Well, that's it, we invade Scotland. People in New Jersey aren't sure where Scotland is anyway... Bomb, bomb, bomb the glen... McCain can get on board for this. You mean Scotland has a government? Like New York or Israel? Why? Arrest them! Send them to Riker's Island. Besides, this is about that Gibson bastid. The '45? We had left by then.
pl
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421304575383391106279322.html
I am not sure of the validity of the argument, but it is of interest on this matter. I shall leave criticism to others, more knowledgable.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23425.htm
Posted by: N M Salamon | 22 July 2010 at 05:53 PM
My mind drifts back---
Didn't Cheney/Halliburton have some influence in the normalization of US/Libya relations during the Bush administration?
Posted by: steve | 22 July 2010 at 06:10 PM
Ah yes, our U.S. Senate
Fear sam bith a loisgeas a mhàs, ‘s e fhèin a dh’fheumas suidhe air.
Posted by: J | 22 July 2010 at 06:41 PM
Why, who would even suspect a 900 million buck oil deal could have anything to do with this.
Pass the pikes and broad swords!
Posted by: John Minnerath | 22 July 2010 at 07:00 PM
Hmmm. I would have thought that the Senate learned their lesson a few years ago...
Galloway Rips 'Em a New One
Posted by: Cold War Zoomie | 22 July 2010 at 07:13 PM
The Act of Devolution may well result in more than the return of the Stone of Scone. Hey break up Great Britain and the parts can be used to counterbalance the admission of Cuba and Puerto Rico and other hispanic areas into US over next 200 years. Come to think of it we may well need most of CANADA also to counter balance those new states. But hey set Quebec free so we have some place to eat, play and party. And they deserve it after putting up with the dregs of the British Empire for so long. And the dregs of the American Empire.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 22 July 2010 at 07:47 PM
I would advise great caution in bombing Scotland. We really shouldn't.
Why if we bomb Scotland, what happens to all the Scotch whiskey??? And particularly what happens to all our favorite producers of single malts, not to mention all those wonderful barrels themselves filled with such wonderful elixer....
Just thinking about this makes me want...a stiff one...single malt "straight up, no chaser." (well, maybe two actually)
By the way, what are some favorite single malts of SST denizens?
http://malt-madness-blog.blogspot.com/
Posted by: clifford kiracofe | 22 July 2010 at 08:22 PM
Och, aye!
Posted by: John Howley | 22 July 2010 at 08:51 PM
"The Senate intends to explore ..." Right, the fundraising circuit? Just wait, they'll "round up the usual suspects!"
is tú díolta leis na Gallaibh.
That's the Lord's truth, now how about some invites to Dick, W and Condi?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/15/libya/index.html
While they are at it how about an investigation of Blackwater's decsion to.... (feel free to fill in the blanks of all the problems they've caused. Or maybe just abandoning of the US to avoid taxes while they continue to enrich themselves at our expense of blood and treasure?)
Posted by: Fred | 22 July 2010 at 10:35 PM
I volunteer! I want to be in one of the units liberating Scotland's distilleries from Scottish tyranny!
clifford kiracofe, my favourites are:
* Ardbeg
* Highland Park
* Laphroaigh on cold days
Posted by: confusedponderer | 23 July 2010 at 12:31 AM
Clifford
Lagavulin is my favorite!
These days I am drinking more bourbon when it comes to whiskey. Although with the warm evenings a chilled sake or arak is also welcome.
Posted by: zanzibar | 23 July 2010 at 01:10 AM
Nobody should make the mistake of thinking that Tony Blair ran a "cabinet government" with members of the cabinet making informed decision and thus having collective responsibility for their decision. The entire cabinet with one or two less-than-honourable exceptions behaved like a bunch of supine poddles who did what they were told to do by Tony Blair. This whole situation is of Tony Blair's making and he has ultimate responsibility for the decisions made. That is the buck stops with him. So what are that bunch of American mainly supine poodles otherwise known as the US Senate doing about this? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Instead they have requested the presence of a monkey and a Scottish politician who seems to have the balls to tell the Senate to get stuffed.
Posted by: blowback | 23 July 2010 at 02:26 AM
The alternative Braveheart - in authentic Glaswegian gibberish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyYuZi44-nk&feature=related
Posted by: quite successfuklly to modern globalized culture. | 23 July 2010 at 02:34 AM
Dalwhinnie (sp?). Very peaty, which apparently the purists disdain. I don't exactly have an educated palate.
Posted by: DanM | 23 July 2010 at 05:15 AM
Clifford, whisky producing regions could be declared no-bomb zones, though I can also envision all American volunteer regiments marching behind the banners of Famous Grouse and Laphroaig to defend our constitutional right to imbibe what is surely one of the world's finest potables.
Posted by: Phil Giraldi | 23 July 2010 at 08:13 AM
Good for Scotland.It shows great wisdom to refuse to have anything to do with that den of thieves and criminals.Everyone of the Senators that voted for the AUMF belongs in the docket at the Hague.
Posted by: par4 | 23 July 2010 at 08:24 AM
So Scotland did a favor for BP. I'll give a "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" on that one.
Clifford, unless one has an unlimited budget, Balvenie 12.
Posted by: Bart | 23 July 2010 at 08:33 AM
Clifford,
I'm sure the Isle of Jurga will be off the target list. But don't worry, we'll always have Jameson and Guinness.
Posted by: Fred | 23 July 2010 at 10:00 AM
"Why if we bomb Scotland, what happens to all the Scotch whiskey??? "
Irish Whiskey b/ Scotch Whisky
I learned that by reading spirits for dummies or some such book. that's where i also learned that "brandy" is also ultimately derived from "burnt wine" via "brandywine" and other wonderful tidbits of knowledge.
Posted by: WILL | 23 July 2010 at 12:04 PM
if the truth be known the evidence against the Libyan was incredibly weak and hung by the most tenuous threads, literally- supposedly some clothing samples recovered in the luggage. he had the bad luck to be posted in Malta.
that's why the Picts let him go.
Posted by: WILL | 23 July 2010 at 12:07 PM
Do you mean somebody has the temerity to say no to the self-proclaimed 'world's greatest deliberative body?' They don't have enough to do, or are they finding themselves in need of a bipartisan grandstanding issue?
Clifford, I'm partial to Lagavulin. Also, those parsimonious Scotsmen withhold the 'e' from their whisky.
Posted by: Roy G | 23 July 2010 at 01:39 PM
It would be wise for us to capture the haggis market. Full Spectrum Dominance must include the culinary.
Posted by: optimax | 23 July 2010 at 02:07 PM
All
I am a Lagavulin man myself. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 23 July 2010 at 02:44 PM
Mr. Giraldi,
Congratulations on your position with CNI. I ran across that yesterday.
optimax,
Do we really want to capture the haggis market?
As for the scotch, I say bomb away. What do you expect from a beer drinker?
Posted by: Jackie | 23 July 2010 at 03:00 PM
Lagavulin is a good choice. It would be approximately fifth or so on my list since I'm not all that into sherry.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 23 July 2010 at 03:09 PM