I think we are going to catch somebody. No, not him, he's dead. Someone trying to do something. Not today, not tomorrow. But very soon.

Like I said, just a hunch.

I think I have horked things up a bit - ran into my disk quota, and busted comments at least in the post below. Bear with me.

I am still amazed at what people don't remember. Desert Storm was not that long ago, really. Just a dozen years. And people forget. People who should know better still forget. For example, in the Washington Post, an article about "stop-loss," a policy by which the military keeps people from leaving the service (link via Drudge). An excerpt:

The three are among thousands of soldiers forbidden to leave military service under the Army's "stop-loss" orders, intended to stanch the seepage of troops, through retirement and discharge, from a military stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions.

"It reflects the fact that the military is too small, which nobody wants to admit," said Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, a leading military sociologist.

Charles Moskos is not a newbie to the military arena. Google him up, you'll see. He should know better than to say that the use of stop-loss "reflects the fact that the military is too small." Why do I say that? Well, stop-loss went into effect during Desert Shield and remained until after Desert Storm was over. We had an army of 785,000 people then, with 16 divisions. Did that mean we were too small, then, just noone wanted to admit it?

Of course googling Charles Moskos will also turn up that he's a Democrat, and he is for the draft. And now the Post is puffing him up on the front page.

I've been warning you....

UPDATE Comments gone because of a corrupted file. See what this does.

Wow, a catfight in the funny pages! Wiley's Non Sequitur takes a break from drawing President Bush as a monkey and takes a (hard!) swipe at Berke Breathed! Not like he doesn't deserve it, though. Maybe he needs to take Steve Patsis advice on becoming a professional cartoonist, quoting Scott Adams: "Be funny."

By a comic strip in today's paper. The Washington Post carries Pearls Before Swine, one of those "funny in a weird sort of way" comic strips (For example, he just finished a series where the characters went searching for Gary Larson. See what I mean?) Today's strip, though, was not funny, but it was simply stunning, seeing it there in the Sunday "funnies." Click on the first frame below to see the whole thing.

Bravo, Mr. Pastis. Bravo.

Hussein's Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda
Experts Say Terrorist Operation May Be More Likely to Prove Its Relevance
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 26, 2003;

Initially the article appears to be answering an assertion no one is making. That the capture of Saddam is a death knell for terrorists, or al Qaeda. Also ask yourself why an objective news story is answering a non existent assertion?

President Bush has described the Dec. 13 capture of Saddam Hussein as a victory for the "war on terror," saying that Iraq represented "a visible front" in that war, like Afghanistan, the Philippines and other unnamed countries where U.S. commando teams have been secretly hunting al Qaeda and its affiliates

Really?

I thought Bush said

"Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks."

And

"I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated."

There is no mention of al Qaeda. However, this reporter would rather use short phrases devoid of context. This arouses suspicion.

But the prevailing view among many U.S. intelligence agencies and terrorism experts is that Hussein's capture, and indeed the U.S. war in Iraq, will have little discernible short-term impact on the web of al Qaeda-affiliated organizations that most threaten the United States and U.S. interests abroad

2 assertions here

1) There is a prevailing view of Saddam's capture 2 weeks after it has happened, and that is that the affect will be neglible on the War on Terror and the War on Iraq

2) al Qaeda is the biggest threat.

Short time for a prevailing view to coalesce, and what about the other terrorist organizations?

Some terrorism experts, including a few favored by the Bush administration, view Iraq as a key al Qaeda supporter and believe Hussein's capture serves as a deterrent for other terrorist organizations. The more common view, however, is that there was never a strong link or even an ideological bond between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, and that the capture could well push al Qaeda to prove it is still relevant.

Notice that the demarcation of the prevailing view v. the minority view is refashioned to make it the administration view, and the non-Bush administration view.

Al Qaeda "did not consider Saddam a friend, but an enemy, a ruler who did not establish true Islam as a state religion," one of the Pentagon's consultants on terrorism, Michael Pillsbury, has told associates. Bin Laden's capture "will be 10 times more important to reduced recruitment rates of hard-core terrorists like the ones who flew the four planes on 9/11."

Michael Pillsbury is a noted expert on China, whose material is excellent. Thus he has credibility with me. However a blanket statement about al Qaeda and Iraq is premature. I would like to see his reasoning. Withholding judgment. It is however a point in favor of the reporter that she has this man on record.

Terrorism experts and U.S. intelligence officials were interviewed before the terrorism threat level was elevated on Sunday. Two officials said the view was reinforced recently when intelligence sources were reporting that bin Laden was again in communication with his followers. Those reports, one official said, could not be confirmed.

Here we devolve into the ubiquitous terrorism experts and intelligence officials. I understand that reporters must protect their sources, but that means I have to trust the reporter. I am not there yet. I am also admittedly cynical.

"The view that Hussein's capture will not affect the terrorist threat against Americans and U.S. interests is based on the judgment from many in the intelligence community, shared in classified briefings with senior Bush administration officials and members of Congress, that there is no credible proof that Hussein was supporting, directing or financing bin Laden or al Qaeda.

Another strike. Notice the use of the term "credible proof." Information in the intelligence community, which would be allowed exposure to the public that meets the level of "credible proof" about anything is a very rare beast. Most intelligence information might be substantial, or credible, but credible proof. I don't know why the reporter uses the term, but she neither defines it nor notes that using this term allows her to ignore quite a few other items such as the Douglas Feith memo.

"The question has been asked a million times at the CIA," said a counterterrorism intelligence analyst. "The bottom line is, there were little probing attempts [between Iraq and al Qaeda], but neither side saw it in their interest to do anything together."

There are hundreds of counter intelligence analysts, at all levels of analysis. Is this the prevailing view, the minority, or the view of one? The reporter has made an inference earlier in the article, but her unwillingness to make the inference explicit at this point is noteworthy. Another strike.

A defense official with access to daily terrorism reports and analysis said: "It ain't going to change their operations."

Notice the assumptions.

1) This defense official thinks he knows all Qaeda's operations. I far prefer someone who knows that he does not have a clue as to how this will affect al Qaeda's operation.

2) This defense official thinks that he is in al Qaeda's head. If he know so much, why does he not know where bin Laden is?

Conclusion. It is either a misquote, or the guy is talking out of his ass.

Another senior administration seemed baffled by the question itself. "The war on terrorism? Gosh, it's not likely. He's not a poster child for terrorists, unless you believe the Lauri Mylroies of the world."

From which Branch of the Administration? State?

And remember that Saddam gave 25,000 to each suicide bomber. Is it that big of stretch to think that he funnelled money to Hamas et al directly?

Notice the indirect ad hominem with no ability for a rejoinder. It also serves to discredit an opposing point of view, prior to introduction, which is not the mark of an objective reporter.

Mylroie, a longtime Iraq expert and author whose analysis is favored by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, believes Iraq "is a very central part of the war on terrorism. I believe Iraqi intelligence was involved in 9/11, and you have to mop up all Iraqi intelligence," including Hussein. "The key issue is the infrastructure of skill and expertise is based on Iraqi intelligence."

Thus far we have one quote on the record for, and one quote against, with a whole bunch of off the record stuff.

Some experts believe Hussein's capture could serve as a deterrent for heads of state and individuals who have supported terrorist organizations in the past.

Hmmmm. You don't say. Wouldn't this have an affect?

"The only impact it has is that it demonstrates we are capable of capturing high-value targets," said Matthew Levitt, a former FBI terrorism expert. "Every victory is demoralizing to the enemy."

Another high profile name. And again, if the question was about al Qaeda, then he is answering it correctly.

Hussein's capture, said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, will serve as a notice to other leaders in the region, namely those in Iran and Syria, that "they may be next. Those leaders who are supporting terrorist networks may cut back."

Well Jane thinks there is going to be an affect, and last I checked, she was not a Conservative

But most others said they believe that al Qaeda will survive Hussein's capture largely unaffected.

Most others who? Representative? Senators? People on the Intelligence Committee? Who?

"If you believe Iraq is the root of all evil, then yes, you would believe that Saddam's capture has struck a blow," said Steven Simon, a terrorism expert at the Rand Corp., a think tank based in Santa Monica, Calif. "If it's your view that global terrorism originated elsewhere and has metastasized and spread worldwide," then no, there would be no effect."

What if you don't believe that Iraq is the root of all evil, but is instead a substantial component, which is what the Administration believes?

"Al Qaeda planning and operations will continue unless other factors impede them," said Rand Beers, a former counterterrorism expert with the National Security Council and now an adviser to Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. "In fact, I presume that al Qaeda will now want to prove its independence from Saddam Hussein and its continued vibrancy by conducting more operations."

And to cap it all off, we will go with a quote from a Kerry advisor, who I am sure has no stake. To her credit she does disclose this, but it would have been impossible for her not too.

And the quote is of the basic "no shit" variety.

So my take is that this is basic spin wrapped up in "objective reporting." There are holes big enough to drive Saddam through it. And this is why the media is heading for a trainwreck in this country. I am far from the minority in being able to see through this crap.

Isn't he great in that Arli$$ show?

Jonah quoted me in The Corner.

The CIA has been quietly building a case that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were in fact the result of an international terrorist plot.

You don't say....

"And there were in the same country shepherds, abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them! And they were sore afraid ... And the angel said unto them, "Fear not! For, behold, I bring you tidings o great joy, which shall be to all my people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ, the Lord."

"And this shall be a sign unto you: Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." And suddenly, there was with the angel a multitude of the Heavenly Host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth peace, and good will toward men."

While Mr. Rove gave an upbeat and convincing analysis of the administration's prospects for re-election, such off-the-record chats are no substitute for fixing the White House's other weaknesses in dealing with the media. "There are only five people in the White House -- including Rove and chief of staff Andy Card -- who are authorized to speak directly with journalists on behalf of the president," one prominent media figure noted. "That guarantees the message they want filters out slowly and tentatively." Another attendee said the absence of White House communications director Karen Hughes, who returned to Texas this year, has been missed. "They do the basics right, but strategically they let bad stories and spin fester and grow too long hoping some good news will turn up," he said. "It usually does, but who wants to count on that?"

From the WSJ Online Political Diary. Sounds an awful lot like this:

And yet, there is silence. This story will not tell itself. The mainstream press will not tell it. And Andrew Sullivan, even with his readership, can't be the one to tell it.

Get on the ball, guys. You've been hiding from the storm. Do what Jonah says and put on the flight suit and play a Robert Duvall basketball game. Have a press conference. You know Karen Hughes wouldn't let you just lie there. Get up. Do something.

U.S. to Raise Terror Alert to 'High' Effers. The terrorists, I mean.

Anyone who thinks the system is in place and the conditions changed for mere partisan advantage must explain away why the administration would give Howard Dean cover this way.

UPDATE: Okay, its done.

Tony Blair: Hello, 10 Downing, Prime Minister speaking.

Muammar Qadaffi: Umm, hi. This is Muammar Qadaffi...

TB: I'm sorry, who?

MQ: Muammar Qaddafi! Q-A...I mean, K-H...You know. Libya? Crazy dictator? Likes green a lot?

TB: I'm sorry, no, still don't place the name.

MQ: Don't you remember? I was bigtime in the terrorist game in the 80's.

TB: The chap that blew up the American plane over Scotland?

MQ: Allegedly blew up the American plane. That billion dollar payment was no admission....

TB: I'm sorry, this was Mark Geragos calling?

MQ: Revolutionary Leader Colonel Muammar Qadaffi of Libya!

TB: Right. Sorry, you sounded like someone else just then.

MQ: Look, reason I'm calling, I was just thinking. I don't want to get dragged out of a hole in the ground looking like Ted Kaczynski...

TB: Noone really does. Aside from that Kaczynski chap, I mean.

MQ: Exactly.

TB: So that's it then?

MQ: Pretty much.

TB: I'll let President Bush know, then.

MQ: Thank you.

Friday, December 19, 2003

WASHINGTON — Libya will allow international inspectors to enter the country and search for weapons of mass destruction, President Bush (search) announced Friday.

Bush said the step is "of great importance" in the global fight against terror.

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi (search) has admitted trying to develop weapons of mass destruction but now plans to halt all such programs, Bush said. Earlier, British Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) made a similar announcement.

Britain says that Libya acknowledged trying to develop a nuclear bomb, and also revealed "significant quantities of chemical agent," according to Reuters news service.

Funny.

For strong language and Dean content.

Hey, I have a winning strategy for the Democrats. Lets create a meme that Bush lacks will.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's rich. Look, Bush may have political liabilities, but lack of will is definitely not one of them.

That's like saying that Dean lacks anger, or Kerry lacks a proper appreciation for the UN.

C'mon guys, you are getting terrible.

I watched the attempted flight of the EAA 1903 Wright Flyer this morning, with moistened eyes.

I hope that those guys do manage to get the thing into the air today. Apparently it is not an easy bird to fly, which is a testament to the skills of the Wrights. However, this group of volunteers has put an extraordinary amount of time and effort into this endeavor, and I am pulling hard for them to pull it off.

You see, I have an emotional attachment to flight that is even greater then politics. My screen name, pittspilot, suggests this. The name refers to my preferred mount when flying, the Pitts Special. The one pictured below is one that I have spent considerable hours aloft in. I rarely write about flying, as describing the sensation defies my writing talents.

So, everyone, pull for the group of EAA volunteers, and lets see the Wright flyer get airborne again.

*UPDATE* Apparently, Burt Rutan's group hit the speed of sound today, a first for a private entity. That man is a genius.

In The Corner, K-Lo points out an article about MG Odierno, commander of the 4th ID. The article notes that MG Odierno was a tight end on the Army football team.

Reminds me of a quote from GEN George C. Marshall - "I want an officer for a secret and dangerous mission. I want a West Point football player."

but I am guessing that this is getting pretty heavily Farked right now.

Six months from now, we'll hear "He said the bad stuff was over in Iraq," referring to this line - "In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over." Despite the fact he also said this:

I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated.

In other news, it is after noon and after church, so the celebratory eggnog (fueled by Bacardi 8) has begun. Later, celebratory sangria. Gunfire is frowned on in my neighborhood.

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30 p.m. Baghdad time, United States military forces captured Saddam Hussein alive. He was found near a farmhouse outside the city of Tikrit, in a swift raid conducted without casualties. And now the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he denied to millions.

The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free Iraq. It marks the end of the road for him, and for all who bullied and killed in his name. For the Baathist holdouts largely responsible for the current violence, there will be no return to the corrupt power and privilege they once held. For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.

And this afternoon, I have a message for the Iraqi people: You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again. All Iraqis who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side. The goals of our coalition are the same as your goals -- sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great culture, and for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life.

In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over. A hopeful day has arrived. All Iraqis can now come together and reject violence and build a new Iraq.

The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.

I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated.

We've come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action. And that is our strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this war is won.

May God bless the people of Iraq, and may God bless America. Thank you.

As, blaster has already posted, and as hopefully everyone knows, we got Saddam.

Few thoughts.

1) He doesn't look like he has been leading a rebellion. He look like a scared old man. I wonder if he has nothing to do with the terrorist attacks?

2) Just from first impressions, I wonder if people are going to be reminded of the banality of evil

3) Why is anyone surprised by the media coverage? It only took 10 minutes of CNN and MSNBC to confirm what I knew they would do. They're not happy about this.

4) Howard Dean "Statement by Governor Dean on the Capture of Saddam Hussein
WEST PALM BEACH-- Governor Dean issued the following statement this morning:

"This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.

"Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them.

"This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the UN, NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort.

"Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty."

I still don't see the danger of America voting for this guy. He is an asshole, and 60% of America knows it.

P.S. I don't think the Gore endorsement helped either.

5) I would do a Kerry quote, but that man is done. Should make my blogmate happy when he goes since blaster has a particular love for the man. See below.

If I were a Democrat presidential candidate, I wouldn't be trying to horn in on today's news. Especially if I were going to carp about how this is an "opportunity to get it right" and turn this over to the UN. Like they would have been able to catch him.

In other news, we are having celebratory "We captured Saddam Hussein" pancakes with Reese's peanut butter chips.

UPDATE: OH MY GOD! Kerry just said Bush should have followed in Clinton's footsteps on North Korea! Just shut up.

Dug him out of his hidey hole. Literally.

One of my constant critiques of the pro-draft people is that there is a statutory cap on the size of the military, and noone has proposed increasing that. Now there is some talk of it, and, it even includes Democrats. Spotted this on Caerdoria:

bill has been introduced in the House to increase the size of the Army, Marines and Air Force by roughly 8% over five years. The bill would add 40,000 troops to the Army, bringing it to 522,400, while the Air Force would grow by 28,700 to 388,000 and the Marines by 15,000 to 190,000. "If the administration is going to deploy thousands of troops across the globe, the size of our military needs to reflect that," says Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., author of the bill.

Reading the bill, it seems that USA TODAY has mischaracterized it a bit - it is not a ramp up of 8% over 5 years, but it is an increase in the authorized end strength that would take place with the FY 2004 budget through FY 2008.

If we need more troops, then this is how we get them - not through a draft. Of course, the bill doesn't address the budget, as it is strictly offered as an amendment to end strength numbers. Section 691 of Title 10 provides that

The budget for the Department of Defense for any fiscal year as submitted to Congress shall include amounts for funding for each of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) at least in the amounts necessary to maintain the active duty end strengths prescribed in subsection (b), as in effect at the time that such budget is submitted.

Despite the somewhat catty quote from Rep. Tauscher in the article, and the fact that all of her cosponsors are Democrats, she's not a typical California Democrat on defense issues. I think that this may be a good faith effort by Democrats at improving the American defense posture.

I wonder what Howard Dean thinks of that.

Here's a photo gallery called EOD in Iraq. Note the French and Russian markings on the ammo.

At least partly. I wrote this about Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Despite this being his first political campaign (as a candidate, anyway), Schwarzenegger may be quite effective. He may be able to use his immense public persona to break up the logjam in the California legislature. As a Republican, he can get movement where Davis couldn't with Republican members, and able to challenge the Democrats where Davis won't.

And I saw this on Drudge:

After a week spent reviving a plan left for dead a week ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Friday a fiscal recovery package that will place before voters in March a $15 billion bond measure and new spending restrictions.

Schwarzenegger signed the bills in his office shortly after the Senate voted for the bond and spending limit bills Friday afternoon. Their votes followed the Assembly's approval Thursday night and gave the new Republican governor his biggest victory since he took office last month.

Okay, its not a done deal yet, the voters of California have to approve, but that seems likely. The big governor has done a lot of good things, and he's keeping his promises. And making a blue state in the Union see a Republican succeeding is a good thing in itself.

Blaster's Blog has received a "Bloggy" Award from Blogspeak.

I wonder if that includes a visit from GloveGirl....

I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! But one thing I do know:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So how can the Supreme Court of the United States rule that Congress making a law abridging freedom of speech is okey dokey?!?!?

Notwithstanding my blogmate's future profession, I think I understand why so many people like that Shakespeare quote.

On Hardball, GEN Clark said the following:

CLARK: Well, if I were president right now, I would be doing things that George Bush can’t do right now, because he’s already compromised those international bridges. I would go to Europe and I would build a new Atlantic charter. I would say to the Europeans, you know, we’ve had our differences over the years, but we need you. The real foundation for peace and stability in the world is the transatlantic alliance. And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we’ll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We’ll bring you in.

This guy is supposed to burnish the Democratic party's credentials on national defense. Unfortunately for him, he is more concerned about European than American opinions of national security. Sounds more like he is campaigning for EU President, and they don't vote for that in New Hampshire.

This story by Gaffney is extraordinarily troubling

I am withholding judgment until I have checked most of the footnotes, and have heard a response from Norquist. Norquist cannot ignore this charge, for it is detailed, lengthy, and corroborated. Horowitz would also not have published this unless he very carefully checked it.

This story needs to flood the zone and needs to be answered. And the Bush Administration needs to deal with it as well.

I wrote this someplace else, but thought it was a good off the cuff remark, so I am putting it here too.

What bothers me is that they seem to have distorted the movie.

Look, if you want to do a drama that blurs the lines between good guys and bad guys, then go right ahead. But doing the same for Battlestar Galactica makes the show blow.

The Cylons are bad, period. They are not misunderstood, I don't want to feel their inner pain, or get to know their inner child. I want to see Starbuck and Apollo kick the cylon's ass, with frequent explosions, and life threatening events thrown in for good measure. I can see we are going to have socially relevant commentary while Galactica burns, mark my words.

And Baltar is a dick, period. He is not confused, or caught up in circumstances beyond his control, he is a dick.

Starbuck is a guy. The interplay between Apollo and Starbuck was a big part of the show. Now Starbuck is a female? We had good looking females in that show. Remember Athena? Is she a guy now? And is Tigh white? And now we have this interplay between Adama and Apollo.

Yep, way to screw up a good show. At least they won't put him near Lord of the Rings.

I can see it now. Yeah, Sauraman really didn't mean it. He was beaten as a child. The magic warped his brain. He is really sorry. And Orcs? Misunderstood creatures those. Beauty is only skin deep, you know.

Army lost to Navy, finishing winless for the second time in its history, and the first time an NCAA I-A team has gone 0-13. Dang squids. But they are winning in Afghanistan - Al Qaeda is bailing out of Afghanistan, supposedly to take us on in Iraq, but they could just be getting their butts kicked.. The Philippines are putting a hurting on Abu Sayyaf. Even the Saudis appear to be getting more serious about curbing terror. The Telegraph interviews the Iraqi who gave the 45-minutes to chemical attack intel to the British. The Dow and NASDAQ are up. The economy is looking better. Howard Dean gets the endorsement of National Review and Al Gore.

No wonder John Kerry is dropping the f bomb.

So today's my birthday. As noted over at Argghhh, it is St. Barbara's Day, patron saint of folks who blow stuff up. Kind of conicidental, I guess.

It was kind of cool, seeing Gus's picture, today of all days. As they say, getting older beats the alternative. But a little bit of Blaster no