Jim

Perhaps, here is a partial answer to the question. I recommend listening to this interview with Levey. Now that the NYTs has elected to expose this program, like Levey, I wonder how useful the program will be in the future. Here's Cheney's take on the issue which I think is dead on target. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ex=1151294400&en=38be11fa572aa9ca&ei=5087%0A Good job, NYTs. Well done, indeed.

We are part of the Universe. We are conscious. Therefore, the universe is, in some locations, conscious.

I actually think that Bush's problem stem from a long tradition of democracies' unreasonable expectations of its leaders in times of military action. This is a tradition which ultimately yields superior results even as it victimizes its own leaders. Military actions are always FUBAR and its silly to expect anything less. Lincoln, for a time, was an idiot to most of the North. Robert E. Lee was a military genius yet he still sent Pickett on his charge. We can all be thankful that Lee did not adopt Sherman's tactics while invading the North. The ultimate judgment of history will depend on the result, not the process. Most of the pontificating in the press is just so much noise and Bush, at least, understands that ultimately it is performance that counts.

I was the same way Pangloss. I found myself actually caring about soccer.

Hmmm. I perused a list of five letter words and I'm still not sure what compliment you were sending our way.

I don't like the label "cut and runners" either. Reasonable minds can differ on this war, something many of the left forget. OTOH, setting a timetable would do nothing except reinforce enemy morale.

FWIW, the rate of injury in US Rugby is less than football and hocky. It is more similar to wrestling. *cough*. Seriously, this may be because the better US athletes are in the other sports so the hits are harder. I also think that hard hits are more common in US football because of this armor. Even more seriously, I wouldn't advocate for a youth sport on the basis that the sport is more dangerous. Not wearing a helmet in a true contact sport is idiotic. I've had a kid blow out his knee in football and would not allow him to risk his spinal cord.

Pffft. *takes a chew of tobacco and injects himself with testosterone* You've got it all wrong. That armor you talk about is used to hit people. Take a helmet to the gut and then come talk to me about Nancy's body armor. Not to take anything away from the athleticism of soccer (*cough*), but the hard surfaces only makes American football tougher. Real football doesn't have this flitting back and forth trying to decide who is going to have the courage to hold the ball - "you take it, no, you take it, no, for god's sake you take .... there's A MAN RUNNING NEAR ME, EEK AND HE MIGHT TACKLE the ball from me!" Get real. Tackle the ball??? We don't tackle balls. We tackle players! The object of a tackle isn't to get the ball. It's to put the other guy on his back unconscious. THEN you get the ball. Tackles are why real football players usually don't look like they could pose for GQ. If you dare tackle too hard in soccer you may get sent to bed without supper by a man waiving a card. What do they tell their coach when the leave the field anyway? "I'm sorry, coach. I wasn't going to leave the field but he waived a card at me and it was red!. You know how the color red upsets me." Watch a football game if you wonder why Americans are a bunch of war mongering cowboys. American football is about commitment and a straight forward clash of wills. Line line up in positions and stare and cuss at each other until the whistle signals violent collision. Sure, there might be a flea flicker or a hail mary but unless a game is all but lost there is very little flitting about. Go backwards? Unless you are from Stanford no self-respecting football player is going backwards on purpose. A man gets the ball, runs as far as he can and then, when cornered, he lowers his head and punishes the guy trying to tackle him. That's football! Nancy's body armor. Pfft. Double Pfft!

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/06/15/ap2817856.html Since Zarqawi was killed: 1. 104 insurgents killed; 2. 452 raids, 143 of which were carried out by Iraqi forces alone; and, 3. 28 significant arms caches located. To give the journalists something to counteract this good news, the terrorist pulled 10 people from a bus and shot them. And, of course, the AP story trumpets the passing of the 2,500 Americans killed threshold as if it is a "milestone" more than was 2,000 or would be 2,750. If this document is valid, it points to a "crisis" even before these raids. True, terrorists can still pull unarmed civilians from a bus and shoot them in cold blood but, even with the media's complicity in elevating such brutal actions to major international news, how long will this method present a sustainable policy? The thing that heartens me most is Bush's restraint.

Objectionable, offensive, inaccurate, presumptuous, arrogant, silly - a lot of words could apply to the assumption by the federal government that it should declare that "we" trust in God. I'd have to think long and hard to single out one word that encapsulates all of the above.

In a solo cage match, Spiderman would mop the floor with Batman. In almost any other context, Alfred will find a way to help Bruce win the day. Alfred is Bruce Wayne's Dick Cheney.

My pick up line for my wife was a lot of heavy breathing. We met at a Halloween costume party in 1980. I came as Darth Vader and she came as a clown. We didn't know what we each looked like until two days later.

I use two spaces.

10. Having to pretend to know the answers to questions about which haven't the foggiest; 9. Realizing you asked most of these same questions 39 years ago and STILL don't know the answers; 8. Children suck energy from adults (per Carlos Castaneda); 7. A critical mass of young children destroy adult brain cells (I'm living proof); 6. Being contained in an unairconditioned bus with twenty-five 7-8 year olds is a good facsimile of a vicious God's concept for hell; 5. Your child will lose any illusion that you were in charge of anything; 4. No good deed goes unpunished; 3. The other chaperones are starting to look like children; 2. You realize these children could be your grandchildren; 1. The J in PBJs stands for Jelly which you will be wearing at the end of the day. Top ten reasons you post on SFN.

Zarqawi's replacement: Is it just me or does that read like a resume: Knowledgeable, organized, detail oriented, experienced in holy war, gets along well with other terrorists.... It is moderately interesting if they may have used a pseudonym. Could that mean a power struggle or that no one volunteered to have the bulls eye attached to their name?

Here's a Buffalo News link with reactions from Iraqi bloggers. My favorites: "I know that attacks will increase. I know more people are going to die. I know mistakes are going to be continued. I know everything will not be fixed soon like in the fairy tales. But I am happy that this man is killed. I believe his death is the real first step: the thousand-miles road starts with one step." "Zarqawi is dead, Iraqi women are [howling] in the shy, face-covering manner of my country, and Iraqi men are boisterously firing celebratory shots in the air," he wrote. "Iraq improved today, though true peace is obviously still far off. There are already reports of more deaths at the hands of terrorists who are now killing only for the sake of murder. Zarqawi's death is another setback for a campaign that is only about death." This is cool. Here aer the blogs from Iraq and one of them is for expatriate scientists if any of you non-laymen want to find some Iraqi pen pals.

That was one rationale. The other was not to let terrorists succeed in victimizing/impoverishing American families. The idea is that you may be able to kill some people but we take care of our own. This rationale would apply to the OKC bombing which to the people affected was just as severe. It's kind of the flip side of Saddam was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers and ultimately distributed millions in this way as I recall. One unstated reason for the different treatment could be the relative political power of NYC vs. OKC.

I'm not sure what I think about Guantanamo. The administration position is that this is a war and that they are going to treat enemy combatants very much as they have been in previous wars. If there are abuses, they should be curbed. My sense is that internationally there is some seizing on this issue to make a general point and discredit US policy. We should ignore such posturing and figure out the rules for this new kind of war. What do you think we should do with enemy combatants? I really do not know how to respond to this. I don't know what, specifically, you mean when you say we need to "stop allowing this to happen." I know my own position is not crated by the Jewish lobby. Maybe we just disagree with the policy your country would adopt? We agree completely. It is up to the Iraqis to decide whether they will take advantage of this wonderful opportunity granted by coalition forces lives. The horse has been led to the water. We'll see..... If Iraq fails, Bush will be judged harshly by history. I wonder what will happen to those who opposed this policy if Iraq ends up being a stablizing force for freedom in this region.