A clarification on today’s festivities in Samarra:

I’ve received several emails this morning from people wondering why we’ve launched a “massive bombing campaign” in Iraq. And they’re saying, “won’t that kill a lot of innocent civilians?” But they are confused by the term, “air assault.”

An “air assault” is actually a helicopter-borne infantry assault. In this case, large numbers of helicopters are ferrying airborne-infantry soldiers to enemy targets.

The army of analysts has started to work on the captured Iraqi documents.

This document is a letter written by a member of Saddam Intelligence apparatus (Al Mukabarat) on 9/15/2001 (shortly after 9/11/2001) where he addressed it to someone higher up and he wrote about a conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani Consul. In the conversation the Afghani Consul spoke of a relationship between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11/2001, and that the United States was aware of such a relationship and that there is a potential of US strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan if the destructive operations in the US (most probably he is referring to 9/11 attacks) were proven to be connected to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

I don’t understand why the administration hasn’t been working harder to get these documents analyzed and public. Also, this treasure trove just makes the actions of the government in firing Arab language experts for being gay look all the more stupid. We need all the translators that we can get right now. And what’s even dumber is that, with everything else they have to worry about, the White House continues this nonsense.

President Bush’s updated language says security clearances cannot be denied “solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.”

If sexual behavior is “strictly private, consensual and discreet,” that could lessen security concerns, according to the regulations that came as part of an update to clearance guidelines distributed in December.

This makes no sense. There are no intrinsic security concerns associated with someone’s sexual orientation. Security concerns arise only in the context of the potential for blackmail. If someone is openly gay, there is no security concern. Sexual behavior that is “private and discreet” is in fact the behavior of someone in the closet, which would be a security concern. I don’t often agree with the likes of Barney Frank and Henry Waxman, but I’d sure like to see a better explanation than this.

So says Max Boot. He makes a good case, though I doubt that Mr. Clooney will be thrilled.

So says Max Boot. He makes a good case, though I doubt that Mr. Clooney will be thrilled.

So says Max Boot. He makes a good case, though I doubt that Mr. Clooney will be thrilled.