Also apropos of nothing, I don't own a gun, but I am feeling happy today to be the owner of every Stevie Wonder album recorded between 1972 and 1976 plus a killer live version of "Fingertips, part 2" from 1963.
on
| § 0
Mike "Screedy McScreed" Hendrix links to an interesting article which claims that the libervasion of Iraq has put the money squeeze on many Middle Eastern terrorist organizations, which had been receiving funding from Iraq.
Huh. The linked article, which is from WorldNetDaily and therefore not exactly without bias, doesn't cite any sources for this information, so I am taking it with an enormous grain of salt. Hopefully this is true; it would be a big victory in the War! On! Terror!, not to mention a nice bit of action-not-words to put the critics of Iraq policy to bed.
If it is true, I hope that very soon we see somebody from the Administration, maybe Rummy or Bremer, parading around with heads on sticks for all to see. That would be a big help.
on
| § 0
Apropos of nothing, I am feeling happy today that I own a Savage Arms 1300 12 gauge double barrel shotgun and a Kimber custom .45.
on
| § 0
Steven den Beste has a lengthy (even by his standards) discussion of the whole iraq invasion thingie. (Thingie! Thingie!) It sums up, no it explains in great detail most of what I think about the subject. That sounds pathetic, but it is convenient having someone like Clueless around - as he has vastly more time available than I do, and can write these articles while I am reduced to saying, "Yeah, what he said!"
Despite Clueless' exhaustive treatment of the subject, I do have some comments.
If we are not complaining about the sixteen words in particular, but are saying that this is indicative of a larger misdirection-spin-maybe even lying pattern on the part of the Bush administration, there are certainly arguments that can be made.
But the reason that all of the rhetoric coming out of the Bush administration back before the livervasion centered on WMD is simple - because the diplomatic battles were being fought in and around the UN. I remember the administration saying that WMD was not the only reason to invade. I also remember that they were discussing WMD as a direct result of the decision to go to the UN for a resolution, and then a second.
Even from the bully pulpit, there is a limit to how much you can address. Given the international political situation (the domestic was never much of an issue - Congress had signed off months before) it is understandable that much of what they were saying was all about WMD. And they were trying to make the most persuasive case that they could.
I also remember that there was little if any debate over the fact that Saddam had WMD - those who were against intervention were saying that inspections could solve the problem - but they agreed that it was a problem. And Saddam was in clear violation of countless UN resolutions.
I never thought that going to the UN was a good idea, and one of the reasons was that we would end up here, having this argument. This is a war on terror, not on Iraq, or on Al Qaeda in particular. This is one part of it. And one reason we are there is because Iraq is low hanging fruit.
It is indeed a mystery where the WMD went, because we know for a fact that Iraq had them as recently as five years ago. But this was never the primary issue. It was merely the most convenient reason to focus on, of many. So, this doesn't bother me because I never thought it was the primary reason. (Although, it definitely was a reason.)
Moving on to some other issues, we have gotten terrorists in Iraq, and closed terror training camps. Most of this related more to the Palestinian terrorists than Al Qaeda, but that is not an issue - terrorism is terrorism. The ultimate fate of the WMD is important, and I think we'll eventually figure it out.
Heads should start rolling in the intelligence community. More on that later. We don't have enough troops, and more on that later. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are still allies, but look how Pakistan has altered its behavior for the better. I think some have hoped that the Saudis would do the same, but I think that given their internal politics that is unlikely. I fervently hope that the day of reckoning for those bastards is near.
on
| § 1
Drudge is reporting that Cleveland's favorite ex-mayor was sleeping during Blair's speech to congress. Kucinich insists that he was taking notes. I used to give that excuse in High School.
Maybe he was planning the Department of Peace that he's going to create when he becomes President.
on
| § 0
My favorite drink that I never enjoyed is the Marion Berry - which I mentioned once in a previous blog life. The recipe:
1oz Bourbon
1oz Jaegermeister
1oz Kahlua
1oz Coke
This drink was invented by Jonah Goldberg and his friends, who wanted to create a drink, "So black, not even the man can keep it down."
Aside from that, I have always enjoyed this nasty concoction - the gin gimlet - which I picked up from Raymond Chandler:
3oz Devil Gin
1oz Rose's Lime
mix, shake with ice, strain, drink and grimace
on
| § 5
Dan Drezner has linked to an interesting discussion about the WMD/16-words debate. Drezner himself operates along Buckethead's lines, and has very kindly collected responses to his views. Kieiran Healy of Crooked Timber agrees with me in maintaining that in and of itself, the question of who let the African Uranium thingy into the State of the Union Address isn't that important. Rather,
The substance of the President's case for war is what matters, and it had everything to do with "the WMD issue." If that case was built on a series of lies - immediate threat, 45-minutes to deployment, uranium from Niger and all the rest of it - then that is something to get exercised about.
That pretty much fits with what I've been saying, and predictably many conservatives differ.
John Cole argues that there were four main arguments for going to war with Iraq: The Weapons of Mass Destruction; Iraq's being in material breach of UN resolutions; the humanitarian mission; and terrorist ties. Since the missing Uranium was only part of one of the reasons, it is insignificant.
I disagree with the importance and even accuracy of these arguments, as detailed elsewhere. What really sticks in my craw is this: the overwhelming message coming from Bush in early '03 was not one of humanitarian missions (otherwise we'd be libervading half the countries in the world). Nor was it Iraq's terrorist ties, which didn't get a whole lot of speech-time (I at least was never convinced, and believe me, I wanted to be). The argument that we were merely upholding the UN's own good name and reputation sort of fell through when the UN curled up and wept back in February. What is left? Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saddam Hussein's will to use them.
Interestingly, in the same discussion linked to by Dan Drezner, James Joyner helps me make my case. He attempts to minimize the Uranium scandal by reprinting the entire section of the State of the Union where the "16 words" originally appeared, and pointing out that Weapons of Mass Destruction in general were the front and center reason for going to war.
Interesting. Granted, these people are minipundits like me (albeit smarter and better established), and not "news" sources. But the fact that there exists such a large range of opinions on just why it was we went into Iraq to begin with suggests to me that there was no one clear reason, just a lot of muddled talk and mangled statistics.
Once again. I am delighted Saddam Hussein is gone. I am delighted that the humanitarian side-effects of our libervasion of Iraq will soon make that country a better place to live. But at the end of the day, the Weapons of Mass Destruction-- the fear of death raining from the sky or sneaking into Boston Harbor on a zodiac at 3 AM-- and the connected matter of Iraq's UN-noncompliance, were the main stated reasons for going to war. A thousand pundits spinning isn't going to change that, and all the chattering is starting to piss me off.
The chattering class can't seem to agree on anything, least of all why we libervaded Iraq. Some say WMD's. Some say a NeoCon plot. Many say that whatever it was, it was right. And need I mention that terrorism isn't in the top three topics of discussion on Iraq? In a perfect world we would have rolled into Baghdad and found terrorists and cans of Sarin cowering in the light like a teeming family of rats when you turn over a piece of plywood in downtown Baltimore. That we didn't begs some incredibly important questions, like "where are all the damn terrorists?" and "where the hell is all the goddamn anthrax?" I'm not interested in any more dog and pony shows or rhetorical magic. Where the hell did the anthrax go? And whose head is going to roll for losing track of it?
[moreover] Buckethead, I have heard your theory that Iraq is to be used as a wedge to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East. It's a nice theory, but I don't believe it. We don't have nearly enough troops to pull it off, and, last I checked, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were still allies of a sort.
[moreover] This is not my most finely crafted argument. Perhaps when I have some time I will sharpen it. In the meantime, feel free to get out your long knives.
on
| § 0
The good people over at Crooked Timber are all over the meltdown in the wake of David Kelly's suicide. More here and here.
All I can say is, I've seen this situation before. The hot potato drops because everyone is using both hands to cover their own ass. Shameful behavior all around, especially on the part of the drool-catchers at the BBC, but especially on the part of whoever let Blair and Bush run with this information.
on
| § 0
Buckethead,
Being a linguistic descriptivist, I feel that whatever usage of "thing(y/ie)" butters your bagel is the one to use. Other usage would suggest both "thingie" and "thingy" as correct, since each is used interchangeably as a diminuitive: "bootie" and "booty" for baby's shoes, and "kitty" and "kittie" for small cat, for example.
But beyond such heady concerns, "thingy" is undoubtedly the correct term. "Thingie" is just wrong.
on
| § 0
The Lord's Prayer has been translated into many languages. Until five minutes ago, I was unaware that it had been translated into what Will Smith once referred to as, "The Ebonic Plague." The site that hosts this abomination (along with many, many other translations of the Lord's Prayer) describes Ebonics as a "slang dialect used by certain groups of the African-American community." Without further ado, the prayer:
Yo, Big Daddy upstairs,
You be chillin
So be yo hood
You be sayin' it, I be doin' it
In this here hood and yo's
Gimme some eats
And cut me some slack, Blood
Sos I be doin' it to dem dat diss me
Don't be pushing me into no jive
Ang keep dem crips away
Cause you always be da man, G
Straight up.
Aa-men.
For some reason, I do not feel closer to God.
(thanks to Memepool for the tip.)
on
| § 0
