Saturday, November 15, 2003
Well, a classified summary of a decades worth of connections between Usama bin Laden's Al Qaida organization and the Mukhabarat of Saddam Hussein was document dumped onto the lap of Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard. Methinks this is someone on the Senate Intelligence Committee or in the Department of Defense doing a leak to get back at the CIA and the Senate Democrats.
My comments are short and sweet. This document provides the nearest thing to a casus belli we have concerning Iraq. This kind of thing is much more important to the American people than weapons of mass destruction, and it can be used by the Administration to justify further prosecution of the war. Citizen Smash and Roger L. Simon agree with me, to one extent or another. David Adesnik of Oxblog isn't buying it, primarily because of the connection between the memo and known defense Neocon, Douglas Feith.
I for one cannot understand why anyone could conclude that Saddam Hussein, bent on revenge, would avoid an alliance with the world's master terrorist based on the proposition that the two gentlemen have different visions of Islam. In any world, including this one, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
...were hit by suicide bombers this morning. 23 dead at last count. Updates later today.
Friday, November 14, 2003
This night's post by Wretchard at The Belmont Club. Be there, or be Reticulan.
Once in a great while, a blogger will post something that captures the very essence of the conflict. Wretchard's post does it thoroughly, and well.
...has an update on the pending mass demos that will occur when George W. Bush visits the UK next week.
Check the link here.
...has a minor expose of the Democrats' Five Point strategy to retake the White House. Reproduced here courtesy of the Journal by way of Randy Barnett at The Volokh Conspiracy:
(1) "Neutralize Bush's national security edge by fanning doubts about his Iraq policy."
(2) "Craft economic attacks that can work even if the economy keeps improving."
(3) "Dent the president's reputation for honesty and competence."
(4) "Mobilize Democratic partisans in 17 states that Mr. Bush barely won or lost in 2000."
(5) "And maneuver around the new campaign-finance law by redirecting now-banned big donations away from the Democratic Party to a new set of groups that will coordinate attacks on Mr. Bush."
You'll notice that there's nothing there about actually winning the war?
But there is something there about trying to blame Bush for a growing economy. Meanwhile, I'm sure you all picked up on the recent Pew release of the rapid growth in GOP leaners and actual registrants in all the battleground states? What this adds up to is simple. If Bush simply increases his Republican turnout and his take of the swing vote in even a marginal way, he wins by an electoral landslide and walks home with a mandate.
That's my early, very early prediction.
The casualties we are taking in Iraq won't turn that outlook, apparently given the fact that in the wake of the loss of the Chinook, American attitudes have hardened while the U.S. Army appears to have gone over to the offensive.
Sky News, my link, appears to prefer using the Reuters term "militants" instead of "terrorists". I wonder how they would have written about the Allgemeine SS if today's reporters had been present at Auschwitz.
The idiotarians continue on their march to the Radiant Future....
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Anyway, now that I've got that off my chest, Sullivan gets his usual dander up about this treasonous document, and other things. Meanwhile, Armed Liberal over at Winds of Change continues the great "Chickenhawk" debate started by Tom Tomorrow and LT. Smash (who became LCDR Smash and is now off active duty, so he calls himself "Citizen Smash". My take? I sentimentally agree with Smash that the TT strip might have painted pro-war bloggers with a broad brush, but TT's response that he was speaking of "stay at home chickenhawks" only was intellectually defensible. However, it should be noted that Tom Tomorrow's strip was basically another volley against those who are for the war and don't wear the uniform.
Such as yours truly.
My opinion is rather simple. The objective of the charge "chickenhawk" is to silence debate. It is to say, "you don't wear the uniform, you aren't in harm's way, therefore, you have no right to express an opinion in favor of the war." Which would not stop a liberal who isn't in harm's way from expressing his opinion in opposition to the war, so there you have it.
It's a cheap rhetorical trick that should be considered with a mixture of contempt and slight regard for the user.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Monday, November 10, 2003
...have had a stroke of genius.
They have decided to start killing, deliberately I might add, fellow Muslims.
What prats. Go to Andrew Sullivan's take to understand why this was a very stupid thing to do.
Sunday, November 09, 2003
These two blogs, among others, convince me that there will be no Saddamist Restoration.
Finally, a blog I stumbled across two days ago has a thorough and complete strategic survey of the war on terror. Go to The Belmont Club for a superb rendering of the war every two or three days.
Finally, Josh Chafetz of Oxblog gave a stirring defense of the Occupation at a debate given in the Oxford Union three nights ago. It is reproduced at the link and is a must read.