On Scooters and Libbys thereof

I think an interesting way to think about this is, "Are there any good arguments for commuting Libby's sentence?"

On Johnston's Release

Firstly, I'm really happy that he's all right and that the ordeal is over. Many have said that the resolution of this ordeal looks favorably on Hamas, but I'm skeptical. Even if it is granted that Hamas had nothing to do with Johnston's internment and that it was indeed some fringe group, how is that a case for Western nations to support Hamas in the way they have recently begun to support Fatah? The fact that they may have secured Johnston's release does not say anything about their willingness to be effective players in a peace process with Israel. It just says they are willing to respect the neutral status of Western journalists. Yet this is just something we should expect from Hamas. What Hamas has yet to prove is that they are willing partners for peace.

On Liberty...arianism

I feel like having a friendly discussion about Libertarianism. I can't make any argument why such a discussion is particularly relevant right now. However, I have always been interested in Libertarian philosophy since I first learned about it. I know that Kent was and probably still is a Libertarian, and I think KScott has Libertarian leanings (but I may be mistaken). Anyways, I think it's been a while since we all had a hearty political debate, and since they're so fun, I thought we might relight our furnaces of political passion. I was hoping to start by having people put forth some initial thoughts for why they are libertarian or what they find to be the virtues of libertarian ideology. Perhaps, Kent, you can clarify whether you're an economic/consequentialist libertarian or a natural rights libertarian or both or neither. Hopefully from there we can move forward. If noboby bites, I'll put up some thoughts of my own concerning what I see are some issues with the ideology of libertarianism.

On Bush's Speech

From Slate:

If, as he said in this speech, the war in Iraq really is the front line in "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21^st century"; if our foes there are the "successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists"; if victory is "as important" as it was in Omaha Beach and Guadalcanal—then those are just some of the steps that a committed president would feel justified in demanding.

If, as he also said, terrorism takes hold in hotbeds of stagnation and despair, then you must also ask the president why he hasn't requested tens or hundreds of billions of dollars for aid and investment in the Middle East to promote hope and livelihoods.

Yet the president hasn't done any of those things, nor has anyone in his entourage encouraged him to do so. And that's because, while the war on terror is important and keeping Iraq from disintegrating is important, they're not that important. Osama Bin Laden is not Hitler or Stalin. Baghdad is not Berlin. Al-Qaida and its imitators don't have the economic resources, the military power, or the vast nationalist base that Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union had.

And...

a good interview with two Israelis.

Cool visualization

Check this out

Why did we invade Iraq 3 1/2 years ago?

This is an annoying old question, but honestly, I've yet to hear an answer that justfied military intervention in my eyes. You guys can pick this up or not. My question is not whether we should remain in Iraq. I am simply questioning the case for war. I am sure you guys have heard these arguments before, but I am rehashing them here as a startoff point to hopefully get some discussion going.

The case for war as I understand it was that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that it was only a matter of time before he used them against the United States or supplied them to our sworn enemy Al Qaeda. Many critics of the war in Iraq cite the fact that we have yet to find and are unlikely to ever find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as conclusive proof against the case for war. While this certainly vindicates critics of the war, to use it as conclusive proof against the case for war illogically privileges hindsight.

The suspicion that Saddam Hussein did in fact possess weapons of mass destruction is probably the most plausible of all the claims of the case for war. His aggressive military ambitions in the past proved at the least that he sought the force necessary to subject large amounts of people to his will. Also, his unwillingness to fully accomodate the UN weapons inspectors made it seem as though he had something to hide. I think it would be reasonable to contend that to the best of our knowledge, it did seem as though Saddam Hussein either had or wanted to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The claim, however, that Saddam posed an imminent threat to U.S. security is far more dubious. In comparison to Saddam's record of defiance of UN resolutions, the evidence that Saddam possessed the capability of carrying out an attack on the United States was scant. Even less supported was the idea that Saddam Hussein had a connection with Al Qaeda. To this day I am not sure if this claim rested on anything more than the fact that both Hussein and Al Qaeda are associated with the Middle East. The notion that all people from the Middle East who share a dislike of America are in bed together grossly oversimplifies the complex web of interests that are actually present in that part of the world.

So with evidence of an imminent threat to U.S. security so slim, why did the Bush administration insist on invading Iraq?

As a bit of a post-script, I would also discount the supposed "for the sake of democracy" argument as adding anything to the case for war. If the mission of the U.S. is to spread democracy throughout the world by way of its military, then by that logic we should be invading many other countries that do not qualify as democracies by most standards. The argument still leaves the important question, "Why Iraq and not North Korea?" unanswered.

This is proably funny

I haven't read it all, but it starts pretty well.

I am not typically a fan of partisan political humor, but if anyone deserves it, it's Ann Coulter. In that spirit, I present:

I Fucked Ann Coulter in the Ass, Hard.

Well, at least we know she isn't gay, like every prominent Democrat with past or future presidential ambitions.

Lieberman

So this will definitely push all the dems further left on the war in '06.

Question

I'm curious about what y'all think we should do over in the Middle East, based on what's been happening the past two weeks. What can our course of action be from here on out?