Along with telling us how, apparently, low-rent is the name Fred, as in Fred Thompson, I found one phrase a little curious, particularly given a recent website slander by a Henry Reynolds:
He goes by Fred. Going by Fred, he still has amassed a clan of pitter-patter, all-a flutter followers.
A clan, not a group, gathering, or even a cluster? Hmm ... maybe they were thinking of Robert Byrd. It's a thought, anyway. And while they mentioned Fred Astaire, for the record, Fred Allen was no slouch either.


What an odd thing to slam someone over. What status do they give the name "Hussein" I wonder.
Posted by: S. Weasel | Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 12:45 PM
The author of this stupidity is named Monica. What does that name remind people of?
Posted by: JammieWearingFool | Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 01:20 PM
Looks as if they are having a hard time trying to slander Mr. Thompson......heh!
Few slices short of a loaf that group is.
Posted by: Cindi | Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 01:21 PM
Say, what about Fred Beloit? What's the big idea? Can you imagine that? Can you believe it? Well, I never.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 02:41 PM
Lucky for ole Monica, she wasn't assigned to expound upon that name while standing on a football sideline .... A few shirts bearing the surnames Bilentikoff, Barnes, Williams, Vanzo and Dean might not be as unassuming as that HeadFred spokesperson. Of course, he doesn't punctuate his name, either. Unlike Fred! -- who tells his friends he want's to be referred to as FDT -- which reminds me of that flower service. And you'd have to be a bloomin' idiot to nurture a punctuated moniker for a guy who's too fredish to make a decision.
My name? It's WILMAAAAAA!
Posted by: Gull | Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 03:26 PM
I may be delusional, and I bow to Dan's superior Googling skillz to suss this out, but didn't the MSM run this Same Lame Meme (good name for a rock band!)
on the name GEORGE in 2000? "Let Geeeeeorge do it" from the very very old commercial, George Jetson, George of the Jungle, all stupid people named George (except Washington).
It might even have been about his Dad, in the whole "wimp" thing Rather was laying on George Herbert Walker Armoire Vestibule Bush Sr.
Posted by: docweasel | Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 07:00 PM
Hey Gang...
So I was wondering...what the going rate for a WaPo reporter these days? Maybe 100 - 150K a year? There is too much to cover on earth than letting this "whatever" run on the way she does.
Jammywearingfool--I loved your post vis-a-vie "Monica" oh how appropriate! (I'm still laughing!)
Posted by: Paulo | Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 08:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I -- you do like Dick Cheney videos, don't you?
Posted by: Bill Adkins | Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 09:33 PM
Washington Post -- just keeping it CLASSY.
Posted by: Purple Avenger | Monday, August 13, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Bear in mind, Bill... that the video you linked to is dated from 1994, and refers to events during the FIRST Gulf War (Desert Shield/Desert Storm, 1990-1992). The circumstances behind Mr./ Cheney's statements *then* have very little linkage to events now.
He rightly said that we would have been unable to invade and secure the land then, as Russia/the USSR was still a potent adversary, and required our commitment to REFORGER and other cold war era War Plans.
I do agree however, that displacing Saddam's government without having a strong replacement ready was a critical mistake.
We could have done much better to have co-opted the existing Ba'ath political structure after capturing/killing Saddam and his top lieutenants -- in order to keep the country running and the citizenry obedient, until a suitable pelacemtn puppet was found.
Posted by: seekeronos | Monday, August 13, 2007 at 01:12 PM
"The circumstances behind Mr./ Cheney's statements *then* have very little linkage to events now."
Granted -- Kind of like those who cite 1998 intel about WMD as grounds for the 2003 invasion. Sad to say, however, Iraq is to us what Afghanistan was to the Soviets.
Posted by: Bill Adkins | Monday, August 13, 2007 at 01:26 PM
"--- Kind of like those who cite 1998 intel about WMD as grounds for the 2003 invasion ---"
Probably so. It is very likely that Saddam had the foresight to make the choice of shipping his WMD materials or at the very least, allowing other regimes (Syria in particular, and possible Iran, grudgingly) rather than allow himself to be caught with smoking gun evidence of his WMD stockpiles by the US Army.
Perhaps he, unlike his historical antecedent Belshazzar, saw the writing on the wall, that his regime was at an end.
But, given any nation's desire - especially one with prior animus against the USA - to aquire WMD, along with a demonstrated and practiced policy of first use / "preemptive" use of WMD against its enemies (external: see also Iraq-Iran war; internal: see also the Iraqi Kurds).
Posted by: seekeronos | Monday, August 13, 2007 at 02:00 PM
But, given any nation's desire - especially one with prior animus against the USA - to aquire WMD, along with a demonstrated and practiced policy of first use / "preemptive" use of WMD against its enemies (external: see also Iraq-Iran war; internal: see also the Iraqi Kurds)...
... It would follow that Iraq under Saddam had a WMD program going on, as follows the calculus:
Nation with no nukes = victim
Nation with some nukes = relatively untouchable
Nation with the most nukes and the means to globally deliver them = Da Boss.
Posted by: seekeronos | Monday, August 13, 2007 at 02:03 PM
Coming back to the Fred hit pieces abounding in the news... the hippies are running scared, because if Fred! is the genuine article, and his appeal as well as his common-sense approach to politics and communication skills line up with a dearth of any serious flaws...
... the Dems will have some serious competition in FDT (a.k.a. the Fred!).
So cometh also the Klan inferences and smears, but the Marxist stooges writing these pieces of yellow hogwash fit only for bird cage liner cannot make them stick at all.
Water, meet Duck's Back.
Posted by: seekeronos | Monday, August 13, 2007 at 02:07 PM
This from Adkins:
"Sad to say, however, Iraq is to us what Afghanistan was to the Soviets."
Don't be silly, Willy. Read this from USA Today. Even the MSM are admitting the "surge" is working.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-08-12-lede13_N.htm?csp=34
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Monday, August 13, 2007 at 02:51 PM
That's probably the dumbest piece I've ever seen a newspaper run. Interesting that while they mentioned we'd never had a "Fred" for president that they didn't mention that we've also never had an Obama, Hilliary, Sam or Mitt.
Either the WaPo was hurting for something to put on a blank page or it was the only "bad" thing they could say.
Posted by: katablog | Monday, August 13, 2007 at 07:44 PM