Jim

Anecdotally, this weekend my daughter's soccer team won second place in a tournament. The name chosen by the winner? "Team Mexico" The colors worn by the team? The national colors of Mexico. Number of the 30 or so adults and kids I heard on the side lines speak English: less than 5. Number of times they spoke english to each other: 0. I don't see a problem in taking symbolic and meaningful steps to promote English as the "national language", although we should help transition lawful American citizens to help them learn the language.

This comes as no surprise if you've ever had personal experience with the press on a story which they think validates the overwhelmingly dominant MSM world view. I had a case which got 15 minutes of national infamy (yes, I was perceived as representing the bad guys who had the audacity to win) and 9/10th of the journalists who contacted me were pretty clueless. They wanted to pitch the case from a certain angle and nothing, certainly not facts or law, would deflect them. At first I would just refer them to the briefing in the case, naively thinking that the hundreds of hours we had spent writing those documents might be helpful to anyone seriously interested in understanding the opposing point of view. Without exception, this material was ignored and, finally, after story after inaccurate story, I tried to engage them with direct email and phone conversations but it was just another day's work for them and they weren't exceptionally interested in getting an opposing perspective. I still wasn't prepared for the absolute fabrications in some reports.

Looking at Saddam's art, you just have to be thankful that this man never acquired nukes. He had these things on his walls! He had the glories of Persian antiquity to decorate his home and he picked this garbage. Here's another funny quote: And, if we haven't wasted enough time, here's a bunch of links looking for humor in the situation.

Heh, I think given Saddam's taste in art, we can probably conclude his poetry stinks.

Who said this didn't translate well into English? They call me Beast of Baghdad. They're hurtful and they're snide -- But that's because they've never seen My sweet, poetic side. Sure, I authorized some floggings, And gassed to death some foes, But I'm hoping now to show the world The Saddam that no one knows. This Saddam is filled with anguish For all things mean and bad. I weep for mankind's pain -- in fact, My name begins with Sad. You thought I'd hidden weapons And I admit I did, in part: My pen, it has a warhead To warm the coldest heart. Neither cell nor fetid rathole Can still this plaintive wail. I'll keep writing mush, I swear it Till you get me outta jail. -- Gene Weingarten Reportedly printed in Washington Post with introduction noting that none of Saddam's poems "has been released yet, but we can imagine, can't we?"

Yes, I'm sure "And in my body runs the blood of the great" was quite the pithy turn of phrase in his native tongue.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2179408_2,00.html During their last meeting, Saddam told her he had written a new epic work. “I didn’t have time to write poetry before,” the dictator said, “but now I have had the time to become a poet.”

Heh, anything is possible. There is no reason to expect America to be the dominant superpower fifty years from now and I can easily imagine some kind of disruptive tech allowing an invasion to become thinkable. America is like Microsoft but China may be Google.

I wonder if our friends to the North are getting nervous?

Perhaps Bush's resolution to take out the Taliban would have been sufficient to make the point; however, that would only be a guess. Khadafi's son's point that negotiations predated 3/03 when Libya unlaterally threw in the towel. However, I do not see progress made prior to 2003 which would eclipse the pretty obvious conclusion that it was Bush's policies which resulted in a former bad boy of the Middle East entering the community of nations. Bush sure gets credit for all of the negative; I think he's fully earned this one in the W column.

AP timeline of "Events related to U.S. relations with Libya" which omits that in 3/03 Libya approached the US to volunteer to dismantle its WMDs. You've just got to laugh... I guess.

Your objection, then is procedural, not substantive? You do not disagree that this war benefited the Iraqi people but their well being is subordinate to the way in which the war was declared? You feel misled and because you weren't in control of events, "its not really about whether the Iraqis are better now than before?" I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but this seems to be the logical extension of what you are saying. With respect to your procedural complaints, it is easy to build a good case that the US action was justified. While I believe this case is solid, I believe it is frivilous to say that the US did not at least have a good faith basis for acting. You act as if this were a war against the Iraqi people instead of against an odious regime that had invaded a US ally, lost and then flouted the armistice agreement. Twelve years of procedures followed during which Saddam never came clean as to what happened to his WMDs. He could easily have produced irrebutable proof that he had destroyed his WMDs yet, for whatever reason, he simply chose not to comply. You seem to think that Resolution 1441 (finding Iraq to be in material breach of its obligations under prior UN resolutions) passed in the Fall of 2002, depended on the existence of WMDs. This is not accurate. It was not the UN or US's job to establish that Saddam had WMDs. It was Saddam's burden to prove that he had fully disarmed. I certainly never said war is not a serious matter. However, the US can be a stalwart ally once it determines its strategic interests are involved and in 2003 the time had come to determine whether the US was serious about making Saddam pay the price of the peace. Libya certainly was paying attention even if much of the West was asleep to what was at stake. This constant fixation on WMDs is a smoke screen. The existence of WMDs at the exact time of the invasion was inherently a risky call. We were on the outside looking in and, with hindsight, now know that it was very possible to be mistaken. However, our good faith belief was evidenced by the fact that US troops carried suits into battle to protect themselves against chemical weapons. Again, as I said, the burden was on Saddam to come clean and the fact that he did not is additional evidence of his irrationality. This was after he had invaded a US ally, attempted to assassinate a former US president and paid the families of terrorists. Iraq is better for the war. The world is safer without Saddam and with Libya deciding not to risk a continuation of its substantial WMD program. The objection that the US lacked procedural grounds for going to war is without merit. All of which aside, to win this argument I don't have to prove that I'm right. I merely have to prove a good faith argument which should be enough between trusted and important allies. Instead of giving any benefit of the doubt, the reverse seems to be occurring. Style is important and Bush is not the great communicator. However, I would hope that Europeans are sophisticated enough to judge us on substance. FWIW, I don't recall Bush referring to the Iraq war as a "crusade." Europeans can't seriously be worried about invoking God. This is hardly the first time an American president told the country it would have the help of God in a time of war: How about this one delivered at the conclusion of a military operation: Here's yet another American president, in a "theologically intense speech," shamelessly invoking God in a time of war:

Lol. I never knew he had it in him....

Causation can be implied. If you go out of your way to point out that a serial killer was homosexual then you don't have to say directly that the homosexuality caused the killings. The use of the words "any" and "reflecting" often the word "because" in this legislation. Suppose a text book incorrectly states, "Hitler, was of course, gay." The only reason for this inaccurate and gratuitous statement is to malign gays. If this part of the statute does anything, it can't be limited to banning statements of strict causation. I doubt seriously there are any textbooks in the California public schools which say "homosexuality causes XY&Z social ills." The entire point of the act is to chill negative speech and by using such fuzzy words, they will make publishers censor themselves. If you are going to censor, then at least be specific. Do not make such an amorphous restriction that publishers end up refraining from saying anything that has to do with sexual orientation. I certainly agree which is a good reason to dislike this law. Text books will stay far away from anything sexual for fear of some SIG suing them for casting an adverse reflection on their group. Its completely counter to the whole point of the gay rights movement - the idea that gay people are completely equal and that orientation does not change them into lesser [or greater] people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060515/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_libya

Where relevant, I have no problem with a textbook author telling my kids that a particular historical or literary figure was gay. I don't think you can or should dictate a particular spin in an academic setting. Just put out the facts and let the kids make up their own minds.

Certainly but I'm not aware of any that would preclude a local school board from deciding to teach black history, gay history, Irish history or really any kind of history. I'm only pointing out that analytically these two issues are in completely different ball parks and it doesn't surprise me that they might have different resolutions. I'm not sure if it runs afoul of the first amendment as might a creationist viewpoint in a public high school text book. Don't get me wrong, it's a stupid bill: What if the academic truth is that trangenders have not made a particularly huge contribution on balance. How does this even get "studied?" Do we factor in negative actions to counterbalance the positive? Is it important whether transgendered have contributed more than straights? What if they have contributed when analyzing objective measures (GNP contribution, taxes contributed vrs. taxes used) but not as much as straights. Is this even an issue we want "studied?" The answer, of course, is no. The bills authors do not want analysis; they want anecdotal feel good sections that advocate. It's a stupid bill but it presents different issues from having creationist text books in public schools.

I too do not want the government randomly searching emails; however, even the NYTs report did not claim Cheney advocated such an approach. You have to dig into the article but you will see that he was only arguing for review of domestic to domestic communications where there was a perceived Al Qaeda link (albeit one not strong enough apparently to provide probable cause for a warrant). Seriously, we do not have any context for Cheney's alleged position as advocated while the twin towers were still smouldering.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4514414.stm So what that we didn't find WMDs. If these countries did not pay any price and if, on balance, we benefited the Iraqi's, I can see why they would think us foolish for spending our blood and capital but please explain the source of the outrage. I'm not being combative here; I would genuinely like to understand the thinking.

First, note that this was during the "weeks" after 9/11. Hardly a typical period. Bush should be impeached if he had not asked precisely that question after 9/11. Second, we are talking about hearsay from anonymous sources. Who knows what subtleties in the dialogue are not relayed from this one side years later without even the courage or conviction to give their names. Third , the article states "legal adviser, David S. Addington, . . .believed that the Constitution permitted spy agencies to take sweeping measures to defend the country." Okay, but note the article does not explain the legal reasoning but just seems to assume Addington was incorrect. The two anonymous officials say Addington took an "aggressive," not a friviolous view. You have to get into the guts of the article to get any inkling that this was not willy nilly interception of random domestic phone calls. Half way down it says: In other words, yes, Cheney was talking about purely domestic calls according to the story but there was to be a link between the call and Al Qaeda. I'd have to do a lot of research before coming to the conclusion that it would be frivolous to say that FDR could not intercept the communications of two Americans who might have a connection to the Nazis even if probable cause might not be established. Finally, if we start holding the administration responsible for policies considered, not just those enacted, say good bye to brainstorming. All of this is to say that the headline of this thread "Cheney to NSA: Disregard the Fourth Amendment" is not apt.

Yes, I'm sure that's a fair summary of what he said.