Rumsfeld: No ‘Hard Evidence’ of Iraq-Al Qaeda Link. The backpedal may engage a public coaster brake.
Gordon Cooper passes away. Rest in peace, sir.
As you can tell,
I’m busy. To put it in the words of a famous American ... “It’s hard work. We’re making progress. It’s hard work.”
“Da Vinci Code”, copied from prior art?
Notions of Beauty, Umberto Eco. “The media continue to serve up warmed-over versions of 19th-century iconography - the Junoesque opulence of Mae West and the anorexic charms of the latest fashion models; the dusky beauty of Naomi Campbell and the Nordic beauty of Claudia Schiffer; the grace of traditional tap dancing in A Chorus Line and the chilling futuristic architectures of Blade Runner; the femme fatale of dozens of television shows or advertising campaigns and squeaky clean girls-next-door such as Julia Roberts or Cameron Diaz; Rambo and RuPaul; George Clooney with his short hair and neocyborgs who paint their faces in metallic shades and transform their hair into forests of coloured spikes, or shave their heads.”
NY Times Op-Ed:
Mr Safire, this member of the “Democratic Whoopee Brigade” finds that pre-emptive nuclear conflict *was* part of the great doctrine. You say:
“Hold on; nuclear pre-emption was never America’s ‘great doctrine’ during confrontation with the Soviets. Our strategic doctrine, which some of us remember, was at first “massive retaliation,” later “mutual assured destruction.’’ Maybe arms control negotiators listed pre-emption or preventive war as a dangerous notion of extremists, but only kooks portrayed by the likes of Peter Sellers called for a nuclear final solution to the Communist problem.”
The US Budget for Fiscal Year 1983: “US Defense policies ensure our preparedness to respond to and, if necessary, successfully fight either conventional or nuclear war.”
Look at history. Of course pre-emption was part of the ‘doctrine.’ The Soviets were considering it. To not have contemplated it, strategized responses to it, would be to remove a vitally important part of our overall nuclear defense stratey. “Winnable nuclear war” was discussed back when Pipes was advisor to the NSC.
If “hawkishness” is the impetus to militarily make the towns challenged by insurgency safe, then give me more hawkishness. It will get us out sooner, and Iraq more stable ... better than the Bush ‘sitzkrieg’, waiting for the next RPG to burn another unarmored aluminum-skinned HumVee. When the towns are cleared, the military presence can recede, reducing strife ... and the police presence (more appropriate for the purpose) can move in, hopefully staffed by Iraqis. Dove/Democrats, most of them, understand this ... no matter the spin.
A surge in voter registrations. Historically, an increase in voters helps Democratic causes.
A quiet Republican voice against the Administration. A moderate Republican. We see those only in museums these days.
“Do Not Call” list wins in Supreme Court. Free speech, my exhaust pipe. Since when does free speech tie up your phone lines, cost you time, money and frustration?
Who was at my front door today? A baby coachwhip snake. About a foot and a half. I played “Crocodile Hunter”, gently using a stick to hold it still, grasped it firmly behind the head, and walked it down to the bottom of my yard. Upon release it was quite angry, coming at me trying to bite. Bright red mouth. I never really thought about the color of the inside of snake mouth before. I convinced it to head for the nearest foliage. It had obviously been enjoying the warm flagstones on my front porch. Note to self: for the next couple of weeks, be sure to wear *shoes* when tromping around the porches and courtyards at twilight.
Forget who’s buried in Grant’s tomb. Where’s Christopher Columbus buried?
Easier viewing for your laptop. [Perfect for political conventions, I’d wager. Can’t see the action from the cheap seats anyway.] But scroll down, check out those Tri-Grips! Cool. I’ll have to figure out how to further rigidify my own ‘low-cost’ solution ... silver and white windshield sun shades.
“But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”
— First Debate Transcript.
The question was over the ‘new’ doctrine of pre-emption. Mr Kerry’s “global test” seems to consist of American governmental support, American citizen support, and understanding (not necessarily approval or support) from the UN, allies, and other nations. If I nitpick down to semantics and assumptions based on common sense.
Mr Kerry should express this forcefully once in a campaign rally, then move on to attack other opposition positions, leaving John Edwards to fill it out when necessary.
Later: Check the McLaughlin Group transcript over the debate. I don’t know whether to be elated or chastened by this:
MR. BUCHANAN: “Kerry has to win.”
Bush takes a beating from everyone other than the token flack.
NY Times Letters to the Editor:
Making Decisions about how to Die. The second one.
The option nobody’s pushing. Yet. The question on youth’s mind ... draft?
SF New Mexican:
SF New Mexican:
NY Times Editorial:
Confronting Tom DeLay. Mentioned in previous posts, defenders of the President say, “He’s not a fact-checker” ... in this article, Delay says “All I did was help raise money.” The buck doesn’t stop anywhere.
Later: Washington Post extrapolates a bit more.
NY Times Editorial:
Fixing social security. A good read. I agree ... neither candidate is dealing honestly and forthrightly over the issue. Ages should raise with life expectancy, and there should be progressivity inserted. The Democrats have screamed “the sky is falling”, while the Republicans have quietly plotted to privatize the whole shebang. Don’t throw out the old jalopy and buy a new car ... put a modern engine in the old beast, steer small and we’ll get there. In envied style.
Skewed Intelligence Data in March to War in Iraq. To me, very late to field this, interesting as it is. We discussed and debunked the tubes on the leftward side of the aisle in the weblog world after it was made public, a loooong time ago. Here’s an interesting timeline. The tubes were just one leg of a many-legged ‘reasons for war’ octopus. I look back in my archives, and see my head was spinning at the time [scroll down to ‘ny times analysis, bush doctrine for war’].
today I’ve run across more articles using subsets of that item I found in National Review yesterday. The accepted interpretation seems to be, Kerry won on style, but Bush won on the idealogical substance he was unable to coherently articulate ... and that he was off his game. They then go to great lengths to fill in Mr Bush’s blanks for him. Pure Reagan-era, for those who remember. Reagan would field some wing-nut claim, and the aides, press secretary and chief of staff would ‘interpret’ the idealogy for the media the next day.