• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

“The defense has a certain level of trust in defendant that the government does not.”

Giving up is unforgivable.

Republicans cannot even be trusted with their own money.

Giving in to doom is how we fail to fight for ourselves & one another.

“Loving your country does not mean lying about its history.”

Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.

American history and black history cannot be separated.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

At some point, the ability to learn is a factor of character, not IQ.

How stupid are these people?

Text STOP to opt out of updates on war plans.

Not rolling over. fuck you, make me.

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

Polls are now a reliable indicator of what corporate Republicans want us to think.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

Disappointing to see gov. newsom with his finger to the wind.

Dear Washington Post, you are the darkness now.

If America since Jan 2025 hasn’t broken your heart, you haven’t loved her enough.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Military / The Silliness Continues

The Silliness Continues

by John Cole|  November 10, 20057:53 pm| 72 Comments

This post is in: Military, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Hunter, in an effort to prove true my comment that some of these folks can not be parodied, writes another post about White Phosphorus, AKA the ‘munition formerly known as a chemical weapon.’ More accurately, he is flailing away at me and others, claiming our entire collective response is, in reaction to the scurrilous charges leveled by DKos and others that our troops indiscriminately used ‘chemical weapons’ to massacre innocent civilians, the following:

So right now, the right’s reaction consists primarily of “shut up“, “nuh-uh“, “it’s harmless anyway“, “it’s perfectly legal anyway“, and the ever-popular “liiiiiiiiberal!”.

Actually, I am only given credit for the ‘shut up’ portion of the mischaracterizations of the listed positions, the others being attributed to other folks who helped to refute the ridiculous contentions that our troops were committing war crimes in Iraq.

Hunter writes:

Yesterday, the main point of contention on the right was that the United States would never do such a thing as to use WP as an antipersonnel weapon, or use it in a city, despite its apparent harmlessness. Now it’s quite clear we do and did, and so everybody’s dropping that point and merely talking about how harmless the substance is, other than (according to right-wing sites) being able to burn through steel, causing severe “chemical burns” — Protein Wisdom’s quote, not mine — on both clothes and flesh, and persistently reigniting upon exposure to oxygen. Yeah, except for that, it’s peachy. And we don’t fire it at targets, except for the documented cases where we do.

Actually, I have contended from the beginning that we not only are such coarsened war criminals that we carry the munition openly in our inventories, but that we actually use it. Not only that, contra what Hunter’s ideological brethren and his cohort in the Italian media assert, it is not a chemical weapon, it is not illegal, and, get this, it is an extremely effective weapon that the military has used for decades, and in a number of situations for a number of different purposes.

But hey- let’s give Hunter his due- he is against ‘melting the skin off of children.’ As is everyone I know on my side of this ‘debate,’ to include the thousands of men and women overseas who continue to use the munition to best attack their enemies and defend themselves, often choosing to use WP to limit casualties rather than using more powerful and less controllable rounds.

Before moving on, let’s deal with one thing- while Hunter and company are operating with the a priori assumption that WP was in fact used indiscriminately and caused the untimely death of the people whose corpses were displayed by the Italian media, there is no evidence to those assertions. No autopsies are public, no reliable records, no examination by forensic efforts, nothing- just the word of the media crew, some anti-war activists, and a former soldier whose difficulty with the truth is rather well chronicled. And that is really it.

At any rate, I bravely will submit to Hunter that I too recognize our nation’s policy of not melting the skin off of children, and will continue to work to make sure our troops can best defend themselves with the weapons they have while not resorting to such barbarous acts. I won’t, however, sit and pretend that there is some clean, sterile way that will automatically insure that no civilian casualities are inflicted. I will leave it to all these newfound brilliant military strategists and munitions experts to explain to our folks overseas that they are no longer allowed to use weapons that have not been approved by Hunter, the Italian media, and the brain trust at Pandagon, even if they are legal, within our current arsenal, doctrinally sound, and utilized with every effort to minimize collateral damage.

Hopefully, Hunter and his crack staff will manage to put together a map of Iraq that will clearly dictate where and how certain weapons are used by our troops, so we can avoid their being labeled ‘war criminals’ or on the same moral plane as Saddam Hussein’s vulgar Ba’athist murderers.

*** Update ***

Make sure you check out this Michael Moynihan post, “RAI Documentary: Editing, the Michael Moore Way.” Michael is the individual previously described as the ‘liiiberal’ commentator above. At any rate, A little preview of what is seen in this documentary that is being used as definitive proof of American atrocities:

As the credits roll in Fallujah: The Forgotten Massacre (discussed below), and the morose “aren’t the Americans evil” music is piped in, the viewer is faced with a horrifying scene: a group of Iraqis, cowering under scant cover, brutally mowed down by Apache helicopter fire. It is, of course, presumed that the targets are innocents; further victims of the “forgotten massacre,” one presumes. And shorn of context, we can forgive the credulous Umbrian housewife for thinking the American military an organization made up entirely of sadists. But, of course, the entire clip tells a rather different story.

What RAI skillfully omits from its documentary (the full clip can be downloaded here) is the motivation for engagement (man with RPG, other planting roadside bomb) and the careful deliberation of the pilot, his gunman and the commander on the ground (at least, I presume those are the voices we are hearing)…

And so another jihadist meets an ignominious end, the Italian public—and countless European and American downloaders—are rooked into believing they have witnessed a “massacre”, and the propaganda cycle moves on.

It would be shocking if it weren’t so typical.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Frist Isn’t Even Trying Anymore
Next Post: The Democrats’ ANWR Problem »

Reader Interactions

72Comments

  1. 1.

    Mike S

    November 10, 2005 at 7:59 pm

    Oh wait. Never mind. Hunter is already calling them war criminals.

    Where?

  2. 2.

    John Cole

    November 10, 2005 at 8:04 pm

    Check the tags. Hunter himself created it, as they are author created.

  3. 3.

    Caroline

    November 10, 2005 at 8:06 pm

    Good grief. Can everybody calm down and wait to see the facts. As far as I know, this is pretty much “up in the air.” And no, I haven’t watched the documentary.

  4. 4.

    Mike S

    November 10, 2005 at 8:07 pm

    They’re not author created. In the beginning anyone could create a tag and trusted users could delete them. I believe that is still the case or only tu’s can create and delete.

    It’s one of the problems with the tags over there.

  5. 5.

    ppGaz

    November 10, 2005 at 8:09 pm

    First “side” that stays on message and on principle, without resorting to rhetorical water balloons, wins this tempest in a teapot.

    Right now I have it at zero-zero as we start the second quarter.

    Just keep in mind that you have not seen the bottom of the support for the people running this war, or for the war itself. Who wants to be the last guy out there giving quarter to some idiot commenter shouting “Hey, war is ugly, people die! Get over it!”

    WP is not a chemical weapon. American fighting forces are not war criminals.

    Now, what is the issue on the table, again?

    Here’s a thought for the TallDaves of the world to ponder while they eat their livers:

    That infamous photo of the burned, running youngster in Vietnam? When people see that photo, they don’t think “American troops are war criminals.”

    They think: What were the people who got us into this pile of shit, and kept us in this pile of shit, thinking?

    Over there, it’s war. In here, it’s theater. Icons and metaphors are what it’s about. Not weapons specifications and combat legalities.

  6. 6.

    John Cole

    November 10, 2005 at 8:09 pm

    Well- it was filed under war crimes.

  7. 7.

    Mike S

    November 10, 2005 at 8:13 pm

    And just to be clear I am staying out of the over all argument because I don’t have enough actual facts to base any opinion on it either way. The biggest problem with blogs is that everything comes flying at you and you just react. Then later something comes up that makes all of your hyperventilating look a little silly.

    It’s happened to all of us, you included.

  8. 8.

    Mike S

    November 10, 2005 at 8:15 pm

    Well- it was filed under war crimes.

    I’m sure it was. But that can be a function of someone else putting the tags up themselves.

    We had a troll infestation at one point where all kinds of tags were put in which leads me to believe that it was changed so that only TU’s could create them, as opposed to my earlier comment that anyone still could. Vut there are still pople who become trusted who shouldn’t be.

  9. 9.

    John Cole

    November 10, 2005 at 8:17 pm

    Duly noted. I will remove the last sentence. I don;t want to put words in his mouth.

  10. 10.

    texas dem

    November 10, 2005 at 8:26 pm

    I didn’t even mess with the original WP threads on dKos. I was at work and wasn’t prepared to deal with the pictures.

    But without having investigated much, I am wondering this:

    WP is obviously clear for certain uses. Maybe it’s not clear for other uses? There could be uses of WP, a legal weapon, that nonetheless would violate either the letter or the spirit of treaties, rules of engagement, etc.

    At any rate, I can certainly imagine munitions coming to be used for less-than-authorized purposes. You don’t have to ascribe evil or ill-will or any kind of criminality other than maybe criminal negligence to account for that type of change in on-the-ground operating procedures taking place over time. I think it’s within the realm of reasonable possibility, and a potential point of concern.

    In fact, that would be rather similar to the track along which “special” interrogation tactics were approved first for high-value Al-Qaeda, then all of Gitmo, the all of Afghanistan and Iraq, though a kind of slippery and casual de-facto process.

    Sorry if other people have brought this angle up and solved it days ago.

  11. 11.

    aop

    November 10, 2005 at 8:27 pm

    This shitty government has created an atmosphere of permanent bad faith on the part of a lot of the left. People are always going to assume the worst at this point, no matter how little they have in the way of argument or evidence.

  12. 12.

    Pb

    November 10, 2005 at 9:10 pm

    aop,

    I concur; if Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Scotty, etc. came out on all the shows and told me the sun was coming up tomorrow, I’d start stocking up on flashlights. That’s how good their track record has been.

  13. 13.

    Steve

    November 10, 2005 at 9:12 pm

    Part of the point is that when you’re against the war, you can be against the horrors associated with war without setting forth a way to fight an antiseptic war. The fact that even in the best-waged war, there are still horrible things that happen to innocent people, is one of the reasons that counsels against war in the first place.

    Yes, yes, I know, it’s too late to change the decision now, so we should all just shut up and “support the troops.” Well, all indications are that it was too late to change the decision on September 12, 2001, if not sooner, but some of those tricky dissenter-types came out against it anyway, and some would even say that’s their right as Americans.

    Do you realize that today, there are actually people in this country who dare to say the Vietnam War was a bad thing and we shouldn’t have fought it? Silly fools, don’t they realize the decision has already been made?

    There are serious downsides to the policy of conquering a country in order to “bring them freedom,” one of which is that war is not a game of chess. One of the reasons so many people bring up chickenhawks is that the sense on the Left is that the “faster, please” neo-con war planners actually don’t understand this, that they really think we can invade one country after another just because they say so.

    And when all is said and done, and you add up the positives, like removing Saddam from power, and the negatives, like all the dead soldiers, like all the dead Iraqis, like all the destroyed cities and homes, like our devastated reputation in the international community, history will have to judge whether it was worth it or not. Those who believe the answer will be “no” are entitled to their opinion. They are entitled to believe that all the “collateral damage,” even if our troops truly did everything in their power to minimize it, was still wrong and should never have happened.

  14. 14.

    smijer

    November 10, 2005 at 9:14 pm

    …while Hunter and company are operating with the a priori assumption that WP was in fact used indiscriminately and caused the untimely death of the people whose corpses were displayed by the Italian media there is no evidence to those assertions. No autopsies are public, no reliable records, no examination by forensic efforts,

    It’s not exactly an a priori assumption… As you mentioned, there is reporting from the Italian media… there is the simple fact that the photos we saw there aren’t explained by bullets or debris – they are pictures of people with such severe burns that their skin is black or completely off the bone… which requires an agent other than bullets or bombs.

    There is video of WP raining down like fireworks on a city which the Italian media says is Fallujah, and testimony in US Army magazines that WP was used there.

    These aren’t assumptions – If it wasn’t WP being used against Fallujah that caused those corpses to be disfigured the way they were…. well, it was something pretty bad.

    And really…. as everyone has pointed out, it isn’t like this administration is known for its care with the truth, or for its insistence on avoiding war crimes, like torture of POWs… The accusations from the Italian military and those individuals interviewed there are credible precisely because this administration has proven that it doesn’t give a damn for waging war defensively, legally, and with due care to avoid civilian casualties and war crimes. Why, given this administration’s record, are you, John Cole, hyperskeptical of claims of indiscriminate use of WP? Are the video images of glowing white shit raining down on densely developed cityscapes just not enough to make a believer out of you? Does someone really have to bring a body to a lab, do an autopsy, and forward you the results before you will be willing to believe that the pentagon ordered or allowed this substance to be used in urban warfare?

    At any rate, I can certainly imagine munitions coming to be used for less-than-authorized purposes. You don’t have to ascribe evil or ill-will or any kind of criminality other than maybe criminal negligence to account for that type of change in on-the-ground operating procedures taking place over time. I think it’s within the realm of reasonable possibility, and a potential point of concern.

    Who’s blaming the troops now?

    In fact, that would be rather similar to the track along which “special” interrogation tactics were approved first for high-value Al-Qaeda, then all of Gitmo, the all of Afghanistan and Iraq, though a kind of slippery and casual de-facto process.

    A de-facto process that the vice President of the United States feels is important enough that it requires his efforts to intervene in Congress and prevent being even more specifically outlawed?

    A de-facto process of which the DoD knows enough to get on television and tell us about the “legitimate” use of WP, and about which the Army prints articles detailing, but no special regulations have been in place to prevent? And, assuming Congress finds out and starts writing lawas to prevent this de-facto process, are we to have, as our a priori assumption that Dick Cheney will hail their efforts, rather than intervene to stop them?

    Damn.

  15. 15.

    rilkefan

    November 10, 2005 at 9:16 pm

    Still haven’t gotten my “personnel targets” vs “guys in a ditch” question answered. The army manual says we shouldn’t use WP in some instances. If it turns out we did so regardless, what’s John‘s take?

  16. 16.

    Jason

    November 10, 2005 at 10:22 pm

    they are pictures of people with such severe burns that their skin is black or completely off the bone… which requires an agent other than bullets or bombs.

    False.

    Any HE ordnance is perfectly capable of burning one to a crisp in an instant. HE is more than capable of doing everything I saw in the video.

    Although to get to the falling-off-the-bone level of tenderness, the Iraqis favor a marinade made of date seasoning, salt, and curry.

  17. 17.

    Mike S

    November 10, 2005 at 10:25 pm

    Although to get to the falling-off-the-bone level of tenderness, the Iraqis favor a marinade made of date seasoning, salt, and curry.

    Hahahah. You so funny.

    I hope someone you love does not have a similar fate as the people you so casually joke about.

  18. 18.

    ppGaz

    November 10, 2005 at 10:34 pm

    Although to get to the falling-off-the-bone level of tenderness, the Iraqis favor a marinade made of date seasoning, salt, and curry.

    Now, I’ve seen everything in here.

    What were you thinking when you posted this?

  19. 19.

    smijer

    November 10, 2005 at 10:35 pm

    Any HE ordnance is perfectly capable of burning one to a crisp in an instant. HE is more than capable of doing everything I saw in the video.

    Sure, if one is unfortunate enough to be at very close range to the site of impact/detonation… However, if you at that range, your clothing will be burned off as well. Some of those photos included clothing that had very little damage… WP reacts with water to produce its major burning effect, thus the blackened skin with relatively undamaged clothing in many of those photos… HE creates enough heat to burn anything – skin or clothing – in the presence of oxygen… It doesn’t explain the photos, even if you have an a priori assumption that the Italian media went to the ground zero site of every HE detonation to do their photography, and just happened to find civilians at enough of them to provide these photos.

  20. 20.

    MI

    November 10, 2005 at 10:36 pm

    Hearts and minds, Mike S, hearts and minds.

  21. 21.

    smijer

    November 10, 2005 at 10:38 pm

    P.S. What Mike S. and ppGaz said… I take humor where I can find it, even in the grotesque and diabolical…. don’t think I haven’t made Jeffrey Dahmer jokes in my time… but this is a serious discussion about real people and our real collective responsibility for their suffering. I don’t think joking about date and curry marinades to achieve tenderness of flesh is really appropriate to that kind of discussion. Once again… Damn.

  22. 22.

    Pb

    November 10, 2005 at 10:41 pm

    Ah, but you forget–if they die horribly, they must have been terrorists, or insurgents, or… um… potential terrorists. See (what’s left of) that kid? He didn’t grow up to become a terrorist–victory!

    Where’s DougJ when you need him.

  23. 23.

    The Sanity Inspector

    November 10, 2005 at 10:56 pm

    This is worth remembering, from The Corner last year:

    I am also a professor at a military-related institution, and my little brother is an enlisted Marine (a sniper with 1-3) in Fallujah. This weekend he called for the first time since the battle began. He informed us that a large number of the residents of Fallujah, before fleeing the battle, left blankets and bedding for the Marines and Soldiers along with notes thanking the Americans for liberating their city from the terrorists, as well as invitations to the Marines and Soldiers to sleep in their houses. I’ve yet to see a report in the media of this. Imagine that.

  24. 24.

    The Sanity Inspector

    November 10, 2005 at 11:01 pm

    There’s little use arguing with the leftards about this. There is nothing the American military could do to win their approval, except die in enough numbers to bring down the current administration. Progressives were calling American soldiers murderers immediately after 9/11, and weeks before the first shot was fired in retaliation.

    I’ve got the pictures to prove it.

  25. 25.

    smijer

    November 10, 2005 at 11:02 pm

    Sanity Inspector… where did lil Bro get his info? Did he find that large number of blankets and notes? Or is he relying on urban legend or DoD propganda as his source? Maybe the reason the mainstream media hasn’t picked this up is that there isn’t much reason to believe it is true?

  26. 26.

    smijer

    November 10, 2005 at 11:07 pm

    Thanks!

  27. 27.

    Hunter

    November 10, 2005 at 11:11 pm

    Before moving on, let’s deal with one thing- while Hunter and company are operating with the a priori assumption that WP was in fact used indiscriminately and caused the untimely death of the people whose corpses were displayed by the Italian media, there is no evidence to those assertions. No autopsies are public, no reliable records, no examination by forensic efforts, nothing- just the word of the media crew, some anti-war activists, and a former soldier whose difficulty with the truth is rather well chronicled. And that is really it.

    No, I didn’t say that WP was used indiscriminately.

    The post you cite alone, regardless of anything else, links to a 2004 Washington Post article confirming that WP was used in Fallujah, and that insurgents were brought to the hospital specifically with WP burns. The video in the Italian report shows WP being fired downward into the streets of the city. Ergo, WP was used in the streets of the city, to the injury of those in the city. I’m sure that, like all the other weapons currently in the U.S. inventory, however, it magically determines when it’s hitting a “bad” Iraqi vs. a “good” Iraqi, and only hurts the bad ones. And while it can bore through metal, I can presume crappy two-story houses are impenetrable to it.

    It wasn’t indiscriminate at all. They chose to use it, and where to use it. After all, as you said, it is “efficient.”

    You can’t rant against the evil Italian liberals for making the whole thing up, and then turn around and assert that yep, actually, we used it plenty. At this point, it seems the only remaining point of contention is determining which civilian bodies were killed by what, because that infant, for example, might have died of — what, exactly? Are you saying they shot him or her outright?

    You don’t want to blame the troops. Fine; neither do I. We killed civilians accidentally. Given that we were firing on a city, that’s pretty much a given scenario of war — you and I are both arguing that as being patently obvious. Furthermore, I consider it a clusterf–k of the highest order that they were placed in that position.

    Let’s pick a side to argue. We can say, “oh, that’s just fine, because no sh-t, that’s war”. Or we can pretend that la la la, nobody was hurt but the bad guys, and the “good” Iraqis have probably already forgiven us for pasting their loved ones all over their streets and homes.

    But we can’t seriously argue those civilian deaths didn’t happen. What, was there a baby brigade in the city? The famous women and children infantry of Fallujah? Or are the civilian casualties off the table, now, because it bothers us too much to think about them? Or are they only OK in dry, impersonal, ineffective prose, but humanizing women and children is right out?

    See, I’m in the enviable position of being against the entire fiasco in the first place, so I don’t have to decide how many dead children equals “freedom”.

    But you, if you are a supporter of whatever the latest “goals” of the war are, do. Because that’s the calculation that war supporters are requiring the troops to make every day. Don’t give me grief at being faced with the rather graphic outcome.

  28. 28.

    The Sanity Inspector

    November 10, 2005 at 11:12 pm

    Smijer:

    There’s plenty going on that doesn’t fit the liberal template of much of the national news media. (Hope I qualified that statement enough for ya.) It’s hard to be a gatekeeper when the wall are down.

  29. 29.

    John S.

    November 10, 2005 at 11:26 pm

    There’s little use arguing with the leftards about this. There is nothing the American military could do to win their approval, except die in enough numbers to bring down the current administration.

    And just the other day I was saying we need more posters that oversimplify, make hasty generalizations and are incapable of civility…

  30. 30.

    ppGaz

    November 10, 2005 at 11:32 pm

    There is nothing the American military could do to win their approval, except die in enough numbers to bring down the current administration.

    The main thing wrong with this rant is that the current administration appears to need no help in bringing itself down. They don’t seem to be able to find their asses with both hands and an anatomy textbook.

  31. 31.

    Steve S

    November 10, 2005 at 11:32 pm

    Check the tags. Hunter himself created it, as they are author created.

    This is incredible! I just checked, and now the tags say this:

    Tags: Fallujah, Iraq, White Phosphorus, John Cole, Hot Air, Overinflated-Windbag Asshat (all tags) :: Add/Edit Tags to this Story

    Ahh the power of the Trusted User… It also get’s me in acros the velvet rope line at all the exclusive hot spots.

    Come on Cole… you’ve lost your rocker on this. Obviously people who are against this war are also going to be against the death and destruction war causes. Sheesh.

  32. 32.

    smijer

    November 10, 2005 at 11:34 pm

    There’s plenty going on that doesn’t fit the liberal template of much of the national news media.

    Yeah, maybe… but that doesn’t mean the story about blankets and notes is true. It wouldn’t fit the liberal template if bin Laden and several al Qaeda lieutenants announced that the invasion of Iraq has shown them just how strong and resolved Americans can be and they are now calling an end to all jihadist activities done in their name… but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Just because a war apologist at the Corner says his lil bro says… and doesn’t mention where lil bro got his info… doesn’t mean it happened… therefore it doesn’t mean there’s a liberal conspiracy if it doesn’t appear in the MSM… especially if it doesn’t even appear on Fox News!

  33. 33.

    smijer

    November 10, 2005 at 11:40 pm

    There is nothing the American military could do to win their approval, except die in enough numbers to bring down the current administration.

    Bullshit… For one thing… the American Military doesn’t act on its own perogative… It acts on the orders of the Commander in Chief and the DoD. Sure, there are orders they should not follow — see Nuremburg for philosophical justification for that view… but the people responsible are the people at the helm of the government.

    You don’t see relevant sectors of “the left” bitching about WWII, or even Gulf War I. You don’t see us bitching about the military defending our country in accordance with sane, moral rules of combat. You only see relevant numbers of us bitching about Japanese internment camps, prisoner abuse, aggressive warfare, and use of horrific weapons against targets in urban areas that subject innocents to great horror.

    Give me a break.

    Damn.

  34. 34.

    Dave Ruddell

    November 10, 2005 at 11:54 pm

    WP reacts with water to produce its major burning effect

    What? WP reacts with oxygen (not water) to burn and forms phosphorus pentoxide. That reacts with water to form phosphoric acid. WP isn’t even soluable in water, and water can be used to extinguish it, although it can easily reignite once dry. Perhaps you’re thinking of the alkali metals such as sodium or potassium?

    Does anyone have an explanation how the skin can get burned without damaging the clothing?

  35. 35.

    The Sanity Inspector

    November 11, 2005 at 12:06 am

    John S.:

    And just the other day I was saying we need more posters that oversimplify, make hasty generalizations and are incapable of civility…

    Sorry if my harsh tone is out of place here.

    smijer:

    You don’t see relevant sectors of “the left” bitching about WWII,

    BUSHITLER-BUSHITLER-BUSHITLER-BUSHIT-oh yes, the Left is just crystal on WWII…

    or even Gulf War I

    Then who were all those people in Lafayette Park chanting No Blood For Oil that whole autumn and winter?

    You don’t see us bitching about the military defending our country in accordance with sane, moral rules of combat…

    Oh yes I do. Didn’t you click through to the pictures?

    You might want to add this adjective to “sane” and “moral”: “effective”. If Fallujah really were the wholesale massacre that the Left want it to be perceived as, the city would be a smoking, radiating ruin by now. As it is, the fighting was needlessly protracted to humor the international anti-war crowd, resulting in that many more deaths from the terrorists’ continued occupation of the city.

    You only see relevant numbers of us…

    “Relevant numbers”; that’s a clever bit of fudging.

  36. 36.

    John Cole

    November 11, 2005 at 12:06 am

    Tags: Fallujah, Iraq, White Phosphorus, John Cole, Hot Air, Overinflated-Windbag Asshat (all tags) :: Add/Edit Tags to this Story

    That actually is pretty god damned funny. If anything, I respect him more for that.

    At any rate, I will comment tomorrow on the rest of this. I am too damn tired (not to mention in the middle of Alias, season 4).

  37. 37.

    smijer

    November 11, 2005 at 12:07 am

    DR – it’s been a while since I’ve done chemistry — and yes, I was mixing up P with the period I & II metals, but I don’t think I was entirely off base…I think the answer to your question about the burning of skin w/ limited damage to clothing is that the flesh damage is from the reaction of P & O2 with moisture in the flesh to produce H3PO4 – phosphoric acid, which, in turn, burns or eats away the flesh. The clothing can survive more or less intact because it is relatively dry and isn’t exposed to the bulk of the acidic fluids in the flesh. I may still be wrong, but I still maintain that it’s extremely difficult to explain those photos by the effects of HE rounds.

  38. 38.

    smijer

    November 11, 2005 at 12:17 am

    Then who were all those people in Lafayette Park chanting No Blood For Oil that whole autumn and winter?

    Fringe elements. Kind of like LGF only with less influence on their party’s operations.

    BUSHITLER-BUSHITLER-BUSHITLER-BUSHIT-oh yes, the Left is just crystal on WWII…

    The Democratic Underground aside… WTF does Bush have to do with WWII?

    Oh yes I do. Didn’t you click through to the pictures?

    Yup… I didn’t see a single Senator among them. Or even enough people to elect a Senator.

    You might want to add this adjective to “sane” and “moral”: “effective”.

    Oooooh… effective… Thank God these measures have been so effective we can finally declare “Mission Accomplished”. Oh, and what’s that about a means to an end? And what is the road to hell paved with?

    If Fallujah really were the wholesale massacre that the Left want it to be perceived as, the city would be a smoking, radiating ruin by now. As it is, the fighting was needlessly protracted to humor the international anti-war crowd, resulting in that many more deaths from the terrorists’ continued occupation of the city.

    If only we had nuked the city rather than launching two full scale invasions with every conventional weapon at our disposal, little regard for civilian casualties, and generous portions of incendiary weapons, then our troops would be greeted with flowers and candy…. Only you better have Rummy checking that candy for razor blades.

  39. 39.

    Dave Ruddell

    November 11, 2005 at 12:20 am

    I kinda thought you were getting things mixed up there, smijer. It hasn’t been a while since I’ve done chemistry; I’m a forensic chemist. As for phosphoric acid causing those burns, I don’t think so. One does not get ‘carmelized skin’ from a chemical burn. That’s a thermal burn. Interstingly enough, check out this:

    Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal, which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury. First aid treatment of casualties with imbedded phosphorus particles consists of copious water lavage and removal of the identifiable particles, following which the involved areas are covered with a saline-soaked dressing and kept moistened until the patient reaches a definitive treatment installation.

    So, it appears that WP will actually cause the clothing to burn. I’ll repeat, for anyone who might know, what kind of weapon will burn flesh, but not clothing?

    Source is here.

  40. 40.

    aop

    November 11, 2005 at 1:02 am

    not to mention in the middle of Alias, season 4

    Hey, me too. Is that Rimbaldi shit ever gonna go anywhere?

  41. 41.

    p.lukasiak

    November 11, 2005 at 1:07 am

    it is not a chemical weapon

    Lets see. WP is a chemical. It was used as an anti-personnel weapon. Its effects are like mustard gas on methamphetamines.

    But its not a chemical weapon?

    Now, maybe its not classified as a chemical weapon, but lets cut the crap here. Its a fucking chemical weapon that can be used for illumination. Or its an illumination device that can be used as an anti-personnel chemical weapon.

    If an when JC wants to get serious, and admit that we are talking about a chemical weapon, maybe rational people will consider some of his other points. But denying that a chemical that burns through tissue like a hot knife through warm butter is not a “chemical weapon” is sick.

  42. 42.

    maybee

    November 11, 2005 at 1:14 am

    Dave Ruddell-

    A weapon that will burn flesh but not clothing? Decomposition.

    http://articles.ogrish.com/index.php/Decomposition

  43. 43.

    p.lukasiak

    November 11, 2005 at 1:15 am

    He informed us that a large number of the residents of Fallujah, before fleeing the battle, left blankets and bedding for the Marines and Soldiers along with notes thanking the Americans for liberating their city from the terrorists, as well as invitations to the Marines and Soldiers to sleep in their houses.

    is it safe to assume that this is before they returned to their city, and found out that their “military age” male relatives had been burned to a crisp by WP?

  44. 44.

    ppGaz

    November 11, 2005 at 1:17 am

    Lets see. WP is a chemical. It was used as an anti-personnel weapon

    Oh dear. This has gone well.

    John, my suggestion is that you turn BJ into a car-repair blog starting immediately. This politics thing is just not working out .

  45. 45.

    Jcricket

    November 11, 2005 at 2:06 am

    Hey, me too. Is that Rimbaldi (sic) shit ever gonna go anywhere?

    Yes, during season 5.

  46. 46.

    Mike S

    November 11, 2005 at 2:47 am

    The Sanity Inspector Says:

    There’s little use arguing with the leftards about this. There is nothing the American military could do to win their approval, except die in enough numbers to bring down the current administration. Progressives were calling American soldiers murderers immediately after 9/11, and weeks before the first shot was fired in retaliation.

    Look how funny I am with my “leftard” comment.

    You’re a peach. I’m very impressed that you are a “top 1000 reviewer for Amazon.” I’m sure they’re all as insightfull as that comment was.

    Tell us little one, what have you done to support the troops?

  47. 47.

    Retief

    November 11, 2005 at 3:37 am

    I have a couple of questions about the “hidden massacre” video that don’t relate to WP. First, are free fire zones a war crime? And second, do we believe Jeff Englehart in the video when he says that the orders going into Falludja were “We were told going into Fallujah, into the combat area, that every single person that was walking, talking, breathing was an enemy combatant. As such, every single person that was walking down the street or in a house was a target.”? Just to be clear, if they are, and if Falludja qualified, that would implicate the folks at the top who planned the deal not the guys on the sharp end.

  48. 48.

    HH

    November 11, 2005 at 7:03 am

    I hope the Kossacks are proud of how easily they bought into pro-jihadist propaganda… Oh let’s not forget the official position on some of the Americans killed there. “Screw them” was it?

  49. 49.

    HH

    November 11, 2005 at 7:04 am

    Actually a good deal of Rambaldi is wrapped up at the end of season 4.

  50. 50.

    John Cole

    November 11, 2005 at 8:52 am

    Lets see. WP is a chemical. It was used as an anti-personnel weapon. Its effects are like mustard gas on methamphetamines.

    But its not a chemical weapon?

    Now, maybe its not classified as a chemical weapon, but lets cut the crap here. Its a fucking chemical weapon that can be used for illumination. Or its an illumination device that can be used as an anti-personnel chemical weapon.

    If an when JC wants to get serious, and admit that we are talking about a chemical weapon, maybe rational people will consider some of his other points. But denying that a chemical that burns through tissue like a hot knife through warm butter is not a “chemical weapon” is sick.

    It is not a chemical weapon, and you are on your own here asserting that it is.

    If and when YOU decide to get serious, maybe you can regale us all with tales of Bill Burkett.

  51. 51.

    Blue Neponset

    November 11, 2005 at 9:05 am

    Hunter writes:

    See, I’m in the enviable position of being against the entire fiasco in the first place, so I don’t have to decide how many dead children equals “freedom”.

    I happen to be ‘against the entire fiasco’ as well but that doesn’t give me free reign to redefine the term ‘chemical weapons’ or accuse the US military of war crimes because they used a weapon that isn’t illegal.

    Also, your ‘dead children’ strawman argument is nothing but offensive. Your self-righeous attitute is one reason I spend less and less time at Daily Kos.

  52. 52.

    TallDave

    November 11, 2005 at 9:30 am

    Oooh, after what looked like a brief comeback in the early rounds, sanity is now losing to partisan troop-bashing at Kos. Badly.

    They may have to call this one folks, sanity is staggering and bleeding all over the ring. I haven’t seen sanity take a pummeling like this since Mary Mapes was in the ring. Oh, the humanity!

  53. 53.

    Defense Guy

    November 11, 2005 at 10:06 am

    Come on Cole… you’ve lost your rocker on this. Obviously people who are against this war are also going to be against the death and destruction war causes.

    Sure they will, but an honest one might give time to rant against the outrages purpotrated by our enemy as well. Somehow that idea never quite gets through.

  54. 54.

    OCSteve

    November 11, 2005 at 10:22 am

    The meme being pushed is that American troops ruthlessly rained WP down on the heads of all these civilians. The big problem with this is that for the most part, the civilians just were not there.

    “The Red Crescent estimates that only 150 to 175 families remained in Fallujah after the US-led offensive started on November 8”

    “Most of Fallujah’s 300,000 inhabitants fled the city before the assault.”

    Source

    No less authority than The Red Crescent estimates 175 families on the high end in the entire city. How many in a family? Just to head off the argument over how many I’ll say they were all extended families and call it 10. So 1,750 out of a city of 300,000. 0.58% as a high estimate. And certainly they were not all innocent civilians.

    You figure they were out roaming the streets with a battle raging? They were hiding under the bed if they were smart. The only ones likely to be ought and about were the bad guys. From the same ABC article:

    “A single Red Crescent team delivered food and water to five families in a battered northern Fallujah neighbourhood after US marines patrolling the area found them hiding in their homes.”

    Were civilians unfortunately killed? Definitely. Is that a tragedy? Of course. Did the military try to get them out of there before the battle? Yes. It has also been thrown about here that boys/men of fighting age were forced to stay in the city – that is simply false:


    US troops sealed all roads to Falluja and urged women, children and non-fighting age men to flee, but said they would arrest any man under 45 trying to enter or leave the city.

    They were not locked in the city prior to an all out assault. Of course they would be arrested until it was sorted out. You figure maybe your typical “insurgent” is a man under 45? But they were NOT forced to stay in the city.

    Civilian deaths in wartime are always a tragedy. That is all this is. Those trying to make more out of it for partisan political purpose are simply sick. Especially on this of all days.

    God bless our troops – past, present, and future.

  55. 55.

    ppGaz

    November 11, 2005 at 10:26 am

    DG and TD together …. a sure sign that the parade has passed.

    Sure they will, but an honest one might give time to rant against the outrages purpotrated by our enemy as well.

    All the honest people are “for” the war, then? Or do you have another interpretation of your blurb?

    Can you list the names of three “honest” people we know who are against the war, DG? What criteria did you apply to come up with your list?

    Since the number of Americans who don’t support the war is approaching the 2/3 mark, you should have plenty to choose from!

    Is it your contention that as long as it can be pointed out that the “enemy” is behaving worse than we are, any war is justifiable? Or that criticism of any war is held hostage by that fact? That criticism of the war is only “honest” if it includes criticism of the “enemy?” I guess war is just a big popularity contest when you get right down to it.

    Are you actually trying to make a point, or just doing your usual gratuitous ballbusting?

    I know! Let’s frame the next couple of election cycles around who is for and who is against using WP on civilian populations! You take the “Pro” side and I’ll take the “Con”. My side will win and the war will stop. Then TallDave can blog about how the stupid media didn’t tell the real story to the stupid voters and that’s why we “lost” the war — ’cause we’re all stupider than he is.

  56. 56.

    John Cole

    November 11, 2005 at 10:36 am

    I know! Let’s frame the next couple of election cycles around who is for and who is against using WP on civilian populations! You take the “Pro” side and I’ll take the “Con”. My side will win and the war will stop. Then TallDave can blog about how the stupid media didn’t tell the real story to the stupid voters and that’s why we “lost” the war—‘cause we’re all stupider than he is.

    Don’t be an idiot- no one is in favor of using WP on civilians. Let’s try it this way, let’s frame the next election around one group of people who call our troops war criminals for using chemical weapons on civilians based on the work of a film crew who doctors their work and an established liar, and one group who think our troops do everything they can to avoid minimizing civilian casualties.

    Because that is a more accurate frame than the one you have presented.

  57. 57.

    slightlybad

    November 11, 2005 at 10:36 am

    Heh, WP is a chemical weapon? Well, it’s a metal, and it’s used as a weapon. Kind of like lead or depleted uranium. Hey, the U.S. uses a LOT of chemical weapons. MURDERERS!

    On a more serious note, I really don’t understand this argument. I mean, yeah, getting torched by WP is really a shitty way to die. So is getting shot through the intestines or having limbs blown off. I mean, burning to death would suck, but soldiers working around fuel and ammo depots are pretty likely to check out that way as well.

    Look, I’m former Navy, so I can’t really comment on the Army/Marines choice of weapons. I will tell you that burning to death is a fairly common way to die during naval warfare. Ships hit by missles or torpedoes frequently end up on fire — fighting fire is one of the biggest responsibilities on a warship. The other big way to die is by drowning (not too great), or in the modern nuclear navy, by radiation exposure if there is reactor damage.

    The point to this is that its WAR, and people die in a variety of ugly ways when it’s ongoing. That may be a good reason for opposing war in general, but we’re not doing anything in this particular war that haven’t done far worse in the past. If you guys think firing a few WP shells into a city (where most, if not all, civilians had fled), what do you think about the firebombings of Dresden or Tokyo? We burned those cities to the ground with everybody in them, man, woman and child.

    If you want to be against the war, fine, that’s your right, go nuts. Just stopping acting like a bunch of poseurs and pretending that the way we’ve been fighting this one is somehow uniquely evil compared to wars in the past.

  58. 58.

    ppGaz

    November 11, 2005 at 10:43 am

    Don’t be an idiot- no one is in favor of using WP on civilians

    My post is a response to the butthead DG, who apparently thinks that the people whose views he doesn’t approve of aren’t being “honest” because they aren’t pointing out the bad behavior of the enemy.

    WTF kind of comment is that? Well, if he has such a taste for bullshit, I fed him some bullshit. That should make him happy.

  59. 59.

    John Cole

    November 11, 2005 at 10:46 am

    Oh.

  60. 60.

    ppGaz

    November 11, 2005 at 10:52 am

    Well, the “sides” are tiresome. On one side you have the baby-killers, and on the other side you have the traitors who defend the enemy.

    Doesn’t everyone just sick of that bullshit once in a while?

  61. 61.

    Defense Guy

    November 11, 2005 at 10:54 am

    My post is a response to the butthead DG, who apparently thinks that the people whose views he doesn’t approve of aren’t being “honest” because they aren’t pointing out the bad behavior of the enemy.

    Decided to be a prick right out of the gate today eh old man. If you are too stupid to realize that only bitching about the ‘bad’ things we do, and never spending one fucking second bitching about the horrors committed by our enemy, then you are just not honest. In fact that makes you a complete asshole.

  62. 62.

    John S.

    November 11, 2005 at 11:02 am

    If you are too stupid to realize that only bitching about the ‘bad’ things we do, and never spending one fucking second bitching about the horrors committed by our enemy, then you are just not honest.

    I don’t think it sounds like dishonesty…sounds more like moral relativism to me. Americans have done horrible things to our ‘enemies’. Our ‘enemies’ have done horrible things to us (their enemy), and certainly in many cases they have been far worse.

    Two horrible acts do not cancel each other out any more than our horrible actions are cancelled out because we are America or because we saved the world in WWII.

  63. 63.

    Defense Guy

    November 11, 2005 at 11:07 am

    Yes John S, but the silence over the horrors committed by our enemy is deafening. That you cannot even bring yourself to write enemy without the quotes seems to indicate you have trouble choosing sides. The fact that over 40 Marines died taking that city is either not worth mentioning, or if it is, only to bash the administration for getting us into this war. Screw that, I’m tired of it.

  64. 64.

    ppGaz

    November 11, 2005 at 11:08 am

    Decided to be a prick right out of the gate today eh old man. If you are too stupid to realize that only bitching about the ‘bad’ things we do, and never spending one fucking second bitching about the horrors committed by our enemy, then you are just not honest

    Aw, shove it up your ass, you argumentative bore.

    Unlike you, not everybody relies on the bad behavior of others to justify their own behavior. I don’t care if the “enemy” eats babies every day and has their own baby-eating Food Channel. I don’t have to support what I don’t like, and I don’t have to give you a pass because you found something to deflect attention from it.

    Don’t lecture me about “honesty” you POS. You’ve never been honest in here for one frigging day.

  65. 65.

    ppGaz

    November 11, 2005 at 11:13 am

    the silence over the horrors committed by our enemy is deafening.

    The world is full of bad people, dumbass. Always has been and always will be.

    The purpose of the United States is not to save the world from bad people. What’s more, bad people are not cartoon characters in a storybook you wrote in which you get to defend any worthless or dishonest policy because you can find some bad guy out there who is worse than you are.

  66. 66.

    Defense Guy

    November 11, 2005 at 11:25 am

    Fuck it, I’m done with this place.

    Keep pretending that only the eeeeevil Americans a worth any mention when discussing Iraq, it seems to be the only skill you have, self-delusion.

  67. 67.

    ppGaz

    November 11, 2005 at 11:28 am

    the silence over the horrors committed by our enemy is deafening.

    Your silence over the bullshit way this war was ginned up and sold to the people and to the Congress is deafening.

    Whether you chest-beaters like it or not, this country employs civilian control of the military. That means that war is always a political construct, first, last and always. Again, whether you like it or not.

    If you want civilian — political — support for a war, then you need to be DAMNED SURE that you are drumming up the war for the right reasons, based on the right information, and presented in a completely straightforward way. You better not cut corners, spin the information, cherry pick the data, and pull dirty tricks on dissenters which will backfire on you later, because down the road, those things will be exposed, and you will lose your support. Sound familiar?

    Maybe when you can spend ONE DAY owning up to this bullshit, you will deserve to be cut some slack. But you haven’t and you don’t.

    So let’s talk about YOUR silence and how deafening it is.

  68. 68.

    Jason Van Steenwyk

    November 11, 2005 at 11:43 am

    What could explain flesh being burned but clothing being intact?

    Well, how about fire-retardant clothing? (DUH!!!!)

    What were you thinking when you posted this?

    Hmmm. Don’t recall exactly. I was probably thinking “schawarma.”

    Smijer:

    WP reacts with water to produce its major burning effect, thus the blackened skin with relatively undamaged clothing in many of those photos…

    False. WP reacts with air, and will burn through clothes no problem. HE may or may not, depending on the temperature and the burn point of the clothing.

    The very fact that skin was burned and not clothing tells me that these effects were NOT caused by direct contact with WP. Precisely the opposite of the conclusion reached by, oh, the people who get everything they know about this from watching TV.

    As for the ‘thank you’ notes, I can’t vouch for the notes themselves (though I’ve heard the same thing from other sources, and it doesn’t surprise me.)

    I can vouch for having seen a good deal of graffitti in Fallujah, Ramadi, and along the Euphrates River Valley saying “Thank you U.S.” and “God bless George Bush” throughout the year I was there (ending in March 04.)

    I know it’s hard for leftist twits to wrap their brains around the idea, but not all little swarthy brown Iraqi people think alike, and many actually support the coalition in the fight against terrorists, even in Ramadi and yes, even in Fallujah.

    A number of them have lost their lives in so doing, as a matter of fact. And trying to deny their existence dishonors their courage and their sacrifice.

    So it didn’t surprise me in the slightest to read about thank you notes to coalition troops in Fallujah homes. I’ve had Iraqis say “thank you” in person many many times. And this was in Al Anbar.

  69. 69.

    ppGaz

    November 11, 2005 at 11:49 am

    but not all little swarthy brown Iraqi people think alike, and many actually support the coalition in the fight against terrorists, even in Ramadi and yes, even in Fallujah.

    So, if you can find Iraqis to support it, carmelizing the flesh of kids is alright.

    Yes, I am very comfortable letting those little brown people decide for me what is morally acceptable and what is not. After all, they are either for us, or against us. And that goes for their kids, too.

    See, Jason, what goes around in comments, comes around. You blew your cover, trying to pretend to be a calm and rational defender of military practice. Turns out you are just another ballbusting rhetorical grenade thrower. Too bad, because I am closer to Cole’s position on this than some other people around here …but if you are the defense for that side, you are going to cost your team the game. Think of yourself as the Terrell Owens of this argument. Good hands, but big mouth.

  70. 70.

    John S.

    November 11, 2005 at 12:10 pm

    That you cannot even bring yourself to write enemy without the quotes seems to indicate you have trouble choosing sides.

    You read far too much into things. I encapsulated enemy in quotes because of the shifting nature of the definition. It has nothing to do with the side I am on – which incidentally is NOT the side of terrorists, torturers OR warmongers regardless of their nationality.

    Keep pretending that only the eeeeevil Americans a worth any mention when discussing Iraq, it seems to be the only skill you have, self-delusion.

    I don’t think Americans (or anyone) are evil since it is in direct opposition to Tim’s Law. The reason I personally care more about what Americans do rather than what the ‘enemy’ does is because I am an American. Which means that I expect more of my fellow Americans and would like to hold them to a much higher standard than I would the ‘enemy’.

    Quite frankly, I expect a lot more of Americans than I do of our ‘enemies’. Call it a non-classic case of ethnocentrism.

  71. 71.

    Charlie (Colorado)

    November 11, 2005 at 8:13 pm

    I still want to find out where they found white phosphorus that makes heat that burns skin but not cloth.

    (By the way, the easiest explanation for “carmelized”, “dissolving” skin with no damage to the clothing is putrefaction, caused by an extended period of death.)

  72. 72.

    Duncan Avatar

    November 12, 2005 at 9:07 am

    What we have here is the left “redefining” what is a chemical weapon, and what isn’t a chemical weapon. TNT, C4 and a plethera of other “chemicals” are used in our everyday bombs. Are those now chemical weapons? Or perhaps my arm (made up of chemcials itself), it is a chemical weapon! I have chemcial arms at my house. Two of them! Oh the humanity. The problem is that I have seen no evidence of U.S. soldiers using WP as direct, or even indirect, weapon against anyone. The bodies shown in the RAI video seem to be suffering from…. DECOMPOSITION, and perhaps that is why they are blackened. Yet our “support the troops” leftards so far can’t rap their brains about it. Or did Bush order the use of WP, so now you can blame him while “supporting the troops.” (Keep throwing crap at the White House walls and see what sticks campaign by the left) And the leftists in here can’t seem to understand the scorn and ridicule they are recieving for taking such a preposterous position concerning WP. And i will tell you. You hate Bush. Therefore you hate the war. Now you must come up with some sort of claim against the U.S and its forces since no one else except moonbats accept the Bush Lied Doctrine. So now we have the U.S. used chemcial weapons stance, a strawman if I ever saw one. Ofcourse, if it fits your version of what you absolutley KNOW to be TRUE, then don’t let a little thing like FACTS or EVIDENCE get in the way…. As serviceman myself, you people who believe that we used WP as a weapon, especially against CIVILIANS (why in the hell would we do that. Oh, so you guys can claim the new My Lai happened, that’s why), have my complete and unadulterated scorn….

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by MomSense (5/10.25)

Recent Comments

  • prostratedragon on Open Thread: Creativity Is inherently Non-Conservative (May 21, 2025 @ 1:07am)
  • cain on Late Night Open Thread: #TSLA Troubles (May 21, 2025 @ 1:06am)
  • cain on Late Night Open Thread: #TSLA Troubles (May 21, 2025 @ 1:05am)
  • cain on Late Night Open Thread: #TSLA Troubles (May 21, 2025 @ 1:03am)
  • sab on Late Night Open Thread: #TSLA Troubles (May 21, 2025 @ 1:02am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!