I missed Richard Clarke's interview on 60 Minutes yesterday. I watched his interview with Charlie Rose on his (Rose's) PBS show tonight. Here are the key points that I took away:
1) He believes that if the Bush Administration had heeded his advice, the FBI may have apprehended 2 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, possibly disrupting the plot--perhaps causing one of the four teams to abort.
2) The Bush Administration used too few troops in Afghanistan to cut off and capture bin Laden.
3) George Tenent of the CIA may privately agree with him, but probably won't say so until after he leaves government service.
4) He won't serve in a Kerry Administration, should we be cursed with same.
5) Had the Bush Administration followed his advice...had it not gone to war with Iraq (I'm not totally clear that he advised anyone on totally avoiding war with Iraq)...our security situation would be much better.
6) No one in the Bush Administration lied, but they came close to doing so.

My take on his assertions:
1) Pre-9/11, the Bush Administration was still operating under the Clinton Administration's dictum that the FBI and the CIA could not cooperate at the operational level to share information that could be used in domestic counterintelligence. Clarke says that Clinton officials had held high level meetings to "shake the tree" to get such information out that Clarke claims thwarted terrorist attacks going back to 1996. At least, that's the impression that he gave--that Clinton's NSC Director, Sandy Berger, was ignoring or countermanding Reno's order so that better inter-agency coordination could take place. He apparently feels that Condi Rice, Bush's NSC Director, should have listened to him and done the same. The Bush Administration says that the chatter that the intelligence services picked up in the first 8 months of 2001 indicated that attacks would come against US or allied interests overseas, not domestically. I don't know what other arguments he used in classified meetings with Administration officials, but it sounds like they were alert to a threat. Clarke doesn't deal with the issue of the FBI bureaucracy's poor handling of a low-level agent's reports on the terrorists' activities. Apparently, no chatter alerted anyone to activities involving aircraft, and still fewer "experts" would have believed that the goal of the terrorists was to crash the planes instead of holding the passengers as hostages. He seems to be on shaky ground.
2) I expect that Secretary Rumsfeld will comment on the Afghanistan strategy at some point. I believe--based on my reading of history--that the Bush Administration was mindful of the failure of the Soviet Union to conquer the country, despite deploying over 100,000 troops and planting one of the largest minefields in history. Fifteen thousand Soviet troops died during the 10-year conflict. The USSR withdrew in 1989 after reaching a face-saving agreement with the US that called for the ending of US support for the Mujahidin. Afghanistan suffered huge losses during the conflict: almost one million Afghanis died; five million more were forced to leave their homes.
The US Special Ops/Air Force approach destroyed the Taliban and resulted in destroying or capturing 2/3 of the Al Qaeda leadership. Whether we would have suffered unacceptable losses in a more massive buildup--a buildup that would have taken much more time to transport and stage prior to invasion--is a question that Clarke wasn't asked. We cannot know whether more troops would have meant immediate capture of bin Laden given the terrain and weather conditions during the period of the war. Again, Clarke doth protest too much.
3) If Tenent turns on the President, he'll betray a man who stood by him when many in Congress and around the country were (and are) looking for a head to chop off. The "failure" of pre-Iraq war intelligence arguments pointed to Tenent and his daily briefings of the President as a scapegoat for the "failure".
4) Good.
5) That's not clear. Clarke says that Dean was right, that we're no safer after the fall of Saddam. I disagree.
-- Saddam was corrupting the UN, and allied governments, to get sanctions lifted.
-- Saddam gave speeches (see the MEMRI site) praising his scientists for their research on nuclear weapons and other WMD programs. It appears that if he didn't have WMD programs, he had WMD experts in place ready to resume the programs once the sanctions were lifted.
-- Saddam hosted terrorist camps, and paid the families of Palestinian homicide bombers after their deaths in attacks on Israel.
-- Saddam was in a position to destabilize the supply of a crucial national resource used by the entire world--something he had done once before. He could damage the economies of the industrial world, and hold them hostage if he became powerful enough to stand against the West.
6) Don't think so. President Bush is a man who says what he means, and means what he says. I think that's true of the Vice President as well. No senior official would last long in this Administration if caught in a lie.

Richard Perle will appear on the Charlie Rose show tomorrow night to rebut Clarke's assertions. It should be a good one.

Richard "Dick" Clarke certainly has changed his tune on the administration's approach to dealing with the threat of terrorism. National Review magazine's blog, The Corner, excerpts a portion of an interview PBS's Frontline program conducted with Clarke in 2002 The Corner on National Review Online

National Review also carries the text of a White House document that contains responses to charges Clarke now levels against the Administration here

CBS didn't chalk up any points for journalistic integrity by failing to mention that Clarke's book, like Paul O'Neill's book, were published by CBS's parent company, Viacom. The publishing subsidiary, Simon & Schuster, also publishes books by James Carville, Paul Begala and other Clinton-friendly authors.

Read this http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002759.html#002759

... then this http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002760.html#002760

... and then this http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002761.html#002761

These people don't mind ruling society under martial law, as long as they're the martials. I pray that they are never given the chance here. Their track record speaks for itself.

Take the test According to the "Which Big Lebowski character are you?" quiz:

Why don't you check it out? Or we cut of your Johnson!

Who knew that the 82nd Airborne has a men's chorus? The world's toughest "boy band" gave a great rendition of the national anthem at today's Nextel Cup event in Atlanta, followed by a slow flyover by a formation of 4 A-10 Warthogs. The Warthog is one of my favorite aircraft. This site A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II - Military Aircraft contains a great deal of information on the best tank killer in service today. As the A-10 pilots proudly say, "Go ugly early".

In honor of St. Patrick's month

Danny Boy

Oh Danny boy, the pipes,
the pipes are calling
From glen to glen,
and down the mountain side

The summer's gone,
and all the flowers are falling
'Tis you, 'tis you
must go and I must bide

But come ye back
when summer's in the meadow
Or when the valley's hushed
and white with snow

And I'll be here
in sunshine or in shadow
Oh Danny boy, oh Danny boy,
I love you so

But if you come,
and all the flowers are falling
And I am dead,
as dead I may well be

You'll come and find
the place where I am lying
And kneel and say
an "Ave" there for me

And I will hear,
though soft your tread above me
And o'er my grave
will warmer sweeter be

And you will bend
and tell me that you love me
And I will sleep
in peace until you come to me

But if I live
and should you die for Ireland
Let not your dying thoughts
be just of me

But say a prayer to God
for our dearest Island
I know He'll hear
and help to set her free

And I will take your pike
and place my dearest
And strike a blow,
though weak the blow may be

Twill help the cause
to which your heart was nearest
Oh Danny Boy, Oh, Danny boy
I love you so.

After the terrorist attack on Spanish citizens on 3/11, it is worth rereading the remarks made by another world leader a few days after the seminal moment in America's battle with terrorism President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear"

¡Viva España!

I'm an enzyme, and now I've got a song

what's your cowboy bebop theme song?

You are an enzyme. You are powerful, dark,
variable, and can change many things at your
whim...even when they're not supposed to be
changed. Bad you. You can be dangerous or
wonderful; it's your choice.


Which Biological Molecule Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:04 PM
To: 'imus@msnbc.com'
Subject: Cover up?

Have you seen these articles?

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003264.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

If the identity of Col. Campenni can be confirmed, the bona fides of his account established, and the assertions laid out in Bill Hobbs' article confirmed, will you retract your charge that the President engaged in a cover up of his service in the Air National Guard? Perhaps the more appropriate charge would be that the President is guilty of allowing those partisans who choose to think the worst of the President to express their black thoughts, and thereby expose their small minds and shriveled hearts before the nation. I think much more of you than I do of that wasted poseur "Fat Teddy", Don.

I volunteered for the Air Force even though I wasn't drafted. It gave me a skill--computer programming--that I turned into a career. I've worked for two start ups as well as, EDS, Apple and Microsoft in my time. The biggest impression that any organization made on in all those years me was the Air Force. The men I served with there were bitter that they weren't allowed to use their full skills and the total power of the Air Force until Nixon authorized Linebacker II. Like the air operation in Afghanistan, the North Vietnamese air defenses were destroyed in days, its infrastructure and war making ability eviscerated, and the North Vietnamese leadership suddenly dropped their bravado and came to the table without pretense. This could have been done on Johnson's watch, or earlier in Nixon's, saving untold thousands of lives.

Veterans like Bush--love Bush--because he doesn't commit troops unless there are no shackles. Once sent to fight, we fight to win, and then to come home, not to die in vain attempts to bomb truck parks, defend non-strategic territory and defoliate the landscape. If the intelligence is bad, that's bad, and the root causes should be corrected. However, what if we'd acted on "bad intelligence" to take down Al Qaeda and the Taliban in August, 2001? Would you "blame America first" like the rest of the fat, smug self proclaimed intelligentsia?

This may be the last time that these real veterans rise up before passing the torch one final time. I predict that they and their brothers and sisters in every service will join them in their rebuke for Kerry and his ilk.

Kerry painted virtually every Vietnam veteran as a war criminal after his discharge. Let him explain himself, not to gatherings of photo op vets, but the thousands of real vets who remember being cursed and reviled, not only by the press and uniformed civilians, but by his "brothers" in uniform. They haven't forgotten the slander, and neither have the families of the POW/MIAs whose hopes for closure he dismissed. At last, Hanoi Jane and the VVAW will have their answer, and the humiliation and shame will be lifted from those shoulders that bore more than just the scars of battle. They suffered unfair curses from the very citizens that they in their innocence were sent by their nation to protect, like so many simple men and women in so many wars before.

The New York Air National Guard flies one of my favorite aircraft, the A-10 tank killer. This is the preeminent close air support fighter bomber, in my opinion. The pilots are brave men and women, some of whom may fly some of your listeners on commercial aircraft when they're not called to duty. President Bush's F 102 Delta Dagger was tasked with the defense of the homeland from a possible Soviet bomber attack. It wasn't meant for ground attack or bombing roles. That is the main reason why that group wouldn't have been called to duty in Vietnam. Lt. Bush had too little time remaining in his service commitment in 1972 to begin the years of training to become proficient on a new aircraft.

I think that he had to be pretty skilled to fly a supersonic interceptor. Taking your concentration from the controls of the twitchy Delta Dagger for a few seconds was a much more serious mistake than looking away from the dash of a Maybach.

I often watch your show when I pull an "all nighter" because I enjoy the humor and your conversations with most of your guests. In the future, I suggest that you take your own advice and just "shut up" until all the facts are in on such stories involving attempts at partisan character assassination of either candidate.

Best regards,

JDF
Tacoma, WA
USAF 1975-79

Lou Pinella's return to Seattle and SafeCo Field last night was, in a word, terrific. The crowd roared "Lou!" lustily. Lou's voice cracked with emotion as he thanked the fans during a brief ceremony before the game. TV shots of the crowd showed more than a few fans wiping a tear or holding hand-made signs expressing their thanks and love for Lou.

Lou spent ten years as Seattle's manager. Ten years doing anything is a rarity these days. Lou committed himself to building a successful organization, and demanded commitment to that same goal from his players and coaches. He is responsible for the team's ability to continue to succeed despite the departure of Tino Martinez, Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez.

Now the torch has been passed to Bob Melvin and his staff. It will be a testament to Bob, and to what Lou started, if the team continues to perform at the high level Lou set over the next decade. I hope that the fans will continue to turn out and show their love for the team.

Strong, vocal fan support can't be overrated. Anyone who's seen the energy of the Yankee fans during the playoffs can see how the Yankee players turn it up a notch time and again while often playing down to the competition during the regular season. Even the Angels fans with their annoying "thunder sticks" were a force to be reckoned with during the 2002 World Series.

Here's to you, Lou. May we all help carry the torch you lit for many years to come.

I'm delighted that Blogger fixed whatever was wrong with my blog. Thank you.

Thanks of another sort; with a much deeper meaning, go to the men and women of the armed forces. As a veteran, I teared up watching the President's speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln tonight. I served during an era when the military was vilified--hated as "baby killers". We weren't then, and we aren't now. Instead, we fight for freedom. Only the will of our leadership affects the outcome. In my day, Vietnam was not a war, but a battle of attrition. Only during the operation named "Linebacker II" was the Air Force allowed to project its true power. After less than two weeks, the North Vietnamese dropped their objections to the shape of the table, and other trivial matters, and earnestly agreed to an armistice so that their entire government would not disappear in a rain of iron bombs.

Today's warriors fight with a mixture of new and old. My favorite airplane, the mighty B-52, can perform close air support missions thanks to the JDAM and other precision guided munitions. The B-52--the BUFF--is older than most of its crews, and is nearly as old as I am. I expect it to serve longer than I will.

Tonight's speech reminds us of the dedication of our best, our young men and women, to the cause of freedom. We did not seek this conflict. Al Qaida and Saddam underestimated our President, and our nation. The President declares us victorious in the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq, but not in the war against terrorism. That war goes on, as does our resolve.

God bless America.

I don't know why I bother, but I occasionally watch The West Wing on NBC. Tonight's episode included a conversation between a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and "Toby Ziegler" about reinstating the draft in order to somehow make the military more racially and economically balanced. They also said that military service was the only choice for some; the other choice would be a McDonalds uniform.

Well, according to this article, it appears that the composition of the military is diverse. It may not match the exact ratios of the racial composition of the nation according to the census. However, everyone enlisted serves by choice. There are no deferments for the elite; no draft dodgers. The level of professionalism of today's force is far greater than the Vietnam era military.

I became a computer programmer while serving in the Air Force from 1975 until 1979. I learned my skills well enough to join EDS, then a company known as Raychem, then Doelz Networks (a data communications startup), Apple Computer, GO Corporation (a pioneer in pen-based computing), and finally Microsoft. I would never have achieved what I did without that founding experience in the Air Force.

I served with all sorts of people during those years. It was tough; Vietnam had just ended, the economy was bad, almost anything was more popular than the military. However, if anything, our isolation had a positive effect. All of us felt a strong bond with one another. It was the closest experience to the feeling that I get from my family that I've ever felt.

NBC doesn't provide e-mail addresses for The West Wing on its web site--at least, that I could find. I'd certainly like to give them a piece of my mind on this issue. Shilling for Charlie Rangel's loony draft reinstatement idea makes no more sense in Bartlett-land than it does in real life.

Perhaps their overt left slant during these times accounts for their ratings decline. Or perhaps it's for this reason href="http://espn.go.com/page2/s/merron/021024.html"

So the die is cast. Saddam and his sons—plus, I imagine, some of his other toadies—must either leave Iraq within the next 48 hours, or there will be war.

The aftermath of the President’s speech leaves a bitter resolve in the pit of one’s stomach. The most solemn duty a President can perform is to send America’s sons and daughters to war. The President and his advisors have determined that Saddam possesses weapons not seen on a battlefield since WWI—if then, and that he must be disarmed either voluntarily or by force, and according to the polls, most American’s agree with him. Nearly 300,000 American, British, Australian, Czech, Bulgarian, Albanian troops and support personnel—and with the inclusion of other support arrangements, a force comprised of about 30 countries or more in total—are arrayed against Saddam’s regime. All of these forces will act at a time of the President’s choosing, should Saddam not leave immediately.

How must Chirac and the weak leadership of Germany feel tonight? Defiant? Maybe. Fearful of being caught out in lies? Possibly. It appears that Saddam is at least giving the appearance that he will use chemical and biological weapons by issuing chemical/bio protection suits to his troops and moving artillery and chemical/bio capable shells near to our troops in Kuwait. If Saddam’s officers are foolish enough to use them, several things will no longer be in question, if they ever really were:
1) Saddam lied repeatedly when he claimed to have destroyed any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This past weekend, Saddam spoke to Iraqi TV viewers
admitting that Iraq had such weapons for "defensive purposes" against Iran.
2) World opinion will switch overwhelmingly in favor of the coalition of the willing, led by the US.
3) Should the war crimes trials be televised, they will rivet viewers to their sets beyond anything seen ever, including the "O. J. trial".
4) Chirac and his "coalition of weasels" will lose all credibility among those who give more than a cursory thought to these issues.
5) Tony Blair’s popularity will rise, and his career will be secure.
6) Should the war be fought successfully, and should the President be able to use his popularity to pass his stimulus package in Congress, he will be unbeatable in 2004.
7) Kim Jung Il will pull in his horns somewhat. The presence of one Trident submarine, which I can only imagine is somewhere in the Sea of Japan right now, is enough of a counterforce element to trump Kim’s two fission technology nukes. Add to that the failure of Kim’s recent ballistic missile test, the movement of Air Force fighters and bombers to the region, the movement of anti-missile weapons to Japan, and the face-saving shipment of food stocks from the UN to the region, it seems reasonable to expect that Kim will remain quiet for a time in the face of a display of American military power unfettered by the indecisive controls of a LBJ or a Bill Clinton.
8) France should be held accountable by any country whose soldiers or populace suffer casualties from chemical or biological weapons or through any additional preparations that Iraq made as a result of the delays caused by French "diplomacy". Now those are reparations I’d like to see paid in full.

I just watched part of Bill Maher's show on HBO. The estimable Dennis Miller was on, along with Arianna Huffington and a strikingly beautiful woman listed as a “Fox News analyst”. Well, I’ve seen Dennis on Leno, and he could have laid Huffington out flatter than Saddam will be in a week’s time, but he didn’t. A gentleman’s discretion? Or just letting the statements of the hypocrite speak for themselves?

Apparently Huffington owned a SUV last year, but now, she says, no one should own one. Oh, that’s good; the elitist deigns to tell us what to do again. She tried to help her husband, Michael Huffington, become a Senator from California in 1992—they were unable to buy the seat. I’ll let Paula Poundstone take it from here.

Obviously, Arianna has found the Democratic party’s point of view to be the most advantageous to her now—at least, she reasons, she can get the most TV time by pretending to be a Democrat.

Although Dennis didn’t “lay the smack down” on Arianna as fully as I think he could have, I’ll take 1 Miller over 50 Huffingtons any day.

Where can criminals score big heists easily? Why, from jail, of course!

It's not quite the equal of the theft of the Salvador Dali painting from Rikers Island men's prison in New York, but Seattle is trying its best. A sum of $10,000 in cash--part of a $20,000 bond from an accused drug dealer--was stolen today from a jail safe here.

This “editorial” is crap.

Once again, as a former Georgian, I am ashamed to have asked my father to vote for Carter for Governor. I voted for Ford for President, at least.

Let’s examine the “editorial” in more detail. I’ve copied Mr. Carter’s New York Times “Op-Ed” in plain text; my comments are italicized.

Just War — or a Just War?


By JIMMY CARTER


Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

Our nation fought two wars against England, and counted France as an ally. No “NGO” authorized our revolution according to Mr. Carter’s criteria. No restraints were placed on the efforts of the combatants other than their willingness to suffer losses and expend treasure. Little in the way of international law existed at that time, other than “to the victor go the spoils”.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

This is my favorite paragraph. Mr. Carter cannot resist a slap against his former colleagues in the Southern Baptist Convention. Little has been written about the opinions on the ward that the Southern Baptists hold in the mainstream press, at least the press that appears outside of Plains. Perhaps some readers of this “editorial” will be curious enough to find out what those religious leaders believe we should do, or not do, as concerns Iraq.

I was in the Air Force from 1975 until 1979. Mr. Carter was concerned with weighty defense issues such as repainting parking lots for diagonal parking instead of straight in parking, at least as far as I can recall at Randolph AFB in Universal City, TX. His “leadership” left the Shah of Iran to the mercies of the Iranian mullahs, resulting in the first religious dictatorship in the region. He showed impotence in the face of a clear attack upon US diplomats, allowing them to rot in Iranian custody for over 400 days. If ever a President was presented with the causus belli for “a just war”, it was him. President Reagan would have used our sovereign power to rescue those people immediately, as would both Presidents Bush 41 and 43.

Mr. Carter is a coward who cloaks himself in self-righteousness and hypocrisy. I love seeing him nailing together homes for the poor and needy; he should stick to what he knows. Appropriate application of military power is as foreign a concept to him as how to focus on large strategic concepts instead of piddling details.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

Mr. Carter would have done nothing to stop September 11th even if he had precise knowledge of the events on September 10th. Endless wrangling and delay has created a split between the US and its “allies”—France, Germany, Russia and China—who are acting like opportunistic hucksters. When the war is over, and the records of the Saddam dictatorship are opened for all to see, the source of Saddam’s war material and technology in recent years will be found among these four “allies”.

Israel exists today because it acted in 1967 before the Arab nations could launch their attack. Israel was nearly destroyed in the Yom Kippur war because it failed to take action on information available to it before the Arabs attacked. America was thrust into WWII by an attack that may have been foreseeable, but was not prevented by measures to alert our forces or assume defensive postures to warn the Japanese that a sneak attack would be impossible. By Mr. Carter’s “logic”, our policemen would have to wait until a gunman fired on them before using force to defend themselves.

Would Mr. Carter have us wait until Saddam reaches the level of North Korea, the level where clear possession of weapons of mass destruction would embolden him to thumb his nose at the world and dare us to act? Where he could pursue his mad dreams of becoming the second coming of Saladin and arming terrorists to attack the US with his WMD, or to threaten our national interests in strategic places throughout the world? Aren’t twelve years and seventeen UN resolutions, meek cruise missile attacks and responses to anti-aircraft radar enough to have exhausted anyone’s reasonable definition of diplomatic efforts?

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

No sane person wants war for the sake of war. No sane person wants innocent lives to be lost by accident. The weapons that we will use are many times more accurate than those used in the Gulf War. However, Saddam deliberately positions some military targets near civilian sites in the hope to deter us, or to create “photo ops” to discredit us as indiscriminate killers.

It is the nature of war that some innocent lives will be lost. Our apparent strategy is to use massive firepower to shock and overwhelm Saddam’s forces in order to bring the conflict to a swift conclusion with minimum loss of life on both sides. I pray that we are successful in that regard more than anything.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

Nope. Apparently Mr. Carter was playing with his slide rule during War College. Our attack must be massive. It must cause the world to gasp in awe. Dictators and terrorists the world over must know, once and for all, that the way to engage the free world is not down the path of war, but through serious negotiation with real outcomes.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The last time Congress had the fortitude to declare war was in WWII. The resolution that authorized the President to act after September 11th is as close as we’ll come to such a declaration. The people voted last November, Mr. Carter, and they didn’t give the Democratic Party majorities in either house of Congress, nor in most state houses.

Our President, as he said this past week, swore an oath to protect the Constituition of the US and the people of our nation. He is not the president of some toothless NGO, and our foreign policy is not determined by the UN.

If we have to occupy Iraq for a time, I hope that we will do so in the spirit of the Marshall Plan and General McArthur’s efforts to restore Japan. The Marshall Plan cost ~$13 billion in late 1940s dollars. I’m sure that you would agree that it was a worthwhile investment in the future of civilization.

As Mr. Carter showed during his presidency, mastery of economics was and is not his strong suit. If the real motivation for the war was “about oil”, the President would only have to leave the situation as it is, without bringing an end to the crisis. The commodity markets hate uncertainty, and the rise in oil prices reflects the uncertainties of supply in the Middle East and in Venezuela. As in 1991, oil prices will decline swiftly once hostilities end and non-Iraqi suppliers bring their production back from temporary suspension.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

The Plains press has your knickers in a knot, Mr. Carter. How could the situation NOT be a clear improvement? Another haven for terrorists will be denied them, not to mention technology and funding. The Iraqi people, perhaps the best educated in the region before Saddam turned rogue, will be free to express themselves politically and economically. Our President has said that we will not stay a day longer than necessary. Would you condemn the citizens of Iraq to endless butchery and torture at the tender mercies of Saddam?

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

Doing what must be done, despite the wrangling of those who would ensnare us in a bureaucracy run by Poodles, will gain us the respect of our people and of freedom loving people everywhere. Once despots and criminals learn that the United States is a country of principle, and of its word, they will fear to challenge us, and will lose respect among those they hope to attract to their cause. Weakness breeds weakness, Mr. Carter. Do you feel guilty for the weakness shown in your policy towards Iran, and the chain of events caused by it?

I am astonished that members of Congress, including one loony Senator, believe that bringing back the military draft is a good idea. Personally, I believe that the voluntary force has been a boon to our services. It has made overall morale higher, racial tensions have virtually disappeared, and the quality of the efforts made by the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are much higher.

One of the "reasons" for reinstituting the draft is to limit the President's ability to go to war! In my opinion, there can be no greater lunacy in these times than to propose anything to reduce the effectiveness of our national defense. If Senator Holling's dallying with Hollywood over copyright--in favor of Big Media--wasn't anti-consumer and against the public interest enough, this proposal should clinch it. The good people of South Carolina need to rid us of this idiot. As for Charlie Rangel, he seems to have lost his way after he failed to help his candidates win in NY. This seems a very cynical way to grab the spotlight again, Congressman. Find another issue to harp on; leave our national defense policy in the hands of those who understand what they're doing.

I listened to Secretary Powell's speech to the UNSC today, and I am impressed. I was already in favor of using force to overthrow Saddam. With the amount of evidence presented today--and we can only guess at the larger mountain of evidence that the government must have in its pocket to avoid revealing national technical means of gathering intelligence--I can only hope that reasonable Americans and citizens of other countries can only conclude that Saddam must go.

Thank God for George Bush, Colin Powell, and the rest of the Bush administration. Clinton dropped a few bombs filled with concrete in 1998 after the inspectors were expelled. We now have adults running the show. Saddam, as Arnold said in Raw Deal (1986), "Resign, or be prosecuted".

Please, Saddam, let us prosecute us with the full fury of our armed forces.

The loss of the space shuttle Columbia has affected the entire nation in a profound way. While some are calling for a total reexamination of the shuttle program—and perhaps, its termination—popular opinion seems to be on the side of continuation of the manned space program.

Despite the obvious risks, it seems equally obvious that humans are far better equipped than machines to perform tasks that require immediate decisions based on unforeseen data. For example, the painfully slow exploration of the Mars Lander—remarkable, to be sure—was limited to a tiny area that a man could traverse in a few steps. That same man could evaluate the locations of the most interesting rock formations in moments, not minutes—assuming the Lander’s camera would have been high enough and oriented correctly to see them.

In my opinion, the most deserved criticism of the shuttle program is that the vehicle is too expensive to operate and too limiting for the varieties of missions we should be focused on in the future. Jerry Pournelle, a scientist and science fiction writer whose writings I have enjoyed for many years in Byte magazine and in books has argued for decades that more specialty vehicles should be built according to the purpose they are meant to serve. Here is a sample of the debate on Jerry’s web site:

Whether the concept of a “single stage to orbit” spaceship is realistic or not, these things are true about today’s shuttle program:
1) The ship has a 50,000-pound payload capacity. Most of its missions have lifted less than half that amount. Using the shuttle to loft ant farms to orbit makes far less sense than using a Hummer H1 as a daily commute vehicle.
2) Lifting humans to the space station is expensive in the shuttle, and with no escape capabilities like the old Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo ships had, is very dangerous.
3) The shuttle was built in the era of 8086-based CPUs and decades-old knowledge of aircraft design for high temperature environments. However, the contractors who support the shuttle, and the Congressmen whose states and districts benefit from space, seem concerned only with continuing the status quo. Each shuttle flight costs about $500 million—so expensive that only four or five missions are launched each year, instead of the $5 per week that was promised at the inception of the program.
4) If we can produce a ship that cuts payload-lifting costs dramatically, more private sector companies will be interested in exploring the possibilities of space-based research and manufacturing. That would further cut costs to the taxpayer since businesses would partly defray the costs of flights, not simply feed at the public trough.
5) It is arguable that the shuttle’s famous recoverable and reusable booster rockets have not been a success, and while environmentally PC, are not economical to continue. Sadly, one report on the foam insulator that flaked away from the shuttle’s fuel tank and apparently damaged the shuttle’s left wing indicates that a CFC-free foam was substituted from a more robust foam originally used in order to comply with a NASA goal to use more environmentally safe products. Surely the levels of pollution produced are miniscule compared to the dangers to the crew and spacecraft. Here’s more on the controversy:

NASA’s budget has decreased over the past decade when expressed in constant dollars. Continuing to spend the money in the same way without reexamining the goals of the program and the risks involved invite more disasters in the future, not to mention limiting the returns from diverse approaches and missions. Fourteen of the brightest, bravest humans the world has ever produced have been lost on this spacecraft. We owe their colleagues to provide the safest purpose-built system for manned missions to space we can build. We owe ourselves, and future generations, returns for our investment in space research and exploration that pay dividends for humanity, not just for a select group of contractors.

Hmmm...perhaps this is related to this interesting development. How many casual supporters of the environmental movement would support restricting the military's ability to train and prepare properly for the conflicts that face us around the world? I hope this story gets plenty of attention, and that readers understand the dangers such potential training restrictions are to the safety of the men and women in our ared forces.

Gov. George Ryan of Illinois commuted all of the death sentences of inmates in the state currently serving death sentences on Saturday. As one report termed it, his act “…spared the lives of 163 men and four women who have served a collective 2,000 years for the murders of more than 250 people.”

I understand that the Governor is concerned about the flaws in his state’s criminal justice system and the possibility of error leading to the death of an innocent person, or at least the death of someone who should not be judged guilty of crimes meriting that level of punishment.

I have no problem with people who oppose the death penalty. I certainly do not want the criminal justice system to put anyone to death who is not guilty of the crime that they stand convicted of.

Our system provides for the right of appeal, especially in capital cases. However, the people of Illinois established a set of laws that provide for the death penalty if the system—the jury, the judge, the appellate courts—agree on the application of that penalty for the crime. Dismissal of those judgments should not be left solely to one man, no matter how well intended--or how guilty--his actions may be.

If Governor Ryan felt that the death penalty was wrong, he should have found a way for Illinois’ voters to affirm or reject his argument. He did not run for reelection as Governor. Apparently, his conduct while serving as Secretary of State might not sit right with the voters. He may be found guilty and serve time in prision himself.

Governor Ryan could have taken one or more of the following actions:
- approve a sum of money to review the DNA and other available evidence for each death row inmate to ensure that no effort to exonerate wrongly convicted individuals was spared. The vote of the legislature, or a vote of the people on an initiative, would have supported his position.
- propose a law or an initiative to ban the death penalty, and to make it retroactive to all those serving on death row at the time the initiative or law came up for a vote.
- sue the state government to declare the state’s death penalty law unconstitutional.
- he could have run for a second term on a “no death penalty” platform to allow the voters to express their will.

Governor Ryan may feel that his conscience is clean. The family and friends of the victims of the murderers whose sentences were commuted must feel rage beyond words. The voters must feel cheated of their chance to express their opinions on one of the most important issues of the day.

For what it's worth, I wrote letters to the editors of both the Seattle P-I and the Tacoma News Tribune in response to articles that ran in each paper last week decrying the use of depleted uranium in military munitions. Now the great Instapundit has heard of the P-I story.

Here's my letter, sent last Friday:

To the Editor,

I agree with the article's implication that contamination of the ocean with radioactive material would alarm fishermen and consumers alike. However, I hope you will take the time to do further research on the actual level of danger to the public.

The article correctly states that depleted uranium remains radioactive for approximately 4.5 billion years. Basically, the time period you refer to is the radioactive half-life of the material. The half-life for a given radioisotope is the time for half the radioactive nuclei in any sample to undergo radioactive decay. After two half-lives, there will be one fourth the original sample, after three half-lives one eighth the original sample, and so on.

For example, Plutonium is one of the most highly radioactive materials on earth--so much so that it is not normally found in nature, but is created by man through atomic fission. Plutonium's half-life is approximately 24,000 years (Knapp, Brian, Nuclear Physics, 1996). The end of the decay process results in a material that is stable, like lead.

In fact, depleted uranium's long half life makes it useful for radiation shielding! Some DU applications include use in medical isotope casks, radioactive source shields, tank armor, and ammunition for the CIWS (AKA Phalanx) and the A-10 aircraft used by the Air Force and National Guard.

The real "danger" of DU is not radioactivity, but toxicity. Uranium is a heavy metal, like arsenic, cadmium, barium, zinc, lead and mercury. Given the small number of rounds fired during the tests you reported, the level of toxic exposure in a given area of the sea is virtually statistically insignificant. Ironically, the lead weights that fishermen use to hold down their baited hooks and nets are much more commonly deposited in the ocean environment than DU. Perhaps your next story can sensationalize that danger?

One of the best articles on the risks of exposure to DU is a recent study by the British Royal Society--the summary is all you need to read.

I happened to see a portion of Sean Penn's appearance on Larry King Weekend tonight--you can read the transcript if you like. Sean and Larry were talking about Sean's recent trip to Iraq. They discussed his reasons for going on the trip, how he came to be invited to go in the first place, his feelings on war, his feelings on News Corp.'s media properties, whether actors should speak out on political issues, and his future as an actor and a director. I came away with several impressions of Sean, and I have a few suggestions for things he should consider as he moves forward as a "political celebrity".
- He feels guilty about his success in what is a frivolous occupation, and wishes he could make a greater contribution to the world.
- He spends lots of time talking with journalists and other lefty friends who he trusts to provide "stubborn facts" for his consideration.
- He has thin skin. Bill O'Reilly's show and News Corp.'s media have really gotten to him.
- He has more than a passing acquaintance with the drug culture. His fractured syntax and thought jumps show some fried synaptic connections are in his brain case. He thinks the drug war was and is a failure, of course.
- Our leadership of the coalition that defeated Iraq in 1991 means that we are responsible for the terrible burden that sanctions have placed on the Iraqi people.
- Our motives for going to war are suspect, and war may create a new generation of people who hate America. His children may grow up to face that generation at some future day, if mankind doesn't erase itself from the earth in this generation.
- We need to provide more data on the threat to our country. We have the technology--sort of like that "CSI" show--to find his hidden weapons like needles in a haystack.

I think that it would be worth Sean's time to consider these points so that he can feel he's dealt with the issue in a "fair and balanced" way.
- Iraq's citizens suffer under the yoke of a brutal madman who has destroyed their country's economy and world standing. They starve in part because UN sanctions limit trade, and in part because the state treasure that is earned goes to build grand palaces for Saddam--as well as monuments, mosques, and entertainment--as well as to purchase dual use materials and technologies to reconstruct his weapons programs.
- South Africa lived under sanctions for a time, and was embraced as a noble member of the world community when it finally acted to comply with the sanctions placed against it. Iraq could have provided food, shelter, and better education for its people for years had it done the same. It is interesting that there was no outcry by the left against the conditions forced upon South Africans by sanctions. Perhaps that was because that country's leadership was not so evil as to oppress its people while denying itself nothing under the terms of the sanctions, as Saddam's thuggish government does.
- If Saddam is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, will he be more, or less, likely to intimidate his neighbors and threaten Israel with destruction while daring the US and its allies to act? Will his children be safer if we do nothing?
- If decisive steps had been taken in the 90s to stop North Korea--destroying or forcing the destruction of its reactors and nuclear facilities while providing funds to build replacement power generation systems--would we be facing the threat to our interests and our allies in the Far East today? Some might call this the "pay me now, or pay me later" decision.
- I agree with Jerry Pournelle, who says that we should build some "monuments" in the Middle East that show the extent of our power to act as a reminder of our willingness to meet force--whether by armies or terrorists--with overwhelming force. Those monuments should contain a statement that we have no designs on territory and that we are willing to leave them alone as long as they do not export their war to our shores, to our citizens living abroad, and/or to the borders of our allies.
- Unfortunately, despite the paranoia of druggies everywhere, "the man" doesn't have spies everywhere. Our human intelligence assets were depleted in the 70s and further drained under Clinton. Finding Iraq's buried weapons requires feet on the street as well as electronic snooping. But one thing is already apparent: the inspectors aren't able to find the items they found--artillery shells filled with gas agents, manufacturing equipment, etc.--that they found prior to 1998. That's the "baseline" issue that Blix referred to in his full comments that were aired last week by news agencies that reported more than the "money quote". Is the gun beginning to smoke a bit, Sean?
- Scott Ritter is a punk, and a disgrace to the Marine Corps. He took money from an Iraqi stooge to fund his lecture tour. His absence from the airwaves is an indication that even the press find his conversion from hawk to dove spurious.
- If Iraq is polluting the Tigris with 500,000 gallons of sewage a day and can't afford to repair its infrastructure to provide safe water for its people, please ask Saddam about the money he's using for the purposes mentioned in my first point above. Of course, Saddam has already shown his environmental credentials back when he had the Kuwaiti oil wells blown up. Quite a clean up project that was, run by mostly American firms. Made a nice IMAX movie that would be worth your time to watch. Maybe we'll help the people of Iraq rebuild after the war as we helped the Germans and Japanese after WWII, the war my father fought in. What was your comment in the interview? "Probably would have fought in -- would aspire to be able to say I would have fought in World War II. ".

Hoo-rah.

According to a study summarized in an Associated Press article posted on MSNBC's web site, "injuries from gunshots result in $802 million a year in hospital charges nationwide, with nearly a third of victims uninsured, a new study indicates. That made them the leading cause of hospital time spent on uninsured treatment.".

I wonder
- how many injuries from "blunt instrument trauma"--fist, bat, motor vehicle collision, frying pan, trash can lid, etc.--required treatment, and at what cost.
- how many injuries were the result of acts of self defense by the legal gun owners, and how many were by criminals, or with stolen guns--and at what cost.
- who funded the study

If we were as exercised about bad drivers--not just drunk drivers, or even law breakers--but incompetent drivers, as we are against guns, we could save enormous amounts of money--lost commute time, injury, property loss, infrastructure expansion and repair, to name a few categories. Driving is a privilege, and those of us who share the roads with each other should be able to count upon each driver's attention, skill, equipment condition and mental stability to make our time driving safe and sane.

This controversy has gone on too long. Augusta National and the Boy Scouts of America have been on the liberal hit list for some time now. I'm happy that both have successfully resisted the challenges to their charters. Forcing Augusta National to admit a woman--my bet is, a rich white Republican woman if this finally happens--is not an interesting discussion. Forcing to let women attend school is, or leave home without wearing a black sack in blazing temperatures, or being subject to divorce by her husband at a whim--is. I bet that private clubs exist in Arab countries of all stripes. Why aren't NCoWO activists there? Why aren't these women who are wound up about a country club, of all things, more concerned about people dying every day?

Oh, that would require more than just pieces on Today and in the NYT to get a buzz going. It requires real work on the ground in a hostile foreign land.

And there's no chance for graft; no opportunity for Jesse Jackson and his pack of hyenas to get their taste. I agree that it's unfair to single out Tiger Woods to boycott the Masters--he has a chance to make history as the first to win three consecutive championships. Why should he sacrifice a once in a lifetime opportunity to make such a silly gesture?

If the sorry state of the UN's search tool and web design in general is any indication, the fact that Iraq is in "material breach" of the latest resolution on inspections won't lead to UN-sanctioned action before 2003. However, just three days after agreeing to the UN resolution in an 8 page screed that reveals much about the diseased minds who authored it, Iraq has fired on coalition aircraft patroling the no-fly zone.

All of the ills that Iraq suffers would have ended had it adhered to the conditions set forth in the previous resolutions over the past eleven (11) years. The US and its allies have been attacked for causing suffering to the Iraqi people. The private reactions of the Iraqi citizenry reveal those accusations to be the lies that they are.

If Saddam keeps thumbing his nose at the world, his apologists and the UN won't be able to stop the onset of a short, violent war that will once again decimate Saddam's forces. This time, we trust, the cleanup will be complete.

It took another great post by James Lileks to rouse me from my blogcoma. Another fine summary of Mondale's disconnection with anything relevant to the 21st century.

Just as it seemed that the Internet profiteers in the 90s were destroying the thing, the bloggers have created another great use for the wonderful set of tools that comprise it. Instant, unvarnished, analysis and reporting--sometimes with an agenda, but woe to those who try to manipulate the truth in this space! Mondale's sad lack of understanding of the net stands in stark contrast to that of his opponent. I hope that Minnesota's voters are a little brighter.

As for Tacoma, and Washington, we'll see. I don't see any upsets in the races for the House here; no Senate seats are contested this cycle. Self-imposition of taxes are, however, for dubious transportation improvements.

I absolutely love this thorough debunking of "Fritz" Mondale's acceptance speech. Bleat on, Mr. Lileks!

It was refreshing to hear the top story of the eleven o'clock news on the all-talk radio station here lead with the World Series standings tonight. While there are plenty of things to worry about, a return to something close to normalcy--if only for a day or so--is welcome.

It's incredible that Tacoma, where we live, is a nexus of the investigation into the “Serial Sniper”. Apparently, a 42 year old former soldier stationed in Fort Lewis near here and his stepson are “persons of interest” in the investigation. The ex-soldier is wanted on Federal firearms charges.

Apparently, the sniper asked that authorities deposit ten million dollars to the account of a stolen credit card that was taken in an armed robbery in September. Sadly, a person was killed and another person was wounded in that event.

There will be lots of speculation on who these people are, and their connections to the actual sniper, assuming that the soldier and sniper are not one in the same.

Army Ranger and Special Ops forces train at Fort Lewis. Apparently, sniper training is part of the program at the base here. However, I think that there is another theory that may apply here.

Suppose that the soldier stole weapons and ammo from the base prior to his discharge, and that he has been selling them to groups like the “Camp Ground Zero” militia group that runs the training base in Alabama that is also a subject of today’s investigation. Suppose further that the sniper bought a weapon and ammo from the militia base, and was trained in rudimentary marksmanship there. The ex-soldier and his stepson may not be the perpetrators, but may be accessories to a horrible sequence of crimes.

I sincerely hope that the authorities are onto the sniper and will make an arrest soon without further loss of life, unless it is the sniper’s.

One thing you can always count on: nothing ever stays the same forever.

I'm sure that someone said those words, or words to that effect, better before now. The departure of Lou Pinella, the guiding force behind Mariners baseball in Seattle, is now a fact, not a rumor. The Seattle Times does a fine job of conveying some of what Lou has meant to this city. It is arguable that the Seattle Mariners would have moved to some other city had Lou and the "refuse to lose" team of 1995 not energized the city as never before. The 116 game season in 2001, division and wild card championships, and 300 wins in the past 3 years are hallmarks of a team and manager who strove for excellence year in and year out.

Mariners fans everywhere will miss Lou terribly. Those who appreciate his achievements while he was here shouldn't selfishly seek to deny him the chance to be closer to his family, especially to his parents and grandchildren. The fact that it is so hard to let him go without such thoughts is a testiment to what he has meant to us all.

Godspeed, Lou, and thanks for the memories.

I don't currently own a gun, but I respect the rights of those who choose to do so. As many have pointed out, criminals will be ingenious in their efforts to defeat "fingerprinting" of weapons.

In fact, if the criminal doesn't wish to steal a gun, deface the rifling, exchange the barrel, etc., they have other options.

Lead poisoning is a concern for police and military shooters--as well as range operators. So-called "frangible ammo" was developed in part to provide lead-free ammunition with the additional benefit that the bullets virtually destroy themselves on impact, reducing the risk of injury from richochet. The unintended consequence is that a smart sniper with the means to obtain frangible ammo can fire, say, a .223 cartridge at 4,000 fps (most standard loads shoot at 2,000-2,500 fps) with almost no concern for recovery of the spent shell--it would be reduced to little more than tiny copper/tin fragments.

Here's a link with some additional information on frangible ammunition.

I'm not trying to educate the bad guys or frighten the rest of us. Like most bloggers, I think that the issues need to be thought through carefully before jumping head first into solution space.

I'm glad to see that he's finally got a blog of his own. I hope he keeps 'em coming as regular as second helpings at Mama's.

This man is a complete and utter fool, and the very embodiment of Stalin's term, "useful idiot".

I live in the Northwest, in Tacoma. I volunteered for duty in the Air Force and served from 1976 until 1979 in Texas and Colorado. I served with many Vietnam vets who were proud of their efforts in the war while I was stationed at Randolph AFB. They--and I--would willingly defend the USA again if asked--I'd wager that is as true now as then for those who are still with us.

Seattle's Congressman has no shame, and has no business calling himself a veteran. He is a traitor to everything he swore to in the oaths he took upon entering the armed services and the Congress of the United States.

Who would have believed that New Jersey would elbow Florida aside to become the new butt of political jokesters nationwide? Now that the state court has ruled in favor of the Democrats, those pols must be kicking themselves for not dealing with this in a primary election earlier this year. The real worry is that this sort of thing could become a regular tactic of party bosses in the future.

Sure is funny to see the Democrats going to state court about a federal election--again. The argument to grant an exception from the New Jersey statute that requires candidates to remain on the ballot if not replaced more than 51 days prior to the election is weak. If Torricelli hadn't realized he had no chance to win, and decided to resign in order to try to save the Senate for the Democrats, this mess wouldn't have happened. The Democratic leadership should have forced this issue to a head weeks ago and kept the resolution of the problem within the law.

I look forward to seeing how this plays out over the coming weeks.

Well, the enriched uranium story has apparently turned out to be a hoax--the reports from Turkish authorities even got the weight of the material wrong.

Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle and two other far-left Congressmen visited Iraq over the weekend to sharpen their "Hanoi Jane" skills and shill for Saddam. The Wall Street Journal has a great piece on how this lurch to the left is likely to hurt Democrats this fall and in 2004.

Well, this news about the seizure of more than 33 pounds of weapons grade Uranium by Turkish paramilitary police is alarming, to say the least. The culprits hit the material in a lead box inside a taxi that was stopped 155 miles from the Iraqi border.

At this point, the culprits haven't revealed their destination. I imagine Saddam would have paid more than the $5 million dollar going rate for the package, had it reached him.

Apparently the Tawny Kitaen divorce from St. Louis pitcher Chuck Finley has taken an ugly turn. She's sued her husband for $12 million, claiming he promised to support her financially forever. Wow! Quite a sum in return for such services as helping choose Finley's hair color.

Wow! What a Fisking of Al Gore's speech in San Francisco on Iraq! Michael Kelly mops the floor with Gore; the final paragraph in Kelly's column sums up Gore's latest, saddest flip-flop better than most.

"What a moment! What a speech! What a man! What a disgrace."

Now that we've realized that the Web isn't going to cure every ill that society suffers, including canker sores and incontinence, one has to admit that the darn thing is awfully useful after all. If you live in Tacoma, it's pretty hard to get Dave Barry's column in print in a timely fashion. After spending days reading opinionated screeds--some of which are my own--we deserve to take a minute to enjoy the Web and have a laugh at one of the most vexing parts of modern life--laundry--as chronicled by Mr. Barry as only he can.

By the way, "cankersores.org" is a site under construction. Its advocates need to get on the ball like those who established "incontinence.org". The latter have an advantage since they have long practiced the ability to complete a job in a hurry.

"The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages."

This is from the first paragraph of The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The complete document is very well written, but nothing in it captures the spirit of America and the values we strive to protect like the portion quoted above.

Essentially, this is why we won the original Cold War, and why we'll win this war. People--everyone on earth--want a chance to build lives for themselves and for their children. No one wants to live in slavery, or in a war without end. Those who struggle to survive under the jackboot of totalitarianism yearn for freedom. This is Sadaam's greatest fear, and our greatest weapon.

ESPN.com's Ray Ratto has the goods on last night's ugly incident in Chicago.

This raises a question: why is it that so many of the perps on "Cops"--as well as the "father and son" in last night's episode--wind up shirtless? Warning--if you click the "Cops" link, you'll see someone a little more disrobed than the Chicago duo.

The end of General Magic comes at last.

They beat out Go Corp. for AT&T's favor, but never realized their potential. Kinda like Momenta failed to do.

The Command Compass was nice, but not $4,995 worth!

Hey, the White House has a blog ! It sure beats Democrats.com.

Actress Tawny Kitaen agreed Wednesday to a plea bargain on spousal abuse and battery charges alleging she attacked her husband, St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Chuck Finley, according to ESPN.

I don't usually go in for gossip, but I really liked her in that Whitesnake video and in "Bachelor Party" with the world's greatest actor, Tom Hanks.

According to MSNBC, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan says that he has received a letter from Iraq's Foreign Minister which says that Iraq accepts the unconditional return of weapons inspectors.

I doubt that there truly are no conditions on the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. In any case, many questions remain unanswered, including these:

1) Will troops accompany the inspectors in case Iraq denies entry to the sites that the inspectors wish to visit?
2) The composition of the inspector groups is different than in the early 90s. Back then, the inspectors were composed of delegates from the US and coalition forces. Now, they are expected to be UN employees, subject to its silly politics and policies. Back then, the inspectors had access to confidential intelligence information to tip them off to activity around the sites in question. Now, the allies probably will not share sensitive information for fear that it will educate the Iraqis about the methods used to gather the data. Given these and other issues with the quality of the inspectors and the inspections, will the results be satisfactory to the US and its allies? I doubt they will, and rightly so.
3) What about the other resolutions that Iraq continues to violate?

Saddam is proving adept at negotiation through the media. I doubt that he can deflect the President from his course to see that Iraq disarms, stops supporting terror, and adheres to the UN resolutions in force. The pressure on Iraq to prove itself through deeds, not words, will continue.

Well Dilfer wasn't bad, his injured knee seemed sound, but the Seahawk defense, especially against the run, was anything but. Add to that, the Hawk special teams play was poor.

The new stadium is glorious. I'd forgotten what a treat the "real" half-time show at a football game could be. The Washington State Cougar and Washington Husky bands joined for the first time ever to perform patriotic songs along with a singing group from McCord Air Force Base. They also unfurled one of the largest flags I've ever seen in person.

As for fan support, they did their best; the metal bleachers resounded as the fans stomped and yelled when Arizona had the ball near the end zones. They cheered and booed lustily as the situation dictated; everyone wanted to see the Hawks win. Alas.

Still, a record of 0-2 does not a season make (yet). The Steelers and the Rams were picked to return to the Super Bowl, and both are also 0-2.

We will see what Coach Holmgren asks General Manager Holmgren to do. Without a big bodied run stopper in the middle, we may have to make a trade if the Hawks cannot stop teams from running on them. We won't give up yet!

We had a nice family barbeque last night over at Kathy's daughter's house. Lots of laughs, no talk of terrorism--as long as you leave out their Rottweiler, who is only a minor terror. Actually, she (Thora, the Rottweiler) is a good dog with some funny traits. Human howls encourage her to join in. She loves tug of war, petting, food treats, disobeying orders to stay "out of the kitchen", and eating cat food.

Our three Labrador dogs--I have dubbed them "Logs"--are much the same, minus the cat food habit, as we have no cat. The Logs love to sleep, eat, rassle, and play with their toys. The Black Log, Abby, loves the "Wooly Chew "Bone" (SI03PB)" I bought for them from Orvis.com. Abby, who gets no respect from the two other Logs, has claimed it for her own. She looks so funny carrying it around--a big body crowned with a smallish head clutching a big wooly toy tenderly in her jaws

Fun stuff to see.

Today we go to our first real football game at the new SeaHawk Stadium. Hope springs eternal once again as Trent Dilfer returns as the starting Quarterback, with knee brace. The Hawks were at their best in the preseason with Dilfer at the controls. Hopefully that wasn't a fluke, and that Dilfer's knee injury is truly ready to test game conditions.

The President has made his case to the UN. It was a direct, forceful statement. The President took Iraq to task for its failure to comply with every UN resolution that was passed by the Security Council following its defeat in the Gulf War. His speech detailed the suffering of the Iraqi people, its support for terror, and the waste of Iraq's treasure and productivity on weaponry and on enrichment for Saddam. The President detailed the US' long standing support for the UN. However, he cautioned the body that inaction on Iraq was not an option.

Prior to the President's speech, President Chirac of France proposed a time limit for compliance with UN inspection resolutions. His proposal outlined a three week period during which Iraq must begin to admit inspectors. I agree; Iraq should comply in short order, without further delay. However, the original resolutions--and their full terms--in all of the aforementioned UN Security Council resolutions must be complied with in that time. Failure to do so will only give the Butcher of Baghdad more time to pursue and acquire weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. As the President said, once Saddam has such weapons, the world's options to deal with him will be limited indeed.

Today was a very tough day for most Americans. Like that fateful day a year ago, I sat riveted to the TV. I watched the ceremony at the Pentagon, the reading of names at Ground Zero, and the wreath ceremony at Shankesville. I tried to avoid the voices of the commentators; most of what can be said has been said. The best coverage was simply the images. Thankfully, CNBC World showed President and Mrs. Bush's interaction with the families at Shankesville without any announcers at all. The only sounds that were heard were the sounds of the wind, and faint, unintelligible speech. I shed tears more than once today. I said a prayer for those who lost a loved one that day and for those whose loss occurred in service to our country since then.

I hope that today has brought some solace and peace to those in pain of loss. For the rest of us, buck up. We have a call to action to heed. Let us listen carefully to the President's words tomorrow. I trust that they will shake the foundations of the butcher of Babylon to the core.

Then, let's roll.

Susan Sontag and Paul Krugman have forgotten much of what the President has said about the war on terror. The terrorists are not a group of thugs who act independently of any nation, like some set of characters from a Bond movie. They live somewhere; they receive economic support and aid from a government, or from a group of people within a nation, or both. While the war on terror may force us to live with ambiguity, it will have its D-Day and Vx-Day equivalents. It may not fit into the neat categories that the New York Times editorial board would like it to have--but it is no Vietnam.

If Saddam obtains nuclear weapons, he can place terrorists and his fellow "Axis" members under his protection. All of the Middle East, and Turkey, would be under constant threat, as we were during the First Cold War. This situation cannot be tolerated. We must deny terrorists their hidey-holes, and madmen their nightmare weapons, while we still can.

Many will link to Dave Barry's tribute to the passenger's on United Flight 93. I was very moved by it.

It will take some time, but I recommend reading this. Francis Fukuyama is the author of the famous article entitled "The End of History?". I don't agree with everything he says, but I agree with quite a bit, and respect his point of view on the rest.

I also enjoyed this. Remembrances and mourning have their place, and are important. However, let us get on with the job that we have been forced to undertake.

Many, many things have been written about the impact of 9/11 on America, and the world since that tragic day. Now a debate rages about Iraq: is it a sponsor of terrorists, or not? Should we give Saddam a chance through negotiation for more inspections, or assume that he would make a mockery of the process? Should we attack now in order to force a “regime change”, or wait?

Wait for what? For Saddam to strike? Or for Saddam to present incontrovertible evidence that he has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, if not to the US or Europe, then to Israel or other friends in the region?

It occurs to me that we were given a brief respite between the original Cold War and a new, more malicious version. The New Cold War pits America against a type of enemy who we call “evil doers” and terrorists. However, these enemies are not in one country, not sponsored by one state. They cannot be defeated on a battlefield; they do not seek that kind of war as a rule.

There are many parallels between this Cold War and the last:
• The enemy includes a number of states and a number of terrorist groups funded by them.
• Destruction of a group, or toppling a regime, will not end the threat. The threat will take years to contain, years longer to defeat.
• We will achieve victories in visible, and invisible, battles.
• Ideas, ideals, and economics are among the chief weapons to be used in this battle.
• Our convictions will be tested from within as well as by our enemy directly. There are many free people who fear war, who fear the loss of young lives, who fear—fear.

Are we more secure a year after 9/11? In some ways we are. Passengers have already shown both the willingness and the ability to protect themselves on aircraft. Citizens are volunteering for duty in police, fire, and military service in increasing numbers. We honor those willing to make the sacrifice in defense of our liberty more now than on 9/10.

However, the Homeland Security Department is a politicized mess, bogged down over turf and Civil Service rules. The Transportation Security Agency is at best a work in progress.

We have no choice but to slog through these messes. Our borders must be better protected than before. We have a right to know who is in this country, whether that requires a form of “profiling” or not. Public gathering places, mass transit, seats of government, and critical infrastructure must be protected. Sadly, we cannot count on the oceans to protect us from attack. We cannot hope for the best, and fail to prepare for the worst.

We have been called to act in our own defense. This is not like a failure to prepare for a natural disaster—something that may or may not happen. Something that can be compensated for by a neighbor’s generosity, or parcels from a relief agency. Now lives, and the future of our way of life, are at stake. To fail to act would be to fail ourselves and our children, and to embolden an implacable enemy who seeks signs of our weakness, and draws strength from them.

There is plenty of evidence that Saddam is a psychopath in the mold of Hitler and Stalin. Let us not give him the opportunity to prove that he is a killer on the same scale.

I have been thinking about investment quite a bit lately. After losing $30,000 in three weeks around a month ago, I decided to pull out of the market for a while. I will remain out until the hysteria over corporate responsibility shakes out and the prospects for the economy improve in an unequivocal sense.

Of course, there is a way to change investor psychology that would help offset these factors almost overnight.

Government loves to collect taxes. Here is a section of a report from the Congressional Budget Office that speaks to likely causes for the decline in income tax receipts; the full report is here :

The Usual Suspects

The first likely factor is capital gains income. Realizations of capital gains are not part of national income or GDP. But they are taxable income to individuals and corporations. Consequently, they can grow more rapidly or fall more precipitously than national income, resulting in changes in revenue proportionately greater or smaller than changes in overall economic activity. CBO's analysis indicates that rapid growth of capital gains realizations explains about 30 percent of the growth in individual income tax receipts relative to GDP from 1995 to 1999, so they may be playing a major role in the decline in FY 2002 receipts.

When projecting gains receipts in its January 2002 and March 2002 baselines, CBO already had good estimates of the calendar year 2001 level of the stock market and GDP--big influences on the level of gains realizations that would help determine final tax liability payments in April 2002. As a result, the March baseline, in comparison to the baseline of January 2001, projected a 23 percent decline in realizations and a $27 billion decrease in gains receipts. But because realizations are so volatile, the decline may be greater than econometric analyses of past behavior would suggest. Distributions of capital gains from mutual funds were down in calendar year 2001--reportedly by about 80 percent. Total gains realizations differ from those in mutual funds: stocks are the principal component of mutual funds, but only about half of total taxable gains come from stocks, with the rest coming from other capital assets, such as real estate. As a consequence, total gains would likely have fallen less than gains in mutual funds. Thus, while realizations almost certainly explain some of the FY 2002 shortfall, they very likely do not account for all of it.

A second likely factor is the slower growth of very high incomes in comparison to that of overall income. Those incomes are taxed at the highest rates and produce a disproportionate amount of income tax revenues. From 1995 to 1999, very rapid growth in very high incomes accounted for about 16 percent of the growth in the revenues in excess of GDP. A reversal could very well reduce receipts by a significant amount.
In addition, enough changes occurred this year--including the tax cut, the recession, and the drop in the stock market--to have altered the usual division of tax liability between withholding and estimated payments on the one hand and final payments and refunds on the other. In the 2001 tax year, the ratio of refunds to withholding departed from its previous, relatively stable, pattern. The larger-than-usual role played by final payments and refunds may mean that taxpayers were surprised by economic developments in 2001 and continued to withhold higher-than-necessary amounts. That overwithholding could have been simply the consequence of lower capital gains realizations; but it could also have been because earnings weakened over the course of calendar year 2001, and taxpayers paid withholding at a higher marginal rate than would have been the case had their earnings been steady throughout. In either case, the overwithholding suggests that shortfalls in receipts from two different years could have been bunched into a single year's collections, making the reduction look more ominous than it really was.

Noticeably absent from this list of likely causes are stock options and bonuses, because bonuses are a form of wage income, and most options are included in wage income measures when exercised. They also reduce taxable corporate profits at the same time that they increase taxable wage income. Nevertheless, options and bonuses may play a role in the distributional effect just described. To the extent that they accrue primarily to people with very high income, their rise and fall can affect the receipts-to-GDP ratio. The lower the proportion of income coming from bonuses and options of high-income individuals, the lower the receipts from a given level of wages and salaries. And because options income is typically withheld below the top marginal tax rate, it can disproportionately affect April payments when taxpayers settle up on their liability. Some early evidence suggests that options income may have fallen by 50 percent in calendar year 2001, in contrast to the 30 percent decline built into CBO's projections.

I believe that the drop in capital gains income is due to factors that include 1) lower receipts from the sales of stock, mutual funds, businesses, etc. and 2) a decline in dollars invested in these instruments.

One factor that could help increase investor interest in putting more capital to work is equal treatment of capital gains and capital losses in income tax law. If your investment earns a dollar today, that dollar is fully taxable less applicable deductions. However, under current law, if your investment loses money, you cannot fully deduct those losses on a dollar for dollar basis. The government allows you to write off a maximum of $3,000 per year until your loss is deducted completely. If you lost a little, this may only take a year or so. In my case, and I believe in the case of many people nearing retirement age, the losses cannot be deducted in the investor’s remaining lifetime.

This is unfair, and stacks the deck against those willing to put capital at risk.

Please take the time to read this and this. There may be better indictments of some of the most stupid behavior and ideas in America, but these will do for today.

This story does an even better job of exposing Terry McAuliffe. I wonder if he'll crawl under a rock for a few months until the dust settles on all the "corporate responsibility" and insider trading scandals.

This analysis of the PC economy and the Microsoft anti-trust ruling is the best I have read--I wish I had written it.

This should be especially interesting for all those Democrats who try to claim that the government had a role in the growth of the stock market in the 1990s; maybe this will enlighten you as to the government's power to damage the true engine of growth--hard working businessmen and women. Usually, the government's role is similar to that of the amazed mother-in-law who stares incredulously at the success her no-account son-in-law became--despite her warnings to her daughter.

From FoxViews at the Fox News site:

Sam Donaldson interviewed Terry McAuliffe on This Week. Appearing to be enjoying an adrenaline rush, the Democratic party leader stood by his criticism of Bush and the upcoming economic forum.
He also defended his Global Crossing investment by saying he was a "venture capitalist."

A jovial Donaldson appeared to enjoy McAuliffe’s energy level and failed to press him on the issues.

Now that's funny. Terry McAuliffe, the venture capitalist? As this story in Business 2.0 points out, McAuliffe was simply offered a chance to buy pre-IPO shares that were frequently flipped--sold for a quick profit after the IPO date--in the 1990s. McAuliffe was smart enough--or lucky enough--to hold onto his shares until 1999 and sell them for $18 million.

If McAuliffe were a "venture capitalist", he'd have done due diligence, reviewing start up business plans. He would have stayed awake at night worrying about the money he had at risk, about tough personnel decisions he might have to make. Nope, Terry is just a friend of a contributor to the Democratic party who got in on one of the most lucrative opportunities of the past century. Whether McAuliffe did anything wrong or not, he is certainly stretching the truth by calling himself anything but a crony of a fat cat.

Will there be a baseball strike? Reports out of the player representative meetings in Chicago today seem to indicate that the answer is yes. That is sad news indeed for all of us baseball fans.

My wife was offered a chance to buy Mariner’s playoff tickets for this season. I would jump at the chance, despite the slender lead the team is clinging to, if not for the threat of a strike.

We bought SeaHawk season tickets earlier in the month. Although Seattle’s star quarterback, Trent Dilfer, sprained his knee in an exhibition game Saturday, I’m still cautiously optimistic about the season.

Football—college and pro—is the number one sport in America. NASCAR appears to be well on its way to breaking into the top three, if not the top two. A baseball strike will only hasten the change. NASCAR drivers do not strike. Neither do professional golfers.

In an era of declining discretionary income, baseball cannot afford to take fan loyalty for granted. My wife and I had a great time on a tour with the BMW club on Saturday. We may decide that our spare time—and dollars—are all accounted for with SeaHawks and driving adventures.

Baseball, be careful. Will the networks pay for rights to games no one watches?

Now we read that Saddam plans to draw US forces into Iraq’s cities rather than deploy his armies in the desert. Apparently, he thinks that he can bog us down in house to house fighting, popping up to shoot at us from a rabbit warren of tunnels and bunkers underground.

Hmmm.

As I recall, a favorite tactic in modern mobile warfare is to bypass enemy strongholds in order to capture and hold strategic chokepoints. If Saddam hides his army, we could set up an interdiction plan to control his borders, destroy his media outlets (and replace them with ours), secure his oilfields, and generally starve him out in the open. This would take more than a few weeks of bombing followed by a few days of combat, as in Bush vs. Saddam I, but would be even more effective. We could create an UN-administered zone containing the captured territory and leave him the ruler of a land-locked, resource poor slum.

As for using his Scuds to launch terror weapons from Baghdad at Israel or Kuwait, does anyone think that we have not improved our ability to shoot down his largely ineffective missiles since the Gulf War?

$6 per barrel oil, anyone?

Things move more slowly in summer. The pace of the war against terrorism seems to be moving slowly in Afghanistan, but moves all too quickly if Israel’s battlefront is included. Moreover, it should be--the PLO and Arafat’s "government" are no less bent on genocide now than at any time in its sad history. The Israeli government must feel profoundly bitter and torn as they transfer funds to the Palestinian "government" in the aftermath of the recent university bombing.

Russia is assisting Iran with the construction of nuclear plants. That bears repeating. Russia is assisting Iran with the construction of nuclear plants. Fortunately, the Russian government is reconsidering its plans after pressure from the Bush administration.

Iraq now says that it may readmit UN weapons inspectors. Of course, Saddam Hussein has had years to perfect his camouflage techniques for his weapons stores and death factories.

Jordan’s King Abdullah says that talk of deposing Saddam is "somewhat ludicrous". Of course, Jordan depends heavily on support from Iraq, making the King’s motives subject to question.

The Saudi royal family is lead by a man near death in a hospital in Switzerland. Will his successor be friendly to the West? Or will his successor do anything to retain power, continuing to tolerate and even finance religious extremists up to the minute of his execution?

Indonesia, the largest predominately Muslim nation in the world, has its share of terrorists and revolutionaries who threaten its stability. The same is true of the Philippines. The US is trying to shore up these governments with aid, including anti-terrorism training for their armed forces.

The Russians are trying to exact heavy tolls and establish virtual control over oil shipped across the Caspian Sea from land-locked countries in the region. It recently held a series of naval exercises there that are clearly efforts to intimidate its oil-producing neighbors.

The list of truly serious problems goes on and on almost without end. Our nation, which seemed to want to turn inward after the 1992 election, cannot shirk its role in the world. However, we must accept that simple solutions are not to be found in any of these cases. Europe is long on criticism of US policy, but short on action--except in support of Arafat and Saddam. When and where we act, and act we should in many of these cases, we must accept that long-term US commitment to each of these regions is required to help foster stability and peace.

A slow summer indeed.

I wonder if bin Laden is still alive. We have read conflicting statements from those supposedly in the know in and out of government. What a blow it would be to the al-Qaida and their cronies if his body could be positively identified! What a boost it would be domestically!

As for the economy, who does the average investor trust to tell them that it is safe to invest again? Rather than the death of a hated enemy, who could return--alive--to save us? I doubt that a politician could have that kind of impact. Would a positive ruling in favor of Microsoft have the opposite effect of the guilty verdict back in early 2000 on the market? Would tech stocks bounce?

Probably not. But if you are going to own tech, own Microsoft.

While the run of stories on corporate responsibility is bad, let us not forget that this is America. Only in America can there be such widespread discussion of issues like this, whether the discussion takes place in the mass media, on talk radio and TV, or on the Web.

I enjoyed a comment I heard on the radio today very much. A caller challenged Congress to sign the federal budget with the same responsibilities for accountability that CEOs are expected to follow. Will Congressmen (and women) ever stop pointing fingers at "evil executives", or other scapegoats of the moment? The Democrats are returning to their roots as the "anti-business" party. Class warfare gets us--all of us--exactly nowhere!

I hope that some sort of reason takes hold and that the baby is not thrown out with the bath water; that is, that the stampede to "do something" about executive power run amok does not itself run amok. Many, many people in America have large personal stakes in the capital markets. Winning the 2002 elections through the long-term destruction of the investment class would be a pyrrhic victory indeed for the Democrats. What would the Social Security system--not to mention society at large--look like if every person entering retirement age truly depended upon it for 100% of his or her retirement income? I don't believe any Democrat wants that, not even those hypocrites who flew on corporate jets to get to fund raisers this weekend.

Give the SEC the headcount and budget it needs to vigorously uphold the laws that are on the books today. Change the law to make stock options an expense, if that is the right thing to do--after an informed debate. For God’s sake, stop demagoging the economy!