This is perfect. Be sure you read all of it, though.

Via Quick.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned something that Susanna and I had been musing about a while back: the sudden appearance of comments to older, nearly forgotten posts of ours. We wondered what exactly that might mean, and why most of these late-commenters seemed to be, uhh, idiotarian in nature. Well, MT 2.6 is now out, and with it comes the ability to close commenting on older posts. My first reaction when I saw this was basically: hell yeah. Then I get notification of this via e-mail: another comment to the post here on the possible (or likely) perils for American women marrying Saudi men:

Laurie have you ever spent any time in a gulf country? I have many wounderful Saudi friends, sadly however what Catherine said is true in most cases. Your Saudi boyfriend is in the west with you, and as is the case in most of these situations is westenized. Things change very fast once back on home soil. All the advice I can give to you is please educate yourself well before making a move to KSA. My husband to be was a wounderful man, open minded and a real modern thinker. That was before we left Canada for the gulf. Once there he did an about face that shocked me, he turned into somthing compleatly different from what I thought I knew. My one saving grace was we decided to live in Bahrain a while before moving to SA. While there I really came to know what that man was all about and was able to leave him and go back home. That wouldn't have been possible if I had been in Saudi. I thought I knew him, and you'de think after 6 years you would know a person. They have 2 sides the one you think you know in the west, and the side they are born with. I know you wont believe this, but he will change once hes back home they always do. My question for you is 'are you ready for that, and are you willing to accept it?' I guess nobody can tell you what to do, just be careful, and be prepared for anything.

My dear darling Heather ain't gonna like me saying this one bit:

CONVENTIONAL WISDOM puts California's 55 electoral votes out of the reach of President Bush in 2004. Bush-Cheney didn't just get beat in the Golden State in 2000, they got hammered. Al Gore pulled 5,861,203 votes to George Bush's 4,567,429--a 53 percent to 42 percent drubbing.

And it wasn't even that close. Ralph Nader picked up 418,707 votes, nearly 4 percent of the total. These won't be Bush votes in '04.

But the Bush-led GOP wasn't supposed to pick up House seats this past November, much less regain the Senate. The president has a habit of surprising the insiders, and a Democratic waltz in 2004 is not yet a foregone conclusion.

Already there are promising signs for Bush. Gray Davis has many nicknames, none of them complimentary: Governor Clouseau; Governor Lowbeam; the unGovernor. His 5-point win over first-time candidate Bill Simon last fall was hardly inspiring, and now looks pathetic in light of his $78 million to $36 million advantage in campaign spending. He concealed from voters a state deficit that the most optimistic estimate puts at $28 billion, and the state's credit rating was downgraded again this week.

Democrats hold every statewide office in California, and large majorities in both houses of the state legislature. California is truly their laboratory, and they are proving themselves the Raelians of politics. Every law passed since 1998--every policy choice made, every dollar spent, every business that fled--has a Democratic brand on it. The accumulation of horrors is becoming so vast that even the Los Angeles Times may soon be obliged to notice.

Wonder how Sam Astin...uh, Sean Gamgee...dammit, Sean Astin - there, sorry - managed to stave off succumbing to the Hollywood strain of acute cranio-rectal inversion that's decimated the entertainment industry?

WASHINGTON -- Actor Sean Astin and wrestler Bradshaw are among celebrities who are using their stardom to increase troop morale and keep the military fresh in the minds of Americans.

Astin, who is known for his roles in "Rudy" and the "Lord of the Rings," visited the Pentagon Jan. 30 to record public service announcements thanking troops for their service and re-emphasizing America's trust in its military.

He also narrated an announcement to promote the Criminal Investigation Command, commonly known as CID, and asked interested soldiers to apply to the command if they are interested in becoming a CID Special Agent.

"There's a lot of different people and voices in America, and I don't mind letting my voice be heard," Astin said during an interview conducted at the Pentagon. "I learned from reading about Vietnam that no matter what you think politically about certain deployments, as a good citizen and a patriot it's your duty to appreciate that there are soldiers using their lives on your behalf as a citizen."

Although many may know that Astin has appeared in more than 25 motion pictures, few know that he has served as a civilian aide to the secretary of the Army since 1995. He served under Togo West, Louis Caldera and now the current Secretary of the Army Thomas White.

For protocol purposes Astin, as a civilian aide, is ranked just below a three-star general and is considered to be the secretary of the Army's personal representative in the California region. Part of the basis of a CASA's appointment is his ability to increase the public's understanding of the Army, and Astin said he tells the Army story to anyone who wants to know it.

Via Sharon.

...at the expense of Lucky Pierre. At risk of turning this into an "all France-bashing, all the time" blog, I'm posting this link to a funny post of Prather's. The headline alone is worth the trip over there (Prather's place, not Paris):

Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage.

The French Military History In A Nutshell

- War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

I finally got around to reading John Hawkins's excellent interview with Mark Steyn, and as usual when dealing with Steyn's stuff, I've had a hard time deciding what to excerpt here. But this exchange about blogs and the mainstream press is good, I think, and I haven't seen this bit excerpted anywhere else yet, so here ya go:

John Hawkins: I noticed that you defended Little Green Footballs when it was attacked by MSNBC's weblog Central and I also noticed a mention of Bill Quick's Daily Pundit in one of your columns as well. Do you regularly read both of those blogs? What other blogs do you read regularly?

Mark Steyn: Actually, I'm not very computer-minded. I never had one until 1999, when the Telegraph and the National Post sent me off to cover the impeachment trial and, because of the time differences and other factors, they demanded I get a laptop. Before then, I had a stenographer, and I suppose she had a typewriter or some such, though I never checked. She definitely had a dictation pad. Actually, she still does, and I still like to work that way.

I only discovered blogs - or "blogs", as we old-media types say - after Sept 11, when I started getting feedback from people who'd come across me via Instapundit and so on. I don't think it's any coincidence that blogs have been strongest in the US, where the dozy monodailies are so excruciatingly boring and where incredibly dull columnists seem able to hold down prime op-ed real estate for decade after decade. America's torpid j-school culture is killing American newspapers, both in style and content. Why, for example, does no print columnist have the curiosity to do what Charles Johnson does and make a specialty of finding out what the Muslim world is saying about the west? If this war ever ends, I figure I'll lose a lot of my blog admirers, because on the whole I'm a tad more socially conservative than they are. But I don't really care about that: you don't have to agree with Ken Layne to appreciate that the guy can write.

I credited Megan McArdle in some column after some expert Europhile commentators in the English-speaking world were trying to play down Le Pen's performance in the French Presidential election - Le Pen only got a little more than he usually gets, pure fluke he came second, nothing to see here, move along. Megan said: "They're completely missing the point, which is that it's hilarious." I couldn't put it any better than that, so why not give her the credit? It's the pomposity of American print guys that's so breathtaking: I'm often quoted disapprovingly in American papers by columnists who go "someone by the name of Mark Steyn", "one Mark Steyn", "a Mark Steyn". What's up with that? Lewis Lapham did it a while back. I'll bet my weekly readership over his any day of the week. All he has to do is do a Nexis search and in ten minutes he'll know who I am. But these fellows are so status conscious that the effortless superiority is essential to their sense of themselves. The Internet doesn't have those kind of Kay Graham dinner-party seating hang-ups. I was going to write about Liza's new reality show when I saw Bill Quick had an item announcing it had gone into production. He headlined it: "The terrorists have won." Well, there's nothing to say after that, is there?

I have been extremely lax by failing to mention a couple of not-so-new-by-now blogs. So let me correct that right now.

First off, Chuck Simmins has been commenting here and e-mailing me interesting items for quite a while now. He's a smart, funny guy, and the blog is a mere click away.

And next, I'm sure you've all read about E. Nough's new blog by now. Well, finally, here's the link. Another goodie.

Sincere apologies for the delay, fellas.

Tom DeLay just made a fan for life here:

I was at a celebration of India's Independence Day," he told reporters, "and a Frenchman came walking up to me and started talking to me about Iraq, and it was obvious we were not going to agree. And I said, 'Wait a minute. Do you speak German?' And he looked at me kind of funny and said, 'No, I don't speak German.' And I said, 'You're welcome,' turned around and walked off.

On the other hand...Ha. Ha. And fucking ha. Stick that one right up your unwashed flue, froggie.

Via Blaster, via the Corner.

It's long been said that immigrants are the most patriotic Americans of all, and I've seen plenty of evidence of that in my own personal day-to-day existence over the years. But Suman Palit has just proved it once again:

I cannot say it any better today than I did a year ago. I would say today to the *European street* the same things I said to the *Arab street* then. I love this country, so you have to deal with me. Don't like it..? Too bad, learn to deal. I love this country with a passion they underestimate. Not merely because it is one of the few who loves its people back. But because it is the only resilient and unwavering beacon of freedom for those not fortunate enough to have been born to it. It is a love of possessive pride. It's a love that makes you want to unsheathe your claws and draw some blood. Preferably from the other guys jugular.!

Because beyond it's shores are what ancient mariners would mark on their maps - "here be dragons".. There are dragons out there, who would gladly chomp on the freedoms and liberties of anyone who gets in the way of their quest for power and control. Some are petty, like the ensconced mandarins in Brussels. Others are ancient, with deep claws, like the rigid societies of much of Asia. Still others are raving lunatics like Saddam and Kim, who must be engaged and defeated.

I did not spend a greater part of my life working my fingers to the bone to come to America, and then to build a new life for myself and my family, to enjoy and cherish the special freedoms that are the hallmark of this country, only to watch an intellectually effete elite barter it all away to appease the culture-gods of Europe.! A few reminders to the multi-culti "blame-America" crowd. I am unlikely to be swayed by your liberal, upper-middle-class guilt over whatever horrors lie in this country's past. I respect the legacy of those sins. I hope to learn from them, but never at the point of rendering myself impotent. I am not impressed by your oh-so-mendacious comparisons of Bush to Saddam to Hitler. I am disgusted by your preference for "stability" in Iraq over the freedom and ultimate goal of safety and happiness of the Iraqi people. I am also, utterly unconvinced by those who wish to remake America in a hollow image of Europe. If I wanted that I would have immigrated to France, ne pensez-vous pas?

The first Lefty response to my answers in the CBID has rolled into the comments to the post. So here's my response to all that:

You honestly believe that invading Iraq will *decrease* the likelyhood of terrorist attacks on the American homeland? Can you explain this? I see it as at best having no effect, though more likely *increasing* the odds of another 911-like event.
Yep, I do indeed. It always decreases the likelihood of terrorist attack when you destroy the terrorists' training camps, cut off their funds, seize the WMD's that would have sooner or later found their way to them, and remove one of their staunchest back-door supporters.

2) Killing hundreds of thousands of people is "worth trying"? What's the Iraq-terror connection? Can you honestly not see why rebuilding a post-war Iraq is *nothing* like Germany and Japan?
Both assumptions on your part. Neither of us has any idea of how many people will be killed, or of what shape the rebuilding of Iraq will actually take. The question wasn't really worth answering in the first place, but it was on the list. The Iraq terror connection is clear and inarguable; it's been argued again and again, quite convincingly, by everyone from our own Secretary of State, to Iraqi defectors, even to Clinton Administration officials. And one way or another, people will be killed, whether in war there or via more terror attacks here, which will be made more likely if the US continues to allow itself to be seen as a "paper tiger" (Osama's words). I'd much rather it be terrorists and their supporters than American civilians doing the dying, but then that's just cranky ol' warmongering me. Others may feel differently about it. And apparently, they do.

3) Basically the same cricisms as above.
We killed "hundreds of thousands" in Afghanistan now, is that what you mean? If so, that beats even the most outrageously exaggerated claims I've seen yet. You might want to check this out, among many, many other debunkings of that "thousands of civilian dead" claim: "But authorities have not calculated Afghanistan's civilian death toll in the war on terrorism, and the dimension of this tragedy is not fully known. Although estimates have placed the civilian dead in the thousands, a review by The Associated Press suggests the toll may be in the mid-hundreds, a figure reached by examining hospital records, visiting bomb sites and interviewing eyewitnesses and officials." As for the rebuilding, as I stated in my original answer, there is much work yet to be done (it's barely begun, really) and not all of that work is ours to do.

4) "We'll see, when it happens. Iraq is (or should be, anyway) just the second phase of a much longer campaign."

Nice to see people coming out and saying this. I don't know how well this idea (which I would characterize as 'prepetual war for peace') would play if laid before the people.
It's been said just that way a thousand and more times, by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. Bush's popularity remains high, so I'd say it seems to be playing out pretty well.

"Saddam amounts to the low-hanging fruit."

Always a good reason to go to war.
That wasn't given as a reason to go to war. It was given as a reason to remove Saddam first, then to deal with the other terrorist sponsor-states, by making war on them if it becomes necessary. The reason to go to war - rather, to continue the war until victory is achieved - was brought home to us on 9/11, although the truth is we were in a war long before that. It's just that now we've decided to start fighting back, as opposed to wringing our hands and weeping with pity for our poor poor attackers and wondering "why they hate us."

5) "12 years of (interrupted when Saddam tossed them out) inspections."

Lie.
Umm, well, if you really want to go splitting hairs:

There is an element of technical accuracy to the objection to the use of "kicked out." But it's a semantic argument only, relying on a meaningless distinction.

UNSCOM and Iraqi authorities reached a point of confrontation in August 1998, when Iraqi authorities decided to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM, thus preventing its members from doing the inspections work they were in the country to do. In response to this noncompliance the United States and Great Britain threatened to - and eventually did - carry out a punishing series of airstrikes to compel Iraqi cooperation. UNSCOM head Richard Butler evacuated the inspectors from the country to get them out of harm's way.

After the bombing stopped, Iraq announced that the inspectors would never be able to return, a policy that seemed to stand until two months ago.

The assasination thing is questionable too. No one has any real evidence or made any actual allegations except for the Kuati police, that is until we needed more reasons to go after the Bad Man in Baghdad.
We don't need any more reasons to go to war with Saddam than the indisputable fact that he's fired on our aircraft and our pilots, who are conducting a mission that was agreed to, in writing (albeit grudgingly), by Saddam himself. The evidence of Saddam's complicity in the Bush Sr assassination plot I won't even go into. It was long ago established to my satisfaction, and I seriously doubt it will ever be to yours.

I would also disagree with your characterization of the anti-war Left. No one has been able to conherently link Iraq and Al-Quaeda. No one has been able to make a coherent case that invading Iraq makes sense from a short-term security standpoint, and no one can say with any degree of certainty what the long term outcome of this will be. War is expensive. War is uncertain. War is hell, even when you've clearly got the strongr forces and a history of victory.
Nobody has ever said war isn't hell. As for my characterization of the antiwar Left, I won't go through all that again either. The Left is what it is, more's the pity. If you want more, read the archives here. You won't like 'em, but I've made this argument way too many times already to bother doing it again now.

Why are we doing this? We're going to kill a lot of people, create a state of chaos in a country where there may be chemical and biological weapons that might up and disappear, inflame international opinion and give our terrorist enemies the biggest recruiting boon since the last time we were over ther. What's this for again?
Uhh, are you actually admitting here that Saddam has WMD's, and in the same breath suggesting we shouldn't bother about them because of "international opinion," thereby putting our own people - our countrymen, yours and mine - at risk just to pacify...France? Sorry, I don't find that even remotely palatable. Bugger France, and bugger "international opinion." And as for providing for a recruitment boom for our enemies (nice to see people coming out and saying "enemies," by the way - shows we're making at least some progress here), I think the best thing we can do to inhibit their recruitment is to establish the notion that we are no longer playing around with terrorist organizations and the nations who sponsor them, and that joining such organizations is the surest way there is to get themselves real dead real quick, short of sucking directly on a shotgun barrel.

Well, that was easy. Next!

For what it's worth, here are my answers to the questions directed at us pro-war folks in NZ Bear's and Stand Down's Cross-Blog Iraq Debate.

To Be Answered By Pro-War Bloggers:

1. Attacking Iraq has been publicly called a "pre-emption" of a threat from Saddam Hussein's regime, whose sins include launching regional wars of aggression. Do you think there is a clear and reliable difference between pre-emptive and aggressive warfare, and if so, what is it?
Sure do. The difference is in the intent and the objective. Aggressive war means war fought to aquire territory or resources for the purpose of enriching the aggressor nation in some definable way. Preemptive war means hitting them before they hit us. The antiwar folks seem more than willing to countenance another 9/11 before taking any action is acceptable. I am not.

2. What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in a) maintaining it as a stable entity and b) in turning it into a democracy? Are there any precedents in the past 50 years that influence your answer?
I don't really know, and neither does anyone else. But it is certainly worth trying, and seems to me to be the only real path to ultimately defeating terrorism. As for examples, well, it all seems to have worked pretty well with Germany and Japan, don't you think?

3. How successful do you think the military operations and "regime change" in Afghanistan have been in achieving their stated objectives? Does this example affect your feelings about war in Iraq in any way?
They've undeniably been damned successful - the Taliban is nothing but a bad memory. The regime has in fact been changed, and there have been no attacks of remotely 9/11-type scope against us since. There is plenty of work to do there yet, but not all that work is ours to do. The primary objective is/was not the admittedly laudable one of liberating the Afghani people, but to make sure that those who wish to slaughter us wholesale no longer have access to support in that particular country. Same with Iraq. I'm all for removing the tyrant's boot from their necks, but I wouldn't necessarily advocate war for that reason alone. The primary concern for me is preventing Saddam from funneling money, arms, training, and possibly WMD's to third parties, who will then use them against us. Period. And the only way it all affects my feelings on the war with Iraq is to make me wish we'd started a lot sooner.

4. As a basis for war, the Bush Administration accuses Iraq of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear), supporting terrorism, and brutalizing their own people. Since Iraq is not the only country engaged in these actions, under what circumstances should the US go to war with other such nations, in addition to going to war with Iraq?
If the nation in question is a known supporter of ANY international terrorists - including those in Palestine - they should be dealt with, and dealt with harshly, in a manner appropriate to the circumstances in each case. This doesn't have to mean total war; in the case of Iraq, it has become quite clear after 12 years of noncompliance on Saddam's part with the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire agreement (and of an abject and utterly pathetic lack of serious consequences for that noncompliance) that war is the only remaining course that has the slightest chance of succeeding.

The antiwar Left is fond of pointing to what they take to be our inaction when it comes to regimes like NK or Saudi (although they can't actually know we're currently doing nothing at all, and I personally doubt that that's the case) as a justification for not attacking Saddam, but this is nothing more than one of the weaker planks in their virulently anti-Bush platform - since it's a cinch that if Bush was talking about going after the House of Saud, they'd be screaming just as loudly against our taking any effective action there. We'll see, when it happens. Iraq is (or should be, anyway) just the second phase of a much longer campaign. Saddam amounts to the low-hanging fruit.

5. The Bush Administration has issued numerous allegations about the threat represented by Iraq, many of which have been criticized in some quarters as hearsay, speculation or misstatements. Which of the Administration's allegations do you feel stand up best to those criticisms?
Well, let's see. 12 years of (interrupted when Saddam tossed them out) inspections. 17 UN Resolutions violated. Support for terrorists. Chemical and bio weapons unaccounted for, according not only to Powell's report, but Blix's own. Active pursuit of nuclear materials. A complete lack of cooperation with the UN inspectors, again according to Blix. A long record of belligerence, deceit, and aggression against others in Saddam's region. All of the above perfectly credible, all of it perfectly verifiable, most of it by the UN's own admission. Take your pick. Even Clinton, Gore, and Albright said Saddam was a serious threat - right up until the day Bush took office. So it's become pretty plain by now that a significant portion of the antiwar Left isn't particularly antiwar at all - they're just anti-Republican and anti-Bush, which for me completely negates the criticism from "some quarters." Saddam is undeniably in material breach of several UN resolutions, and Blix himself has said as much. The fact that France and Germany want to avoid the issue for reasons of their own does not negate Powell's presentation. Neither does the Left's blind, callow, and quite obvious hatred for Bush and the Republicans.

Iraq was given fifteen days to completely disarm after Gulf War 1. It is now 12 years later, and he still has not done so. Sanctions, inspections, and resolution after resolution after resolution has failed to disarm him. Half-hearted air strikes against specific locations by Clinton was no more effective. Last November's resolution was specifically proposed as his "last chance." Four months later, "some quarters" still want to give him another one. I have a question of my own here: when exactly is enough enough?

But as far as I'm concerned, Saddam should have been removed the evening of the day he first fired on our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones. He should have been removed when it was established that he had plotted to assassinate a former US President - and no, I don't give a damn which one it was. Those are acts of war, folks, and we have responded with - well, restraint is way too mild a word for it.

Well, that was easy. The problem all along hasn't been that the pro-war side has failed to answer the Left's questions; the problem is that the Left refuses to seriously consider any answers that negate their cherished illusions. Each time one of their questions gets answered, they declare the answer unsatisfactory - and then pose another question. Like a 4th grader who hates long division and doesn't see why he should have to bother learning it, they simply aren't listening, because they don't like what they're hearing. Too bad for them.

In response to Sullivan's wish:

Updated update! Joe says the bombs looked like they were being dropped from Osama's head and thus sort of undermined the whole thing. I thought about it, and I have to admit he's right. So no bombs, drat it all.

Lileks tells us something I really had no idea at all about:

I found this story in - wait for it - Boy's Life:

You might know Eagle Scout Ben Curtis. He's that "Dude, you're getting a Dell" guy on the TV commercials. On Sept. 11, 2001, the 21-year-old from Chattanooga, Tenn., found himself in the midst of a crisis.

He was sleeping in his Lower Manhattan apartment when an airliner hit the first World Trade Center tower. His roommate, a photographer, ran to the disaster scene a few blocks away, but Ben went back to sleep, thinking the noise was a gas explosion. When the second tower was struck, he got up and looked out the window. Seeing the fire, he decided his roommate might need help.

When the first tower collapsed, Ben rushed into the subway entrance nearby to escape the flying debris. Clouds of soot poured down into the tunnel. He took his shirt off and tied it around his face to breathe.

A woman came down the stairs with a severe gash on her head. "At first I was completely freaked out," he said, "but then my Scout training came back to me." He used his shirt as a pressure bandage and helped the woman to safety.

Still chuckling at his pot bust? Fine. But we all wonder how we would have reacted that day. He knows. He can live with himself. I wish him good luck.

I found this on, of all places, the SF Indymedia board. Hard to believe they haven't taken down this vicious right-wing Nazi propaganda yet in the interest of promoting and protecting dissent, but there ya are - go figure.

February 11, 2003

Now that's New York for youse

For the love of...

A dinger for McCain

Lefty self-destruction?

War Story