Massive 9/11 roundup on Winds of Change

via Instapundit. Hugh Hewitt had a good memorial post, which started by featuring heroes from the war.

Japanese Election update: Big Win for Koizumi and LDP

Koizumi’s LDP gets an outright majority in the Lower House. The party needed 269 and it looks like it got 296 – better than expected. It’s the first time the LDP has had a outright majority in 15 years. The party will try to urge Koizumi to stay in office for a year after his planned resignation in September of ’06, though he says he won’t.

Katsuya Okada, the head of the LDP’s main opposition party, the DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan), will step down from his position after failing to win a majority. Incidentally, Okada had vowed to bring troops home from Iraq if his party gained a majority.

About half of the LDP dissidents look like they'll survive.

The Nikkei site has some different numbers than Kyodo, but those numbers are displayed in a nice table showing the primary coalitions. What's a little odd is that in a country where you'd be hard pressed to find many people who would profess an interest in politics, the voter turnout is expected to have been up around 67%.

UPDATE: The blogosphere slowly awakes. Roger Simon, who return from Japan last week (and had some good photos here and elsewhere) says that Koizumi looked like a winner last week.

A couple of remarks

When I switched templates, I wasn't thinking and all the comments disappeared. I apologize for this error.

Also, I've had little inclination to post on Katrina. Nothing I would have to say hasn't already been said by others at least a dozen times. After tempers wind down and the rescue efforts fade away, I might change my mind and post on it. Of course, that shouldn't stop anyone else from doing so.

Things are getting cooler in Bagdhad according to this fellow.

Even though people continue to get killed, the numbers have fallen off
noticeably. The number of car-bomb explosions has dropped very sharply in the
past 30 days or so. The factors responsible for this good news are something of
a mystery. The passage of a Constitution gets some of the credit. If that is
true, then the details of how it came about are so arcane as to be
incomprehensible.

Something else that gets credit is the Iraqi Army. There truly are signs
that this army is starting to have some impact on events here. The terrorists
can't simply walk up to a checkpoint, kill everyone in sight, and not take a
very strong risk that they might all be killed in return.

What continues to be whispered, and what I have reported here once or
twice, is the claim that the Iraqi Army is killing hundreds of the terrorists
whom they do arrest. No trials. No niceties. Just a quick shot in the head. I
can neither confirm nor refute this persistent report. But, I hear it so often
that I do tend to believe something along those lines is happening. The victims
of the Army killings (if they are happening) are the former Saddam loyalists who
form the core of the terrorist groups.

It's noteworthy that absolutely no one is bothered by this evidence of an
army that is perhaps running amok.

He seems to have a little different take than he did last month.

Cross your fingers!

In addition to being a day of remembrance, this Sunday is also notable because of the elections in Japan. I know what you’re thinking…since George Bush has taken office, it seems that you can’t sling a dead cat without hitting a significant election, some in places where such events are a true precedent. Of course, Japan has had free and fair elections for many decades – as it is a shining example of U.S. nation building. This particular election is significant for two main reasons. The election, itself, is billed primarily as a referendum on Koizumi’s reform agenda – and specifically his privatization plan for the Japanese postal system. It is also important to the U.S. because Koizumi's fate is tied directly to the election and he has been a strong ally in Iraq as well as with our defense posture in Asia.

On the domestic front, Koizumi has done much to push tough reforms through that have added to the long-term economic health of Japan. The more radical parties would say that he hasn’t gone far enough and that as an LDP member he's still subject to special interests, etc. However, considering the resistance to reform that Koizumi faced when coming into power, his performance has been impressive – most visibly with Japan’s banking system. Indeed, he’s met resistance every step of the way. Now he’s pushing his postal reform bill, which has been a keystone of his reform agenda. This bill seeks to privatize – more or less – an institution that is, in addition to a postal service, the largest financial institution in the world as well as an insurance company. The effects of his proposed reform, so far as I understand it, will reap little short-term benefits but will lay groundwork for future growth. When the lower house of the diet defeated the bill with the aid of 30+ LDP defectors, Koizumi quickly dissolved the parliament and set the upcoming elections. At that time it looked like he had a steep uphill battle, with victory unlikely. If he loses, he will have to resign and his reform agenda will be severely crippled, if not completely abandoned. If he wins, he will remain until the end of his term in 2006 and should be able to push the postal reform through. The boldness he displayed is rare in Japanese politics and has created a level political excitement in a country that is not very politically exciting.

On a party level, the LDP is something else. It’s managed to be the dominant party for over half a century. And it hasn’t done so in the same ways that Mubarak in Egypt has done or the People’s Party in China has done. Opposition parties have been free to campaign and try to win the people’s support. The past decade has seen some erosion of LDP support, but thanks largely to Koizumi, they are expecting a reversal in this trend. And this support seems to be coming from younger people and coming in urban areas – again, showing a reversal to recent trends.

From an American perspective – long term Japanese growth is certainly important for a variety of reasons. A prosperous Japan is good for trade, but it’s also good for a healthy diplomatic landscape in Asia. As mentioned before, it’s important for us that Japan emerge from its pacifist period and become an increasing participant in the War on Terror.

While foreign policy doesn’t seem to be a main deciding factor in the upcoming election (except, perhaps, in regards to the issue of kidnapped Japanese in N. Korea), foreign policy will be affected. Koizumi has led the way in an important transition. He’s sent troops to Iraq – to his own political detriment, he’s reinterpreted the idea of Japan’s national defense and solidified support for the defense of Taiwan, he’s also strengthened ties with Australia, and he has had our back with the 6 party talks. These stances would each suffer a blow if Koizumi finds himself on the way out next week. Inevitably, Japan’s prosperity and survival will rely on these shifts. A Koizumi defeat will make the transition that much more difficult and painful.

For an American, regardless of whether you think Bush is a unilateral knucklehead or a spreader of freedom, you would be hard pressed to justify rooting against Koizumi – unless you are also rooting for a U.S. defeat in Iraq and elsewhere. After all, isn’t it the tagline of Bush haters that we don’t have enough allies? And isn’t Japan one of our main allies? Likewise, our N. Korean strategy (and yes, there is one) would also be compromised and our leverage in dealing with China weakened without a fast friend like Koizumi. In short, no good can come of a Koizumi defeat.

The U.S. has been lucky thus far. The political leaders that make up the Coalition of the Willing have fared well in elections. While we lost Aznar in Spain, Blair and Howard both won. It seems likely that Schroeder will be out and Chirac seems to be weakening (granted, not because of Iraq so much as the domestic issues). A Koizumi victory would continue that trend. The world needs more courageous political leaders like him. Cross your fingers!

My mistake

I'd mentioned previously that Arthur Chenkroff was not doing the Good News series anymore - but that was incorrect. He's still doing them.

Pretty funny stuff

The LA Times is complaining that the Cookie Duster threw in some last minute amendments to reforms that are supposed to be voted on in September - and it might derail the process. I will assume that the paper is speaking for Democrats who filibustered him for months. As for the substance of the amendments - the LA Times is funny there as well.

A day late and a dollar short

So does this mean the war is not over yet? Pretty much any valuable advice Ashley Wilkes has to offer in the post below is stuff that is already being done as part of the plan that, believe it or not, has existed and evolved since the occupation began – even during that “wasted first year”. You have to be blind or devoted to the NYTimes front page not to see a buzz of activity in Iraq that incorporates everything that the retired General is clamoring for. The strategy in place is operating on his three prongs and then some. His refusal acknowlege those efforts makes it virtually impossible to take him seriously. Setbacks? Yes, here and there and all over. No plan? Preposterous. I would suggest that anyone who sees Iraq as a downward spiral skim through just the last Chenkroff Good News in Iraq post (it’s a shame that Chenkroff is no longer doing these long posts – but that doesn’t mean the positive news has stopped). You'll notice winning hearts and minds and infrastructure repair and foreign commitments, et al. No doubt about it: Iraqis are steadily building a new and prosperous country.

And what’s with this line:

On the political side, the timeline[s] for the agreements on the Constitution are less important than the substance. It is up to American leadership to help engineer a compromise that will avoid the "red lines" of the respective factions and leave in place a state that both we and the neighbors can support. So, no Kurdish vote on independence; a restricted role for Islam, and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias.

Is he not aware that the deadlines are postponed as we speak (though they are still relevent) while the three factions hammer out support and substance for the constitution? I don’t understand how Wilkes breezily makes the transition from we’re-moving-too- slow to timelines-are-less-important-than-substance. But regardless, the constitution appears to have many positives, including a prohibition of militias and and quotas for women in the Council of Deputies & much more that will hopefully stay in tact through presenting the draft and getting it ratified. Again, Wilkes seems unaware that most of what he’s calling for is in the process of happening or has already happened. Good thing that the Iraqis are taking the constitution more seriously than the retired general.

Reenlistment well over forecast - again

What does Frank Rich think this means?

A very good, though very long, piece by Lee Harris

Take 2 on the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate.

A comedian with nards?

from the Washington Times:

NORWAY Gunmen target Muslim comic
OSLO -- Unknown assailants yesterday fired shots at an Oslo restaurant owned by the family of a Pakistani-born female comedian who has achieved prominence for lampooning conservative Islam.
Shabana Rehman, 28, whose sister owns the restaurant, called the incident "an appalling act of terror" and said it would not deter her from continuing her work. Miss Rehman has made a career of joking about the cultural divide between Norway's 4.5 million people and its 76,000-strong Muslim community.

ACLU: Effort to Marginalize Indians Succeeding

slightly old

Michael Barone discusses the changing attitudes in the Middle East

His summation:

Two generations ago, Americans, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of
deaths, changed minds in Germany and Japan. The Pew Global Project Attitude's
metrics give us reason to believe that today's Americans, at far lower cost, are
changing minds in the Muslim world.

Captain Ed is the go to place for details on Able Danger

he's been posting pretty heavily on it. Keep scrolling.

Sounds like the Israeli settlers borrowed from the Palestinian playbook

As Sharon is leading Israel through an extremely difficult period

and proving himself to be a tough, far thinking leader - the U.N. is funding Palestinian propoganda.

Earlier today, I decided to take the two tests

that Mat linked to and wondered at the criteria he used to prefer those to mine. I realize the bias in my test as well as the bias on the other two test. However, I noticed that of the two tests, there were 5 questions out of the 20 multiple choice that did not offer a correct answer at all, regardless of your political slant (#1 & #5 on Test One, and #1, #2, #5 on Test Two).

Consider this example:

1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops?

a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to
cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.
b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from
impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of military
personnel.
c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to
stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans.
d. All of the above.

The question asks what the Bush Administration has done to show support for the troops, but then only offers choices that make Bush look bad. What’s more, "d" says "all of the above," instead of none of the above. Perhaps the test writers actually believe that the Bush Administration actions they cited do support the troops? To make this a legitimate question, a "none of the above" option should be included or an actual example of how Bush supports the troops should be added. There are plenty of examples the test writers could have offered – most soldiers know these, the test writers should, too. If the test writers were graded on answerable multiple choice questions provided, they would have a combined average of 75%.

Then there are several questions that were too steeped in subjectivity and chaff to have any adequate answer. The worst examples were #4, #9, #10 from Test One and #4, #10 from Test Two. For example, #4 asked what the al Qaeda threat today is and then offered 3 quotes saying its worse, with a fourth option of “all of the above.” Simple quotes are not facts, and in this case, the quotes did not provide any sort legitimate choice to answer the question. The question could have asked, which of the following are quotes from such-n-such critics of the war. Any college professor that’s not far to the left (I know I’ve narrowed the field quite a bit) would throw these questions out, bringing the test writers average down to 50%. If one were to grade the answer key, the score would be considerably lower.

Some of the questions confused me. Test One Question #7, which mentions that there was not mass slaughter in the Iraq war as in Dresden and Hiroshima, lists some troubling (but unprecendentally light as wars go) examples of Iraqi suffering (which I can’t vouch one way or the other for – accuracy-wise.). What was the purpose of the question? Surely the test writers do not believe that we fought a relatively delicate war that sought to avoid civilian bloodshed? I mean, I believe that, but I have hard time thinking they do.

Test One Question #9 did not stand the test of time too well. I’m sure the line of conspiracy theory has been redrawn a few times since then. Test Two Question #3 has “d” as the correct answer, but option "a" is incorrect. And there seemed to be plenty of that throughout both tests.

I could be wrong (and let me know if you think so), but after going back over the format of my test, I concluded that while admittingly projecting a hawkish view, at least all the questions had correct answers. It’s a shame that the other tests did not – especially since it seems apparent that those fellows spent a great deal more time writing their tests than I did mine.

Take the War on Terror Quiz

For those struggling with the answers, they will be posted in the comments section.

Identify the party most likely to share the sentiment of each statement:

1) No WMDs were found in Iraq, therefore Iraqi WMDs do not exist.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
2) Invading Iraq was a diversion from the Global War on Terror; the London bombing was a result of the Iraqi invasion.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
3) America cannot endure a long and bloody conflict.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
4) America must not endure a long and bloody conflict
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
5) The Iraqi war was a war of choice.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
6) A free and democratic Iraq will promote liberty to the rest of the region.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
7) America can and will be successful in creating a representative government in Iraq with a prosperous economy.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
8) The abuses uncovered at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo have destroyed the US “moral authority” to wage a war on terror. (choose 2)
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
9) If taken prisoner, a warrior should falsely allege abuse.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
10) God’s language is Arabic and our Holy Book expresses His exact words.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
11) God’s voice is beyond human understanding and our Holy Book is a translation so that humans can understand Him despite their own limitations.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
12) God has no place in the town square.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
13) There are instances of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, therefore the war is unjust. (choose 2)
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
14) There is no difference between Saddam’s regime and Bush’s regime. (choose 2)
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
15) If an enemy combatant does not wear a uniform, is not affiliated with a state military, deliberately targets civilians and murders hostages, he is still entitled to POW status should he be captured. (choose 2)
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
16) Mother Sheehan’s authority to criticize the war is absolute, and those critical of her are part of a smear campaign.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
17) Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror. (choose 2)
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
18) Israel has the right to exist and we support that right.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
19) Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
20) If the U.S. retreats from the Middle East and withholds support for Israel, terrorism will go away.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
21) If the war effort is not perfect, then it is an absolute failure.
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists
22) The U.S. should immediately pull its troops out of Iraq. (choose 2)
a. the Right
b. the Left
c. Islamofascists

This looks like it’s going to be difficult.

Here’s praying for a smooth pullout. Will the international community remember this Israeli sacrifice?

Dean wants to be first in line to paint the Iraqi constitution as a failure

His answer back in 2004 was to turn everything over to the U.N., because they would presumably protect women’s rights. Funny how he thought (and may still think) that there was a reservoir of international troops ready to go in once we said pretty please with sugar on top. It’s telling that the party that sees no future sees every bit of news, good or bad, as total defeat.

How’s the government supposed to provide aid to the Palestinians if Mother Sheehan won’t pay her taxes?

The 9/11 Commission omission does the following:

1) Reaffirms the need to tear down the intelligence wall (one of the main reasons to support the Patriot act). In fact, this story points to the possibility that the intelligence wall may have been directly responsible for keeping us from stopping the attacks.
2) Reaffirms my point that the 9/11 Commission is a bipartisan committee that negotiated a report based on facts they could agree on. That the commission would neglect evidence because it did not fit its pre-conceived conclusions makes clear just how unserious the commissioners were in approaching their job. The report may have been interesting because it compiled a timeline, but it was little more than that.
3) It makes me wonder anew what was in Sandy Bergler’s pants.

I say we need to have a commission to look into the commission to find out what they knew and when they knew it. And perhaps another commission to look at the general state of commissions. Why not create a new cabinet post – The Secretary of Commission Overviews, who will answer directly to the President. In turn, the President will answer directly to this secretary. Of course, there will be an independent council to oversee both.

Itai!

A positive view of the negotiations over the Iraqi constitution

a couple good points from the article:

Sharia or Islamic family law, probably the most resilient aspect of the
Holy Law since it culturally underpins the highly stable Muslim home, may make
some comeback in Iraqi law and in the new constitution. In all probability, this
process will not be a Trojan horse, allowing for the subversion of democracy
itself. As long as women have the right to vote and the Iraqi Parliament remains
the supreme chamber for political debate--and neither is seriously in
question--then the inclusion of some aspects of Islamic family law into Iraq's
civil code may well reinforce democracy's chances.

...equal rights between the sexes is not a precondition for the growth of
democracy. If this were so, Western democracy never would have developed.

I'll be darned...Mike Malloy is in a rage about the Air America Scandal

After he convinced himself it was a rightwing conspiracy. A post on BoreAmerica which quotes Malloy:

"This was obviously all part of the Flying Monkey Right's secret plan to
undermine our network! Those Nazi fascist brownshirt bastards - they stole that
money and now they're trying to blame it on us! Damn them! Damn them to hell!"

I'm not sure about that. I'm thinking that Dr. Mabuse and the GOP leadership may recognize that as long as Air America is out there (along with the Daily Kos and Howard Dean) it only benefits conservatives. Unless Malloy thinks it's a triple-double switcheroo, in which case the evil doctor is playing some multi-dimensional mind games well beyond my brain capacity.

Steyn ties it all in with a devestating column

On Hackett's and the "victory":

It was "nearly the biggest political upset in recent history," which is another
way of saying it was actually the smallest political non-upset in recent
history. Hackett was like a fast-forward rerun of the Kerry campaign. He was a
veteran of the Iraq war, but he was anti-war, but he made solemn dignified
patriotic commercials featuring respectful footage of President Bush and
artfully neglecting to mention the candidate was a Democrat, but in livelier
campaign venues he dismissed Bush as a "sonofabitch" and a "chicken hawk" who
was "un-American" for questioning his patriotism.

On the Democrat "platform":

...After the Ohio vote, Dem pollster Stan Greenberg declared that "one of the
biggest doubts about Democrats is that they don't stand for anything." That
might have passed muster two years ago. Alas, the party's real problem is that
increasingly there's no doubt whatsoever about it.

On Bush's education "cuts":

Just for the record, "his cuts to education funding" are cuts only in the sense
that Hackett's performance in the Ohio election was a tremendous victory: that's
to say, Bush's "cuts to education funding" are in fact an increase of roughly 50
percent in federal education funding.

And alas, a point that I've mentioned here before: the need for two parties in a two party system:

Republicans may see the increasingly arthritic, corpulent, wheezing, flatulent
Democratic Party as a boon for them, but I don't. Two-party systems need two
parties, not just for the health of the loser but for that of the winner, too.
Intellectually, philosophically, legislatively, it's hard to maintain the
discipline to keep yourself in shape when the other guy just lies around the
house all day.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Read the whole thing.

Wretchard @ the Belmont Club deciphers a DOD press briefing

and ponders the size and scope of an apparently new operation we have going on the western border.

Lee Harris chimes in on teaching intelligent design and evolution in school

as always, Harris is most thoughtful.

Also through Instapundit

from Gateway Pundit: The Iraqi ambassador to Egypt is a lady (Safia al-Suhail). She's also fighting for women's rights in the upcoming constitution.

Lileks has the skinny on Bolton's first day

via Instapundit

I'm glad that bit of silliness is over....

Bush clarifies: it's still the War on Terror.

Byron York looks at the Dem's preferred phrase: abuse of power

My final thoughts on "Intelligent" Design...

Fucking hell... Intelligent Design taught in schools... why don't we also bring back phrenology as a means of social engineering?
"Well Mr B., due to this occiptal ridge crossing both your undersized eyesockets and merging in the center of your forehead, and the erm... outsized formation of your ears, I'm afraid that the only job we'll ever be able to place you in is sanitation engineer."

Good grief, the rightwing is getting stupider with every passing moment.

The Algerian Connection

good article about the web of affiliates between al Qaeda and Saddam. More investigation is needed.

Red Meat Special

Who’s going to protect minorities and the disenfranchised from Air America? Michele Malkin isn’t counting on Jesse. I'm sure Mike Malloy is beside himself with anger over the scandal.

Double shot of Tech Central

Lee Harris was never comfortable with spreading democracy in the Middle East and explains his reasons using the Iran election as an example.

Michael Fumento thinks Frist was wrong on expanding funding of embryonic stem cell research – and makes some good points.

"No spin - the GOP is on the run"

one win at a time.

As an Oklahoma State football fan, I'm very familiar with moral victories - and that you can rely on them for years.

The myth of control

I've been passing comments on the nonfamous site

like old times here

I'm not sure how it happened

but Liverputty is on the blogroll for Radioblogger. Scroll down to "Ryan Newman Up 'N Comers". I'm guessing it may be because I've linked to Radio blogger in the past.

Austin Bay notices that our stance on human rights got us kicked out of Uzbekistan

Tigerhawk notes: “The next time somebody tells you that the United States
operates without principle, remind them that the Bush Administration walked away
from an important base in central Asia because it stood up for political liberty
in one of the most isolated places on the planet.”

I'm thinking Steve might agree with Krauthammer on this one....

at least partially?

Congrats to the cookie duster!

After months of anxiety, the recess appointment has finally happened. Sorry we couldn't get a vote for you, Mr. Bolton, but you know how it is. Now get in there and start cracking some heads!

Why Truman dropped the bomb

"I'll never talk to a reporter again!"

say's resident crank, Helen Thomas.

"We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't
right. We all say stuff we don't want printed," Thomas said.

BTW - I never realized her resemblence to Ozzie Osborne.

I just don't know what to say about this....

I'm sensing much hate in my old friend.

She's so sassy!

James Lileks had a good rant

over the recent Hugh Hewitt interview with CAIR spokesman, Hussam Ayloush, and Frank Gaffney (radio blogger transcript here). The following is an excerpt from the interview:

HH: And do you agree that Israel was wrongfully attacked in 1948, and in
1973, by Arab states on their borders?
HA: You know what, Hugh? It offends me
when I get...to have to ask...to be asked these questions, as an American. I'm
not a representative of the PLO...
HH: No, I'm just asking...
HA: I'm an American. For me to question...
HH: ...but this...I'm asking you...
HA: No. You know what?
HH: Don't filibuster me, Hussam.
HA: That's not...
HH: This is a very easy question.
HA: No, I'm not doing that. What I'm doing is, I'm being offended because from day one, since the beginning of this show, and even yesterday, every question had to do with Israel and Palestine. Can't we be seen as Americans?
HH: Yes, we can, but...
HA: What do we have to do to be seen as Americans today?
HH: I talk about Israel, I talk about Israel with everyone that comes on this show, and just before we went to break, I think you accused me of being a tool of the Israel government.
HA: No, no. I was talking about Frank.
HH: Well, I don't think Frank's...Frank's my friend. I don't think he's a tool of the Israeli government, either. And so, I wanted to just know if we could agree. Was Israel wrongly attacked in 1948, and 1973?
HA: I'm not an expert on the...
HH: This is not hard stuff, Hussam.
HA: No, it is hard stuff for me. I mean, ask me about American history. I can answer you...
HH: No, I mean 1948, five Arab states attempted to drive Israel into the sea. That was wrong, wasn't it?
HA: I think anybody who tries to attack any other country wrongfully is wrong. If
you...
HH: Can you not bring yourself to say that 1973 was an attack upon...an unprovoked attack by Egypt and Jordan and Syria upon Israel? Because that's why, I think, you don't have...it's trouble getting credibility, because everybody knows it was an unprovoked...an unjust attack on Israel.
HA: I'm interested in gaining credibility as an American. I'm not an expert on the
Middle East. And you know, I could have been born in Pakistan without any
knowledge about the Middle East. Would that make me less of a patriotic
American?
HH: Frank...I mean Hussam, any American who comes on this show, I
don't care if they're Irish Catholic like me, or a Presbyterian or whatever, and
the can't realize that '48 and '73 were horrible attacks upon Israel, that's
wrong.

Red meat language aside, this article captures the current landscape

regarding Roberts and other judicial nominees.

Stephen Hayes wonders why the CIA has changed its assessment of the Saddam/Sudan relationship

Incidientally, I hesitate posting yet another Hayes piece, but I haven't seen many other reporters following up on the Saddam/WMD connections or the Saddam/al Qaeda connections. An enterprising investigative reporter could really pull off some good journalism if he/she could dig up an account of what happened to the unaccounted WMDs.

Leading a bureaucracy into the next millennium

This piece talks about the big reforms that Rumsfeld has been trying to implement at the Pentagon and the many obstacles in his way – whether it’s being at war or facing the institutions inside the military that will, by the very nature of being an institution, resist change. The reformation is certainly imperfect, but the country is extremely lucky to have someone of his vision and determination making necessary changes. It’s good to keep in mind the next time there are reports of grumbling among senior military officials about Rumsfeld doing this or that wrong that the bigger and better the reforms, the more angry and bitter people there will be. If there weren’t gripes being leaked from within the Pentagon, it would mean that Rumsfeld wasn’t doing his job. The same goes for Porter Goss. Often leadership means being an @$$hole.

That he’s done so much while we are also at war is pretty impressive.

“Rumsfeld may be remembered as one of the boldest bureaucratic reformers of his
generation. Whether he will also go down in history as one of the greatest
secretaries of defense remains to be seen.”

My guess is that he will be considered one of the greatest secretaries of war.

The peg has been lifted - if only partially

Bush has a good clear argument for renewing the Patriot Act

It's towards the bottom of the speech.

Did Dr. Mabuse dispatch Ms. Coulter to run yesterday's column

in an effort to confuse the left's response to Roberts?

Bringing democracy to Iraq......except for women

Iraq invasion may be creating more terrorists than we are killing and capturing

"New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank -- both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States -- have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself."

Stephen Hayes wonders why the CIA seems uninterested in the Saddam/al Qaeda links

Christian terrorism punished

Needlenose notices that another abortion clinic bomber (also gay bar and Olympic terrorist) has been convicted for life. Greenboy’s larger point that law enforcement will work on Islamic terrorism is weak, unless it is done vigorously on a domestic front, but at least he points out that Christian militants like Eric Rudolph are not tolerated in this country. I doubt very many churchgoers will lament his incarceration.

Bush's tax cuts have created tax revenue

and the deficit shrank about $100 billion as a result:

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the
full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly
less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."

Of course, critics are talking in circles to shrug off the good news, pointing out that big fiscal problems are still over the horizon - namely Medicare and Social Security.

"Future presidents and future Congresses," said Senator Kent Conrad of North
Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, "are going to be faced
with pressure to drastically cut Social Security and Medicare because of the
decisions being made now."

Would he be referring to the Dems' decision to stonewall Bush's efforts to fix social security?

I thought CEOs had Bush in their back pockets....

Bernie Ebbers: pokey bound. Next up: some Enron suits.

The frilled lizard effect

I was a little uneasy last Monday (or was it Sunday?) when I learned that the Liberal Death star was preparing to fire its super laser at the White House. However, when I actually read the lead story I sighed in relief: it’s the frilled lizard effect all over again? The left has fanned its frills to make it look like there’s something serious here, but it’s really not so. As Mat posted the other day – the LA Times & other papers joined in the attack (at least Mat’s post linked to a column and not an “objective” news story)…and don’t forget the senators who have said that Rove should be fired: Biden, Clinton, Reid, Kerry and Schumer (I'm sure there are others).

That anyone is in jail for this whole silly affair is pretty darn ridiculous – but I would put the blame for Miller’s incarceration at the feet of those who cried for an investigation in the first place. And it’s a little ironic that the left uses a moment of candor from Dr. Mabuse, when he apparently alluded to Cooper that Mrs. Plame was the reason Joe Wilson was assigned to cover uranium in Niger, as a reason for the evil doctor to be fired. Aren’t these the same people that think the administration is too secretive? Yet, when the administration loosens it lips, even a little, these same folks try to use that candor against them. And counter to what the left believes – Rove has turned out to be the honest one, while Wilson is the proven liar. This “scandal” is so contrived that even Wonkette says there is nothing there (did I just link to Wonkette for something that wasn't potty humor?) – but it’s all the left has anymore. As I've said before, the real outrage is that Joe Wilson was sent by the CIA to Africa in the first place.

Assessing the London bombings

There are a handful of ways to interpret today's bombings, depending on the evidence you use or the mindset you use to review the evidence:

The offensive operations (Afghanistan, Iraq) the U.S. has taken since 9/11 prevented this from occurring on U.S. soil.
The defensive operations taken since 9/11 prevented this from occurring in the U.S.
Iraq is the new training ground for terrorists, giving them real-world experience in blowing stuff up.
No matter what preventative measures you take, if your enemy wants to hit you badly enough, he will.


Virgin Radio out of the U.K. is real solemn this afternoon. You can check it out on iTunes Radio under Alt/Modern Rock.

Happy Independence Day Everybody

Posting will be light to non existent over the coming weeks.

The President's speech was dead on

It's been a tough road...we're prevailing...complete the mission. The site to support the troops mentioned by the President is here.

Shelby Foote died

(via The Corner)

Have I missed it?

I've been checking the SF Chronicle for Sean Penn's reports from Iran - but to no avail. Has anyone else noticed it?

"Everything we heard about operations there in the past, we'd have to say, was negative. What we saw firsthand was something different" - Sen. Nelson

Two Democrats recently back from Gitmo see no signs of abuse.

China confiscates Japanese textbooks headed for Japanese School in China

because Taiwan was the wrong color on the maps.

Real torture

It shouldn’t be too hard to tell which side I meant.

By “crapping on” I wasn’t referring to the people who are leading an imperfect war, which we are winning. Rather, I was talking about the people who seem incapable of uttering the word Iraq without also bringing up Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, or the litany of negatives directed at the Commander in Chief. You know, the ones who seem hellbent on losing Vietnam all over again – not because the want to see our soldiers suffer, but because they want to see the President fail. Troop levels and body armor are legitimate points of debate, but when Senator x harps on troop numbers and then wants to know when the troops will be coming home – or when Senator’s x, y, z use stories of prisoner abuse to say we’ve lost moral authority – their interests in winning the war become suspect to me. The main problem for these people is that they actually believe the previously linked cartoon is accurate.

Re: the Rumsfeld story. Although he miscalculated the longevity of the Baathist’s resistance, he was right about one thing: they are part of a dying cause. What would be the appropriate response from a Defense Secretary at that time? His response was the right one to make.

I couldn't tell by the "crapping" headline which side you meant

Because it can certainly be argued the administration is crapping all over the war effort - too few troops, too little body armor up-front, and Rumsfeld's comment about dead-enders ---- 2 years ago!!!!!! So forgive me if I find it a little hard to believe Cheney when he says the insurgency is in its last throes.

Speaking of which, I thought this was a nifty little cartoon.

Boy does my colon feel a lot cleaner now that I got that out of my system.

How is the recent Supreme Court decision not a violation of the Bill of Rights?

For:
Stevens
Kennedy
Souter
Ginsburg
Breyer

Against:
O'Connor
Scalia
Thomas
Rehnquist

Condi's Cairo Speech

good stuff!

It is hard to take someone seriously when they crap on the war effort for 2 years

and then whine when someone questions their judge-u-ment.

Allah may be experiencing an acute shortage of virgins

or is it a shortage of cute virgins?

Mark Steyn on tsunami aid, the U.N. and helping Africa

free sign-in required - sorry.

Congressional tears are rarely moving and are usually an embarrassment

and Durbin's apology is no different. I still don't think he knows what he did wrong. Anyway, Hewitt has a good post on Gitmo. And Lileks Screedblog is a welcome addition to the blogosphere. I just wish he would post more on it and made it easier to link to.

Red on red: when terrorists start whacking each other, we all win

and it appears to be a trend.

The Middle East needs castor oil

and Dr. Rice is administering it.

How times have changed

Hussein misses Reagan (via Drudge):

"He said, 'I wish things were like when Ronald Reagan was still
president,"' said one of the soldiers who guarded him....

President Bush and his father, former President George H. W. Bush, are "no
good," while former President Bill Clinton was "OK," Saddam told his
captors.

Japanese-American alliance

strong and getting stronger.

I've been detected on Jay's radar screen

and we've engaged in a tit for tat.

Good for Dean

Torture House in Iraq

Invasion in Iraq more popular with Iranian people than Americans

While Iran gets ready for un-free elections, Roger Simon notes an interesting poll where 74% of Iranians feel that American presence in Iraq will help their own quest for freedom. There are some other interesting points in the survey as well. I’m not sure how valid the numbers are, but it can’t be bad news for us.

Senator shows astonishing lack of sense

If I read you this quote likening Americans to Nazis and Soviets and Pol Pot, you would certainly expect it to come from a hard left source like CounterPunch or the Progressive, which does not believe in the War on Terror. Sadly, that is not the case. This was a comment from Senate Minority Whip, Dick Durbin:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing
what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly
believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad
regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that
is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their
prisoners."

The system works - checks and balances alive and well

The rubber stamp voted to prohibit authorities from getting library and book purchase records. Seeing as how this measure was never used, it shouldn't be missed. Also, it is now legal to send toothpaste to Cuba (very bottom of article).

The encouraging word here is "former"

Yasukuni Shrine

This may only be of interest to me, but lately, anytime there’s a store about Sino-Japanese relations, the Yasukuni Shrine is mentioned because of some war criminals that are honored there. Here’s some background information on the site.

Free Katie

Advocates of a Downing Street Memo Investigation are humbugs trying to be bugbears

To answer Mat’s query (and title of the linked story): “Could memo sink Bush?” Well, based on previous gotcha memos, no. To the contrary, the Downing Street Memo (produced here in full by anti-Bush factions) provides some information that exonerates Bush of the most egregious charge laid against him that he lied about WMDs. While the picture painted by the memo does reveal differences between the British and American approach to Saddam, it also shows that in life, we often have to plan and react to things we do not fully know – or as Donald Rumsfeld would say (and I paraphrase): there are things you know, things you know that you don’t know and things you don’t know that you don’t know.

I’m guessing that when the Downing Street Memo site highlights something in red, it means I’m supposed to raise an outraged eyebrow and demand answers.

In talking about the shift in the administration’s attitude during the summer of 2002 the conspiracy theorists underline a phrase they feel is damning to the president:

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam,
through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But
the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

But what does that mean, fixed? Nothing else in the memo suggests that the word “fixed” would imply changing data or creating evidence – so it is more than reasonable to assume that it simply means that they were gathering available evidence to support their position, carving raw intelligence to form an argument. This is what every good diplomat, CEO, project manager….in short, anyone trying to achieve anything, would do.

Another point in the memo that is highlighted in red and partially underlined:

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if
the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not
threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya,
North Korea or Iran.

….the case was thin. The statement means little on its own, less when taken in context. Out of context, it implies that the case was weak. After all, the intelligence we had was circumstantial (exiles telling their stories, satellite photos or very suspicious Iraqi phone conversations) or old (previous WMD that are still unaccounted for). For a leader, lack of information over a specific problem does not mean that inaction is the best course or even an option. And the evidence that did exist pointed to one responsible conclusion: that Saddam had had, probably still had and seeked more WMDs. It also showed that he had ties to terror and was a bad influence on the region. Taking Saddam out was essential in defeating Islamic terrorism. No other assessment on the president’s part would be reasonable. In context, the memo goes on:

Saddam was not threatening his neighbors

This is a misleading statement that differs from some hard facts at the time (2002). First, Saddam was funding terrorism – no doubts there. The extent of his ties can be debated, but he did support terror. Second, one reason that he was not threatening the Kurds or Kuwaitis is that we maintained a purse draining No Fly Zone over those areas, in which Iraqis exchanged fire with US forces on a pretty routine basis. It’s like we were holding the arm of a threatening man behind his back. He’s temporarily disabled but better not let him go, lest he become a threat again. Meanwhile, the containment effort was slowly eroding, thanks, in part, to French influence (and others) which pressed to lift sanctions for the better part of 12 years. To these folks, it seems that the Kurds were of no concern.

….and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

This point undercuts the Bush-lied-about-WMDs because it assumes that Saddam had them. Otherwise, the memo wouldn’t say his WMD capability was less than the others, but would say something like, while Iraq has no WMDs….these other countries do, etc. The reason for highlighting this portion of the memo is to suggest the following: country A has less WMD than country B, C, or D. Therefore, country A is the lesser threat. Now that is not necessarily so, but let’s assume for a moment that it is. The subsequent conclusion seems to be: since countries B,C, & D are greater threats than country A, no action should be taken against country A (or action should first be taken against B,C, D before A). This argument is used again and again by anti-Bush factions. Yet, it is over simplistic and makes for poor foreign policy. First, it assumes that the only difference in each problem is in terms of the level of danger, not the nature of the danger. In reality, the aims and ambitions of Libya are different than Iran or N. Korea or Iraq. Therefore, the way that each country would use their WMD programs will vary in accordance with those aims. The simplistic argument also assumes that each problem posed by countries A – D are completely isolated from each other, which is certainly not the case. Action taken on any one of these countries will affect the other countries, since they all have some level of relations with each other. The point is, attacking the greatest threat first is not necessarily wise.

As an aside, consider this often used argument: 15 of the highjackers were Saudi, why didn’t we invade them? Well, there are several reasons (which I’ve cited before): Saudi Arabia, as bad as their government is, is solidly within the community of nations. If its UN support your after, good luck getting that resolution to topple the house of Saud. Also, and I’m not believer in the Arab street, but if you did take action against Saudi Arabia, what better way to mobilize Arabs against America than invading the country with the most sacred Muslim sites, include the very big Kabba Stone? You’d be attacking the only country that receives millions and millions of pilgrims each year. Whereas going after Saddam splits Muslims, confuses the Arab Street and keeps jihad at bay. Arabs have hated Saddam for so long that it’s hard to rise up in his defense regardless of what they think about the US. Sometimes attacking the direct root of a problem is not the best course. Surround it, isolate it – make it change. And we’ve seen the beginning of change in the Middle East. Can you imagine Saudis arguing for the women suffrage in 2001, 2002 or even 2003?

In regards to threats of Libya, Iran and N. Korea – as previously mentioned, the administration rightly recognizes that they are each different in nature, as is stated in an un-highlighted portion of the memo:

There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran.

We’ve seen progress in Libya. Iran and N. Korea are tougher nuts to crack and the Iraqi approach is necessarily adequate. These problems will be resolved in time.

Another point that is highlighted in the memo is this statement:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base
for military action.

The scope of the Attorney-General’s assessment is narrow and focuses merely on legalities. The un-highlighted sentence that follows reveals just how legal the war was:

There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention,
or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case.
Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might
of course change.

And change it did, especially in regards to the relevant UNSC resolutions. Self-defense issues are defined by our elected leaders. If Bush failed, then the people would not have reelected him. Mass graves alone back up the humanitarian justification for the war, and so does the massive Oil for Fraud scandal. Finally, 1441, however spun, justifies the war because Saddam did not comply with it and subsequently faced “serious consequences” as called for in the resolution. For Bush supporters, he achieved 3 out of 3 of the criteria for a legal war. For Bush haters, they are deceiving themselves if they don’t grant Bush 2 out 3 (in a fit of generosity, I’ll not include the self defense reason). If the criteria for a just war as set in this memo are accepted, then the memo justifies the war.

The rest of the highlighted portions deal with the difference between approaches. The US did not want to go the U.N. route. That was clear enough at the time. Bush correctly saw problems in doing so. Blair wanted diplomatic cover. Neither felt that Hussein would ever comply with the U.N. resolutions – which turned out to be a dead on prediction. One reason why Bush was already resolved towards going to war is that he knew that Saddam could and would not change his ways. That doesn’t betray a thick-skull shortcoming on the part of Bush, but does towards Saddam. Even the Brits in the memo acknowledge that Saddam wouldn’t even accept inspections unless he felt the military threat was real. In this case, it was very real. If you’re going to blame the war on bad leadership, then Saddam is your man, not Bush.

But of this difference between Blair and Bush with ultimatums and diplomacy, one thing is strikingly clear: Bush’s willingness to compromise and listen. Bush didn’t want to go the U.N. route because it would slow everything down, but he did so. And it slowed things down. In fact, Bush has a record of accommodating differing points of view: he went to congress and the UN even though he didn’t care to do either. He started the Dept. of Homeland Security amidst Dem cries that we need a new department (I still don’t like that one), he allowed for the 9/11 Commission, and so on and so forth.

But back to the memo.

One of the most interesting portions of the memo was not highlighted by the conspiracy theorists:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if
Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could
also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

Again, its clear that the Administration did believe Saddam had WMDs. So much so that they even worried about it.

And then there’s this underlined part raising questions about the administration’s timing in the march to war:

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to
put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the
most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January,
with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

Within 30 days of US Congressional elections? Egad! An elected official factoring in elections with his policy – the outrage! It’s a vague statement, but lets apply the worst possible motive – that Bush wanted a majority in Congress for the war and his domestic agenda. Is that wrong? Woe to the democratically elected official (and all his efforts) if he doesn’t consider the politics of it all. Of course, if we lived in the theocracy that so many Bush haters think we do, he could’ve simply postponed or discarded elections and paid little heed to political implications – you know, like Saddam would do.

One would think that with the left’s recent experiences with memos that they’d be gunshy about this one. This particular memo is interesting because it shows a delicate issue debated and handled in a professional way. It also shows that while Bush is open minded to the views of Blair, he was also resolved to handle Iraq – from start to finish. But Bush opponents are so overwhelmed with the desire to see the man destroyed that they would endeavor to petition for a full investigation of the facts in and around this memo. Think of the consequences if they achieved their wildest aim – that somehow Bush was found to use false pretenses for the war. Not only would it compromise support for the Commander in Chief, it would undermine the whole War on Terror. Our military would hemorage morale and our enemies will be further emboldened to continue the war. Trying to bring Bush down, no matter how much you hate him, would hurt the U.S. (and U.S. credibility) in so many ways. This war is hard enough to fight as it is, we don’t need such a development. In reality, such an investigation would merely be a waste of tax dollars that go to create (or add to) a perception of wrongdoing where none exists.

It's just a Sissy Slap glove!

Lileks has the best take on the all the "torture" going on at our Gulag in Paradise. I can see the cat in that Warner Bros. cartoon with the Wheel of Doom (or whatever it was call) screaming "Not the Sissy Slap glove! Oh, God, anything but the Sissy Slap glove! No!!" It beats Udai style torture.

A couple of takes on China

Kissinger provides some wise diplomatic counsel. He’s more optimistic about reducing tensions and arms along the Taiwan Strait than I would be, but does recognize it as a wild card to China’s overall foreign policy (or as they would have it, their domestic policy). Mark Steyn nails China’s problems on the nose: 1) the Chinese will be successful in the international community if the commies don’t screw it up - "The internal contradictions of Commie-capitalism will, in the end, scupper the present arrangements in Beijing"; 2) "'One country, two systems' will lead to two or three countries, three or four systems"; 3) China currently doesn’t respect intellectual property rights and that’s to their own detriment - "The new China's contempt for the concept of intellectual property arises from the old China's contempt for the concept of all private property: because most big Chinese businesses are (in one form or another) government-controlled, they've failed to understand the link between property rights and economic development..."; and 4) Beijing is opposed to free speech - "If a blogger attempts to use the words 'freedom' or 'democracy' or 'Taiwan independence' on Microsoft's new Chinese internet portal, he gets the message: 'This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech.' How pathetic is that? Not just for the Microsoft-spined Corporation, which should be ashamed of itself, but for the Chinese government, which pretends to be a world power but is terrified of words."

Steyn also quickly points out that while Philip Bennett, the Washington Post's managing editor, says that if he were a young career seeking journalist, he'd go to China because that's where the exciting stuff is, China has the record of arresting the more journalists than any other nation. That's including NYTimes journalist, Zhao Yan, who's been held without trial since September (I don't think he qualifies as an enemy combatant). As with all Steyn columns, it is worth a read.

Krauthammer on Original meaning and Supreme Court Precedent

When Scalia and Thomas differ, I tend to side with Thomas. Krauthammer makes a good argument as to why Thomas should be the next Chief Justice.

Austin Bay talks about the porous Syrian border and the flypaper effect of invading Iraq & how that put al Qaeda in a dire predicament

From the Washington Post article cited in Austin's post:

Their goal, he [Abu Ibrahim] said, is restoration of the Islamic caliphate, the
system that governed Muslims before the rise of nation states. Abu Ibrahim said
he regarded Afghanistan during the Taliban rule as one of the few true Islamic
governments since the time of Muhammad.

And there’s a few other longing references to the Ottoman Empire. You’d think that if any memories of the Ottoman rule were passed down at all there’d be absolutely no pan-Muslim traction. The pre-colonial days were just as bad, if not worse than the colonial/nation-state days. The Turks provided a leadership that epitomized decadence and incompetence in a way no elected western official could never do. Strange, since Osama uses western decadence as a rallying cry. For centuries, that Muslim empire was the sick man of Europe and provided complete ineffectual leadership for the region. Far from destroying the Ottoman Empire, the West propped it up long past its rightful collapse because they feared the vacuum such a collapse would cause. That fear is the same one that has made the west prop up the current dictatorships for so long. Bottom line: artificial stability is bad, bad all around.

Oh yeah, and the innocence destroyed at various bombed out weddings? Well, it was not so innocent:

Afterward, Abu Qaqaa was arrested by the Syrian authorities, but he was released
within hours. By 2002 the anti-American festivals were running twice weekly,
often wrapped around weddings or other social gatherings. Organizers called
themselves The Strangers of Sham, using the ancient name for the eastern
Mediterranean region known as the Levant, and began freely distributing the CDs
of the cleric's sermons.

And other destruction of innocence:

"Once the Americans bombed a bus crossing to Syria. We made a big fuss and said
it was full of merchants," Abu Ibrahim said. "But actually, they were
fighters."

For once, I believe a terrorist. Both Austin’s post and the Washington Post story of Abu Ibrahim are worth reading.

I am now an adult....

I saw the new Star Wars and it was better than I thought it would be. Some observations and complaints (if you don’t want any spoiler, don’t read this post):

• the hardware was pretty cool & I liked the evolutionary aspect connecting Episode 3 to Episode 4 – good design work in all the movies
• As with 1 & 2, the space battle scenes were too busy and it was difficult to see some stuff
• Anakin’s acting did not detract from the movie, but ironically Ewan McGregor’s performance was flat – though there’s only so much an actor can do with flat dialogue
• There was no reason to make one of the wookies Chewbacca
• I thought Obi Wan told Luke that Darth Vader hunted down and killed the Jedi, which wasn’t true for the bulk of Jedi (not according to Plan 66)
• Jedis do not respond well to treachery
• The Jedi Council is not very likeable (Palpatine had some good lines of criticism about them)
• Apparently the Dark Side gives Yoda indigestion
• The final fight scene should have been on a volcano, not a volcano planet
• I wish the Christopher Lee character played a bigger role in both movies
• Both Yoda and Samuel Jackson improved their saber fighting skills, which was not impressive in Episode II
• I guess it took 20 years to make the first Death Star and about 5 to make the second – an unnecessary shot in the end
• So C3PO and R2’s memory was erased in Episode 3, what about Darth’s? since he didn’t have any memory of either robot or didn’t sense any disturbance in the Force when he was interrogating Leia or sending out search parties on Tatooine
• Whereas Episode 4 & 5 allowed you to follow the story, Episodes 2 & 3 jumped around so much that the time perspective was awkward
• Cool to see the production lines of the proto-star destroyers because it gave some perspective to the size of the ships
• Frankenstein Darth yelling "Noooooo!" was hammy
• When the movie takes us to the pure white corridors in a CR90 Blockade Runner, it's like going back home again

Friedman's not alone in wanting to close down GITMO

In this article where Egypt's Foreign Minister urged that Koran desecraters be held accountable (he didn't seem at all concerned with the more numerous incidents of detainee desecration to the book) - there was a troubling call from Biden:

Also Sunday, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting
record), D-Del, said in Washington the United States should move toward
shutting down the military prison camp in Cuba, calling it "the greatest
propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world."

Hmm, I thought liberating Iraqis was the biggest propoganda tool for recruiting terrorist. I just don't get this urge to appease anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.

Urine on the Koran? Don't blame the Pentagon, blame those window stickers...

Despite releasing their findings in time for the weekend dump, the Pentagon will doubtless suffer a little heartburn this week, not for anything it did wrong, per se, (unless you consider accounting for investigating allegations and releasing that information to be wrong) but because the word "urine" is sure to color the news.

From Austin Bay: Terrorist Win, 15 to 5 - When it comes to desecrating Korans, nobody beats a Muslim. They’re good at it. For anyone wanting to exonerate Newsweek's story, well don't bother because the Koran flushing turned out to be the work of a (incontinent? manipulative?) detainee. Hardly surprising since the Koran corresponds with the terrorists’ other toiletries. I’m glad to see that Austin's commenters recall when Palestinian terrorists in Bethlehem were held up in the Church of the Nativity and how they squeezed the Holy Bible like it was Charman and soiled its pages as they pooed in the pews and made a mess out the place.

Tim Blair has the best take on the matter. I'm thinking that if Louis Black was the edgy and envelop-pushing comic that he pretends to be, then the cover of Nothing Sacred would have such funny art.

Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias doesn't go for "the other side is worse" argument. I'm not sure why not. When an American guard does something bad to the Koran, the military has investigations. Indeed, the amount of incidents at GITMO reveal and incredible pattern - that of respect and deference towards the Koran. Meanwhile, in the Muslim world, there seems to be an open season on Korans, whether they are confiscated and destroyed outside Mecca's Wahabi gates, incinerated in a targeted Mosque or defiled by killing the bodies of Muslims that carried them. If Matthew refuses to see the difference, who can change his mind? It's not a situation where we are bad, but not as bad as the other side, but rather that at least we are trying to do the right thing while the other side is indiscriminately and remorselessly killing people (and Korans) Of course, I'd be out of line if I expressed outrage at a urine spritzed Koran or even a kicked one. While I don't particularly have an urge to tamper with anyone's holy book, I'm still an advocate of burying every dead terrorist with a ham hock; it's the Ethan Edwards in me.

Lee Harris has an extremely impressive essay in Policy Review

dealing with tradition, moral relativism, etc. It's lengthy but a must read!

There should be a recess appointment for Bolton