In keeping with the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy laws, public opinion is in-line with the decision.

We believe that this will be short lived as the consequences of the decision is felt.

As the homosexual community becomes more public and demands more, their popularity will decline.

Wnat to know why Dean's popularity is growing? Here is why.

This is in no way an endorsement of Dean but to his credit, he was the only viable Democratic candidate to not enedorse the war.

Given the situation in Iraq and the polls showing U.S. support on the decline, Dean could be the number one Democratic candidate.

As for beating Bush. No way.


Public Enchantment With Iraq War Declines

The Republicans can be as dumb as some Democrats. Frist backs a Constitutional ban on gay marriages.

What these nimrods forget is that if they enshrine the one woman and one man language into the amendment, then what is to keep an incestuous relationship from coming under the heading of one man and one woman.

The intent of that amendment may be ignored by an activist judge.

Mark Steyn echos.

But first, one has to really go back and check to see what he had to say about Iraq.

I've spent the last couple of weeks on what the British would call a ''motoring tour'' of western and northern Iraq, and I can't recommend it highly enough. The roads are empty except for the occasional burnt-out tank and abandoned Saddamite limo. You can make excellent time, as it will be several months before a deBaathified Iraqi Highway Patrol squad is up and running and even longer before they replace the looted radar detectors. And best of all, if you avoid Baghdad and a couple of other major cities, you'll find the charming countryside completely unspoilt by Western reporters insisting that America is ''losing the peace.''


We have stated repeatedly that Steyn is to the right what Fisk is to the left. Both are gulity of being Bullshit artists with the pen.

Fisk reported back that when Baghad International was alleged to be falling into U.S. hands, the roads were deserted and no U.S. troops were nearby. Then you have Steyn reporting that , well Iraq should be your next vacation destination.

Well beside the numerous KIA in Iraq in the past weeks, we have this latest coming out of Iraq. Steyn never addresses the issue, he just keeps advocating more U.S. involvement.

British Plan to Restore Order in South Iraq City

BAGHDAD, Iraq: in attacks.

Boy suspected of committing incest


Ok you legal wizrds have at it. Incest is a felony.

"For some young men indulged in affairs with boys, others in affairs with courtesans." They paid a talent (roughly a thousand dollars) for a boy bought for sexual pleasure and three hundred drachmas for a jar of caviar. "Marcus Cato was outraged by this and, in a speech to the people, complained that one might be quite convinced of the decline of the republic, when pretty boys cost more than fields and jars of caviar cost more than plowman." Polybius, The Histories, trans. W.R. Paton (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930)


After reading the SCOTUS decision on the Texas sodomy law, we were interested to read comments from bloggers, bloggers who are lawyer types or legal scholars or professors. We came across Tyler Cowen's and found his to be of some interest.

Why is consensual incest different from homosexuality? Let's be a reductionist economist on this one, with apologies in advance. Most parties to incest have been having regular family and social relations for many years (I don't see anything wrong with brother-sister incest if the parties did not grow up together and in essence encounter each other as initial strangers.) Then we have to ask: does allowing sex trades across family members, other than mother and father, make the family a better-functioning unit?

The answer is plausibly no. And for the same reasons that allowing bosses and employees to trade sex will not generally increase a firm's profits. The acts become divisive, break up cooperative teams, create scandal, create conflict of interest issues, eliminate perceptions of fairness, and so on, the litany here is well-known.

On top of that, incentuous relationship are likely fraught with psychological manipulation, well above the relationship average.

No such comparable critique can be levied against homosexuality.

This argument is meritless and has nothing to do with the legalities of the decision. As for psychological manipulation, it exists in every relationship period.

Next Philippe de Croy wants to know if Santoum was right.

Was Santorum "right"? I do not share Eugene’s sense (two posts below) that the Court’s opinion in Lawrence means that bigamous and incestuous sexual relationships between adults now are constitutionally protected. That may seem the natural implication of some of the language the Court used, but to take that language literally is, I think, to misread the way the Court operates and to exaggerate its commitment to consistency with the language of prior opinions. If given a chance to pass on a prosecution of a defendant in one of those situations that Eugene describes, the Court almost certainly would likely find a way to distinguish Lawrence. I do not expect such an opportunity to arise anytime soon, however, and by the time such an opportunity one day does arise it of course is possible that the notions of public morality (or certain segments of it) that the Court tends to express will have changed enough to produce the results Eugene describes after all. But the Court doesn’t let itself get get as far out in front of the public as Eugene’s post implies. That, I think, is a lesson of Bowers and Lawrence taken together.

Was he? All one has to do is check out a web site called C.U.D.D.L.E. International to understand that incestuous relationships have more legal standing than gay relationships.

For the individual to say that the Court can distinguish the right to engage in an incestuous relationship is pure folly. There are more laws and more situations where the incestuous relationship is allowed. But the matter to which one can engage in incest depends on the morality of the individual.

To act in an incestuous realtionship is no different than to act in a homosexual relationship. For it is a sexual relationship that can be based on two consenting adults. If anything, historically, incestuous relationships carry a stronger legal force because they are recognized in certain states.

The sodomy case will give a greater force to individuals who want to engage in an incestuous relationship legally. Look for incest laws in every state to come under attack.

The real question is what impact will this have on the morality of the nation. Will we fall like Rome?

Iraq calls the U.S. to show its hand

Powell: US citizens in 'imminent danger' in Libya

Having read the SCOTUS opinion on affirmative action, we will post the following.

"Jake Metcalfe voted against the policy change. His wife is Filipino and their two sons attend the alternative Montessori program through Denali Elementary School. The fact they checked "Pacific Islander" as the boy's heritage probably helped them get in, Metcalfe said."

(Source: Anchorage Daily News Feburary 12th, 2003)

This was taken from a campaign website. The individual's race who is quoted is important and equally important is the fact that the children were half Filipino and came from a "well-to-do" family.

What has happened over the years is, affirmative action has evolved from a noble attempt to correct an injustice to creating another injustice.

The basis of its existence was to give the economically disadvantged minorities a lending hand in bettering their lives.

Socioeconomic factors were the benchmark for its existence, not diversity.

However, as minorities have made substantial gains economically, diversity became the compelling reason which for all intents and purposes flies in the face of the intent of affirmative action.

At the law school in MIchigan, most of the minorities that applied and went onto law school came from familes that are well off economically. Diversity became the compelling rerason because most applicants were nor economically disadvantaged.

The question should be asked is how compelling of an interest is diversity to socioeconomic factors?

Not a whole hell of a lot when a kid from a minority family that is pulling down $100,000.00 a year, could get an advantage over some white kid who grew up in a city like East St. Louis and the family's income was at the poverty level.

For the sake of affirmative action, who should get the nod first, the white economically disadvantaged kid or the black kid who came from a wealthy family who may have went to a private school. Let's add one other factor. Let's say the white kid got better scores then the minority kid. Should race be a factor and is diversity a compelling interest to deny the white kid from attending because you have a "quota" in diversity?

Taking a real life scenario, what about a school board president's kid getting the nod over a kid coming from a school system that is failing. Federal law under the "No Child Left Behind" act mandates that the white child coming from school be allowed to go to a charter school, but affirmative action is being used in a manner that will put a child that is in a wealthy school district ahead of one coming from a failing one.

Sound fair? And should diversity be a compelling reason to deny the child in the failing school a chance at a better education.

Now having said all of this, do we think that using race is a compelling interest. We do. Invidious discrimnation and its intended operation or unintended operation exists. To combat its operation, laws like affirmative action have been instituted. But we argue it was done to acheive a semblance of equality not diversity.

If you had a working environment that had 100% white workers and the community was ethnically mixed, then a close scrutinity of the hiring practices should be examined. For if you had a black individual and a white individual applying for a job, then the job should go to the black individual.

Some may argue that this is diversity, but the real compelling reason is equality. And we would take the argument even further and state that affirmative action with the intent of lending a slight advantage to the black individual is just, given an injustice had been served on the black individual and was done so because of his race.

Another agrument can be made on the practice of hiring male teachers. In the public school system it is a well known fact that male teachers are in the minority, and it is also well known that because of the high rate of fatherless homes, schools need more male teachers. That is a complelling reason to hire more male teachers.

To some that may seem unjust, but the state would have a compelling reeason to hire a male teacher over an equally qualified female teacher.

But what do you do when layoffs take place and tenured teachers are let go and minority teachers who are in probationary status are kept.

For the most part the decsions were expected, but the reasons outlined under the heading of diversity are bullshit.

Everyone that supported the invasion in Iraq is screaming Democracy. These same people are screaming Democracy in Iran.

However, have you heard them scream against this?

Mr Asad Sultan Abu Gilal, the man many had expected to win the election, warned of violence.

'If they don't give us freedom, what will we do?' he said on Wednesday. 'We have patience, but not for a long time.'

So much for Democracy. And it shouldn't take up to two years to come up with a Constitution that outlines elections.

Don't know who this blogger is and we don't care. But one thing is for sure. His duplicitous feelings on the Shi'ites is remarkable.

The Shi'ites are good when it comes to Iraq, but the Mullahs are bad when it comes to Iran.

This blogger has yet to make one comment on thisand this little bit on the Shi'ites in Iraq.

Charles at LGF seems to think he is in the know as well as the others who post on his comments section.

The story he links to is from yahoo, but if the LGF blogger would do some research on the matter, he would find that the documents were seized in the office of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq .

But what did an earlier Yahoo story have to say about the group?


His powerful Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) belongs to a U.S.-backed Iraqi council which meets regularly to map out a future government post-Saddam.

The U.S. military said on Saturday Iraqi-based Iranian guerrillas, labelled as terrorists by Washington and who are opposed to the government in Tehran, have agreed to yield to U.S. forces.

The MEK which the second paragraph speaks to are considered a terrorist organization.

My friend's son-in-law called yesterday from an undisclosed area in Iraq. His convoy was attacked by Iraqis. Three soldiers in his unit were hurt in the attack. His unit is the 314th.

While on the phone you coould hear tanks driving by. I checked the news to see if the attack was written about. It wasn't. My friend's son-in-law stated that his unit comes under small arms fire and Iraqis throwing Molotovs at his unit daily.

He asked that we in the U.S. keep up the effort on putting pressure on the Bush administration to bring the troops home now.

He also stated that the U.S. is confiscating gold. And that the U.S. currency is being used. The news on Hussein's currency being used is not true. He will try to send photos of him holding gold that was being transfered from a bank in Iraq.

Also the looting is still bad. He stated the propaganda that is coming from both sides is bad. They are tired and feel that their mission was accomplished when Hussein was ousted from power.

French Police Detain 208 Protestors

Paris Raid Reveals Washington's Fractured Iran Policy

The Iranian Date


People should be questioning why the U.S. listened to Alireza Jafazadeh, on anthrax and other chemical weapons in Iran.

The Mujah were fighting in Iraq alongside Saddam, and then later, negotiated a ceasefire with the U.S.?

No Punditry, Just the Facts

New Blogging takes shape.

Carl Levin isl giving Tenet an out.

"Why did the CIA say that they had provided detailed information to the UN inspectors on all of the high and medium suspect sites, when they had not?" Mr Levin asked. "Did the CIA act in this way in order not to undermine administration policy?"

The Bush administration had better fire Tenet. If not Bush will get the blame.

When closely scrutinized, Levin's comments really don't make sense. But you can tell the direction he is going. In effect he is trying to say, Bush hid important information on the suspected sites.

A misdirection question if there every was one.

With all of the talk about reforms in Iran, Kuwait steps in and throws a wrench in things.

The Kuwaiti interior minister said he had also discussed with Iranian officials how to fight al-Qaeda. "Terrorism is detested in the whole region and Iran is among the countries to have repeatedly condemned this ominous phenomenon," Muhammad added. "The Islamic Republic of Iran never allows any al-Qaeda member to
use its soil or illegally enter the country," he said.

We don't always buy Newsmax but they ask a valid question on George Tenet.

Bye Bye Birdie

With Rep. Darrell Issa's money funding an army of paid signature gatherers, supporters claim to have 700,000 of the 900,000 signatures they must obtain by Sept. 2 to put the measure on the November ballot.

In a Field Poll survey, Davis was at 24 percent. See ya.

The Voice of a Bullshit Artist

George Tenet was/is a Clinton hack

The Odds

US President

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 2004 GENERAL ELECTION
George W. Bush favored over the opposition field, 7 to 5 (58.3% chance he will be re-elected; downgraded from 60% chance 2/22/03)

ANALYSIS: Bush remains a clear re-election favorite. His handling of the Iraq war solidified his position as a strong leader. Though voters are split on his handling of the economy, many voters still see economic troubles within the context of the international situation. Sept. 11 changed everything and voters credit Bush with sincerity and strength of character.

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION 2004

Sen. John Kerry (MA), 5 to 1 (16.7% chance). Overall, Kerry is doing the best among the contenders. He converts name recognition into votes better than anyone. But his path to the nomination remains fraught with serious obstacles.

U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt (MO), 7 to 1 (12.5% chance). Chances upgraded from 10% on 4/17/03. Gephardt opened his campaign on a very strong footing; his health care proposal is bold, dramatic and risky politically. So far as a candidate, he’s handled himself like a real pro. If labor gets behind him, he’ll be a big force.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT), 7 to 1 (12.5% chance; upgraded from 10% 5/9/03). Though many activist Democrats view Lieberman as being too conservative – he’s running somewhat to the right of the field – and that hurts him with many constituency groups (i.e., labor, blacks, trial lawyers, environmentalists, etc.). But his South Carolina debate performance was superb, and it gave his sagging candidacy new life and credibility.

Gov. Howard Dean (VT), 10 to 1 (9.1% chance; downgraded from 10% chance 5/9/03). Dean has the most grassroots enthusiasm of any candidate, and that counts in democratic primaries and caucuses. His anti-war position has given him substantial national credibility among liberals. However, since the Iraqi victory, some of his statements on foreign affairs and military issues are coming close to marginalizing his candidacy -- possibly putting him into a danger zone not only for the general election but also the nomination battle.

Sen. John Edwards (NC), 12 to 1 (7.7% change; downgraded from 8.3% chance 5/09/03). Though Edwards is perceived by many pundits and politicians as the most effective candidate of the bunch, he’s yet to demonstrate significant voter support. His performance as a candidate has, for the most part, fallen short of expectation. Though his large base of financial donors among trial lawyers gives his campaign reach and depth, his lack of state-by-state polling strength is telling.

Sen. Bob Graham (FL), 20 to 1 (4.8% chance; downgraded from 6.3% chance 5/09/03). He has great experience as a governor and three-term U.S. senator, and his geographic base (vote-rich Florida) is an ideal launching pad. But he’s yet to find much of a voice, or an appealing message, in this race. His recent announcement fell flat. Constantly mentioned as a VP possibility.

Gen. Wesley Clark, 100 to 1 (1% chance). Still mentioned as a possible candidate, but time’s running short on this novice politico. He did well on CNN during the war, and there are some Democrats who’d like to have a candidate with military credentials. Could end up running for the Senate or governor.

Sen. Joe Biden (DE), 200 to 1 (less than 1% chance). Hasn’t gotten into the race and probably won’t, but could be an interesting late entrant if none of the top tier candidates get traction.

Carol Moseley-Braun (IL), 500 to 1 (less than 1% chance). Though she has virtually no chance to win the nomination, her public appearances have been impressive. Her appeal to black women may garner for her a surprisingly sizable constituency.

Rev. Al Sharpton (NY), 1,000 to 1 (less than 1% chance). He’s the best public speaker of the field; funny, hard-hitting, clever. But his controversial past eliminates him as a contender. Nonetheless, he will likely get more votes than most of the party’s Pooh-Bahs now expect.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH), 2,000 to 1 (less than 1% chance). Known as Dennis the Menace during his disastrous term as mayor of Cleveland, he’s firmly on the outside looking in.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY), 4 to 1 (20% chance; chances downgraded Jan. 30 from 25%). She’s not a candidate, and is likely to stay out of this race. But her potential appeal remains considerable within Democratic ranks (particularly among blacks and women). If none of the other candidates take off, there could yet be a draft in her direction; that’s why we keep her in the mix.

Someone else, 10 to 1 (9% chance)

Wisconsin's Straw poll has a different result.

We wouldn't put much stock in the straw poll as an indicator of what is to come. Why? Here is why.

Jeff Mayers, editor of WisPolitics, which sponsored the straw poll along with a national political newsletter called The Hotline, said participation was diminished after the Democratic National Committee actively discouraged delegates from voting.

Looks like the Republican Party and Buchanan, when Buchanan was winning straw polls.

U.S. military compound in Iraq attacked

But wait, Mark Steyn said come on over the water is fine.

My friend's son-in-law wrote again. This time from Kirkuk. The main mission of his unit is now to protect the oil refineries in Kirkuk.

The news that the pipeline
expolsion being caused by a gas leak is not true.

He will soon be moving to another location. The Kurds are trying to take over refineries and the Turks are moving to combat this. Tensions are rising.

Out on the campaign trail

Presidential hopefuls visit state Democrats

"Saddam Hussein did not present a danger to the United States," insisted Dean, the former five-term Vermont governor and a physician.


A decorated Vietnam War veteran, Kerry also mocked Bush's symbolic landing on an aircraft carrier after the Iraq war. "Landing on an aircraft carrier does not make up for the loss of 2.5 million jobs," the senator said.


"There's no proof," Kucinich said. "Show me the evidence, Mr. President. Show the American people what you have."

Declaring that President George W. Bush is "leading us in all the wrong directions," Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Richard Gephardt brought his campaign to Rhode Island Friday for a breakfast fund-raiser at The Hope Club.

We've got to take the time to actually find out if these weapons were there or the capability to make them was there, he said. All of the intelligence, all of the evidence at the United Nations, with the weapons inspectors, with the Clinton administration, with NATO was that they had those weapons.

Democrats unsure how to attack Bush on war

Vouchers please parents

Iraq still not safe as U.S. forces face attacks

Iraqi WMD Issue Could Serve Democratic Presidential Hopefuls

Gephardt is not mentioned. He thinks there are WMDs. This issue will blow up in the Democrats face. Much of the intelligence came from the Clinton administration by way of CIA director George Tenet. George Tenet was a political tool from the Clinton adminstration

So, how about other presidential candidates?

Perhaps. But for the Democrats, it won't be easy to make this a political issue against Bush. Much of the party's leadership in Congress voted in favor of the authorization, as did all of the so-called first-tier presidential candidates, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) and Sens. John Edwards (N.C.), John Kerry (Mass.), and Joseph Lieberman (Conn.).


What is the leading presidential candidate talking about? Health Care and the Economy.

The Bush adminstration wisely puts focus on George Tenet and supports him. Why? The Democrats can't attack such support. He came from the Clinton adminstration.

U.S. Starts Counterinsurgency Plan in Iraq

And Steyn thinks the water is fine.

'Secret US army unit scoured Iraq for WMD'

No permit needed to carry concealed guns

Alaska joins Vermont in if you can own a gun, then you can carry it concealed. Very logical and constitutionally correct.

Saddam uncertainty hurts U.S. efforts in Iraq

A few days back we had spoke to a Col. that came back from Iraq and he indicated that the shadow government is failing. The individuals are fearful that Hussein would come back in power when the U.S. left.

Here is a validation through Bremer's comments of what the Col. said to us.

"I think it does make a difference because it allows the Baathists to go around in the bazaars and in the villages, as they are doing, saying, 'Saddam is alive, and he's going to come back. And we're going to come back,'" said Bremer.

Blair and Chirac 'heal Iraq rift'

Bush will soon find himself and as well, the U.S., alone among nations. The only reason Blair went along, was his buddy Clinton had said so. If Clinton had never said it, Blair would have never supported it. And we are talking about WMDs.

Remember that tube that was smuggled into Turkey? How much you wanna bet it came from Iraq.

For the time being, it looks like Sullivan has given up on finding WMDs in Iraq. Now his focus is on:

WHERE'S SADDAM? I'm amazed that more people haven't been asking this question. It seems to me that it's extremely important that Saddam be found and arrested - more important than whether we find some chemical missiles that Saddam would have been able to remanufacture swiftly if he'd survived the past few months with his regime intact. If he's still in Iraq, as Ahmed Chalabi argues, then he truly is a menace. If he's offering rewards for the murder of American soldiers, as Chalabi also claims, then his capture should surely be a priority. What are we doing about it? I wish I knew.

What are we doing about it? Hmmm. Impatient fella isn't he. Doesn't he think we are looking for him? Or are we spending too much time on finding WMDs, the root cause (according to some in the Bush adiministration) of going to war.

But wait, there is bin Laden. Hell let's move on to Iran. No, let's go after North Korea, no better yet Syria. No let's go back and look at North Korea, but wait China was supposed to help on that one. Iran, but wait, Russia was supposed to help on that one. Now Syria, who wanted to help?

Rumsfeld: Hussein's Soldiers Will Kill Americans for Months to Come

But wait grab your swimsuits because one reporter wants you to Come on over the water's lovely

I've spent the past couple of weeks on a motoring tour of western and northern Iraq, and I can't recommend it highly enough. The roads are empty except for the occasional burnt-out tank and abandoned Saddamite limo. You can make excellent time, because it will be several months before a deBa'athified Iraqi highway patrol squad is up and running and even longer before they replace the looted radar detectors.

No it's not Fisk reporting on the invasion of the airport in Baghdad, its the "other" Fisk reporting on how wonderful it is to vacation in Iraq after the war.

And people buy this shit. We definately know some bloggers who do.

New Study, Case May Help California Children of Divorce Retain Bonds with Both Parents

Little Prejudice Against a Woman, Jewish, Black or Catholic Presidential Candidate

Forecast for the U.S. GDP 2003

Kristol: Bush Made Misstatements on Iraq WMDs


Kristol seeks cover but leaves Bush out in the line of fire. What a ChickenHawk, er Chickenshit.

Iraq: Christians Uncertain About Their Future

William Nurvyn is a Catholic from a family with British origins. In his 30s, he belongs to the generation of Iraqis who remember no other leader beyond Saddam Hussein. With a comfortable house and Sylvester Stallone-like muscles, Nurvyn seems largely untouched by the difficulties experienced by so many Iraqis under Hussein's regime and the years of sanctions.

He says his family experienced no harassment during the former regime, and he knows of no Christians who did.

"We were not harassed by anybody, and nobody could harass us because we were backed by Saddam Hussein and he liked the Christians and gave them all freedom," Nurvyn said.

Some contradiction of note.

Muslims were also favored in Christian-majority towns, with Islamic religious instruction provided even in schools with a single Muslim student. Christian students, meanwhile, were often denied religious education or were forced to study the Koran.

Tough call on who is right here. It has been said in past articles that Christians had been protected by Hussein. But this could be the same dynamics as the Naglands for Christ Sect.

Our political Compass

Bush Admin. Now Says Iraqi WMD a 'Program'

Bush keeps digging himself deeper in a hole.

The L.A. Times is running a report on an Iraqi Intelligence general's statements on Iraq's WMDs. Basically he states that the weapons had been destroyed and that the infrastructure to produce them was still intact.

This still does not help the Bush adminstration on its statements that Hussein indeed had the weapons. One thing however stands out and it is that as we have stated before this shit came to light, information that was alleged to be factual from dissenters could not be trusted. Why, they were actually agents for the Hussein regime.

It was done in Afghanistan and it was done in Iraq.

U.S. Soldier Killed in Iraq

I had spoken to a Col. who came back from Iraq. He was from the same company that the military members who were killed last week. He indicated that Iraq is still very dangerous for our military members. The picture paiinted by the the likes of Steyn and others who would have you believe that Iraq should be your next vacation stop are full of shit.

Troops are being rotated constantly beacuse of the dangers involved. He also indicated that the shadow government in Iraq is failing. They are disorganized and fearful of what will happen when the U.S. leaves.

The Bush administration is in a world of shit right now. They should have just shot the son-of-a-bitch and be done with it.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

It depends on the definition of what is is.

Interesting


Gephardt, the Democrats' former House leader, was among the first in the U.S. opposition party to support Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq. Evidence from 1991 through the Clinton administration showed Iraq had banned weapons, he told CBS.

``There is long, consistent, clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and I'm still convinced we are going to find them,'' Gephardt said.

As the shit hits the fan everyone is yelling COVER

Blair was "suckered," said Robin Cook, the Labour Party MP who resigned from Blair's Cabinet to protest the war. "Britain was conned into a war to disarm a phantom threat in which not even our major ally really believed," Cook wrote in Britain's Independent. "The truth is that the U.S. chose to attack Iraq not because it posed a threat, but because they knew it was weak and expected its military to collapse."

Blair was "suckered" into it. That is one for the books and what about the Brits dossier?

Clare Short, another Labour MP who resigned in opposition to the war, accused Blair of misleading the public. "I have concluded that the prime minister decided to go to war in August sometime and he duped us all along," Short said.

That is more like it.

Prime Minister Blair said last week he will cooperate with a parliamentary probe into his handling of intelligence reports. "The truth is nobody believes a word now that the prime minister is saying," Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith grumbled to the British press.

The Conservative Party is attacking Blair on the issue? Times are changing and everyone is yelling "cover."

Reality Check for the United States: Ex-Army boss: Pentagon won't admit reality in Iraq

All the bullshit that is being pushed by the likes of Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration is coming to a head with the reality of the situation in Iraq. And to think Steyn will push some story that would have you wearing Khakis at the first sign of a beach in Iraq.

But wait, Steyn didn't go to the more popular places where the 3rd infantry is sending more troops over to help out with the problems over there. Who would you believe, the Army boss or some nitwit journalist. After all, the journalists have a poor record on telling the whole story. But it sure as hell has been the ex-Army generals telling Rumsfeld that this would be a long tough haul, not some vacation trip that Steyn would have you believe.

Reality Check for Krugman:

What scares me most, however, is the home front. Look at how this war happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998.

WTF, he is just as bad as Sullivan at getting the facts right. Or having a clue on what reality is. But it is always nice to know that Krugman has friends to back him up.

Krugman must be Sullivan in drag or vice versa.

Reality Check for Sullivan: Widespread Support for Palestinian State

US Senate opens WMD probe

It begins. But before the Democrats play politics, they had better address Clinton's own actions towards Iraq. And before that Bush Sr.

If the U.S. wants the truth, then these politicians had better open the hearings to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq

Then you have this excellent comparison between Clinton and Bush.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. ... Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. ... Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."

Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves."

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military."

What a difference an administration makes.

(Via Roger Schultz)

For the love of oneself, Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds, two of the biggest nitwits to enter the world of opinions had this to say:

THE WAR, NOW: Glenn Reynolds has an up-beat post on progress in the war on terror. I share most of his feelings on this, although I share most deeply his admission that it's very hard to tell for sure. I'm worried we still don't have enough troops in Iraq; but I'm not a long-term pessimist about the country. Rummy isn't spinning when he says it will take a long long time. Well, he may be spinning but he may also be right. Whatever the problems Iraq faces, the removal of Saddam is not resented by any serious Iraqis; and the daily news of the mass murders that took place regularly under Saddam only confirm more deeply the moral imperative of that truly just war. My prediction that Bush really would tackle the Israeli-Palestinian impasse has also been borne out; and Sharon's use of the word "occupation" tells me he's serious about a nation-saving deal. As to whether Abbas can deliver, call me a hopeful pessimist. More broadly, I'm worried about French mischief around the globe, especially their latest attempt to revamp the European Union to undermine any nation states on the continent tilting toward the U.S. (I have a long essay due out soon on this very subject). But I still believe that the biggest story of the past two years is al Qaeda's reeling. I'm amazed we haven't had another huge attack in the U.S. and believe the Bush administration deserves some credit for that. Heck, it deserves a lot of credit. To my mind, freedom from terror is still easily the most important objective of this moment. On that - despite my misgivings about his big spending and coziness with some on the far right - Bush deserves continued, critical support.

- 1:13:21 AM

While the world waits for the WMD's to be found, he comes up with such a bullshit argument like this. Since when is it in our own best interest to invade a foreign country beacuse of the treatment handed down on its people by its leaders. I guess the U.N. should be knocking on our door. The terror argument is justified, but not his reasons that go beyond that.

The problems with the inavsion in Iraq grow. As is coming out in reports, our troops are becoming demoralized and worn down. A friend's son-in-law that is currently in Tikrit is working continuously. Three hour naps in twenty four hours is it. On top of that as I stated before, he is conflicted in his emotions.

He is glad for freeing Iraqis but at the same time feels guilt for the destruction and deaths. The Bush administration went about ousting Hussein in the wrong manner. Assassination should have been used. Why? The regime is ended and retribution is found for 9-11.

We have allways taken the position the the Czech intelligence on the Iraqi agent meeting with Atta was true. And we felt our own CIA was hiding important information that we believe would have been embarrassing for both the Clinton adminstration and the Bush Sr. administration. On top of that you have Havel a close friend of Clinton changing his tune in midstream on the meeting. He later denied the meeting.

How does this all play out? The U.S. cannot pull out without the risk of Hussein's cronies coming back into power. And where is Hussein? Most likely waiting. The Democrats are going to have a field day when they raise the WMD's issue, and the whereabouts of Hussein and Osama binLaden in the 2004 election.

Plain and simple, our CIA is worthless when it comes to intelligence gathering.