The Eagle Has Landed

More on this in upcoming posts.

;-)

I hate when that happens!

Work > Blogging

More from The Rumor Man

The Rumor Man weighs in again. One piece of the puzzle is now in place.

Doesn't sound like much, but believe me...things are a whole lot clearer even after just this one piece falling into place.

More later.

Anti-Americanism in Perspective

Over the last several years, we have seen disturbing images on our televisions and read of poll after poll which indicates that America's popularity abroad is in free-fall. These indicators are driven most immediately by America's policies in the Global War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq. But in a larger sense, these attitudes have been long in the making as a result of American encouragement of globalization and its de facto hegemony in the political, economic, military and cultural spheres. This dominance means that the US often takes decisions in Washington (or Redmond or New York or Cupertino) which have profound impacts on the lives of people around the world. So is it any wonder that resentment emerges when those impacted perceive that they have little or no voice in the decision-making process?

Although the paragons of doomery tell us that this era of anti-Americanism is unique, they probably have short memories. They don't remember the international critiques of America during the Vietnam War or during the malaise of the Carter years. They certainly don't remember the massive protests when President Reagan sought to counter the Soviet threat with the introduction nuclear weapons into Western Europe. Although far from unique, this new era of anti-Americanism also isn't something to ignore or be unconcerned about. Indeed, it's an important development and one worthy of addressing.

How should we interpret the development? Just what weight should we give it? What role should our desire to be liked play in our foreign policy? Today's American Thinker provides us with some interesting thoughts on the subject. The key section from my perspective:

Some now imply that countries, such as France or Canada, ought to bestow affections upon the United States and, if they do not flatter our national ego, then surely we must be guilty of some uniquely horrible error that demands immediate correction. This political opinion is dubious. The evidence adduced in support of anti-Americanism, especially the European and Canadian varieties, is often contradictory and beyond our control. Out of their own self-interest, other countries are unhappy with American “isolationism” if not with American “imperialism”; with American “materialism” if not with American “Jesusland”; with “naïve promotion of democracy” if not with “cold and selfish realpolitik.” Go back and read press clippings of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and see how we were chastised for not helping the Afghan “freedom fighters” quickly enough, and then compare those with recent sneering that we “created” bin Laden and the Taliban. Do the same with the rest of the Cold War, as well as with Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq. How can the United States possibly satisfy so many different malcontents, whose complaints and anger change with the wind? Indeed if you wish to see anti-American contradictions distilled in a single volume, read this bestselling European hate literature, whose incoherent arguments and stereotypes rank with the ugliest of anti-Semitic and racist tracts. After its reading, the real question, you realize, is not so much why do they hate us as why are people abroad so blatantly contrary and hypocritical in their anti-Americanism? Here is one answer: all nations, by and large, are self-occupied and self-regarding, governed at times by the all too human traits of pride, vanity, resentment, honor, fear and what Freud called “man’s natural aggressive drive.” All of these darker forces of the human psyche frequently influence whom nations like and do not like; they are what loom behind the incessantly altering negative attitudes toward America, toward you and me.

Indeed, it's rather interesting that negative perceptions of America pursuing a "selfish national agenda" often arise out of positions taken by those looking out for their own selfish-national agendas. For example, many of those in France opposed to the American invasion of Iraq viewed it through the lens of the impact it might have on Europe in terms of Islamic terrorism. But since the US had already been (and will continue to be) a target for Islamic terrorism, should our overriding concern have been the potential impacts on Europe, or our own national interest? While Bush's course vis-a-vis Iraq is certainly open to debate, should we really be surprised when exercises of self-interest step on the toes of others? What role should such realities play in our decision-making? And what can be done to ameliorate the outrage when it occurs? I'll be addressing some of these issues in upcoming posts.

Something new and novel

Charmaine at Reasoned Audacity reports on a rather surprising development at the G8. George Clooney likes George Bush better than Bill Clinton...

Actually there is more to it than that. Charmaine notes:

Surprise #1
Waiting to hear George Clooney speak to the ONE campaign activists Wednesday morning at the Roxy Art House in Edinburgh, the last thing I expected was to hear George Clooney give George Bush higher marks than Bill Clinton. On anything.

But he did.

First he noted that the President's speech last Saturday night was a "step in the right direction." And then he commented that the Bush administration is "ahead of schedule on AIDS funding." But he went even further by drily remarking that this was "better than the last President."

Surprise #2
Clooney's presentation was very controlled and carefully calibrated. He didn't appear to be particularly enthused about his assignment, but he was clearly designated as the tip of the spear in the Bono/Geldof charm offensive in their campaign to engage the Bush Administration, and more broadly the Right as a movement, with their African anti-poverty agenda.

Clooney made this agenda fairly specific, talking about "building bridges" and mentioning his upcoming appearance on Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network by joking and saying that "my parents will laugh." The kids in the audience loved it.

The Pat Robertson tactic is serious. Robertson's grand-daughter was present with the CBN team and Clooney greeted her heartily with "How's your grandfather?"

Could it be? Am I catching a whiff of 'constructive engagement' here? Well...perhaps. Finally, the kicker:

...George Arney from the BBC pushed forward at the end, shoved a microphone in Clooney's face and asked about global warming. Waving off the event organizer's protests, Clooney answered evenly: "We're trying not to polarize people; we're trying to pick our fights."

Then he added a comment that I found very interesting for its insight into the Bono/Geldof strategy: "We have to let them [the Bush Administration] be good guys."

All over the place

Ask Sim what he thinks of CIA veteran and author Michael Scheuer, and you'll discover some not-so-hidden animosity towards the man and most especially, towards his development of rendition as the policy du 'jour for intelligence gathering. So I wonder at his response to a piece published today, in of all places, the Washington Times.

As for me, I couldn't stop shaking my head. When I think of Scheuer the first thing that comes to mind are his books; very critical of the Administration and their handling of terror in general and Iraq specifically. So imagine my surprise when I read his op-ed today and see him praising CIA director Porter Goss and skewering one of his many supporters' favorite arguments about Iraq!

To wit:

CIA Director Porter Goss has been criticized for telling Time that he had an "excellent" idea of Osama bin Laden's location, while inferring that U.S. respect for Pakistan's sovereignty prevented action to capture or kill him. Now, I tend to believe Mr. Goss's statement was part of a concerted U.S. government effort to press Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to do the always undefined "more" to eliminate bin Laden. Mr. Goss' comments followed harsh criticism of Pakistan's inaction by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and in a volley from the U.S. gadfly ambassador inKabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, now on his way to Iraq to replicate the disaster he created in Afghanistan.

Though Mr. Goss' words are part of Washington's never-ending quest to find foreigners to do its dirty work, the CIA chief did do a great, even heroic service for Americans by saying the U.S. government had too much respect for Pakistan's sovereignty to kill bin Laden on its territory. Mr. Goss' statement is the most frank to date that the U.S. leaders care more about currying international opinion than protecting American lives. While some say Mr. Goss' statement was a clumsy mistake, I see it as a warning to Americans from a man of integrity who has seen both parties' leaders refuse to act to defend Americans when given the opportunity.

The truth is that under both Bill Clinton and President Bush the U.S. government has valued the good opinion of the world over American lives. Mr. Clinton and his merry band of national security advisers cum economic hucksters — Sandy Berger, Leon Fuerth, Richard Clarke, George Tenet, et al. — always assigned Americans to the gallows if they could preen before international opinion, sell huge amounts of weapons to Arab tyrants or close an oil deal somewhere in the world. No need to take my word, simply give a close read to the September 11 commission report to see the number of chances the Clintonites had to kill or capture bin Laden in 1998-99 that's right, 1998-99 and the absurd reasons they came up with to both keep bin Laden alive and keep Americans on al Qaeda's bull's-eye.

And Mr. Bush and the tough-talking, gun-slinging Republicans? More of the same. The intelligence community gave Mr. Bush's national security team precise locational data on Abu Musab Zarqawi nearly every day for the year preceding the invasion of Iraq. No action followed because Bush officials were sweet-talking the Germans and French into joining us in Iraq. The parents of soldiers and Marines killed by Zarqawi's forces are now mourning because the Bush crew like Mr. Clinton's before it valued European support and good-will over their kids' lives.

Did I read this right? What about this:

So, all praise and honor to Mr. Goss for telling the truth about the willingness of U.S. leaders to sacrifice American lives in favor world opinion, Pakistani sovereignty and arms sales. Mr. Goss words create an opening for the media and through unlikely members of Congress to examine the instances above and find just how cheaply America lives are held by our political elites. Whether or not this overdue study is conducted, Mr. Goss will be remembered as the CIA director who had the patriot's courage to warn Americans that their children's lives, at home and abroad, are regularly sacrificed by the favor-currying leaders of both parties.

Unlike his bosses, Mr. Goss clearly prefers to be remembered as an American citizen, not a Citizen of the World. Well done, Sir.

So only the recently appointed head of his former employer, who he has also criticized since leaving, actually puts American lives before foreign opinion?. Interesting. As is his opinion of the current and prior Administration on that point.

But what really got me was the fourth paragraph. Let us revisit: And Mr. Bush and the tough-talking, gun-slinging Republicans? More of the same. The intelligence community gave Mr. Bush's national security team precise locational data on Abu Musab Zarqawi nearly every day for the year preceding the invasion of Iraq. No action followed because Bush officials were sweet-talking the Germans and French into joining us in Iraq. The parents of soldiers and Marines killed by Zarqawi's forces are now mourning because the Bush crew like Mr. Clinton's before it valued European support and good-will over their kids' lives.

The left--as best I can tell--or at least certain elements of the left, love Scheuer. His criticisms of the Administration on Iraq validate much of their real criticisms (read: Everything but the Halliburton-Israel-Oil-for-Cheney conspiracies).

One of those chief criticisms from the left regards the unilateral nature of an American 'rush to war'. Yet Scheuer seemingly implies today that the UN effort in 2002 and delays endured while we wrangled over a second resolution in spring '03 was in fact a betrayal of American interests (in the sense that lives have been lost at the hands of Zarqawi who we could have gotten had we moved earlier--unilaterally). Am I the only one who feels the irony?

Come to think of it, Sim's response isn't the only one I wonder about. What are the usual suspects thinking?

The Rumor Man

The Rumor Man has much to say. Only problem is, he can't seem to find the time!

See, he and his partner in blog-crime live on opposite sides of the country. When they communicate, they do so via email. To date, they've only had one phone conversation about anything, much less anything blog-related. On a side note, we're pretty good, eh? I mean, all this with no face time or massive amounts of planning!

Why is this even an issue, you ask? Well, we're going places...or at least we want to be going places. That requires strategery; strategery requires time and effort to develop. Hard to do from opposite sides of the country. Equally hard to do with limited phone contact.

While in fact the Rumor Man and I have planned on conferencing to develop and go over our strategery for taking over the world, I just can't get the time! Somewhere between the first and only phone call referenced above and now, I lost control of my life.

Sadly I cannot elaborate at this time on that point, though I do intend a 'tell all' when things get settled (read: figured out). Suffice it to say, I am frustrated. I'm a feet-on-the-ground kind of guy and currently finding that everything is up in the air rather than on terra firma is quite disconcerting.

The good news is that it's all temporary. So look for the changes and look for the Rumor Man to finally expound on it all!

What was that about nuance?

In the Presidential campaign of last year, I seem to recall hearing routinely about how the left's policies and approach to the world were the anti-thesis of conservatives. Where conservatives took a simplistic, sledge-hammer approach to the GWOT, liberals and Democratic candidates had a much more intricate and complex understanding of what was necessary. In a word, their position was nuanced.

Fast forward to July, 2005 and we have this comment from Eric in Chandler:

I wonder: If George W. Bush and Tony Blair had pursued the real war on terror - the all-out pursuit of Osama bin Laden - with the same enthusiasm as the needless detour to Iraq, would the world be mourning the loss of life today in London?

Anti-American Islamic terror begins and ends with Osama Bin Laden. Now, what exactly was that about nuance?

Shielded, but from what?

Margaret in Phoenix writes the Republic about NY Times reporter Judith Miller's refusal to name her source to Patrick Fitzgerald as he works to get to the bottom of the Valerie Plame leak:

My sympathies to all reporters.This is a sad day for the 80-plus percent of Americans who do not fall on either extreme of the political spectrum, and it should be a day where the actions frighten every American.

On Wednesday, we watched Judith Miller go to jail for all our rights. How tragic.

Every rational American should be demanding that their congressmen adopt a national shield law for reporters!

Hardly tragic and hardly necessary. You and I and Margaret as well have an obligation to cooperate with a duly-authorized legal investigation. Why should reporters be allowed to hide a criminal act behind some sort of privelege?

Mr. Fitzgerald is investigating a potential felony and if Ms. Miller has information that is required to understand whether in fact a felony crime was committed, she is obligated to pass that information along. Just as Margaret would were it she who was being asked these questions.

The View from Britain

Friend of my dogs, Charmaine Yoest weighs in on yesterday's bombings. Charmaine was one of the elect who was along for the ride, blogging the G8 in Gleneagles this week.

Finally, I asked him the Tony Blair question. He looked at me puzzled: "How can you blame Tony Blair?" I told him he was the only one all day I'd found who didn't.

He frowned. "Interesting," he said. And walked off.

There's more, but I think you get the idea.

Kudos to Charmaine for her coverage of the summit; if you've the time and inclination it's worth checking out. And of course, bring yourself home safe--Jack and the penta-posse would have it no other way!

More people my dogs are smarter than

BlueStatesForever:

I am so cynical

That all I can think is "how convenient" that this happened to take the light off Karl Rove.I don't think anything is on the "up-and-up" anymore, not even terrorist attacks.

Responses

This post at NRO's The Corner reminds me of a though-process I worked through shortly after 9/11:

A reader provides a good breakdown.

"I think there are four possible responses to terrorism: "1. Do what they want. If their goals are limited and discrete, and the cost of giving into their demands is less than the cost of resistance, complying with the terrorists's demands solves the problem. Here, terrorism works. "

2. Do nothing. Accept a certain level of death and destruction indefinitely. Use criminal law within your own country to punish who can catch, and that's all. It's hard to say whether this means terrorism is 'working' or not. Since the terrorists aren't really suffering any consequences and they're inflicting casualties, I say terrorism is working here too. "

3. Kill every last terrorist and eliminate the breeding grounds for terrorists. Probably the most expensive option. You have to send military or paramilitary forces all over the place, angering lots of people and suffering casualties. It takes a long time and you're never really sure when you're done. The terrorists may eventually be defeated, but it costs plenty of blood and treasure. Does terrorism work here? Beats me."

4. Make the cost of terrorism to the terrorists much greater than the benefits. For example, carpet bomb or nuke something important to them if they attack. If you're credible, this is a very reliable method. Problem is, credibility means you have to do it once, killing thousands or tens of thousands of noncombatants. Definitely a case of terrorism not working. "

Nobody in the West is willing to do #4, and of the few who are capable of doing #3, most of them don't bother. So, if most countries are generally using only #1 and #2, and #3 is uncommon and a wash anyway, then it's only natural that terrorism, on the whole, works."

In the uncertain weeks after 9/11, I wondered exactly what would and should the response of a US President be to a nuclear terror attack on US soil. Imagine it; a Boston or San Francisco or even a mid-size American city is destroyed by a nuclear explosion. How would we respond? How should we respond?

In a very general sense, I'm a fan of #4. Part of why we never directly fought the Soviet Union is that people (on both sides to be clear) were made to understand that the price of such a fight was too high for both sides. I don't sense that the principle is inapplicable in this fight.

So back to my post-9/11 reflections. Assume an American city has been destroyed. What's the response? Do you think it reasonable to respond in-kind, choosing a target of high importance to the Muslim world? Would it be fair to target a Mecca, or Medina?

Would we be within our rights to tell the world via our response that such nuclear terrorism is utterly and completely out-of-bounds and will not be tolerated? Most importantly, would it work?

Lots of questions, no real answers; certainly no easy ones.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Curious George Galloway has one response to today's tragedy. I suspect the vast majority of Londoners have quite another. I'll take the latter. (Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan)

"What the fuck do you think you're doing? This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us.Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you're trying to do, it's not going to work.All you've done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don't get rewarded for this kind of crap.And if, as your MO indicates, you're an al-Qaeda group, then you're out of your tiny minds.Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we've got news for you. We don't much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We'll deal with that ourselves. We're London, and we've got our own way of doing things, and it doesn't involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.And that's because we're better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub.So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city."

Curious George Apes it Up on Cue

British Member of Parliament George Galloway quickly showed his stripes in response to today's disaster in London. A hero among the Unhinged Left as a result of his dress-down of Senator Norm Coleman in the Oil-For Food hearings, Curious George naturally blamed the attacks on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

The loss of innocent lives, whether in this country or Iraq, is precisely the result of a world that has become a less safe and peaceful place in recent years.We have worked without rest to remove the causes of such violence from our world. We argued, as did the Security Services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings.We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.

Neville Chamberlain would be proud. Of course none of this is surprising. After all, Gonzo Galloway went on al Jazeera to demand that Bush, Blair and others should be arrested at Gleneagles on the basis of having committed war crimes.

In reviewing my earlier post on Galloway, I was struck by my detached amusement in response to his statements. But in light of today's incident I don't find them funny at all. In fact, they make me extremely angry. I guess it is human nature that as memories of such disasters fade, that it is very easy for us to become jaded about them. Even people who take terrorism as seriously as I do. It's one of the reasons why we must never forget and why we must re-double our efforts.

What now?

It seems clear that today's attacks were designed to coincide with the G-8 summit hosted by Prime Minister Blair at Gleneagles, Scotland. At a time when a group of leaders were meeting to address issues of disease, poverty, security and the environment, another group of people; barbaric outlaws, were engaged in a particularly deranged, senseless, non-constructive gesture reflecting the bankruptcy of their values, their feelings of complete impotence and the threats they pose to innocent people worldwide.

I felt it was President Bush who captured the irony of the moment best.

"The contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty and those who kill, those who have such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks," Bush said.

Today's attacks again bring home the need for us to remain resolute in taking on this Islamic death cult. While many will blame this morning's attacks on Britain's participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the truth is that even if Britain had not taken part in the invasion of Iraq such attacks would have been just as likely.

The Islamofascists who carried out these brutal attacks would have found some other excuse to kill innocent men, women and children. The inescapable fact is that this radical ideology does not depend upon actions we take or don't take in order to find justification for its own cowardly actions. Rather, all of their motivation is supplied by the simple reality of who we are. They reject our commitment to separation of church and state. They find our popular cultures immoral, repugnant and base. They despise the disparity in living standards between our nations and their own. When they think of the great historical achievements of their societies and reflect on their current downtrodden status, they feel humiliated and seek to ascribe blame to "the other." In something like a space shuttle screaming into orbit, they do not marvel at the human achievement, they view it as yet another humiliation which underscores the contrast between the achievements of the West and their own inability to forge civil societies and thriving economies. To those espousing this radical ideology, everything in the world is a zero-sum game.

To be sure, some of our policies don't create a more hospitable environment. Our policy on Israel, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, "collateral damage" in war zones, support of despotic regimes in the name of stability, all create resentment among the broader populations. But none of these issues are central enough to spur the terrorists' cruel, indiscriminate killing. Rather, these issues become convenient excuses which mask the deep-seated psychological and religious issues for which we could never be responsible. They are leveraged to source new recruits, but at the end of the day, they don't encourage attacks. Which of course, raises a question that Paul posed previously: Is there really anything we can do?

The answer is yes. We need to remember that not all Muslims and Arabs share the views of the terrorists. As in Iraq, there are the terrorists and there is the vast majority of citizens who simply want peace and to advance the lot of their own families and societies. We need to address the hypcorisy in some of our policies, not for the benefit of the radicals but in an effort to reach out to the moderate elements in these societies. We must continue to engage in an effort to promote liberalization in these nations which will result in more freedom and more opportunity. Those with prospects for a future are less likely to blame us for their problems. Those gainfully employed are far more likely to be building roads and chairs and refineries than they are to be building bombs. By continuing to engage and pursue Bush's outreach efforts, I believe this can be accomplished.

But we must also be resolute in fighting the War on Terror. We must never forget the unique heartache and pain suffered by those in New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, Bali, Morroco, Saudi Arabia, Madrid, and now London. These barbarous acts threaten our way of life and we must not yield in the face of such challenges. And we must take on this threat in a multilateral manner.

Regardless of how many feel about the war in Iraq, it is now clearly a central front in the overall War on Terror. You might not agree with how or why we arrived in that country, but we cannot afford to fail and we cannot bend to the calls for us to leave prematurely. While each death and casualty is mourned, we must succeed in Iraq because a failure would simply encourage those who mean us harm. It is my hope that those who oppose the war in Europe will look closely at today's attacks and come to the conclusion that we must all finally come together and win this thing together. For failure threatens us all.

Reaction

"It is important that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world.

"Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world."

"It is particularly barbaric this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa and the long term problems of climate change and the environment."

--Tony Blair, 7/7/05


The war on terror goes on. I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve. And that is we will not yield to these people, will not yield to the terrorists. We will find them, we will bring them to justice, and at the same time, we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.

--George W. Bush, 7/7/05

Terror Attacks in London

A day after it celebrated being awarded the 2012 Olympic Games, London sustained a series of deadly bombings. The Tube and a bus were the targets of these attacks. Currently, damage and casualty figures vary among different media outlets but it appears that they are significant. Yahoo! News is reporting 40 killed and 300 injured. While those figures are likely to change as we learn more, we're getting that same sinking sensation that we developed as we started to put the pieces together on 9/11/01, 3/11/04 and on other deadly days. This is increasingly looking like the handiwork of Al Qaeda, with a group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe" now taking responsibility.

Today's attacks resonate particularly deeply for me. I have a young cousin who recently moved to London to start her career. Fortunately, she is safe and accounted for but was held up on her train to work as a result of the attacks. Even so, the notion that such a bright, hopeful and beautiful young girl was even threatened with being cut down by this hideous and deadly ideology just as she is starting a new life is enough to summarize precisely why this form of terrorism must be defeated. A number of friends from school also reside in London and I remain very concerned about their status.

Another reason why today's attacks strike such a deep chord with me is that I was in London on 9/11. I was checking in at Heathrow Airport for a return to New York at the time of those attacks and was consequently stranded in London for another week. During that week, I must say that I developed a particularly deep bond with the British people as a result of the solidarity they demonstrated during some of my and my nation's darkest hours.

I was at Buckingham Palace when the Royal Guard played the Star-Spangled Banner for the only time in its history. I joined the Queen and 30,000 Londoners at St. Paul's for the mass held for the victims of the attacks. I remember the very moving show of support lent by London's famed tabloids when they published full-page American flags on their back pages. These large paper flags turned up in nearly every shop or flat-window that you saw. I also remember people coming up to us on the street upon hearing our accents and lending their solidarity in often very moving ways. A taxi driver told me, "Hey mate, we're with you. America's our best friend in the world."

I couldn't have a deeper affinity for the people of the UK as a result of the experience I had in those uncertain days. Even now, tears well in my eyes just thinking about it. At a time when I felt so alone, scared, worried, and helpless it was the people of London who helped buck me up. And I will never forget it. I can only hope that my country can be there for them now, in their time of need. My prayers and deepest condolensces go out to all of those affected.

In love with the camera? (Or, Opportunism Revisited)

Look familiar? They should be, even if you don't quite recognize the faces in the picture. Courtesy of the Corner, here is a shot of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wilson at a Vanity Fair get-together.

If you're still not certain (and you don't read), let me end the suspense; on the left we have Ambassador Joseph Wilson, best known as the tea-sipping yellowcake expert sent to Niger in 2002 by the Bush administration. To his right, his wife Valerie E. Wilson who we all know better as Valerie Plame.

Valerie has recently gone back to work with the CIA, though not in any "under-cover" capacity:

On June 1, after a year's unpaid leave, Ms. Wilson, now known to the country by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, returned to a new job at the Central Intelligence Agency, determined to get her career back on track, her husband said. Neither the agency nor Mr. Wilson would describe her position, except to make what might seem an obvious point: she will no longer be working under cover, as she did successfully for almost 20 years.

Which I guess explains, in part anyway, why it's alright for Vanity Fair to yet again plaster her picture on it's pages.

UPDATE: As it was originally envisioned when I composed the post on Tuesday.

Reminiscing

While we're on the subject of bicycles, who could ever forget...

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry took a spill from his bicycle after hitting a patch of sand during a ride Sunday afternoon, but he was uninjured, campaign officials said.

Cabals and un-elections

Alan in Mesa responds to a letter over the weekend about Justice O'Connor's resignation. He sucks you in by making some actual sense. Without hinting at the absurd core of his political thinking he gets you believing that, even if it's one you might disagree with, his conclusion will be reasonable and intelligent. Then the hammer falls:

Justice O'Connor may very well be the brilliant, trailblazing icon that inspires women to be all they can be, but I suspect her enduring legacy will be that she was part of the judicial cabal that put an unelected president in office.

I am here, and I am here; I am beside myself at the ridiculousness that passes for critical thought with some people. Delusional...