A long, but must-read piece, particularly for the White House, which seems to be going wobbly (I have to say that I’ve been extremely unimpressed with Dr. Rice for the last few months).
President Bush set out a series of policy changes from the weeks after 9/11 to his second Inaugural in 2005. Threats would be confronted before they arrive, the sponsors of terror would be held equally accountable for terrorist murders and America would promote democracy as an alternative to Islamic fascism, the exploitation of religion to impose a violent political utopia. Every element of the Bush doctrine was directed toward a vision: a reformed Middle East that joins the world instead of resenting and assaulting it.
That vision has been tested on nearly every front, by Katyusha rockets in Haifa, car bombs in Baghdad and a crackdown on dissent in Cairo. Condoleezza Rice calls this the “birth pangs” of a new Middle East, and it is a complicated birth. As this violent global conflict proceeds, and its length and costs become more obvious, Americans should keep a few things in mind.
First, the nation may be tired, but history doesn’t care. It is not fair that the challenge of Iran is rising with Iraq, bloody and unresolved. But, as President Kennedy used to say, “Life is not fair.”
…In foreign-policy circles, it is sometimes claimed that past nuclear proliferation
I’ve never read anything by “Vox Day” before, but one of my commenters cited him in a previous post. But having read this, it makes it pretty hard to take anything he (or she) has to say seriously:
I tend to support the faked Moon landing theory myself, not because of any particular detail, but simply based on the theory that if the Official Story is that we landed there, then we probably didn’t.
Note, that’s the only reason stated for disbelief–pure contrarianism. Never mind that it would have been much more difficult to fake it than to actually do it, and that all of the supposed “anomalies” or “proofs” that we didn’t go are readily explained by simple references to actual physics and facts.
I should also add that the Fox Network (which is not the same thing as Fox News) should be eternally ashamed of itself for broadcasting that travesty of a crockumentary on the subject a few years ago, and feeding the loons who believe this stuff.
I think I see a candidate for president in ’08 that the “netroots” could really get behind. Hugh Hewitt talks about their latest hearthrob:
“Even before the translation could be heard, I felt more assured of his intelligence and comprehension than I’ve ever felt about Bush speaking in mangled English. He’s a very savvy politician, to be sure.”
And
“He is smart and is also media savvy or surrounded by people that are, as shown by the wardrobe, the mannerisms and likely even the pitch and tone of his chosen translator.”
And
“He certainly has some of the same comments and questions of bush that we do. He raised many good points.”
Plus, he’s all for destroying the Zionist Entity! What’s not to love?
I think I see a candidate for president in ’08 that the “netroots” could really get behind. Hugh Hewitt talks about their latest hearthrob:
“Even before the translation could be heard, I felt more assured of his intelligence and comprehension than I’ve ever felt about Bush speaking in mangled English. He’s a very savvy politician, to be sure.”
And
“He is smart and is also media savvy or surrounded by people that are, as shown by the wardrobe, the mannerisms and likely even the pitch and tone of his chosen translator.”
And
“He certainly has some of the same comments and questions of bush that we do. He raised many good points.”
Plus, he’s all for destroying the Zionist Entity! What’s not to love?
I think I see a candidate for president in ’08 that the “netroots” could really get behind. Hugh Hewitt talks about their latest hearthrob:
“Even before the translation could be heard, I felt more assured of his intelligence and comprehension than I’ve ever felt about Bush speaking in mangled English. He’s a very savvy politician, to be sure.”
And
“He is smart and is also media savvy or surrounded by people that are, as shown by the wardrobe, the mannerisms and likely even the pitch and tone of his chosen translator.”
And
“He certainly has some of the same comments and questions of bush that we do. He raised many good points.”
Plus, he’s all for destroying the Zionist Entity! What’s not to love?
With the Middle East seemingly on a rolling boil right now, Taylor Dinerman has a new review of Bob Zubrin’s 2003 satire The Holy Land. I briefly reviewed it myself a couple years ago, and it sadly remains very topical today.
Jon Goff has some interesting thoughts. I agree, for the most part. If Florida wants to continue to play in the game (at least for commercial vehicles), it has to realize that it no longer has the intrinsic geographical advantage that it’s thought it did for years. This is an issue that is going to take a lot of work with AST to sell, though, particularly for orbital flights.
My thoughts on the latest Reuters scandal (at least “Routers” has never used fake pics…) over at TCS Daily, and what it may mean for the future of press photography.