What He Should Have Flung

What’s with Cyrille Y. Morotte, the 36 year old Frenchman who tossed a bundle of papers over the White House fence on March 22? This is the second time he’s tossed something over the White House fence. The last time was in June 2004, after which he was deported. With dogged persistence he managed to get back into the country. How he achieved that is currently being investigated. Apparently he was on a may-not-enter list. So much for Homeland Security!

But back to Cyrille. He’s obviously trying to make some kind of political statement. Whatever he’s trying to say, he believes in it strongly enough to sneak back into the US just to fling those papers over the fence. But it’s not working, because his message is not getting out. The public has no idea what those papers said. The public has no idea what Cyrille is trying to say.

What he needs to do next time, I think, is go with a symbolic act. Instead of papers he should toss something that will be reported worldwide, and that will forcefully express whatever opinion he’s trying to express. Assuming that flinging stuff over the fence is not his way of expressing admiration for Bush, what I suggest for next time is suitably packaged processed dog food. Processed, that is, by a dog. A nice big package, all the better to get everyone’s attention. And no harm done if it is helpfully labeled “Dog Poop” in big, bold letters. That way, when CNN covers the incident live for a couple of hours, they will be able to zoom in nicely and keep telling the world over and over again that what he flung was dung.

With any luck, Cyrille may even be able to inspire a rash of copycat crimes. I can think of a lot of people who might find the idea of flinging dog poop over the White House fence appealing. Especially since they don’t even seem to arrest you for the first offence (Cyrille wasn’t). They do deport you, though, so if you’re a foreigner (or an illegal immigrant), adopt a free-trade philosophy and outsource the job to an out-of-work American. Enterprising out-of-work Americans will, no doubt, be found loitering in the vicinity of the White House, carrying large, well-labeled packages, and discreetly advertising them from time to time.

Comments

  1. sarabeth says:

    You must have access to better intel than me….

    Let me make a full, frank and free confession. I have no access to intel whatsoever. I don’t even have a security clearance, LOL.

    those who aren’t directly involved with it don’t have a hope in hell of truly comprehending what’s going on

    .
    Except for you, presumably?

    I command troops in battle so it’s much more critical for me to understand what’s going on than it is for the average civvie,

    So you live in Canada by day, and command troops in battle by night, huh? That is so cool! You must get laid a lot.

    (BTW, are we speaking tin soldiers here? Or are we talking of the battle of the blogs, in which you command and bravely lead yourself into battle every day?)

    If indeed this is how the US is attempting to emerge victorious from the war, I’m also curious how Alex’s model works in a situation when it’s no longer US/Iraqi forces fighting an insurgency, but instead a sectarian civil war fought between Iraqis, with the US/Iraqi forces either on the sidelines or in the middle.

    Rather like what we did in Bosnia I would imagine. Except we’ve now got better techniques, and aren’t limited in our options by UN politics.

    Or in Korea for that matter, although Korea was much simpler due to the fact that the people calmed down once the armies stopped fighting.

    That’s a pretty curious response. Did I miss something, or was Alex’s model about how a larger U.S. force would be less effective than a smaller U.S. force when it came to fighting the insurgency? If so, how the heck could that model possibly apply to a sectarian civil war fought between Iraqis, with the US standing by and looking on?

  2. sarabeth says:

    As Alex stated, it will take a long time.

    So you’re saying, sac, that you think we are winning, and all it needs is more time for this winning to translate into victory?

    As you may know by now, my view is that we must stay until the new Iraqi As you may know by now, my view is that we must stay until the new Iraqi government is showing at least the appearance of validity and effectiveness

    And what if the Iraqi government never reaches the point of showing the appearance of validity and effectiveness? (Is that not a distinct possibility at this point?)

  3. sarabeth says:

    In WW2 we had a clearly defined enemy, and very little threat from mines or snipers.

    Try telling that to anyone who fought in the Pacific theater, general.

    And are you serious about mines?

  4. Alex says:

    Dammit.

    I had a nice long detailed response typed up…and then the damn newsreader automaticaly refreshed the page and I lost it all.

    So instead I’ll sum it up:

    Matt, I’m not asking you to beleive 100% of what I say, I’m just asking that you accept the possibility that you have no idea wtf you’re talking about. Regurgitating what you read in AP releases, or on a blog, does not equal being informed. If you’re willing to beleive the stories of reporeters and bloggers with no direct knowledge of the situation, and no competence to judge the situation even if they had firsthand knowledge of it, then you should certainly be willing to accept my statements as well. Otherwise what you’re saying is “I have no reason to beleive ANY of you….but I’m gonna beleive that guy in the corner, and call the rest of you a bunch of liars”. As for the tactics question, the reason nobody can make heads or tails of it is because it changes so goddamn often. Do you seriously beleive that the insurgents remain static in THEIR tactics? ALL sides of the conflict have to change the way they operate on a regular basis, or they get slaughtered. My point is that if those of us INVOLVED in the conflict are struggling to keep up, how can you, sitting behind your computer, have a hope in hell of understanding it?

    Sarabeth: Yes, I get laid lots. Your sister says hi BTW. As for your question about “how the heck could that model possibly apply to a sectarian civil war fought between Iraqis, with the US standing by and looking on”, I don’t understand why you’re confused. Bosnia was basicaly fairly small numbers of western troops standing between much larger groups of foreigners. Granted, Korea involved much larger numbers, but it was a different kind of war. I never stated, nor did I mean to suggest, that the fight for Korea was like the current insurgency in Iraq. I was simply pointing out that we’ve defeated civil-wars before, and without any smartass bloggers to assist us. IF Iraq turns into a civil war, we’ll adapt accordingly. And finaly, to answer your question about snipers and mines, yes I certainly was serious. There’s no official statistics on it, however, it’s common knowledge that deaths from mine-strikes and IED’s have increased greatly since WW2. Your lack of awareness on that subject is once again a direct result of your lack of knowledge of warfare in general. Normally I’d suggest you quit while you’re ahead not TOO far behind, but I wouldn’t want you throwing dog feces on MY lawn.

  5. matt says:

    Matt, I’m not asking you to beleive 100% of what I say, I’m just asking that you accept the possibility that you have no idea wtf you’re talking about.

    I’ll do it when those who have been fucking it up do it. deal?

    Regurgitating what you read in AP releases, or on a blog, does not equal being informed. If you’re willing to beleive the stories of reporeters and bloggers with no direct knowledge of the situation, and no competence to judge the situation even if they had firsthand knowledge of it, then you should certainly be willing to accept my statements as well.

    not that where i get my information from is the paramount concern, but I did take a classes on this stuff in college. Bosnia and the first gulf war fyi. from watching these people for the past 5 years plus the campaign, i know that they haven’t a clue what they are doing, and in the rare cases that they do, it’s about politics not policy.

    Do you seriously beleive that the insurgents remain static in THEIR tactics?

    nope. but do you wonder why people are starting to think we’re not as solid as they used to think? it’s starting to look like without tank columns and 100 sorties/day of f-16s we aren’t about much. we’re losing to a largely rag-tag resistance. what happens when it’s time for N Korea or China. What if that was later this year?

    My point is that if those of us INVOLVED in the conflict are struggling to keep up, how can you, sitting behind your computer, have a hope in hell of understanding it?

    involved. aye captain!

    I know we’re not winning. i know that everything the administration has said about this war has been exactly wrong (quite a feat btw). i know that we’re unprepared for other things. i know that we are less safe not more safe. wtf else do i need to know. i’m not doing the fighting.

    . There’s no official statistics on it, however, it’s common knowledge that deaths from mine-strikes and IED’s have increased greatly since WW2.

    that is the most pathetic sentence i’ve ever seen. stick to activities where you have less chance of embarrassing yourself. seriously.

    but I wouldn’t want you throwing dog feces on MY lawn.

    did you just give yourself a promotion from general to president?

  6. sarabeth says:

    Sarabeth: Yes, I get laid lots. Your sister says hi BTW.

    I bet she didn’t tell you she used to be my brother till 2 years ago.

  7. Alex says:

    I’ll do it when those who have been fucking it up do it. deal?

    Why sink to their level?

    I know we’re not winning. i know that everything the administration has said about this war has been exactly wrong (quite a feat btw). i know that we’re unprepared for other things. i know that we are less safe not more safe. wtf else do i need to know. i’m not doing the fighting.

    Obviously you don’t know much. The US has lost just over 2000 soldiers in what, 3 years? At that rate it would take about 1050 years to defeat the 700,000 man US military.

    You’re right the fuck out of ‘er.

    I bet she didn’t tell you she used to be my brother till 2 years ago.

    Well you’re real tolerant eh? I didn’t have a problem with it. I’ll be sure to tell her you do though.

  8. sarabeth says:

    As for your question about “how the heck could that model possibly apply to a sectarian civil war fought between Iraqis, with the US standing by and looking on”, I don’t understand why you’re confused. Bosnia was basicaly fairly small numbers of western troops standing between much larger groups of foreigners. Granted, Korea involved much larger numbers, but it was a different kind of war.

    Hey, genius, Matthew Tobey’s question was how your model would apply to a civil war in Iraq. The right answer is it doesn’t. You didn’t get it when he asked you. You didn’t get it when I pointed it out last time. So the question now would have to be: do you even understand the stuff you put down before that Mattew Tobey referred to as your model? Where did you lift it from?

    to answer your question about snipers and mines, yes I certainly was serious. There’s no official statistics on it, however, it’s common knowledge that deaths from mine-strikes and IED’s have increased greatly since WW2.

    The point was not whether deaths from mines and snipers have increased since WW2. And IEDs didn’t even enter into it. What you said before was “WW2 we had a clearly defined enemy, and very little threat from mines or snipers.” That’s absolute bullshit. But I guess admitting you ever made a teensy-weensy mistake doesn’t come easily to you either. So now you try to brazenly bullshit your way out of it. Get real, asshole. Most of us reading this page have an IQ greater than our age. You’re not going to fool anyone by pretending you didn’t say what you actually said. You’re just plain dishonest.

  9. matt says:

    Why sink to their level?

    why should I have to “sink” to the level of my elected representatives? but so i’m not only answering a question with a question, the answer is they are scoring political points with their shit.

    At that rate it would take about 1050 years to defeat the 700,000 man US military.

    and you accuse me of knowing nothing. “not winning” isn’t the same as “defeat”
    I would have assumed that an important high-ranking military officer such as yourself would know that. also, the number is +2300. you’re about on par with paul wolfowitz when it comes to body count accuracy.

    i have to step in and say nullus on all the sex change sex talk.

  10. sarabeth says:

    What’s another 300 dead bastards, give or take, to a general? Especially one who has 697,700 more still to expend?

    (I don’t know about the rest of you ignoramuses/ignorami, but I’m taking copious notes. Defeat: when your last soldier dies. At the rate I’m learning, my total lack of awareness on matters military will be rectified by the middle of next week, I reckon.)

  11. matt says:

    i must have lost 300 or so brain cells just today just from laughing until i couldn’t breathe. i’m going to the gun range tomorrow so i can learn myself back to parity.

  12. sarabeth says:

    i must have lost 300 or so brain cells just today just from laughing

    I wouldn’t worry. You’re not brain-dead till that last brain cell dies. (That must have been the rationale behind the Republican’s Schiavo crusade, eh?)

    At this point I must regretfully exit stage right, and go reclaim my life.

  13. sac says:

    Even if it means forever? Even if the administration continues to execute the war irresponsibly and ineptly? Even if it means a draft? Even if it means taking resources away from greater threats? I’m not being rhetorical. Honestly.

    Forever? No. Years? Everyone who was being honest knew it would take years to achieve before going in, so now that we’re there, I believe we have to give it time. A draft? I hope it doesn’t get that far, but btw, increasing the number of troops, whether now or in 2003, would have put us that much closer to a draft. You say Bush should have listened to his commnaders calling for more troops at the beginning, but would you have supported that?

    My question to everyone who wants out now is, is it better to pull out now and let the region fall into total chaos? Or even, do you want us out now or are you calling for more effective management of the war?

  14. Alex says:

    It won’t come to a draft because we can’t afford to have silly bastards like this bunch on the modern battlefield. We only want people who WANT to be there. The only valid reason for ever bringing back the draft would be if we had to fight a much more massive war where the survival of most of the western world was at stake.

  15. matt says:

    A draft? I hope it doesn’t get that far, but btw, increasing the number of troops, whether now or in 2003, would have put us that much closer to a draft. You say Bush should have listened to his commnaders calling for more troops at the beginning, but would you have supported that?

    at least that would have been honest. this was is being run like an enron off-balance-sheet entity. the level of this war demanded more troops. if we didn’t have them, we should have acquired them. if that left us unprepared, we should have made ourselves prepared. but as always, political costs had to be minimized and luckily for the administration, this sick joke of an economy forced many low income kids into uniform.

    My question to everyone who wants out now is, is it better to pull out now and let the region fall into total chaos?

    that sounds like it came straight from joe lieberman’s website. look, the damage is done. we have been exposed at least as a military unable to defeat a determined insurgency. past that, spreading freedom at gunpoint has been completely discredited to everyone not currently attached to the administration. we have little credibility either way, and this isn’t going to end well. leaving now stops the bleeding, both red and green.

  16. matt says:

    We only want people who WANT to be there.

    or HAVE to be there, right general? you can admit that many are there because they have no other choice, can’t you? or because they just want a green card

    The only valid reason for ever bringing back the draft would be if we had to fight a much more massive war where the survival of most of the western world was at stake.

    or to be prepared for one, no?

  17. [Since Alex doesn't see any reason to explain how it is that he knows what he claims to know or offer any links in support of his spittle-soaked rants, I'm going to start taking the same liberties.]

    The reason the US cannot win in Iraq is because there’s an all-powerful wizard operating out of Tikrit. He delights in chaos and bloodshed and will continue to use his spells to make the war last forever.

    That wizards name? Martin Mull.

  18. sac says:

    that sounds like it came straight from joe lieberman’s website.

    Now you’ve gone too far! No, seriously, that was low. Can’t we go back to topics that I have the final and authoritative answer for, like abortion?

  19. Nick in Beantown says:

    That wizards name? Martin Mull.

    Fool! Oprah will smite you for not giving proper credit where its due…

  20. Alex says:

    Er, yes, wanting a green card means you “have no other choice” than to join the military.

    You GOTTA put in those little eye-rolling smileys on here.

    While we’re at it, Matt has also proven that many bloggers “hae no other choice” than to blog drunk. Good work Matt, I’ll pin a star on you next week.

  21. matt says:

    Er, yes, wanting a green card means you “have no other choice” than to join the military.

    the point, fluffer, is that it’s a lot easier to send people to their deaths when they aren’t citizens and their families can’t vote and when they aren’t white. you must have begun your distinguished military career after they lowered their standards.

    While we’re at it, Matt has also proven that many bloggers “hae no other choice” than to blog drunk.

    right.

  22. Alex says:

    the point, fluffer, is that it’s a lot easier to send people to their deaths when they aren’t citizens and their families can’t vote and when they aren’t white.

    No, that’s not a point. That’s a poorly aimed insult based on flawed generalizations and unproven beleifs. You’d have to be fairly racist to even THINK of making the suggestions that you seem to be making.

    you must have begun your distinguished military career after they lowered their standards.

    Wrong again (aren’t you seing the pattern yet?). I’ve been in for over 8 years now. And stop suggesting that the military as a whole has lowered standards. Using the article you linked we can prove that to be an outright lie. Only one small part of the military – the active army – has lowered it’s standards. And there only because they had them set artificialy high in the first place, and have now brought them in line with the rest of the military.

    Ofcourse, not a word is said about the fact that female standards have always been lower, therefore placing their live at risk. That’s considered “womens lib” or some crap like that. Lower standards only become a problem for you when (you think) they can be used to make a political attack.

  23. matt says:

    That’s a poorly aimed insult based on flawed generalizations and unproven beleifs.

    stop projecting.

    I’ve been in for over 8 years now.

    my ass.

    what does “women’s lib” have anything to do with this? other than a crusty war hero such as yourself not wanting to serve with them?

  24. Alex says:

    Eh? I’ve got no problem serving with women whatsoever, especialy with the type of warfare we’re engagin in these days. Truthfuly, women have always been an advantage because of the diversity in thought and techniques that they bring with them. These days they’re even more important because of the cultural sensitivity aspects inherent in dealing with female prisoners. We couldn’t do the job without then.

    The only problem I have is lowered standards for any one group. The standards exist to ensure that an individual is able to perform the task assigned. If you set the standard lower for one group then it means that either the standard is set artificialy high for other groups, and should therefore be lowered for them as well, or it means that you’re willing to accept individuals who are unable to do the job. Which is absolutely unacceptable. I don’t give a flying fuck if you male, female, black, white, straight, gay, or a fucking martian, as long as you can effectively perform your duties.

    The point is that “progressive” individuals are all for lowering standards to make it easier for women to get in, but you bitch and complain when the overall standard is lowered because you see it as a secret government plot to increase numbers in the military. It’s yet another reason why we think you’ve all follen off your collective rocker.

  25. matt says:

    We couldn’t do the job without then.

    or for that matter, a spell checker.

    The point is that “progressive” individuals are all for lowering standards to make it easier for women to get in, but you bitch and complain when the overall standard is lowered because you see it as a secret government plot to increase numbers in the military.

    nice try at the old sleight of hand. when exactly did i say anything about lowering standards for women? and the government plot isn’t even secret. they miss their numbers and then they lower their standards. not much hidden there.

    It’s yet another reason why we think you’ve all follen off your collective rocker.

    everyone who doesn’t serve? or anyone with an opinion other than yours?

    I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d prefer you just said thank you and went on your way.

  26. Alex says:

    Anyone with views as fucked up as yours. I have no problem with people who view the world from a left-wing perspectve. I do however have a problem with individuals who are so left-wing that there’s very little distinguishing them from the psycopaths on the far right.

    or for that matter, a spell checker.

    Too bad your spellchecker doesn’t capitalize sentences, eh? If attacking me for making typos is the best that you can do at this point, I think we’re done.

  27. matt says:

    I do however have a problem with individuals who are so left-wing that there’s very little distinguishing them from the psycopaths on the far right.

    you must have people here confused with people from somewhere else. and why not? you’ve been trolling here for all of a week and a half. plenty of time for you to fully understand my world view and dismiss anything i say.

    you’re a clown, totally unwilling to accept that we are in a war we will never win against an enemy we don’t understand. an ill-defined mission that costs billions of dollars a month, yet how long did it take to properly equip our soldiers? where did all the money go?

    you can scream commie as loud as you want, it only exposes your total lack of awareness. what we believe in here is honesty, transparency and competence. our political leaders have displayed none of it. and the laugh line is you defending their decisions that have left us where we are.

    I think we’re done.

    fine with me. we’ve had more able trolls stop by from links on AOL. stick to the battlefield, general. that canadian front is fierce.

  28. Alex says:

    what we believe in here is honesty, transparency and competence.

    :D

    Good one. That’s rather like Hitler saying “we beleive in freedom, peace, and goodwill towards all mankind”.

  29. That’s rather like Hitler saying “we beleive in freedom, peace, and goodwill towards all mankind”.

    You’re such a Nazi, Cohen.

  30. matt says:

    Good one. That’s rather like Hitler saying “we beleive in freedom, peace, and goodwill towards all mankind”.

    now you’ve accused me of being a drunk and a nazi. as a recovering alcoholic who comes from a jewish family, i can only say: fuck you. you’re done here.