perfidy

When, in the course of human events, a blogger becomes so sclerotically enclotted with oversized ideas, high dudgeon, and essays that have metastisized beyond reason or control that he cannot face the prospect of one more minute of research nor one more hour teasing nuance from a dependent clause of a dependent clause, there is only one thing to do:

Linkfest!!!!

-- From Slate: "In just two short years, [The Department of Homeland Security] has clearly found its core mission – reorganization."

-- From Winds of Change's Armed Liberal: A contrarian look at what drives terrorism, from University of Chicago's Robert Pape

[Robert Pape:]The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them here.

RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

-- From James Taranto: a piece from OpinionJournal's Best of the Web that contrasts nicely with the foregoing:

Why Do They Hate Us?
That's the question we've all grown sick and tired of hearing since Sept. 11, 2001. It's not that the query is inherently objectionable; understanding what motivates the enemy is obviously helpful in wartime. But the people who ask this question almost never genuinely seek to understand; rather, they have their own axes to grind against the U.S. or the West, and seek to use the prospect of terror attacks to scare the rest of us into supporting their views. This we have dubbed vicarious terrorism.

Now and then a terrorist actually takes the trouble to explain his motives. London's Daily Telegraph reports on the trial of the man who allegedly (and now confessedly) murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh:

Mohammed Bouyeri, a baby-faced 27-year-old with dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, broke his vow not to co-operate with the Amsterdam court by admitting shooting and stabbing his victim last November.

"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," he told its three-strong panel of judges.

"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do the same, exactly the same." . . .

Bouyeri then turned to the victim's mother, Anneke, in the public gallery, and told her he felt nothing for her. Mrs van Gogh watched as he read out from what appeared to be a statement: "I don't feel your pain. I have to admit that I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because you're a non-believer."

This had nothing to do with Israeli "occupation" of "Palestinian lands," America's "unilateral invasion" of Iraq, "torture" of prisoners at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, the widening "income gap," or any of the other litany of complaints that the terror apologists trot out. Islamist terrorism arises from religious fanaticism and hatred, plain and simple.

-- From Balloon Juice: John Cole is doing yeoman's work on the Plame affair, starting with the premise,

" Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, was stationed in Washington at the time of her outing, and previously had been a covert agent.' If you agree with that statement, say "Yes" and nothing more. If you disagree, state "No" and why you disagree (with reputable links to back it up)."

He moves forward from there. We are currently debating whether step 7 can be generally accepted as fact:

7.) Shortly after the State of the Union Address, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, addressed the UN Security Council, presenting the administration's case regarding Saddam Hussein.

The Security Council did not provide the authorization the United States had sought, yet Coalition forces proceeded to initiate Operation Iraqi Freedom on 20 March 2003. In the aftermath of the invasion, no WMD stockpiles were found.

This, and other developments we will discuss in other points, led to renewed focus on the intelligence used to advocate for the invasion.

[Yes, or no?]

-- From Boing Boing: The story of pyrotechnics experts who get together every year to have a - no kidding - fireworks war. And not in the sky, either. [wik]: Link fixed!!

-- From EDog's Everything Page: Loyal Reader #0017(EDog) handicaps our chances in our current war based on past performance. Although any prospectus will tell you that past returns are no guarantee of future performance, I still think our chances are pretty darn good. No permalinks; scroll down to July 7.

-- From Yahoo! News via Loyal Reader #0017(EDog): A chilling story of rampant falsified research among our medical research community, including several instances of falsified data and entirely fabricated studies making their way into peer-reviewed journals. Yeeesh. Make sure to have a private dick check out your PCP before your next checkup!

-- From Obsidian Wings: A treatise on the incredible silliness of Fox News' favorite new term, "homicide bomber" and its various extractions, including the gobsmackingly tacky phrase, "...the first homicide attacks in Western Europe."

-- ... and finally, from Slate once again: A defense of the smoking hot but irritatingly perky (tweeked? caffeinated?) Food Network host Rachel Ray. There's nothing wrong with cooking with what you can find at the local Stop 'n' Shop (Safeway, Ralph's, Giant Eagle, what-have-you).