·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan, Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com , PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom , FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
Archives-- Installments for December 1 through 10, 2004, starting below in reverse chronological order.
Dec. 10, 2004-- No Update today.
Dec. 9, 2004 #01: Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn.
Guardsmen in Kuwait challenge Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Two rights make a wrong to be righted; Hillary Clinton claims to have had answer all along-- Commentary.
At a "town hall" meeting in Kuwait with National Guard and Reserves troops being deployed to Iraq, several troops challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on several issues. One focused on the fact that many units must function with un-armored HumVees and transport vehicles; another focused on the Defense Department's use of "stop loss" orders to extend active-duty obligations of troops beyond the length of service for which they volunteered; another focused on delays in receiving travel-expense reimbursements. See here or here.
Rumsfeld answered with words likely to become his most-frequently quoted language for the foreseeable future: "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want, or wish to have, at a later time." Critics of the decision to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom will incessantly quote those words to characterize the war in Iraq as an "elective war." Critics of military policy from 1992 through 2000 will cite those words as a reminder of the drastic cuts in our military during those years.
The military sensibly designed the HumVee as a dramatically up-scaled replacement for the jeep-- not an armored transport vehicle. Certainly anyone could have theorized that our forces might become involved in urban warfare posing higher than expected risks to those traveling in un-armored vehicles. Certainly such planners could have decided that all military vehicles would be armored vehicles. How many Congressmen and Senators would have decried such plans as being designed to create a "gold-plated military" (a favorite phrase of the leftists who are now so eager to decry the fact that all HumVees aren't armored)?
Congressmen and Senators only make those kinds of statements when we are not "at war," but when we are "at war," they all demand to know why we don't already have all the "gold plated" equipment our troops need. Peacetime military planners must live with budgetary constraints imposed by the no-gold-plated-military mentality; wartime military planners must cope with the same politicians making hindsight accusations about the military's failure to persuade them to authorize gold-plated equipment.
Few of the current critics of the "stop loss" policy were heard to be opposing the dramatic reductions in the size of the military in the years from 1992 through 2000. The few who did voice such opposition then and are now expressing consternation over the "stop loss" policy are at least coupling such expressions with reiteration of what caused the problem-- i.e., excessive cuts in the size of the military in those years. The rest express their criticisms as though the war were to be something we could put on "pause" while we enlarge the military or as though expressing such criticism is a "policy."
Those critics viewing Operation Iraqi Freedom as an "elective war" characterize these problems (such as un-armored HumVees and "stop-loss" orders) as evidence that Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney should not have launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. They compare what "is" with what they naively wish "would have been" if only Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney were to have "let inspections and sanctions work" rather than going to war to topple Saddam Hussein.
What they naively ignore is that if inspections were to have continued, the inspectors would have found no "stockpiles" (for the same reasons for which we haven't found them-- i.e., they were removed during the months preceding the war or they had been destroyed). Failures to find such stockpiles would have accelerated the collapse of the "sanctions" even if we were to have vetoed such action. For us to have maintained forces in the region as a means of deterring, containing and monitoring Saddam Hussein would have fueled the barbaric rage of al Qaeda just as much as our relatively token-size deployments (and no-fly zones) fueled enough barbaric rage for al Qaeda to launch the 9-11 attack. With the collapse of sanctions, by now Saddam Hussein would be swimming in money and would have significantly reconstituted virtually all his WMD programs. Additionally, a dictator daring enough to have given his blessing to an attempted assassination of George Herbert Walker Bush would have had no compunction whatsoever against covertly providing WMD assistance to the "enemy of his enemy"-- i.e., to al Qaeda-- for use against us and/or our allies.
Stopping Hitler before he invaded Poland would have been "elective" but would have saved millions of lives. Yet those who knew that to have been the correct course of action then could never have "proven" then that the failure to stop Hitler then would ultimately cost millions of lives. We have the benefit of lessons of history they learned the hard way. Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney rightly "elected" to confront danger now rather than choosing to allow it to grow in magnitude and attain imminence until even the most ardent critics would view war as a necessity rather than a choice but at a time when the risks and casualties would likely be far greater.
--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Dec. 8, 2004 #01: Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn.
Prisoners-- Torture versus harsh treatment; Thumbs on the Scales of Justice; Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Special Forces, Afghanistan, Baathists, Terrorists, ACLU, ICRC, UNHRC, Kofi Annan, Ted Kennedy.
Again there arises an asymmetrical chorus of outrage over claims that American troops failed to treat prisoners properly by refusing to cut out their tongues, cut off their hands, cut off their ears, dip them in acid, hang them from ceiling fans, throw them from second-story rooftops and then behead them as do our devoutly religious adversaries. What's the world coming to?
There are signs of hope for a "fair and balanced" view of these issues. In San Francisco, a group of homosexual men staged a protest against the International Committee Red* Cross (ICRC) classifying as "torture" the practice at Guantanamo of forcing the terrorists to wear ladies' lingerie. A spokes-being for the group said, "We know the difference between torture and fun-- wearing a business suit is torture, but wearing Victoria's Secret lingerie is fun. Those terrorists need to 'get a life.'"
A group of porn "stars" staged a sit-in and then a lie-in, which, in past tense became a lay-in, protesting the ICRC's classification as "torture" the Abu Ghraib practice of forcing prisoners to lie naked together. A spokes-being for the porn "stars" said, "If all the terrorists would learn to lie naked together, they wouldn't want to wear clothes anymore and then they'd be easy to spot trying to sneak into airports."
The United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) launched a full-scale investigation of an allegation that a Special Forces member actually socked a prisoner in the face. A news report that the UNHRC considered such conduct to be a "war crime" under the Geneva Convention prompted Muhammad Ali to call a press conference to explain that George Foreman, one of the strongest boxers ever, had punched him in the nose yet he (Ali) mocked such mild treatment by asking Foreman, "Is that the best you've got?"
Meanwhile, the ACLU, having become envious of the enormous publicity being reaped by the ICRC vowed to never again be outdone in expressing outrage against the treatment of prisoners by American troops. When a reporter asked the ACLU spokes-being whether it was expressing asymmetrical outrage-- i.e., more outrage at harsh treatment meted out by American troops than at beheadings, mutilation, etc. by the Baathists and terrorists-- the ACLU spokes-being indignantly explained: "Our priority is education! Everyone already knows it's barbaric to cut off tongues, ears, limbs and heads but not every knows it's barbaric to force devoutly religious terrorists to wear women's lingerie."
Meanwhile, Al Jazeera used a special feature on such barbaric practices as an opportunity to introduce the popular Arab network's newest News Anchorman even though that special report (here) is quite out of date. Anonymous sources indicated Al Jazeera had been delaying the selection of a new anchor in hopes that Dan Rather would make himself available, but when Rather's "resignation" announcement revealed his plans to continue working for 60 Minutes after leaving the CBS Anchor desk, the top executives at Al Jazeera knew they would have to settle for the next best candidate on whom they could count to regularly present "the truth" to battle the "lies and distortions" by Fox News. (However, anonymous sources deep inside Al Jazeera have told PoliSat.Com's Middle East Bureau Drawer Chief that the real reason they object to Fox News is that they have too many Foxes presenting the news, which is deeply offensive to the devoutly religious Arab males in the "Arab Street.")
--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com
Dec. 7, 2004-- No Update today. Editor working on MCLE seminars.
Dec. 6, 2004-- No Update today. Editor working on MCLE seminars.
Dec. 5, 2004 #01: Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn.
FDA seeks more tests of Intrinsia, Proctor & Gamble's "arousal patch"; Bill Clinton volunteers for clinical tests on Desperate Housewives; NOW seeks "flaccidity patch" or "Hillary Patch" for men.
The FDA's refusal to approve "Intrinsia," Proctor & Gamble's "arousal" patch for women (popularly known as a "sex patch" for women or "female Viagra") without further clinical testing prompted Bill Clinton to volunteer to serve in a program for clinical tests on Desperate Housewives, but the National Organization of Women (NOW) is demanding that the FDA require Proctor & Gamble to simultaneously develop a "flaccidity patch" for men rather than exposing women to potentially dangerous side-effects of "arousal" patches. According to Forbes, "[t]he Food and Drug Administration committee said P&G's testosterone-based Intrinsa patch needs long-term testing for adverse effects before it can be cleared for commercialization, echoing concerns that extensive testosterone therapy could be harmful."
Clinton imposed only one limitation on his offer to perform the male role in clinical tests of Intrinsia by seeking a guarantee that the required profile of each female participant be "Desperate Housewife" rather than "Desperate Hillwife." However, Clinton's offer inspired NOW to demand that the clinical testing of the "arousal patch" on Desperate Housewives be required to simultaneously test a "flaccidity patch" on each male participant. A NOW spokesman explained that Clinton would be an ideal subject for testing the "flaccidity patch" because if it were to work on him, it would work on anyone.
A spokesman for the National Organization of Desperate Husbands said the equivalent of "flaccidity patches" have been effectively used by wives for many decades. When asked to elaborate, the spokesman listed several examples proven to be highly effective: facial cold-cream at bedtime, hair in rollers at bedtime, washing hands in very cold water just before bedtime, and insisting on watching David Letterman or Jay Leno. A NOW spokes-being said women need to be liberated from the burdens of employing such self-defense mechanisms so they can go to bed looking their best in Victoria's Secret lingerie without fear of being molested by sexual-predator husbands. Subsequently, as indicated at the end of this report, Hillary Clinton issued a statement strongly supporting NOW's position. PoliSat.Com's high-tech remote-sensing equipment has obtained a copy of a video presentation of Hillary's position-- See image to the right.
When reporters asked the NOW spokes-being to explain how a "flaccidity patch" would work, she/he/it (hereafter, "sheheit") said that at the first signs of sexual arousal, the patch would simultaneously release two substances through the skin into the male bloodstream: Oxytocin to induce the kind of severe pains women experience during childbirth and a neural chemical forcing the male brain to visualize an image of Rosie O'Donnell in a bikini. When a reporter asked the NOW spokes-being to explain what would motivate any normal male to wear such a patch, sheheit said: "Unlike the arousal patch for women, the flaccidity patch would release chemicals not through the side with the adhesive but rather through the opposite side so that a wife preferring to avoid having to apply facial cold-cream or hair-rollers before going to bed to avoid being sexually molested could instead affix a flaccidity patch to the palm of her hand.
When reporters asked Bill Clinton whether the NOW proposal would discourage him from participating in a program for simultaneous clinical testing of the "arousal patch" on Desperate Housewives and the "flaccidity patch" on male participants, he answered in rhythm and rhyme. The text is below, but PoliSat.Com's high-tech remote-sensing equipment has not yet obtained a copy of the video version (which will appear here when it becomes available), but in the interim, we're providing the image-link below to enable visitors to view the incident that inspired Bubba to volunteer to field the flame of Desperate Housewives:
Bubba Fields Their Flame.
FDA nixed the espousal
of patches for female arousal
until and unless
more clinical tests
prove safety as well as arousal.
one whose political half-life
owes much to the gender-gap housewife,
a duty I feel
for serving with zeal
in tests on the Desperate Housewives.
NOW is demanding the tests
use both-gender patches in tests,
"For science," I've said
that "getting ahead
means learning which patches are best."
patches to calm
arousal in men apply balm
from patches not worn
by husbands but worn
by desperate wives on their palms.
therefore, to guard my condition,
I'll strictly confine my volition
to testing with babes
content to be slaves
to serve in my fav'rite position.
However, Bill's statement prompted a hastily-scheduled press-conference by Hillary Clinton supporting NOW's denunciation of Proctor & Gamble's plans to market the "arousal patch" to women. Here's the text of her statement: "And I say to my Americans, what this country needs is not an arousal patch for desperate housewives, what this country needs is a flaccidity patch for desperate husbands."
--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Dec. 2 through 4,, 2004-- No update for Thursday, Dec. 2, 2004, Friday, Dec. 3, 2004 and Saturday, Dec. 4, 2004.
Dec. 1, 2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but
we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
Dec. 1, 2004 #01: Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn.
Bill Clinton, now invested in pharmaceuticals, goes long on news of Proctor & Gamble seeking FDA approval for "arousal patch" for Desperate Housewives after clinical trials by Nicollette Sheridan.
Proctor & Gamble is seeking FDA approval for marketing an "arousal" patch for Desperate Housewives. Stock market insiders report that Bill Clinton, who has become an avid investor in pharmaceuticals such as Proctor & Gamble since leaving office, went long on hearing the news. Disney stock skyrocketed when an initial news report indicated Proctor & Gamble was seeking "FCC" approval for clinical trials of "arousal patches" on Desperate Housewives despite earlier reports that they'd already thrown in the towel.
Social activists predicted that successful marketing of the patches to "desperate housewives" would convert stormy marriages into "civil unions." Other activists feared the availability of such patches would change happy housewives into depressed housewives. Rosie O'Donnell decried the patches as yet another example of a male conspiracy using the male-dominated pharmaceuticals industry to fill the "arousal gap" in a futile attempt to revitalize heterosexual marriage through use of toxic hormones to give women an unnatural attraction to men.
CNN's business/space guru, Lou Dobbs, expressed grave reservations that "desperate housewives" would buy the product but conceded there would be a potentially unlimited market if Proctor & Gamble could find an ethical way to market the patches to desperate husbands for clandestine affixation to their wives' backs when they go to sleep too early.
In contrast, Wall-Street guru, Lawrence Kudlow (co-host of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer) enthusiastically predicted that mass-marketing of such patches would induce so much marital harmony that it would change blue states to red states. Jim Cramer, the even more excitable co-host, predicted it would change red states to blue states because two-wage-earner couples who don't get home in time to watch the early news would no longer have time to watch the late news either. Although Fox News' Neil Cavuto expressed concern that successful marketing of the patch to the real "desperate housewives" (as well as the really desperate housewives) might hurt the ratings of his business-news show by dramatically reducing the number of married men watching his show to be titillated by his regular showing of Victoria's Secrets vignettes in the guise of "fashion" news, he concluded that he could offset such loss by beginning to regularly feature Chippendale vignettes. In fact, Cavuto, Kudlow and Cramer haven't seemed this excited since they joined forces as "Bear Busters" in July, 2003.
A scientific expert speaking for the pharmaceuticals industry explained how the skin-patch works: It releases testosterone into the woman's system, but since normal women have extremely low levels of testosterone, it merely elevates their sex-drive even though such low-dosage level would be lethal for normal males because they naturally have far higher levels of testosterone. Alarmed by this information, the National Organization of Women voted to urge all ardent feminists to avoid using the product on themselves for "medical and health reasons." When asked to explain the basis for such recommendation, a spokes-being for NOW declined to be more specific. As an example of issues making strange bedfellows, a spokesman for a men's-rights organization, who was equally alarmed but for different reasons, expressed the concern that abusive wives could kill their husbands by duping them into wearing the patches to "increase their virility" even more effectively than by using Viagra, Levitra, Cialis, or girlie magazines or watching Monday Night Football.
Undaunted by such adverse recommendations, Wall Street experts say these "arousal patches" for women, coupled with their counterparts for men (i.e., Viagra, Levitra, Cialis, etc.), will comprise a new, specialized stock-portfolio sector for the Twenty-First Century to be called "Ball & Bare" even though most jargon experts think "Bare & Ball" would be more appropriate.
--Jim Wrenn, Science Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Daily Update immediately preceding the one above: Go here or find it in the chronological Index of Archives here.
Other sites that feature
PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here
to view our Affiliates page.