Over at Common Fantasies, Jeremy Cahill has an article that describes the history of Don Rumsfeld’s diplomacy with Saddam and Iraq almost twenty years ago, during the Iran-Iraq war.

I’m not sure what the point of his article is. Is he saying that Rumsfeld can’t be trusted to solve the problem now? If all he’s saying is that we made foreign policy mistakes back then, and weren’t sufficiently concerned about Iraq’s chemical weapons at the time, I suspect that Mr. Rumsfeld would agree, looking back with twenty-twenty hindsight. But I don’t know what kind of present policy conclusions we’re supposed to draw from this.

In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world?s attention to Saddam?s chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had ?available evidence? Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.

Washington now speaks of Saddam?s threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred of concrete proof that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda or has resumed production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that ?the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.?

And like all other anti-war types, Mr. Cahill makes the mistake (I’ll be generous and assume that he’s not just being disingenuous) of thinking that there have to be links to Al Qaeda to justify preemptive action. Of course, there are links to Al Qaeda, because the White House is now confirming the meeting between the Iraqis and Atta in Prague (which makes me think that we’re getting ready to initiate something significant). But anyway, it’s not necessary.

Last September 11, we faced the reality that oceans no longer protect us from hostile foreign powers. If we are threatened (and there’s no reason to think that Saddam wouldn’t mind slipping a nuke to someone to detonate it on American soil, if he had one), then we will deal with the threat.

Den Beste has an excellent post on just this subject today.

They’re repairing the fleet by welding, and expect to start launch preparations on September 28.

As I surmised earlier, they’ve decided that the cracks in the propellant line liners were caused by cycle fatique (both thermal and structural).

Elton John is going to help with Janet Reno’s campaign.

That’ll pull in all those voters sitting on the fence. Well, at least now they’ll have someone to bring a little femininity to the campaign.

Elton John is going to help with Janet Reno’s campaign.

That’ll pull in all those voters sitting on the fence. Well, at least now they’ll have someone to bring a little femininity to the campaign.

Elton John is going to help with Janet Reno’s campaign.

That’ll pull in all those voters sitting on the fence. Well, at least now they’ll have someone to bring a little femininity to the campaign.

You want bellicose? Here’s bellicose.

[Via Geek Press]

One of Instantman’s readers has an interesting idea–issuing Letters of Marque on the Internet. If Congress were to do so, would that mean that if we cracked an Al Qaeda (or Hamas, or Al Aqsa Brigade, or Suha Arafat) bank account, we’d be able to keep the booty?

One of Instantman’s readers has an interesting idea–issuing Letters of Marque on the Internet. If Congress were to do so, would that mean that if we cracked an Al Qaeda (or Hamas, or Al Aqsa Brigade, or Suha Arafat) bank account, we’d be able to keep the booty?

One of Instantman’s readers has an interesting idea–issuing Letters of Marque on the Internet. If Congress were to do so, would that mean that if we cracked an Al Qaeda (or Hamas, or Al Aqsa Brigade, or Suha Arafat) bank account, we’d be able to keep the booty?