Saddam is evil

Frank Rich is just obtuse.

Middle East Surprises

Hoagland pens a gem:

"But it is a Middle East in which those who believe in democracy and civil society are finally actors, even though we still face big obstacles," says Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Egypt's battle-scarred democratic activist.

Ibrahim originally opposed the invasion of Iraq. But it "has unfrozen the Middle East, just as Napoleon's 1798 expedition did. Elections in Iraq force the theocrats and autocrats to put democracy on the agenda, even if only to fight against us. Look, neither Napoleon nor President Bush could impregnate the region with political change. But they were able to be the midwives," Ibrahim told me in Washington.

This brings a flicker of hope... better than thinking about that last Dallas game, and the implications for salvaging this season had the Eagles won it (as the Cowboys, Skins, and Giants continue to lose)... or the election rat-f$#%ing I endured... or the myriad "bad diagnoses" I have meted out to some pretty young people lately.

On the bright side, we had a general reunion of St. Dorothy's grade school, and I attended with Mark and Carolyn. Pictures here.

TO speaks in his own defense

He's just misunderstood.

Sayonara, Miyagi

What a bad year for beloved actors. Daniel-San's mentor is gone.

Wax on, wax off.

Always look eye.

Such wisdom, such pithiness.

Read Bloch's decision

and then read Stephen A. Smith's column.

Draw your own conclusions.

Thanksgiving expressions

from the inimitable Greg Gutfeld. I don't know what I find more impressive: that he posts such politically incorrect stuff at The Huffington Post, or that Arianna gives him the space to do it.

The Arm of Decision

An interesting take on what matters in terms of winning the war, with historical perspective on other wars of the past century.

The start:

Four years into the Terror War, "What's the most important element for victory?" is a question long overdue. It's also a question our national leadership, nearly all of our intellectuals, and none of our mainstream media have yet to answer.

President George W Bush hasn't told us, because he doesn't know. His rivals for the Oval Office never answered the question – either because they also don't know or because they don't like the answer. Our Congress and Senate ought to be debating this issue, the most important of our postmodern era. Instead, they're doling out the pork, posing for the cameras, or busy keeping the campaign dollars flowing in by treating small, partisan differences as matters of life and death. Here we are, with a real life-and-death struggle on our hands, and our leadership fiddles while the barbarians beat us at our own game.

Our public thinkers – pundits, intellectuals, whatever you want to call them – are the people we should most rely on for guidance in times such as these. However, they've come up short even using the pathetic standard by which this blogger measures them.

Thought provoking stuff.

How ESPN destroys the art of the sports column

Sonny Bunch nails it:

A recent study by Missouri School of Journalism doctoral student Scott Reinardy purports to show that sportswriters and their editors "believe jargon, entertainment-based writing and ESPN's SportsCenter is altering the tone of sports writing," and that "creativity is being substituted for fact-based reporting, and sports reporters' aspirations of being on radio or TV has impacted their sports writing and reporting." One needs look no further than shows like ESPN's Around the Horn and Quite Frankly--which feature current and former sports columnists and loud-mouthed TV sports pundits--to see the effect that the channel has had.

Tony Kornheiser, Michael Wilbon, and Stephen A. Smith (A is for ass, in my book) come in for some critical scrutiny. That's why I will miss Bill Lyon and why I appreciate Phil Sheridan. The era of the sports columnist who writes about sports as a window into life is being lost, in favor of columnist-as-provocateur. I like the old style much, much better.

Putting the Boot to Defeatism

From Max Boot:

This is not meant to suggest that everything is wonderful in Iraq. The situation remains grim in many respects. But the most disheartening indicator of all is simply the American public's loss of confidence in the war effort. Abu Musab Zarqawi may be losing on the Arab street (his own family has disowned him), but he's winning on Main Street. And, as the Vietnam War showed, defeatism on the home front can become self-fulfilling.

This comports with the testimony I have heard from a local attorney who was recently back from a tour in Tikrit and what I hear via his parents from an Army Captain. Can we please get off the defeatism?

Atta in Prague?

A Corner post by Andy McCarthy

Ed Epstein has stayed on the case and has done the 9/11 Commission one better: he has actually conducted something resembling an investigation into whether the top hijacker met with in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent five months before 9/11. Ed’s report on what he found out, after traveling to the Czech Republic and meeting with the BIS (i.e., Czech Intelligence) officials who were personally involved in the matter is featured in the Wall Street Journal this morning (registration required).

His article will not be good news for the Richard Clarkes of Clinton revision-world, who maintain that the previous administration so intimidated Saddam after the attempted murder of the first President Bush in 1993 that the Iraqi dictator foreswore collaboration with terrorists against the U.S. – a claim that has never made any sense given that top Clinton officials (including the former president himself) continue to defend their Augugst 1998 bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan on the ground that it was a joint Iraq/Qaeda/Sudan effort to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The bottom line, as Ed puts it, is that the Atta/Prague connection remains “consigned to a murky limbo” – largely thanks to American officials leaking the possibility while the Czechs were still trying to investigate it.

But this much is known – notwithstanding the energetic effort to suppress it by some former Clinton officials, Democrat partisans, and members of the intelligence community invested in the delusion that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. In 1998, Saddam began trying to blow up an American target, Radio Free Europe in Prague, by having Jabir Salim, his consul to the Czech Republic (but in reality, his top intelligence agent there), attempt to recruit terrorists to carry out the mission. This intelligence became known when Salim defected, and Clinton administration was so concerned about it that it took several steps to protect the facility.

Salim was replaced by Ahmad al-Ani, whom the BIS was obviously interested in – interest that only intensified when the BIS learned he was trying to access explosives and make contacts with “foreign Arabs.” It came to a head on or about April 9, 2001, when al-Ani was observed getting into a car with an unknown Arab male who was later identified as Atta – an identification that has never been disproved, despite Herculean efforts to knock it down. The Atta identification did not happen until after 9/11 (when Atta’s photo was splashed across the international press), but the Czechs were so worried about whomever al-Ani had met with back in April that they decided to take no chances: al-Ani was expelled due to suspicion of terrorism – four months before 9/11.

In the end, the FBI cannot account for where Atta was between April 4 and April 11, 2001, or how he spent the $8000 cash he abruptly withdrew on April 4 before he disappeared for a week. (They’ve pointed to use of his cellphone in the U.S. during that timeframe, but that, of course, does not mean Atta was the one using the cellphone.) Nor can the FBI explain why Atta stopped in Prague in June 2000 right before flying to the U.S. to begin the 9/11 preparations. The Czechs, meanwhile, regard as “pure nonsense” al-Ani’s protestations that he was nowhere near Prague the day he was seen meeting the man a witness has identified as Atta.

This is Able Danger all over again. The "Atta in Prague" possibility never fit the 9/11 Commission’s narrative, so it was buried with a shoddy, slap-dash investigation -- the same treatment Able Danger got; the same treatment the Clinton Justice Department's dramatic heightening of "the wall" between criminal investigators and intelligence agents got; the same treatment the internal assessment of the Clinton administration's performance in the run-up to the Millennium bombing plot got, and so on.

Meanwhile, in 1998 alone, we have $300K going from Iraq to Zawahiri (al Qaeda’s number 2); bin Laden’s famous February fatwa calling for the murder of all Americans and prominently featuring, as part of the justification, U.S. actions against Iraq; meetings in Iraq between Qaeda members and Iraqi officials in March; meetings in Afghanistan between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda leaders in July; the embassy bombings in August, after which, of all potential targets, the Clinton administration chose to retaliate against al Shifa, believed to be an Iraq/Qaeda joint weapons venture; an Iraqi member of al Qaeda (now held in Guantanamo Bay) traveling with Iraqi Intelligence to Pakistan to plot chemical mortar attacks on the American and British embassies there; and Iraq seeking to recruit Arab terrorists to blow up Radio Free Europe. Oh, and in February 1999, Richard Clarke objected to a suggestion that U-2 flights be used to try to find bin Laden because, if bin Laden learned the walls were closing in, Clarke wrote to Sandy Berger that “old wiley Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”

But the anti-war left is probably right. There was no connection between Iraq and terrorism. None at all. I don’t know why the right-wing nuts keep insisting there was.

Interesting... the 9/11 Commission's work is unraveling...

Funny stuff

Synopsis:
Mr. Stick Figure takes on the Washington Press Corps; hilarity ensues.

Vonne-gutted!

So much to choose from, I had a hard time picking an excerpt, but here goes:

But there is nothing to be gained from pointing out that Vonnegut is an addled old fool whose brain has rusted in the antiestablishment default position for so long he cannot distinguish between suicide bombers and people who stage a sit-in at a Woolworth’s counter.

When Lileks screeds, it's best not to be the object of his anger.

Ralph Peters nails it

Key paragraph:

There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

Read it!

A little perspective

From Phil Sheridan's forum at the PhillyNews site:

Q. Would Philadelphia have sent John packing? After 10 years in the NFL John Elway had 158 TD passes and 159 int's. An average QB rating of 73%, never higher than 84%. He made the playoffs 5 of the 10 years with a 7-6 record (0-3 in the S.B). In the playoffs he had 16 TD passes and 17 int's (2 td's and 6 int's in the Super Bowls) and a total of 66 rushing yards in the 13 games. Just wondering? Amazing isn't it?

Ken, Philadelphia 11/19/05

A. Congrats, Ken: Post of the day.

Phil Sheridan 11/19/05

Also makes me go back to an earlier topic: John Elway, the best of all time? I still don't think so, Bruce!

Bill Lyon: A Giant Retires

Excerpt:

How about the rest of us?

Civility seems to have gone out of style. We're just not very nice to one another. Courtesy is seen as a weakness. And everyone shouts. And when everyone shouts, then after a while no one listens.

This is why he was a giant: sports writing for him wasn't merely about sports, it was about life.

I particularly enjoyed columns where he would intersperse adages. Among the most memorable to me was: A rut is a shallow grave. I don't know if that was his or if he was quoting someone else, but the wisdom encapsulated in those few words has been a challenge to me not to find comfort in the tried-and-true, but to seek new challenges.

The civility evident in his writing was matched by his graciousness in answering every e-mail I ever sent him with a thoughtful reply. Godspeed to you, Mr. Lyon, and thanks for a lifetime of sharing your insightfulness.

Other appreciations:
Bob Ford
Steven A. Smith
Phil Sheridan
Forum

Samtsirhc Eve

I don't know how to pronounce it either, but the night before an election is the polar opposite of being a kid on Christmas Eve: all the happy excitement of what is sure to be a wonderful morning is turned inside out. I have had people call me names, accuse me of things I haven't done, and seek to destroy my reputation.

Now, this might sound immodest, but I make this statement based on a rational analysis of the situation: there is only one legislator more effective than me on the current legislature, and that's the Chairman. I approach this as public service, but the Democrats approach this as blood sport. They would rather that they beat me, because I am not one of them, and replace me with anyone who is one of them, including one who is nearly certain to be a whole helluva lot less effective than me. I look at the legislature and assess its members as "effective" and "ineffective", and hope that the good ones get reelected and the others go away. Regardless of party.

Oh well. It is one of those life experiences that I wanted to have, and I have had it. Three campaigns - and now it may be time to punt on politics, regardless of tomorrow's outcome. I promised Angela that I would spend the same time and energy that I have on politics on something that makes money. At least at the end of the day, I will have more for my family.

Scooter and Rich

Dan:

Not that representing a slimy client necessarily makes the lawyer slimy, and not for any reason other than the sake of accuracy, here's something I read about the professional relationship between Scooter Libby and Marc Rich:

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff testified Thursday he believes prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges.

The testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who represented Rich dating back to 1985 but stopped working for him in the spring of 2000, came during a contentious, hours-long House committee hearing into former President Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour pardons.

It appears from this that Libby did NOT represent Rich during Pardon-gate. True or false, Dan?