J-Ho

Celebrity dating advice from Sekimori.

The Fruits of Obstruction

You know we're living in interesting times when even the Wall Street Journal is questioning the sanctity of NATO. An unsigned editorial says that

This may seem a radical thought, but it is certainly warranted by the astonishing recent behavior of nations thought to be U.S. allies. Three countries--France, Germany and their mini-me minion, Belgium--have moved from opposition to U.S. policy toward Iraq into formal, and consequential, obstructionism. If this is what the U.S. gets from NATO, maybe it's time America considered leaving this Cold War institution and re-forming an alliance of nations that understand the new threats to world order.

During the bad old days of the Cold War, it was, I think, Kissinger's formula to "accept any economic price, no matter how large, to get any political advantage, no matter how small." Well, now Germany and France are determined to impose political costs no us, with no discernable financial, military, or political gain to be seen.

I suppose that leaves us with the question of how to punish them in return.

It seems somehow unfair to our better NATO allies to leave the alliance, but there is an alternative: A new alliance that would officially sit alongside NATO, but in practice would render NATO as useful as a buggy whip for a hydrogen car.

Sign up Italy and Spain and Lithuania and the rest of the Gangs of Eight and Ten. Hell, get Israel, Australia, and India on board, too. The new threat is global -- not the simple, parochial interest of protecting Germany from. . . um, from whom are we protecting Germany?

Exactly. Don't withdraw from NATO, don't give Germany and France the satisfaction of having forced us to bolt "their" alliance. Just let it -- and them --wither on the vine.

Merde

Wanna blow off some steam at the French? Or even -- gasp! -- add something thoughtful? Winds of Change has just the forum.

Reap, Sow, Whatever

Damnit, Matt, I keep trying to disavow that thing!

Seriously, though -- thanks.

And the rest of you really ought to read Welch's latest.

It’s an Honor Just to Be Nominated

Right Wing News has the results of the First Annual Warblogger Awards.

Speaking of blogs deserving a little attention... we were, weren't we? Anyway, E Nough, who's been commenting here regularly since Christ was a corporal, finally has his own blog. Check it out.

Happily Accepting Free Stuff Since 1969

The web is a wonderful place. From out of the blue, I received an email from Tatiana of the Russian Beauty Blog – complete with a hot new logo for the site. Soon as I figure out how to change my color scheme, you’ll be seeing a whole new look here at VodkaPundit.

Nice, eh?

NOTE: If some of the text looks scrunched, it's because I had to shrink the image a bit to get it to fit properly in a post. As a banner, I assure you, it looks completely fab.

Liberals for Liberation

It's late, but here it is – the list of bloggers and readers here who were brave enough to out themselves as “Liberals for Liberation.”

Napa’s own Jamie Woolery (who really needs to write me again and let me know if he can get me a discount on a ’97 Stag’s Leap Cask 23.)

Carol Johnson of Dubitoks Blog.

Mike Silverman, curator of Red Letter Day.

Riting On The Wall’s JB is another.

So is Rich N, who sounds a little less like a LoL and a little more like “one of those conservatives.”

Scott Ganz was an easy one to out – he’s still a registered Democrat, fer crissakes.

Let’s not forget Michael Totten, even though he was unscrupulously outed by someone else, who shall remain nameless. Mike also outed himself, but I heard it first from the Mystery Emailer.

Reader Henry from Texas claims to have a “Red Squad file out there that's gotta be at least two inches thick,” yet still supports war in Iraq.

Dave Roberts says he’d “like to keep it a little fuzzy about which countries and when” they should be liberated, which sounds perfectly, sneakily hawkish to me.

As a Libertarian for liberation, John Tabin says “that might not seem remarkable in the InstaPundit-ruled blogosphere, but if you ever travel through hard-core libertarian circles, it is.”

Way far away from the Libertarian perspective is Jack Bog, who admits he “even likes paying taxes.” Here’s to hoping your taxes buy a quick and bloodless-as-possible liberation of Iraq, Jack.

Denise writes to tell us of her post 9/11 confusion: “I don't know what the hell I am anymore. I always thought I was a moderate, and I used to be a dove . . . before 9/11. I am quite hawkish on the war on terror because I think we have crossed a line where we have no choice not to fight.” Don’t worry about being confused, Denise, when you’re on the right side of the biggest issue of the year.

Christopher Frampton tells me there are “two kinds of liberals: Hawks and peaceniks.” Lucky for us, Chris is far from the latter. Check out his blog.

Here’s a guy I wish had written much sooner. Mike Smith says he’s “a Harry Truman liberal, and I'm all for knocking off Saddam, and liberating the Iraqi people from their long nightmare.” I’ve asked before what happened to all the Harry Truman Democrats – it’s nice to finally meet one.

Erik Elnicki isn’t just for liberation, he’s also lost faith with his comrades and issues this call to arms: “I'm an idealist, I love Kennedy, and I love the principles our country is founded on. Modern 'liberals' use all of the thing I take to heart as tools to get what they desire. That is not responsible. Time for the 'liberals' and 'idealists' to put their money where their mouth is.”

Kris Lofgren asks us to “count me in.” Counted, Kris, counted.

I don’t know where Charlie is writing from, but from his email, he’s either my kind of liberal of my kind of conservative. Either way, welcome aboard.

Too Much Text is a blog I was unfamiliar with, but blogger Geoff Pynn is with us. Geoff tells me he worries the hawks won’t have the patience to install real democracy in Iraq, a worry echoed here way back in August.

If you aren’t reading Meryl Yourish, you should be. She’s not just a hawk on terrorism, but also for Israel.

Chris of Hotel Illness wrote in to out the Armchair Analyst.

He’s no liberal, but since I missed Pejman Yousefzadeh’s blogiversary, I thought I’d better mention him – congrats, Pej!

I also received quite a number of emails from people asking I not mention them, due to professional concerns, job security, etc. While I think that speaks sad volumes about the state of the Left today, I can’t help but be heartened by the number of thoughtful responses.

You Realize, Of Course, This Means War

It's coming.

NOTE: The "Liberals for Liberation" will have to wait. I'm short on time and submissions are still coming in.

Required Reading

Read this, and know what America means.

Must Be the Hair

Women don't like John Kerry.

Friday Recipe Returns!

This one is a personal fave that I stole and combined from my mother-in-law and The Steak Lover's Cookbook.

Steak Au Poivre Made Easy

You'll need:

2 filets mignons, cut not too thick.
A tablespoon or more of coarsely crushed black peppercorns (although green ones are tasty, too, just not strictly classic).
1 tablespoon unsalted butter.
2 tablespoons vegetable oil.
A pinch or two of salt.
3 tablespoons of cheap Cognac
1/3 cup crème fraîche or whipping cream.

Cover the steaks top and bottom with the pepper and set aside.

Melt the butter and oil (you need both, or the butter will burn) in a cast-iron skilled on high heat. When you think maybe it's too hot, sear the steaks on both sides. 4 minutes on the first, 3 on the second. Maybe a bit less if you like your steaks mooing. Set aside the steaks and baste them with some of the gunk from the pan.

Pour out the rest of the gunk and put the steaks back in, but don't put it back on the burner yet. With the smallest pan you have, heat the Cognac on medium. When it boils, pour it on the steaks and set it on fire. If you want to be dramatic about it, light the Cognac while you're pouring, not after. (VodkaPundit refuses to accept responsibility for singed eyebrows, arm hairs, knuckles, kitchens, or city blocks.) Give the skillet a good shake or three to get everything mixed together after the flames die down. Then put the steaks aside again on a platter or the plates you're serving them on.

Same skillet on medium high heat, bring the crème fraîche to a boil and scrape the bottom with a wooden spoon. Whisk it for a minute, add the salt, and pour over the steaks.

Oh, and for those not afraid of cholestoral poisoning, add extra crème fraîche and a tablespoon or two of beef stock to make more sauce.

Serve with the biggest Napa Cabernet you can find or afford.

Makes two people ready for some action.

When We Were Young, Gay, and Stupid

Here's what's wrong with too much of the organized gay victimhood movement, from a press release International Gay and Lesbian Human Right Commission:

Our position is guided by our sense of solidarity with and accountability to the activists we work with all over the world, and especially those in regions which are greatly impacted by US foreign policies. The US policies of military aggression have served to render those who deviate from sexual and gender norms and people living with HIV/AIDS especially vulnerable to state-sanctioned violence and discrimination.

I don't mean to say that gays haven't suffered in this country. But there's also no denying how far we've come, when Will & Grace is a top ten primetime show on a major network -- without raising any alarm. In fact, gay bashing has become almost (but not quite) as unacceptable as admitting to be a racist.

Gay adoption, civil unions, and especially gay culture are all quickly becoming social norms. Even our born-again President speaks of HIV/AIDS as a medical and political tragedy, rather than as the wrath of God. Perfect? No. Getting there? Goddamn right.

Now comes along a gay "human rights commission," in support of Iraq, the Taliban, and, if they play according to type (lefty type, not gay type), Cuba, as well. Perhaps they're "self-loathing fags" (an expression borrowed from a gay friend on mine way back when) enough to perfer Fidel's concentration camps for the HIV-afflicted, or to have stone walls toppled on them in Taliban-era Afghanistan. Maybe Saddam is a staunch supporter of gay rights, but he sure hasn't shown any respect for any other civil liberties.

If you're gay, be proud. And stop supporting those who arrest, imprison, torture, and murder your brothers and sisters overseas.

Reminder

Don't forget, I'm asking readers and bloggers alike to out themselves as "Liberals for Liberation."

I'll post results tonight, so don't forget to leave a comment or send an email.

Like, So Cali

Campus outrage, found by Arthur Silber.

Surprised?

Nick Kristof thinks that after twelve years of failure, it's about damn time to give containment a chance to work in Iraq.

No, really.

Party On, Warmongers!

Daniel Henninger says that our reaction to Saturday’s loss of the Columbia and her crew is proof that, as a nation, we’re growing up:

When the shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986, the nation was traumatized. With Columbia, we were saddened, but not bereft. The aftermath has been handled with dignity. I think the events of the past year and a half have caused a lot of growing up in this country. Reality TV and all the rest is someone else's sideshow. Nobody in the world should confuse that stuff with the real America, which, even with the cocktails, is a greatly sobered and resilient nation right now.

And what are those silly youthful things we’re growing past? Here comes the Cultural Conservative’s Litany of Woe:

Most people living in the United States today were born after 1946. These are the famous Baby Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, Gen "Friends." And whatever else, these stylish under-60s have never been particularly humble about whatever it is they do (or opt not to do), and across the generations, they have certainly known how to parteeaay! In an unfortunate coincidence this week, at the very moment the nation was memorializing the Columbia crew, New York magazine put on its cover four bodacious barflies over an issue called "Cocktail Culture: Why Drinking and New York Are Such a Potent Mix." The author's subject is "recreational New York: cocktails, self-involvement, shagging."

Oh, please. Fun, cocktails, sex, near-mindless entertainments – these things are signs that America is great, not that it is immature.

Americans are, in aggregate and per capita, the hardest-working, most efficient people on earth. And what makes us so? With all due reverence to Virginia Postrel, it is our dynamism. An inextricable part of a dynamic culture is one that endlessly recreates, reforms, and re-molds how we amuse ourselves. When you re-invent business, as Bill Gates and Michael Dell have done, and as almost no European or Japanese company has managed to do, entertainment is sure to follow – or perhaps even help lead the way. Porn helped bring us the cheap and fast internet, after all.

Look. You can have European socialism and jillion-year-old folk dances, or you can have capitalism and some really hot TV. Ever wonder why supposedly-titillating European sex movies (the legit kind, not porn) are almost always so tediously dull? Now you have your answer. Folk dances and capitalism mix about as well as cool gay bars and Soviet Russia.

Is most of our culture crap? You bet it is. But 90% of everything is crap; at least our crap has a fresh stink, instead of the stink of ages.

Stultify culture, you stultify the economy. And vice versa. You can’t have your cake and wish it away, too.

Grow up, Daniel.

Pre-Pre-Game Show

Fred Barnes looks at how the Democratic Presidential field is shaping up for next year’s Big One, and thinks they’re doing Bush a big favor:

Should war with Iraq produce a decisive victory and the economy pick up steam next year, Mr. Bush would be difficult to defeat no matter what Democrats do. But the story would be different if the economy limps along and Mr. Bush's war with Iraq and terrorists achieves mixed results or worse. He would be highly vulnerable. Still, he'd be competitive and perhaps the favorite against a foe who reflects the views of an antiwar, high tax, socially liberal Democratic party.

Barnes has summed it up quite nicely as a replay of the Mondale campaign of 1984 – moving to the left against a popular president of the middle-right.

There’s another similarity, and it’s this: Like those dark days at the end of détente, we have two parties – a Serious Party and a Frivolous Party.

With the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the American public wised up to the fact that Democrat- and Republican-sponsored détente had failed. The Republicans – never fully sold on Nixon’s policy to begin with – wised up, too. The Democrats, sadly, stayed in Fantasyland. And on foreign policy, they’re mostly still vacationing there today.

Others argue that the Democrats are more serious about the budget deficit, and they have a strong case. This Republican President and Congress are a terrible bunch of spendthrifts, putting to shame a stoner with found money in an ice cream store. But – Democratic proposals are for even more spending and even higher taxes, which would leave us, yes, with a slightly smaller deficit, but a much larger government.

Nobody is serious about controlling domestic spending. Only the Republicans are serious about the War.

What Do You Do With a Drunken Madman With Nukes?

The latest news from North Korea isn't, depsite what you may read, anything much out of the ordinary. Here's the lede from the Guardian:

"I wouldn't label it a crisis," the deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage told the United States Senate when he was being interrogated over the nuclear showdown with North Korea. It was more of a "big problem", he said.

However careful the Bush administration is with words, it clear that its North Korea problem is getting bigger by the day, and they are well aware that Pyongyang is raising the temperature with every degree Washington turns up the heat on Baghdad.

A typical North Korean "negotiating" tactic is to threaten all kinds of unholy war if we don't do as they say. Then they ratchet it down a little and the talks begin.

There's just one eentsy leetle problem: This time, the Dear Leader thinks we'll be playing for keeps with Pyongyang, just as we're now (at long last) playing for keeps with Baghdad. So what is to be done with a madman with the power to level much of our ally South Korea's capital -- home to ten-plus million people -- in minutes or hours?

First off, keep'em talking, or even shouting and threatening and blustering. As long as they're doing those things, they aren't raining down artillery shells on Seoul. If we can do that long enough, eventually the regime should collapse under its own weight, and the South Koreans have a large and effective enough army to deal with the aftermath.

If that fails? We won't start a war there, I don't think. Or at least not a real shooting war. If the Dear Leader builds more nukes, we might just have to live with them. If he starts to sell them, a US naval blockade, combined with a Chinese land blockade (they have no interest in a nuclear-armed and -exporting DPRK) should prove an effective quarrantine short of real war.

(Something that would be far less effective against Iraq, with large stretches of desert border.)

But even a power vacuum in the North would be a human and financial disaster. Imagine if Mexico and Canada were starving, literally starving to death, and the world handed both countries to us to deal with -- that's the case the South will be facing in case of a "successful" peace.

So don't worry too much about the hype in the press -- but don't be much comforted by the alternatives, either.

Pre-Game Show

With the endgame promised in “weeks, not months,” you might find these three posts worth re-reading.

Oh, and in answer to this question from a couple weeks back, Steven Den Beste tells us that the men and women of the 101st have received their deployment orders. While we’ve been told only that they’ll be heading somewhere in the Central Command region, my money is on southeast Turkey.

Loser

Jim Dunnigan, war gamer extraordinaire, compiles a list of the Top Ten Worst Things That Could Happen in the upcoming war.

Chemical and biological weapons strikes, another big terror strike at the US, a three-way civil war, Gotterdammerung in Baghdad, Saudi non-compliance, Iraqi civilian ingratitude, increased Palestinian terror, burning oil wells, Kurds & Turks at each other's throats, and Iraqi guerrilla warfare.

The upshot of all of them? Saddam still frickin' loses.

No Bias Here

Patrick Ruffini has a fascinating essay on Eric Alterman and media bias. Here's the bit that will interest bloggers the most:

Blogging allows us to almost completely transcend the trite media bias debate by acting as a check on the excesses of Big Media. I once read that the average op-ed columnist in the Washington Post could expect to garner about 5,000 sets of eyeballs for a typical column (although I'd certainly entertain leaked newspaper traffic stats that prove me wrong). Almost that many people read me when I first waded into the thicket of this debate, not counting those who read the Fox News column. And I'm just, well, Patrick Ruffini. Blogs and right-wing fora aren't making the news conservative, but they are taking some wind out of Howell's sails, which is more than we could have possibly expected when we first undertook this endeavor. Does this mean that the news will always tilt left, despite our most valiant efforts? No. Rather, the exploding multiplicity of voices has made the "media" so delightfully complex as to defy ideological categorization.

Read it all. I hate to keep sending you to other people's essays today, but after this last week, I'm a bit spent.

Unpaid Advertisement

Need further proof we're some short weeks from war? Today marks Ralph Peters' third column in a single week for the New York Post.

Oh, and the content is kinda killer, too. Read:

As an old intel hand, I recognize both the quality of the data Powell presented and the certainty that we hold even more incriminating information - gleaned through intelligence capabilities we cannot afford to compromise. The question isn't whether Powell was convincing, but whether the last obstructionist countries are willing to be convinced by even the strongest evidence.
Powell's performance was flawless. His former reluctance to pursue a military solution gave him street cred with the world's do-nothings. In rigorous detail, he described Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), how they are produced, how they would be delivered, how great a threat they pose and how we know what Saddam is doing to obstruct the U.N. inspectors.

And Powell made the terrorist connection. He underlined it with hard evidence, tying everything together.

From an intelligence officer's perspective, it's clear that internal debates over how much to reveal ended in compromise: Powell laid out enough evidence to convince the reason- able doubters, but avoided giving away the deep secrets we need for war. He convinced, but he didn't squander.

It gets better, so read the whole thing.

Oh, if you're unfamiliar with Peters, he a retired Army intelligence officer who spent most of his career in Europe, Central Aisa, and the Middle East. He's walked the lands, speaks the languages, and knows just how rotten it all is. He's written a few excellent novels, with The War in 2020 and Flames of Heaven as my personal faves.

The guy is good.

Get Serious

At NRO this morning, Jim Geraghty sums up the reactions of the Democratic Presidential candidates to Powell's speech.

They're all so carefully nuanced, all so artfully worded, all so damnably scripted in such a way to provide maximum meaninglessness and ass coverage, that not one of them -- with the exception of Joe Lieberman -- can be trusted yet with anything more vital to our nation's security than an Amtrack food cart.

Subscribe Today!

My rocket scientist friend Ed Lambert sent this to me this morning.

I just couldn't resist.

UPDATE: The problem with stuff you find in your inbox is, you have no clue where it came from orginally. Thanks to another email, I've been informed it's from Flashbunny -- a place with lots of fun images just like this one

Uncle Steve Wants YOU!

Yesterday's quest to uncover all the "liberals for liberation" we can find continues today.

Add those comments, send those emails. You'll all be linked and noted sometime before the weekend.

Other site-related news. I'd had this fantastically bitter and spiteful essay planned for today, but yesterday's Open Letter pretty much sapped all my venom. Don't worry -- it refills quickly. Just a few more glances around the news today. . .

"Making the Case"

As expected, Virginia Postrel understands:

All intelligent discussion of the pros and cons of war is, in fact, about weighing risks. I recently had a conversation with a former Marine who said he supports war with Iraq not because he likes war but because he's seen the museum at Hiroshima and doesn't want his children to face nuclear terrorism. He suggested that "those bleeding hearts" might think differently if they'd seen what he has. But, of course, "those bleeding hearts" draw the opposite conclusion from the same evidence, concluding that since war it terrible it must be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately for that argument, avoiding war today may bring more terrible war tomorrow.

Read the whole thing.

New Math

There are, at last count, 37 “real” nations in Europe. 39 if you count Russia twice for sheer size. (There are actually more, but Andorra, Monaco, Lichtenstein, etc, don’t make the cut.) Two of them, Sweden and Switzerland, maintain a longstanding armed neutrality – so drop off two. Turkey really wants to be a European nation, and still hold a sliver of Thrace in Europe, so let’s count them in and raise the tally back up to 36.

Of those 37 nations, 18 have signed declarations of support to the United States in our upcoming war against Saddam Hussein. That’s half right there. Add Turkey to the mix, and we have an absolute majority. Throw in Britain’s unwavering stance, and you’ll find that 20 of 36 European nations are behind us, even if only with moral support.

Just to let you know.

Double Whammy

Elsewhere on the Washington Post op-ed page, Richard Cohen and Mary McGrory were both persuaded by Powell’s presentation yesterday.

Who does that leave? The New York Times (in an embarrassingly poorly-reasoned lede editorial), the increasingly cranky and out-there Eric Alterman, and. . .um. . .anyone want to help me out here?

Thank Me Later

Just read George Will already, OK?

Keeping Happy Allies

David Warren, on the other hand, considers Powell’s performance yesterday to be worse than a mere waste of time and effort:

The media have avoided explaining to the general public the constraints under which the Bush administration must operate, in providing such evidence. By doing so they expose war targets, they provide not only Saddam but other evil regimes with the means to assess U.S. intelligence sources, which in turn means putting the lives of brave people at additional risk. The publication of sensitive security material moreover creates a legal nightmare, for much of the declassification is itself prevented by U.S. law. The President himself could be open to legal challenge in authorizing such disclosures.

To go to this trouble and risk for nothing raises further questions of judgement. The calculation was that only by providing such evidence would the U.S. be able to win the support of hesitant allies. By this morning, it should be clear that it was a miscalculation. It was wrong to take critics demanding proof at their word.

An excellent point, and one that can’t be ignored. But we do still have a few useful allies who, for domestic reasons, need the political cover provided by making a last attempt to sway the UNSC. Tony Blair owes us, and he knows it.

Case Closed

Bill Safire counts no less than five smoking guns:

Prosecutor Powell laid out on tape and in photographs hard evidence that would convince any jury. A colonel is overheard telling his superior: "We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?" The general, amazed at the stupidity of failing to remove equipment purchased from a known weapons-systems company, replies: "You don't have one of those, do you?" The panicked colonel, to reassure his boss, blurts, "We evacuated everything." Concealment of evidence. Cover-up.

Another tape from a different obstructor of inspectors: "We sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas. . . . Make sure there is nothing there. . . . After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message. . . ." Destruction of evidence. Cover-up.

And then, contrary to all expectations, there was an "Adlai Stevenson moment": The U.S. secretary of state displayed to the world aerial photographs showing trucks next to a bunker storing what signs say are chemical munitions. Behind the truck is what he called "a signature item: It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong."

Then he showed a photograph of the same area just as U.N. inspectors are arriving. Gone were the trucks and the telltale decontaminators. The area had been sanitized for inspection, not only showing cover-up but also demonstrating that the U.N. team has been penetrated by Iraqi wiretaps and bugs.

Need more? Saddam's agents, aware of our electronic surveillance, transmitted cover-up instructions by hand and not over telephone wires. "Remove the expression `nerve agents,' " ordered one official who forgot that the purpose of his call was to conceal those words from our Big Ear, "in the wireless instructions."

Remember, the onus is on Saddam to cooperate fully under the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441, or else face dire consequences – there is no requirement for the inspectors to prove he has banned weapons. Powell proved five times over that Saddam has failed. Now it’s time for the “or else.”

Unilateralism -- It's Contagious!

At Slate, Fred Kaplan was certainly impressed:

Contrary to his own (clearly low-balling) remarks of recent days, Powell did produce the proverbial "smoking gun." And, while his evidence may not have been quite as shattering as Adlai Stevenson's U-2 photos of Soviet missiles in Cuba, it came remarkably close—so much so that, if the Security Council does not now take action against Iraq, it might as well disband.

Chalk up another.

Even Though You Probably Already Read It

Andrew Sullivan has more on gay marriage, all of it hysterically, tragically, brutally funny.

What's Behind Curtain Number Two?

Brian Scrivani is a new-to-me blogger, who in an email outed himself as a "liberal for liberation." Give his blog a good read -- he's a guy with a sensible head on his shoulders, and a healthy disdain for Iraq and a healthier respect for civil rights.

Meanwhile, let's find out who else out there is a liberal for liberation. Whether you're a blogger or a reader, drop me a line (or even an essay) in the comments section. Links and observations to follow.

NOTE: "Liberal for liberation." I love that.

Although I Do Still Have Trouble With the Whole Altercation Gig

Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft, my favorite civil rights blog, answers this question from one of her readers:

Just curious, why do you promote Instapundit and Vodkapundit? They are right-wing oriented and 180 degrees from you?

One might as well ask why a blogg-thirsty warblogger such as myself promotes Jeralyn, but I'll let her answer first. Read:

Norm, that's a very good question, and probably a lot of people have wondered about this. The reason we promote Instapundit is because we agree on several issues that are of importance to us.

Glenn (Instapundit) is more libertarian than right-wing. He is a defender of consitutional rights, he doesn't like government over-reaching, he's critical of the drug war, and he is an advocate of privacy rights. Instpundit has been terrific on the opposing the Rave Act, the Racine raids and other excesses of Government power--like the attempt to federalize state and local crime and racial profiling. Currently he's critical of the Ed Rosenthal marijuana grow conviction.

The Democrats, unfortunately, are not particularly concerned with privacy rights, look at the expansion of wiretapping and mandatory minimum sentences under Clinton. The Clinton/Gore team, as much as we like them for other reasons, were not good protectors of constitutional rights.

Vodkapundit is a libertarian as well. We only rarely agree with him. We promote him because he's a class act personally and we really enjoy reading his non-political entries. We followed his courtship, his marriage, his home renovations--in other words, we just enjoy reading him. Also, he was one of the first major blogs to write up TalkLeft and link to us--and we are nothing if not loyal.

That being said, we don't agree with either of them about the war or most political non-crime issues, just as they don't agree with us that the Bush Administration and Ashcroft are terrible for the country and they don't oppose the death penalty (so far as we know.)

We certainly don't promote their positions on issues we disagree with, but we welcome their support on those we do agree on and consider them friends. Same for Jay Caruso of Daily Rant, by the way.

I'd like to thank Jeralyn for her many fine words. If nothing else, this site aims to entertain and amuse -- although the more rabid left-wingers might need to take VodkaPundit with a chaser.

As for civil rights, you'll find I'm probably more in agreement with Jeralyn than not, although I haven't seen anything in the current administration any worse than, oh... anyone since Jefferson. Ashcroft? I think the nicest thing I ever said about him was last week, when I stated my preference for a "Demoral-laced Norm Mineta" over Uptight John.

And I'm still against the death penalty, although for strictly utilitarian reasons. The Consitution is 100% clear that it envisions a death penalty, so I can't agree with any notion that it isn't constitutional. However, with an imperfect (ie, human) judicial system, I can't be in favor of a sentence that can't be commuted.

But enough of that. Why do I link to Jeralyn? Because, whatever our disagreements, she is first and foremost a staunch defender of many of those rights I hold dear -- a well-spoken, persuasive, and attractive defender at that. I'd link to her more often, but me not being trained in the law, her issues usually aren't my own.

On any given issue, you take your allies where you find them. You take your friends there, too.

We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us

The Onion reports massive nuclear proliferation in North Dakota.

(Thanks for the heads-up, Arthur.)

Was It Something Every Sensible Person Said?

He hasn't tipped over yet, but even Gary Farber is beginning to list starboard.

Who's Next?*

This story should come as no surprise:

The Saudi Embassy quietly provided the wife of a terror suspect a passport and transit out of the United States in November, after she was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in New York investigating her husband’s possible links to the al Qaeda terrorist network, diplomatic and law enforcement sources said.

It should also serve as a lesson on the real-world limits of keeping the Terror War limited to police work. Yes, the cops and courts have serious roles to play -- roles sometimes given a short shrift by the Bush Administration. But cops must play by rules which don't apply to international relations.

Speaking of lessons, when will we hear the Saudi's (trembling) response to Powell's speech today?

*With apologies to Tom Lehrer.

Best Wishes to the Old Guy

Go wish Mike a happy birthday.

We're Gonna Go It Alone With You Guys

Yet another nation prepares to hop on board the unilateral bandwagon:

"We believe that in line with our national interests, we should act together with our strategic ally, the United States," Mr. Gul told the reporters during a meeting in the Turkish capital of Ankara. "It was a very hard decision, we had sleepless nights, but there was nothing left to be done for a peaceful solution."

I never had much doubt Turkey would end up doing the right thing, even if only symbolically, and even with their domestic political difficulties. It's all especially encouraging since Ankara's new government is much less secular than Turkish army would like.

Although this new support might in fact be another case of "only Nixon could go to China."

Arsch Covering

Steven Den Beste forwards this link from Conrad, pointing to a smoking gun -- in Germany.

The Winning Link

Over at Slate, Hitch uncovers the other Iraq/al Qaeda connection.

He conclude, in part:

It seems obvious that there are those in the Muslim world who dislike or suspect the United States for what it does or does not do, and those who hate it for its very existence. The task of statecraft is to make this distinction and also to work hard and intelligently to make it wider. But to argue that nothing can be done lest it incur the displeasure of the second group is to surrender without a fight, and then to get a fight anyway.

I've said it before on this page -- we either fight them there or fight them here, and the cost to us here would be too great to bear.

Another Public Spanking

While trying to decide what bits to pull out of the latest Ralph Peters column, I realized there's no point. Read it all -- if you thought I was harsh with this, wait'll you read Peters.

At Least Some of the Words Are Spelled Correctly

Josh Martin collects trash from the Democratic Underground so you don't have to!

Read It and Weep -- or Laugh

Missed this last night while the Missus and I were out watching The Recruit.

Anyway, Max Power has an excellent find on the latest silliness from former AG Ramsey Clark.

Ask Away

If James Robbins had conducted that TV interview with Saddam, the questions would have been a leetle bit different. My favorite is the last one:

What are your grid coordinates?

Read'em all.

Fun with Photoshop

Phil has corrected some typos on those satillite photos.

An Open Letter to War Protestors

"Nothing new..." "I'm not convinced..." "Powell's heart isn't really in it..."

These familiar refrains, plus, as the ads say, many, many more are all over the no-war side of the blogosphere today.

For you idiots -- and I won't supply any links because I like some of you idiots -- no amount of proof is compelling, the bar can never be set too high, and no amount of reason can ever convince.

So much for the great bulk of thoughtful anti-war sentiment. There's no thought here, just the laziest sort of knee-jerk "not in my name" reaction. War is always bad, Iraq is never dangerous (or at least always "contained"), and America is racing headlong towards fascism.

Get with it, catch a clue, get a new catchphrase. Iraq is not only dangerous (as proven by two wars of aggression and undeniable terror weapons programs), but Iraq is in complete non-compliance with the demands of that war-hater's wet-dream-made-real, the United Nations.

The UN Charter doesn't outlaw war, (nor do the Geneva Conventions, for that matter). What the UN charter does, in part, is set ground rules for war that the signatory nations have agreed to. Saddam Hussein's Iraq is a member of the UN, and is therefore bound by the, well, binding decisions of the Security Council.

Iraq is in material breach of every single binding decision against it. No wishful thinking, no chant, no mantra, no march, no slogan, not one single verifiable fact can deny it.

Does the liberal mind want its baby to go the way of the League of Nations? Is it the liberal attitude that it's OK for an entire vital region be dominated by a tyrant with a penchant for terror and brutality? Is it the liberal stance that it's OK for civilians to be slaughtered on purpose by their own government, and their NGO buddies in the terror business?

The liberal mind, it is claimed, is ruled by reason. By what reason is Iraq absolved of its obvious guilt? By what reason is a global coalition required to ask for little and accept less? By what reason are our hands to remain tied?

This should be a liberal's war. By what reason is it not?

In today's speech to the UN, Colin Powell made an impassioned, documented, reasonable argument that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is a threat to the United States, the United Nations, his region, and his people. The facts he presented are incontrovertible and far from inconsequential.

You might argue that the al Qaeda connection evidence failed to meet the standards of American courtrooms. You'd be wrong, but you could at least make the case. But it doesn't matter. With or without an explicit connection to al Qaeda, Iraq is in noncompliance with a unanimous resolution threatening the direst consequences. Iraq was given a final chance, supposedly ending on January 27, but now extended until next Friday.

How many more chances does Saddam get? How many more risks to our interests, to our prestige, and to our people are we to take? How long must your beloved UN be made to look like fools?

Really, though, there's no point in me continuing to re-hash all these old arguments. Powell -- your dove! -- laid down the line this morning and, baring some miracle, the war will begin in earnest sometime in the next three to five weeks.

You lost. We -- the US, the UN, the Iraqi people -- are soon to win.

Stick a sock in it; you're done.

What Are They Thinking?

I'm listening to the translation of the French UN ambassador's response to Powell's address.

Having been given irrefutable evidence that Saddam has never complied with any inspections regime, and given compelling evidence that Saddam has no intention of ever compying, and given hard evidence of Iraqi non-compliance with inspectors, France now want -- naturally -- more and "stronger" inspections.

France just missed their first chance to change their self-destructive and self-defeating course.

They'll get about two more, then that's it -- they'll be dealt completely out of the New Iraq (which I suspect will happen anyway), and they'll get no help from our Occupation Government in suppressing evidence of French financial, technical, and material support in Iraqi terror weapons development.

Two more chances. One on Friday, another whenever the UN holds another vote. They still have enough wiggle room to make the switch believable , so don't count them out yet.

Mmm, Coffee

To everyone who stopped by to say thanks for the play-by-play, you're most welcome. This stuff is a lot of fun, but I can't promise to do the same for every major speech. It's fun, yeah, but it's awfully draining, too.

Anyway, hope you enjoyed. More in a bit.

Oh, and if your workplace does have a TV, switch on Fox. Brit Hume is doing a nice summation.

What's the German for "Kowtowing?"

The German ambassador is now making noises to the effect that unity of purpose is more important than the actual purpose.

Yes, we United Nations are brave enough to say a few un-nice things about tyrants with terror weapons, but we draw the line -- and I mean, draw the line! -- and saying something someone somewhere might disagree with, and heaven forbid there are any actions, or even threats of actions, to back up our carefully-chosen weasel words.

Well, I paraphrased a little.

Now May I Take a Coffee Break?

Straw just set a Friday deadline -- the date of the next report -- for UNSC action. "The decisions we take must have force beyond mere words."

And now, a short history lesson on the failure of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations. A clear warning to the UN, and one no diplomat getting paid on a lot of US dimes, can completely ignore.

In short, Straw is making the liberal case for war, and bless him for it.

As I thought, Straw didn't put forth any motion to vote on force authorization today. But his words were quite clear nonetheless: The Saddam has until Friday to comply completely, and the UN has some short time after Friday to either act or suffer the fate of the League.

More Required Reading

Did you miss Scrappleface's preview? Catch it.

But Do Think About This

If you aren't in front of a TV, Straw is still speaking, and his words seem to be leading up to a demand that the UN authorize force. I doubt he'll go that far, but wouldn't it be nice for our strongest ally to ask for the vote?

I'll keep listening and keep you posted.

Don't Think Too Hard About It

Jeebus, even Jack Straw is offering nothing but praise for Powell's performance, and nothing but condemnation of Iraq.

Wonder if Tony Blair has pictures of him with a donkey?

UPDATE: Kathy Kinsley comments: "Two 'doves' turned? If Powell is Bush's secret weapon, Straw may be Blair's. "

It's Over

I haven't been too kind to Powell on this page, but this morning, he more than redeemed any mistakes he might have made in the past. Today's presentation was everything I'd hoped it be, and far more than I expected. More thoughts later, after I've had a chance to read the transcripts.

Now, back to our regularly-unscheduled blogging.

Closing

"The United States cannot run the risk" of Saddam getting more and better weapons of mass destruction.

"Iraq remains in material breach."

"We wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace... but Iraq is not so far taking its one last chance."

Crystal

Saddam will keep on keeping on, "unless someone stops him."

That's clear enough, eh?

Horror

"Underlying all I've said...is Saddam's utter comtempt for human rights."

Again, this plays to the US/UK audience. No one else cares, except in the most shallow and hypocritical way. But I'm damn glad Powell is saying it.

Almost Over

Where did al Qaeda go for help after we toppled the Taliban, asked Powell? They went to Iraq. Then there's some meat for the chewing.

"Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades."

Honestly, I didn't expect Powell to concentrate so much on the terror angle, because the UNSC really doesn't give a hoot. Consider all this a prelude to Bush's oval office address when the bombs start falling.

Cripes.

But They Only Kill Jews

MORE details, now on the timing of meetings during the '90s between bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence, in Baghdad, Sudan, and Afghanistan.

The Iraqis provided money, help on forging documents, etc.

Without another cup of coffee, I can't tell you how much, if any, of this is new. But it's finally all in one speech, and a compelling one a that.

Oh, and a Hamas connection, too. Although considering how anti-Israel the UNSC usually is, that bit might backfire a little.

His Eyelids Are Stapled

Hah! Now we're hearing about the terror threat to our western European pals -- compete with Iraqi links. Wonder if the French diplomat even blinked.

Still Going

Was Iraq behind the Jordanian assassination last year? Powell provides evidence it was.

Wait for It

Man, Powell is STILL going on about the al Qaeda connection. And the details are dense -- coming faster than my fingers can move. Wait for the transcript, and we can go over it later.

Reader Responds II

He says he's "not convinced."

And he's not too sure about that whole theory of gravity, either.

People Who Blow Up People

"Our concern is not just about these illicit weapons," but how they might be transferred to and used by terror organization.

Then details of Saddam's terror and terror-sponsoring activities. Again, this plays better to the home audience than the UNSC, but it's damning nonetheless.

WHOA! Powell also isn't backing off the Iraq/al Qaeda connection. This is better than I'd hoped.

Hmm

We have evidence that Iraq has a banned UAV with a range of at least 500km. That can easily reach Israel.

Wonder what they'll do if we don't?

Oops

I just missed a great money quote by Powell regarding Iraqi missiles. But the gist of it was, "Iraq doesn't need these missiles for self-defense, but for delivering chemical and nuclear weapons, and, if we let him, someday nuclear warheads."

I, the Jury

Now, Iraqi missile violations -- both in range and in prohibited imports.

This is simple contract law. Has the party of the second part (heh) lived up to their end? Nope, nada, not even close.

Reader Responds

Some reader just chimed in that Powell's evidence wouldn't be taken seriously in a courtroom.

First off, he's wrong. Second, this ain't no stinkin' courtroom.

But It's a PEACEFUL Nuclear Weapons Program

Now Powell is discussing magnets used in uranium-enrichment, and Saddam's attempt to get new ones after 1991.

"Hussein is very much focused" on getting the "missing piece" for his nuclear program.

Yet Another Smoking Gun

Powell isn't just standing by the aluminum tubes claim, he's going into serious details.

I mean, like how they're of a finer grade than even the US Army requires for guns. These are NOT arty pieces, and Powell just demolished any claims that they are.

Scary

Had he not been stopped, "Saddam could have produced a nuclear weapon in 1993, years ahead of the worst-case estimate."

Powell then goes over the details of Saddam's bomb program, saying he has everything but the processed uranium.

Oh -- and more on the mysterious aluminum tubes. The Administration is standing by their claims, and you gotta appreciate the balls on that.

Powell Dropped the Big One

"We have more than a decade of proof that [Saddam] remains determined to build nuclear weapons."

Good Question II

Saddam has issued orders, says our sources, to USE chemical and biological weapons. Why, asks Powell, would he order the use of weapons he doesn't have.

Um... he's a show-off?

He Said What?

Two officers talking on the radio.

The key words? "Remove" and "nerve agents" -- repeated over and over again, with worries from the other guy that they're being overheard.

There's a body on the ground. Saddam, alone with the body in a sealed room, is holding a pistol of the caliber of the fatal wound, and the ballistics are a perfect match. Does the gun really need to be smoking?

More Audio Coming Up

"I don't give" Iraq the benefit of the doubt, "and I doubt you will, after listening to this next intercept."

More Pictures!

Ah -- here's where it gets interesting to geeks. Powell has a shot of a chemical weapons trans-shipment point. Logistics, vital to war, can in this case be damning in peace.

Remember, we did NOT have to find this stuff -- Iraq has to reveal it and explain it. And yet Powell is still living up to most any reasonable burden of proof.

But we don't need twelve good men to convict Iraq. Twelve well-armed brigades should do.

Slices, Dices, Even Makes Weapons-Grade Anthrax

OK, the talk has moved to dual-use technology, and how easy it is to hide when not used to civilian purposes.

Again, nothing exciting here, but damning nonetheless.

As You Wish

"We have evidence these weapons existed, we don't have evidence" that Iraq has destroyed them as required.

"As required" is a phrase that keeps coming up. You know why.

Embarrassing

Iraq has provided "no credible evidence" that it's mobile bio labs and WMD caches have been destroyed, "as required" by UNSC resolutions.

Translation from diplospeak: "He's been playing you for fools, and, thanks to CNN, now the whole world knows it."

Icky

"Iraq has not only successfully weaponized anthrax, but other biological agents."

And then the list of those other "agents." It sounds like all the maladies in the waiting room of a missionary hospital in some very poor -- and, needless to say, very very ill -- part of the world.

Kind Words

"We know that Iraq has at least seven of the mobile" germ factories.

Powell is arguing so well, with so much conviction and force, that I have to pa him the highest compliment: Colin, you coulda been a warblogger.

Getting MO-bile

Details now of Iraq's mobile bio labs.

It'd be nice if Powell had video or audio tapes here to back him up, but his sources are good nonetheless. In any case, it just doesn't seem as compelling as the earlier details of thwarting inspectors.

Why? Because thwarted inspectors make the UNSC look like fools, even if they're incapable of feeling foolish. And while they might not care about covering their asses, they'll damn sure want to cover their egos.

And THAT is how you get the UNSC to do the right thing.

Ballsy

Powell hasn't said Iraq was behind the 2001 anthrax mailings, but he's certainly making it clear they could have been.

That plays better to the home audience than it does the UNSC, but perhaps angry Americans can help light a fire under their asses. I mean, if not, then what the hell have I been doing the last year?

Limits on Typing

OK, here come the details of Iraq's banned programs to develop WMDs. No way to keep up with all this, so I'll try to pull the money quotes.

Warning Shot

"This body places itself in danger of irrelevance" if it fails to call Iraq's non-compliance.

Ouch

""Active and sytematic effort by the Iraqi regime" to frustrate the inspection teams. "A deliberate campaign" to avoid its responsibilities.

"False statements and omissions."

Any failure "shall constitute further material breach."

"They failed that test."

Weird Al Is Not Afraid

Powell is now going over Saddam's refusal to allow his scientists to speak privately, and in a location free from fear of reprisal, with UN inspectors.

Oh, and Saddam's threat to shoot for treason any scientist who speaks to the UN.

"Not assertions, facts, well documented."

Now I have a Doobie Brothers tune running through my head. "Oh, black powder, keep on smoking..."

Something like that, anyway.

More Damning Words

"This refusal to allow this kind of reconaissance is in direct violation" of UNSC 1441.

Keep on Truckin'

Trucks moving in the night, scurrying activity two days before inspections began...

OK, no smoking gun here, but plenty of people have justly been convicted on weaker circumstantial evidence.

Clean Get Away

Powell said beforehand there would be "no smoking gun" in today's presentation. But if the A-B picture comparison wasn't a smoking gun, then someone please tell me why I'm smelling cordite right now.

Photos

Powell is now showing satilite photos. I don't have the training to judge these, but plenty of people with TVs do -- so it's safe to assume the images are of what Powell says they are. It's be a bad bluff to make, since too many people could call it.

More Proof

While the UNSC fiddled last fall, "we know that an Iraqi missile brigade dispersed."

Good Question

"Are the inspectors to search the homes of every government member?"

It Was Just Business

"Saddam Hussein and his regime are doing all they can to insure the inspections regime," finds nothing.

Bear with me if I mangle a quote or two.

"Son Qusay ordered the removal" of all banned weapons from Saddam's palaces.

Powell is really going after the whole family here.

That's My Boy!

Powell is now naming names below Saddam, including son Uday.

That's a cue away from "disarmament" and back towards "regime change."

Premature for the weaselly UNSC? Perhaps. But it's not like we've got all morning. . .

Money Line

"This effort to hide things from the UN is not an isolated event," Powell said -- but is a 12-year-long effort at the "highest levels."

More

More audio spy tape.

"We sent you a message yesterday to clear the area" of disallowed weapons. Same guys talking -- with orders to destroy the message.

"We Evacuated It"

Compelling evidence that Iraq isn't living up to 1441. That's "material breach," kids.

Audio Tape

Cool. We're hearing a phone conversation between an Iraqi Republican Guard general and... somebody, I didn't catch who.

Two things. One, Iraq knows we have the technical means to do this. Two, the revelation might just put a crimp in their communications for a short while. Speaking of being painted in corners -- this sort of thing paints us into one.

But one I don't mind being in.

First Impressions

Powell says the US is now providing "all relevant" information to the inspection teams. He's playing ball the UN way, which may paint the UNSC into a corner.

Not that they'd ever admit it, of course.

Yes, I'm Awake Already

Powell looks good. Wonder how he'll sound. . .

But Will He Use PowerPoint?

The BBC offers a preview of Colin Powell's presentation to the UN later today. Included are some cool little tidbits about NSA "technical means." Using a variety of sources, they put together a good guestimate of what the UNSC will hear.

Check it out, and compare it to what really happens.

Required Reading

Whenever Lileks hasn't posted his daily Bleat by midnight Central, you gotta figure he's working on something good. He was.

Yeah, it's Lileks on a rant.

Funny

Steve Hornbeck has a look at some of the new shows coming soon to CNN.

What Will Iraq Look Like on V-I Day+1?

The war is won. Now to win the peace. General Tommy Franks already had his bags packed at his HQ in Bahrain, and prepares to travel to his new job in Baghdad as Governor-General, Viceroy, Oppressor of the Dark People, whatever.

But what does Iraq look like?

First off, outside of the capital, Mosul, Tikrit, Basra, and a handful of other major cities, the place is mostly chaos. Oil well fires, fears of chemical and biological contamination, unexploded ordinance – all the bad stuff that follows a Middle East war. And that’s just the working environment; the rest is worse, or teetering on, um, worseness.

While we’re busy trying to seal unsealable borders to keep war criminals from escaping, Kurds, draftees, colonels, and Shi’ites will all be out for revenge. We’ll be lifting the lid on an awful lot of ancient hatreds, so we’ll have to put out a lot of fires. No one wants to fight the Americans, but they’ll all be itching to fight each other. Forget, for a little while, democracy, nation-building, and oil revenues. First the Coalition will have to stop those awful forces we’ll have unleashed.

There is some good news, though. After twenty years of losing wars, punishing sanctions, and local terror, many of the locals might just want nothing more than normal lives. I almost wrote “a return to normal life,” but not a whole lot of Iraqis have ever experienced such a simple thing. “Stop shooting and smell the flowers” might just have more resonance than mutual slaughter – but Franks won’t be able to count on it.

Besides, the Yanks and their buddies will be everywhere, and they’ll be armed to the teeth. And after Bosnia, we have some practical experience in keeping the kids separated long enough to simmer down a bit.

Our main goals for the occupation are as follows (and in order of importance):

Fixing any immediate disasters, such as burning oil wells, unfed citizens, treating civilians casualties, Iranian deployments, etc.

Disarming Iraq. Not just the Iraqi army, mind you, but the entire country. And don’t think the Kurds or Shi’ites are going to like it. We can’t build a multiethnic country if we start out with tribal fiefdoms.

Finding Ba’ath Party war criminals, archives, and arms caches. (The I-Told-You-So’s can wait a while.)

Setting up local (and I mean local) civilian authorities.

Getting together some sort of Iraqi Constitutional Convention, under strong Anglo-American oversight.

Handing off power as quickly as is reasonable to local authorities while the Interim Government sets up.

Complete Iraqi independence, culminating with a Treaty of Friendship between Iraq, the US, UK, Australia, Jordan, (Israel? Why not? Pre-Mullah Iran and Israel were quite friendly) and any other friendly nation.

Of course, that’s not all the work there is to be done in the Middle East, but I’m saving the rest for another post.

History Repeats Itself?

Anne Applebaum points out that Germany’s newfound crankiness isn’t just about Iraq:

Although it sounds like pacifism, Schroeder's rhetoric seems to be part of a larger pattern of assertiveness. When he came to office, he spoke of his desire to make Germany a "normal" country, liberated from its past. Now his countrymen seem determined to take him up on it. Last spring, a handful of German and Austrian conservative politicians tried to revive the long-dead question of compensation for Germans expelled from the Czech Republic at the end of the war -- an issue that many felt had been settled. Recently a debate over whether the Allied bombing of Dresden was a war crime has preoccupied the German press. Speaking of Dresden, one German historian called on the British to face up to their past -- something many have long asked of Germany. Germans complain louder than they did in the past about the unfairness of European Union budgets, which have always been supported by German taxpayers, and they have grown more assertive in their demands for German influence within the European Union itself.

Let’s re-write that graf a wee bit:

Although it sounds like militarism, Chancellor Hitler’s rhetoric seems to be part of an even larger pattern of assertiveness. When he came to office, he shouted of his desire to make Germany a “normal” country, liberated from its past. Now his countrymen seem determined to take him up on it. Last spring, a handful of German and Austrian conservative politicians tried to revive the long-dead question of compensation for Germans expelled from Polish lands at the end of the Great War – an issue that many felt had been settled. Recently a debate over whether the British naval “starvation” blockade of German harbors was a war crime has preoccupied the German press. Speaking of the blockade, one German historian called on the British to face up to their past – something many have long asked of the Weimar Republic. Germans complain louder than they did in the past about the unfairness of Versailles Treaty reparations, which have been supported by German taxpayers, and have grown more assertive in their demands for German influence within the League of Nations.

Of course, that’s probably a cheap bit of scare-mongering on my part. Schroeder hasn’t said one word about increasing German military readiness.

Still, it’s a good thing our forces are in better shape now than they were in 1939, nicht wahr?

Quick War, Long Peace

Tom Friedman is less worried about Jordan or Egypt or Turkey than he is about you:

I think I get this war, and, on balance, I think it is a risk worth taking — provided we have a country willing to see it through. But it is time the president leveled with the country — not just about the dangers posed by Saddam, but about the long-term costs involved in ousting him and rebuilding Iraq. This is not going to be Grenada.

This war has two purposes — one stated, one unstated — but both require the same means. The stated purpose is to disarm Iraq. The unstated purpose is to transform it from a totalitarian system that has threatened its neighbors and its own people into something better. It won't be a perfect democratic state. That will take years. But it can be a more decent state — one that doesn't threaten its own people or neighbors. And it can serve as a progressive model to spur reform — educational, religious, economic and political — around the Arab world. This is the audacious part.

Friedman’s worry is that the American public hasn’t been told enough by President Bush to have the stomach for a prolonged rebuilding of Iraq – and he makes a strong case. If there is anything “imperial” about this Administration’s policies, it’s a penchant for keeping too tight-lipped on vital matters.

But I also think Friedman underestimates the American people. If we start seeing years of body bags and no real progress, then, yes, we’ll lose heart. Remember, though, that it wasn’t until late in our Vietnam effort that a majority of the population turned against it – we seem only to remember the rather vocal minority.

If – as looks likely – we see the streets of Baghdad lined with Iraqis armed with American flags, and we see real progress in making something decent out of a wrecked country, then Americans will rally to the cause.

The fighting? It won’t last long enough to generate any protest, except from the usual sad suspects.

The Wellstone Boys Didn't RSVP

Now this is how to hold a memorial.

(Sorry, Skippy.)

Update

As hoped, Rand Simberg pointed the way to an answer about Garrett Banse's question about the Space Shuttle insulation foam. From the San Jose Mercury News:

NASA engineers have known for at least five years that insulating foam could peel off the space shuttle's external fuel tanks and damage the vital heat-protecting tiles that the space agency says were the likely ``root cause'' of Saturday's shuttle disaster.

The Jan. 16 launch wasn't the first time that Columbia's fragile tiles were pummeled by chunks of foam. It happened on the spacecraft's first launch, and again, more severely, in 1997.

It's no wonder NASA pulled the new insulation puff-piece off their website. And it seems the EPA may have some 'splaining to do.

Longer, Harder Blogroll

Rodger Schultz is a funny, funny man. It's my bad that he didn't make the blogroll until just now.

Other new additions, all far too long in coming:

Michael Totten
Dennis Rogers
Bo Cowgill
Gary Farber
Porphyrogenitus
Rachel Lucas
Mike Silverman

Sorry about the wait, kids.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know

Arthur Silber asks the most important question of the day.

Suitable for Framing

One of my bride's co-workers at Lockheed sent her these, and they're of a high enough resoultion to make decent 4x6 prints.

Click for the full-sized images and then right-click in the new window to save.

Whoa

Hot off Drudge comes this UPI story:

France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials.

But while dismissing Germany's refusal to support military action against Iraq as an aberration by "a discredited chancellor," Perle warned that France's attitude was both more dangerous and more serious.

"France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor."

Sure, the warbloggers and many real-world commentators have been saying this for months, some for years. But this is Richard Perle speaking, who holds quite some sway in Washington as chairman of the Pentagon's civilian Defense Policy Board. His statement could end up influencing White House (and, yes, even State Department) policy for the length of this Administration -- if not longer.

Now don't go off the deep end and think we'll be forward-deploying forces to the Italian Alps, or loading up a MEU at Dover for another cross-Channel assault.

What Perle seems to mean by containing "our erstwhile ally" is diplomacy, not threats. The (accidental?) Bush SOTU/Wall Street Journal maneuver last week looks now like a preview of more things to come.

The Gang of Eight was a start. Tomorrow's Powell presentation to the UN will be another step. We already boxed France into a corner, and they can expect, I think, many more attempts just like it.

Anyone know the French for "howling"? Because we're going to be hearing a lot of it.

Good Question

Reader Garrett Banse, with whom I used to correspond way back when on Fidonet, forwards this Google-cached NASA report:

Mimicking a Space Shuttle launch profile, an F-15B research aircraft based at NASA Dryden flew a series of missions to evaluate the dynamic response characteristics of the new insulation material. The Shuttle External Tank Experiment involved six research flights over a two-week period by Dryden's F-15B in partnership with NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., and the Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans, La.

...

The experiment was part of an effort to determine why small particles of spray-on foam insulation flaked off of the inter-tank section of the external fuel tank on Space Shuttle mission STS-87 as the Shuttle ascended. The new lightweight insulation material was developed to comply with an EPA mandate to reduce ozone-depleting chemicals released into the atmosphere. Although such flaking or erosion of the insulation off the external tank posed no safety hazard to the Shuttle or its crew, engineers wanted to determine its cause to prevent future maintenance and operational problems. The flights aboard Dryden's F-15B were just one of many tests to which the new insulation material is being subjected.

Initial results of the flight tests at Dryden, which were designed to replicate the pressure environment the Shuttle encounters in the first 65 seconds after launch, indicate the new foam survived the tests in perfect shape, with no evidence of flaking or erosion found.

Garrett adds:

I don't have time at the moment to research whether shedding foam occurred with any regularity prior to the change in foam mandated by the EPA, but it would be interesting to find out.

He notes that the press release is no longer on NASA's website. Anyone know anything about this?

Check With Three Moves to Mate

Steven Den Beste beat me to the punch, summarizing all the latest moves and deployments around Iraq.

40 minutes of Googling, wasted!

With Apologies to Groucho

Frankly, it's probably best that France wouldn't join any club that would have it as a member.

Truly, Deeply Regrettable Foods

Here's a game everyone can play, although I really wish they wouldn't.

Build It...

Dan at Happy Fun Pundit has suggestions on how to get back into space, the semi-private way:

NASA is about to build the next generation space plane. It should be designed so that its support systems on the ground are minimal, using as much off-the-shelf hardware as possible. NASA can subcontract the design and construction, pay for R&D; and flight test prototypes, do the flight testing, and then turn operational control over to Boeing, or McDonnell Douglas, or anyone else with the resources to bid on such a contract. These companies can manufacture the planes and sell them to the military or fly military missions on contract. NASA can contract their own space launches through these companies. For NASA's investment, it would get priority status for its own launches and for military payloads.

There's much more, all of it worth your time.

If You Cannot Afford an Attorney, One Will Be Appointed to Judge You

Wow. This could set a scary precedent.

Heads We Win, Tails They Lose

Remember that silly Stephen Pelletiere op-ed piece I linked to on Friday? Leave it to The New Republic's Spencer Ackerman to tear it down to size.

If you'll recall, Pelletiere argued that Saddam is innocent of human rights violation, especially the 1988 gassing of thousands of Kurds. He claimed the corpses

indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

Ackerman responds:

This claim is wildly implausible. First, interviews by international human rights groups with scores of Halabja survivors reveal no such confusion about who deployed the chemicals. Kurds who were outside their houses during the mid-morning attack "could see clearly that these were Iraqi, not Iranian aircraft, since they flew low enough for their markings to be legible," concluded Human Rights Watch in its 1993 report Genocide In Iraq. In any case, the argument for Iranian culpability neglects the logistics of the Halabja battle itself. The Iranians, who controlled the town on March 15, would have no reason to use chemical agents against the Iraqi counteroffensive on March 16, since the Iraqis retaliated with air strikes and placed no soldiers on the ground against whom such weapons could be deployed.

Second, even if the victims died of exposure to blood agents, this would be perfectly consistent with the claim of Iraqi responsibility. A 1991 DIA report, since declassified, concluded definitively, "Iraq is known to have employed ... a blood agent, hydrogen cyanide gas (HCN) ... against Iranian soldiers, civilians, and Iraqi Kurdish civilians." Nonetheless, it is far more likely, according to the standard accounts of the attack on Halabja, that mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin and tabun--and, some doctors examining survivors have speculated, perhaps VX and the biological agent aflatoxin--were the instruments of Kurdish murder, which the Iraqis were known to possess.

But really, does it matter? Saddam's days are numbered, thanks in advance to either Coalition forces or some as-yet-unknown Iraqi colonel with a 9mm retirement plan for Hussein. And the days of Iran's mullahs are numbered, too, thanks to the dreams of freedom of the Iranian people.

Priorities

Tonight UK viewers can watch Saddam's interview on TV.

Me? I'll be watching Buffy. Watching a group of teenage American girls kick vampiric ass is a lot more beleivable than anything Saddam has to say.

Even though Buffy won't be nearly as entertaining.

Everything But

What, he's not packing his towel?

Hyperwar

The big military buzzword from the Korean War (and onward) was "force multiplier." It means that accurate US artillery and air strikes (those are the mulitpliers) make smaller numbers of US troops much more effective (that's the force part) than much larger numbers of enemy troops.

Force multiplication is why 500,000 Coalition troops were able to rout 1.5 million Iraqi troops in 1991. Historically, a 3:1 advantage was considered necessary to guarantee victory. We did it then outnumbered 1:3. So what about now, with more numerous -- and much more accurate -- smart bombs?

In the 1991 Gulf War (what are we going to call this next one, anyway? Gulf War II? The Iraq War? Suggestions, please) a US Navy aircraft carrier was able to hit about 170 targets a day. Now that the Navy is finally on board with precision munitions (they had hardly any in '91), each carrier's planes can hit 600 targets a day -- and often with fewer warplanes on board, due to cutbacks.

So, we could send a third as many carriers to the Gulf this time, and still hit more targets each day. Or send the same number and hit more than three times as many. And still have plenty of force projection left to, say, keep a couple carriers stationed near North Korea. You know, just as a little reminder to Kim Jong.

But what does all this air power force multiplication mean in actual practice? What will it look like? StrategyPage has some ideas:

Picture hundreds of bombers (large and small) flying into Iraq carrying several thousand of pre-programmed smart bombs. While heavy bombers can carry up to two dozen 2000 pound JDAMs, there are now smaller JDAMs available as well. This enables the same aircraft to carry more bombs. Many targets don't require a 2000 bomb, and smaller aircraft (like F-16s, F-18s and F-15s) can carry six to a dozen 500 pound JDAMs. This makes it possible for, say, 200 bombers (from F-16s to B-52s) to carry nearly 2000 JDAMs for a single simultaneous strike. Several hundred cruise missiles launched from ships and subs can be added to this attack.

At a prearranged time, all the bombs are released so that they all hit their targets at about the same time. Suddenly, everyone in the Iraqi armed forces is under attack. It's long been known that firepower, be it artillery or bombs, is a lot more effective if the target doesn't know it's coming. Once the first bomb hits, and the word gets around, the other enemy troops head for cover and the damage done is much less. For example, the Iraqis plan to move a lot of their military equipment and vehicles to residential neighborhoods once the bombing campaign begins. But if there is one big attack, there's won’t be time to move anything. And after the attack, not much will be capable of moving.

Those damn Americans will, it will seem to the enemy, be both everywhere and untouchable. Attacks like these will also mean decapitation on a grand scale. The first bombs won't merely decapitate Ba'ath leadership (by killing them, or forcing them underground with little effective communication), but army corps, division, regiments, and perhaps even batallions will find their commanders dead or incommunicado. And the grunts in the trenches -- literally in trenches, how quaint -- will have the fight sucked right out of them.

And that's assuming anyone in the Iraqi Army below the rank of colonel has any desire to fight in the first place.

Birds of a Feather

Dick Morris is the latest to detail France's long history of kowtowing to Iraqi oil interests.

Could Raines Be Next?

Bush has rolled another liberal, this time NYT op-ed contributor Robert Wright:

But an honest liberal has to admit that Mr. Bush's unilateralist belligerence lit a fire under the Security Council, giving the United Nations a prominence it has rarely enjoyed in its 57-year history. In fact, there remains a slim chance that the president could, however paradoxically, emerge as a historic figure in the United Nations' evolution toward enduring significance. But only if administration hawks make an admission of their own: that working through the United Nations could get them everything they profess to want. That means not just disarmament, but regime change and the introduction of democracy.

The funny part, of course, is that Wright seems somehow amazed that it took "unilateralist belligerence" to get the UN to even consider doing the right thing.

More Signs and Portents

The State Department wants Americans in the Middle East to come home already:

The State Department issued travel warnings for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia late last week, cautioning about "increased security concerns" and authorizing "the departure of family members and non-emergency personnel" at the U.S. embassies "on a voluntary basis."

"Private American citizens ... should evaluate rigorously their own security situations and are strongly urged to consider departing," the department said.

The two main American schools in Kuwait said yesterday that they will suspend classes starting Monday through March 22. The American School of Kuwait and the American International School educate about 270 American children and about 2,000 foreign students.

Through March 22, eh? Even with a March 1/2 start date, Saddam should be gone three weeks later.

Help

What the hell is Nick Kristof trying to say in today's column?

There's no way to excerpt it and still give you a complete sense of the thing, so go read it and come back here.

Near as I can tell, Kristof says that North Korea is becoming more dangerous. And that Bush will just sit on his hands as the DPRK builds nuke after nuke. And that it's somehow out fault for not talking to the Dear Leader enough, even though we sent him all the promised food and oil. And that somehow "engagement" -- more talking -- will get them to disarm.

At least I think that's what Kristof means. Honestly, I can't make sense of it.

Another Drumbeat

James Baker goes over the pros and cons and lands squarely on the side of toppling Saddam:

But let us have no illusions. Armed conflict is never cost-free. With good planning and some luck, losses will be low. But there will be casualties among American and allied servicemen and women as well as Iraqi civilians. In addition, war can create dynamics that are difficult to predict and control. This is particularly true of the Middle East, where a U.S.-led campaign against Iraq may give rise to even more anti-American sentiment.

Yet we cannot allow the real risks associated with acting against Iraq to paralyze us. They must be balanced against the risks of inaction--in this case, a future nuclear, biological or chemical attack against the U.S., its allies, or Iraq's neighbors. We cannot permit Iraq to become another North Korea. Leadership is not about making easy decisions. It is about making right ones. When it comes to Iraq, the administration has made the right one. With Secretary Powell's mission to the U.N., it is now up to the Security Council to make the right one as well.

Don't let that last line fool you. Baker argues early on that a UNSC authorization is nice, but not necessary, saying that

The case for military action is therefore compelling. It cannot be deferred indefinitely as Iraq continues to play its cat-and-mouse game with U.N. inspectors. Nor can it be held hostage to lowest-common-denominator consensus in the Security Council. Yet the administration is absolutely right in going the last mile and sending Secretary of State Colin Powell to consult again with the Security Council and lay out, commensurate with protection of intelligence assets, further evidence of Saddam's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Not bad for a former creature of the State Department.

Major Setback

Drudge has the teaser above the mast right now, but expect a full link to Gertz in The Washington Times, later this evening:

Al Qaeda is planning a mass-casualty attack to rival September 11, but preparations have been disrupted by arrests during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials, the WASHINGTON TIMES is reporting in Tuesday editions. MORE///

Intelligence reports also stated any major attack is likely to be preceded by smaller-scale strikes -- including assassinations of prominent people in the U.S....

Who says we can't fight al Qaeda and Iraq and the Taliban concurrently?

UPDATE: Here's the link to the story, and some of the meat for you to chew on:

Recent intelligence reports indicate that communications among clandestine cells of al Qaeda members are being restored gradually, the intelligence officials said.
"The attack will be large-scale," one official said.

Additionally, the intelligence reports stated that any major attack is likely to be preceded by smaller-scale strikes, including assassinations of prominent people in the United States, the official said.

Officials did not provide details on the latest threat, which was contained in intelligence reports sent to senior Bush administration officials last week. The warning did not say whether the attacks would be in the United States or abroad.

The VodkaPundit betting line? If any attack occurs, it won't be in the continental United States. Any assassination attempt will be prevented, bungled, or otherwise stopped. Furthermore, the twin failures will hurt al Qaeda's fundraising and recruitment efforts.

Yeah, What Took You So Long?

Best wishes to Patrick and Lindsay.

GO

Stryker knows what to do next.

Conspiracy Theory

There is no dead body. The whole murder charge is just a cover-up for the latest in government oppression. Phil Spector was, in fact, arrested by the Fashion Police.

Oh, the charge? Fashion Code Felony 1983-14b: Attempting to look hip as an overage Boomer, with a minor count of unauthorized access to Howard Stern's hairstylist.

A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste

Paul Krugman can't, apparently, find himself on the right side of any issue anymore. Read:

The sad truth is that for many years NASA has struggled to invent reasons to put people into space — sort of the way the Bush administration struggles to invent reasons to . . . but let's not get into that today. It's an open secret that the only real purpose of the International Space Station is to give us a reason to keep flying space shuttles.

Does that mean people should never again go into space? Of course not. Technology marches on: someday we will have a cost-effective way to get people into orbit and back again. At that point it will be worth rethinking the uses of space. I'm not giving up on the dream of space colonization. But our current approach — using hugely expensive rockets to launch a handful of people into space, where they have nothing much to do — is a dead end.

Understand I'm not a gung-ho Space Shuttle fan. As I wrote on Saturday, we're stuck flying old trucks because of a lack of vision at NASA, a lack of demand from voters, and typical government squashing of private industry's efforts. None of that changes Krugman's stout refusal to think, or, worse, his expectation that his readers can't think.

His suggestion that we'll "someday" have a cost-effective way to get people into space while steadfastly refusing to send people into space, is a lot like arguing that we can keep developing faster computers if we stop building them and concentrate all our efforts first on better typewriters.

You do not discover new methods of doing things by not doing them. You do not discover safer ways to send humans into harsh environments without sending humans. You do not gain valuable experience by shunning experience. You do not discover cheaper methods without investing time and money. You do not -- get this, Paul? -- get space colonies without spacemen.

And you certainly don't encourage dreams of flight by grounding the flyers.

Grand Thinking

One of my favorite writers of fiction and non-fiction, Ralph Peters, suggests tiered sovereignties for forging order and safety in the post 9/11 world:

Level One: Every government, from Mexico to India, that respects the will of its people through democratic institutions, works for the betterment of its citizens, demonstrates progress toward respect for human rights and strives toward the rule of law deserves continued recognition of its full, legal sovereignty.

Level Two: States that cannot control their own territory, that lack the ability to protect their own citizens or to prevent international terrorists and other criminals from using their territory as a refuge, would be able to claim only partial sovereignty. More capable, rule-of-law states would have the right to intervene for limited purposes to bring killers and other criminals to justice. In every other respect, these weak, but well-intentioned states would enjoy the traditional privileges and protections of sovereignty.

Level Three: Regimes that refuse to enforce the rule of law inside their borders, that knowingly harbor terrorists and criminals, that behave aggressively toward their neighbors or that abuse their own citizens would forfeit their territorial sovereignty and their right to govern. Period.

Read it all. Peters has written an important column, codifying what we seem to be heading towards, anyway.

What Next

In answer to Saturday's question about the future of the ISS, The Times says much depends on the remaining three Space Shuttles:

The disintegration of Columbia places the future of the station in jeopardy. It is not even one-third complete and the grounded American shuttles had undertaken the lion’s share of transporting astronauts and vital components. It is now reliant on two Russian craft.

The thinnest wisps of air at 250 miles (400km) in space are enough to drag the station back to Earth over time, so it needs an occasional rocket boost to remain in orbit. The Russians can deliver fuel for the station’s own thrusters.

The Russian space agency agreed yesterday that the 16 nations funding the station could “forget about further construction” until Nasa brings its shuttles back into service. After the Challenger disaster in 1986, Nasa suspended all manned spaceflights for two years, five months.

The good news, such as it is, is that the Columbia was the oldest and heaviest (and thus least reliable) of the shuttle fleet. So it seems doubtful that we'll go over two years again before another launch.

It's either that or rely completely on the Russians. Or allow the ISS to suffer the same fate as Skylab.

Fitting Memorial

What Bush should have said, courtesy of Dan at HFP:

We will honor these seven brave people by creating a small memorial to them, and the hands of a NASA astronaut will place that memorial on the surface of Mars. This is the way that Americans honor their brave pioneers - by carrying their pioneering spirit forward. God bless every one of those seven. They will not be forgotten.

Let's do it.

Bad Day for Bitterness

From Reuters:

Immediate popular reaction in Baghdad on Saturday to the loss of the U.S. space shuttle Columbia and its seven-member crew -- including the first Israeli in space -- was that it was God's retribution.
"We are happy that it broke up," government employee Abdul Jabbar al-Quraishi said.

"God wants to show that his might is greater than the Americans. They have encroached on our country. God is avenging us," he said.

Iraq is a brutalized, impoverished country, which hasn't contributed anything positive to the world (except for mineral wealth extracted mostly by Westerners) for several hundred years.

Is that Allah's will, too?

Heroes

What is there to say?

Rick Husband. William McCool. Michael Anderson. David Brown. Kalpana Chawla. Laurel Clark. Ilan Ramon. They're not heroes because they died on re-entry. They became heroes when they strapped in before lift-off.

They'll be missed. Their loss is tragic. But we'll go on, and go on deeper into space. We're a pioneering people. Americans pushed back frontiers in the west, in science, in war, and in peace. We'll keep doing so.

Part of pioneering is burying your dead and then moving on.

The Space Shuttle fleet? Grounded, I assume, maybe permanently. The International Space Station? I honestly don't know. Can we keep it manned and supplied without the shuttle?

NASA has some serious questions to answer. As I see it, the big issue isn't how today's particular tragedy happened. Instead, we should ask why we're still flying old trucks based mostly on '60s technology. I know budget cuts are part of the problem, but the bigger problem seems to be a lack of vision at our civilian space agency.

Give us a vision, and chances are we'll give you your budget. Show us a real space-age space plane, and we'll show you the money. Or maybe it's our fault, for not having demanded more.

The Cold War started us into space. The current war couldn't keep us from continuing to go. So we'll bury our dead and move on. Sadder, wiser, more determined.

Follow the usual links to the usual people for more real news than I can offer. Someone from NASA will speak at 1pm Eastern, about five minutes from now. I'm guessing President Bush will speak later today. Next week we'll see the odd juxtaposition of seven non-military heroes funerals, while Colin Powell prepares the UN for war.

That, too, is part of burying our dead and moving on.

If you pray, then pray for Husband, McCool, Anderson, Brown, Chawla, Clark, and Ramon. Think of their families if you don't. But pray for and think of the future, too. A future in orbit, on the moon, on Mars -- and living among the stars.