To quote Nelson Muntz.

Fox is reporting that the Iraqis aren’t just mad at the Saddamites. They’re chasing some Al Jazeera reporters out of Basra for being such Saddam keester smoochers.

Bruce Lewis sends an email, which prompts me to put up a post on, of all things, space policy. Yes, I know, it’s a shocker.

His email title is the same as the post title, except it’s in French, a language I’m at least temporarily boycotting.

1963

Need: Reliable access to space via reusable spacecraft.

Proposal: Bell-Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar, a small reusable winged spacecraft launched by conventional booster.

***
Dyna-Soar cancelled on December 10, 1963, in favor of MOL/Gemini system (cancelled), Saturn/Apollo system (abandoned), and, later, Space Transportation
System/Shuttle (12 years service, 14 astronauts killed, deemed by many as too dangerous to continue in manned use.)

***

2003

Need: Reliable access to space via reusable spacecraft.

Proposal: Orbital Space Plane, a small reusable winged spacecraft launched by conventional booster.

***
Forty years, fourteen lives, and zillions spent, and what do we end up with? The vehicle we had in 1963–and still no reliable access to space via reusable
spacecraft.

We should have built Dyna-Soar in the first place.

Assuming that we’re really going ahead with OSP, yes.

The problem is, of course, that our nation’s space policy remains profoundly unserious, even (or especially) in the wake of the Columbia loss. Our options remain myopic, focused on NASA’s “needs” with no consideration of what the American people might actually want from a space program.

Consider this recent depressing Congressional testimony from Marcia Smith. It repeats the same stale conventional wisdom about why we do human space flight, with nary a mention of making it possible for the masses to go.

She has five options for the future, none of which do anything to significantly change the status quo.

1. Terminate the U.S. human space flight program, including the space shuttle, U.S. participation in the International Space Station (ISS) program, and plans to develop an Orbital Space Plane.

2. Terminate the shuttle and Orbital Space Plane programs, but continue participation in the ISS program, relying on Russian vehicles for taking U.S. astronauts to and from space when possible.

3. Terminate the shuttle program, but continue participation in the ISS program and continue to develop the Orbital Space Plane or another replacement for the shuttle.

4. Continue the shuttle program, but with fewer missions-perhaps limiting it to space station visits-and as few crew as possible.

5. Resume shuttle flights as planned.

Without even specifying what it is, my preference is 6) None of the above. If I can’t get that, I’m inclined to go with option 1. At least we’ll be honest, and stop pretending that we’re interested in space.

As I’ve said many times, space policy is always framed in an assumption set. Her assumption set is that NASA, and only NASA will continue to do manned space, human spaceflight will always be expensive and rare, and that there’s nothing to be done with it except to “explore.”

As long as only the usual suspects like Marcia keep getting thawed out and propped up before Congressional committees, don’t expect to see anything resembling real progress.

Remember how we were “starving the Iraqi people” with the UN sanctions?

They’ve discovered warehouses full of food that Saddam was withholding from his people. He used it, as he used everything and everyone, as a weapon against them.

Remember how we were “starving the Iraqi people” with the UN sanctions?

They’ve discovered warehouses full of food that Saddam was withholding from his people. He used it, as he used everything and everyone, as a weapon against them.

Remember how we were “starving the Iraqi people” with the UN sanctions?

They’ve discovered warehouses full of food that Saddam was withholding from his people. He used it, as he used everything and everyone, as a weapon against them.

…at the thought that many of these people truly believed that this day would never come–that the Iraqi people perhaps didn’t like Saddam, but they would never welcome the Evil Amerikkkans (TM) as liberators. They must have been sincere in such a belief, or they would never have set themselves up to look like the fools that they are.

Looking at pictures of weeping and cheering Iraqi men kissing pictures of George Bush has to be Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle’s (not to mention George Galloway, Michael Moore, and countless others) biggest nightmare come true.

Janeane Garofalo told O’Reilly that if this day came, she’d come back on the Factor and apologize. I hope Bill’s got a nice fricasee of crow on the burner, but I doubt if she’ll keep her word.

[Update at 4:11 PM PDT]

Someone at Free Republic dug up the transcript:

O’REILLY: If you are wrong? and if the United States – and they will, this is going to happen – goes in, liberates Iraq [with] people in the street, American flags, hugging our soldiers? you gonna apologize to George W. Bush?

GARAFALO [sic]: I would be so willing to say, “I’m sorry”. I hope to God that I can be made a buffoon of, that people will say, “You were wrong. You were a fatalist”. And I will go to the White House on my knees on cut glass and say, “Hey, you and Thomas Friedman were right? I shouldn’t have doubted you?”

Better strap on the knee pads, Buffoon.

John Cole has an interesting contrast, in a photo essay.

What Tim Blair said.

The Administration has declared a no-gloat zone, but it doesn’t apply here.

The mainstream media have not exactly covered themselves in glory. Regular readers have already read it, I’m sure, but for anyone new, I wrote this in the wake of the Afghanistan victory.

It wouldn’t have to be rewritten much to apply to this war. Better start gathering up bandages and contributing blood…errrr…printer’s ink.

That’s apparently one of the signs in Baghdad, aimed at the human shields.

I wonder if any of them are devoting some time to reflect, asking themselves, “Why do they hate us?”