we are that we were able to cobble this thing together. Problems arose, and we surmounted them. Dopey stuff, stuff that's probably obvious to most people, but still. When a retard colors inside the lines, you say, "Hey, nice going there, Retard."

Still on the to-do list:

Adding in the code necessary to get the Most Recent Entry thing automatically working.

Adding back in the search-function code.

Adding in the correct MuNu archiving code.

Getting the title to act as a link to the home page. We tried this with the text of the title itself, but then that made the title turn to the "link" and "visited" colors, which isn't what we wanted. How does one shut that off? Can we make the entire banner area a link?

Anyway, now that this thing looks like home, we might move over here sooner than expected.

Posted by: Ace at 04:11 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.