Because I don’t Mention it enough
ArchPundit
Jim Capozzola is upset because TRR doesn’t get enough respect. He is right–Go Visit
2003
Glennuation
If they guy is a Muslim, does that mean his actions are because he is Muslim?
I’m willing to wait to know something about the actual attack before making such a decision. Interesting Reynolds compares it to the D.C. Sniper in which John Muhammed was a Muslim, but that appears to have nothing to do with the actual reason for the crime.
If the soldier is guilty and a Muslim, it may well be that instability led to being a Muslim, especially in the case of the Nation of Islam, and the instability led to the attack.
But the most important thing to understand is that we just don’t know at this point. I’ve often argued law profs need classes in correlation and causation, this is especially true in Reynolds case.
What Would Make this Pointless?
As someone who supports military action in Iraq, albeit by a far different route than the one that got us here, if there is not significant evidence that Hussein was continuing his efforts to obtain nuclear weapon capability, this will be a huge mistake.
While chemical and biological weapons are pernicious and horrible, the only real reason to fear that we couldn’t contain and deter him is if he would obtain nuclear weapons. My standard is relatively low–I’m not looking for evidence he could have weapons in a year, but in the forseeable future.
I expect to find evidence of an ongoing nuclear program, but if not, I’ll be happy to admit this was an immoral exercise. At the same time, nuclear capability amongst rogue states is a legitimate reason for military intervention. The question in alternative cases such as North Korea or, say, Pakistan, is whether we can act effectively. In North Korea, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
It could be the case in Iran, but that would seem to be most effectively dealt with by an Osirik type raid.
Scared
News that a Marine from Bloomington was killed in action was a bit too close for me–one of the few people who may be in harms way and I know, is a Marine from Bloomington. My prayers to the family, and my friend.
So am I to understand
Fox is claiming Scuds have been fired, but Centcom is claiming they haven’t? Or has Fox gone back on the claim? I can’t watch Fox for more than 5 minutes. I mean as annoying as Brown is and as smirky as Lester Holt, the clowns on Fox are like the 3rd rated newscast in a mid-sized market.
Semantic Vandalism
While we now know that is was probably an internal attack, it is not terrorism to attack uniformed soldiers. If someone could bludgeon Aaron Brown every time he or some other idiot at CNN said that it was an act of terrorism, the world would be a better place. Actually, if someone would just bludgeon Aaron and Wolf everytime they say Shock and Awe, we would definitely have a better world.
Terrorism is an act of political violence against civilians.
Shrillness
isn’t always bad. The problem with the Bush Administration ‘budgeting’ isn’t that they are arguing for a radical change, it is that they are trying to create radical change without arguing about it.
Israeli ‘Fudges’
Kevin also asked about Israeli lying to the US. I don’t really understand the distinction of to one’s face lying as compared to just lying. It seems to me that the first is only important if one is running diplomacy by personal feelings, which is inappropriate in the first place.
Two of the biggest examples are the Pollard spying case (and other instances) and the provision of nuclear technology to South Africa throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
There are numerous examples if one includes misusing US military and non-military aid for forbidden purposes. One of the more egregious examples is the Osirik bombing, a bombing I think was a good idea. However, by the letter of American law and the agreements the US had with Israel such uses of military equipment were forbidden. Reagan made this point far stronger than I ever would have, but it was considered at the time a serious break in the two countries working relationship. We still maintained a strong relationship despite the event or the two events above.