But William Gibson does. That's why he gets paid to write, I guess. (via Instapundit)

But Willy was right, and nobody ever said it would be risk-free.

If it were, it wouldn’t be glorious.

And it’s only with these losses that we best know that it really is.

They'll be missed. Their loss is tragic. But we'll go on, and go on deeper into space. We're a pioneering people. Americans pushed back frontiers in the west, in science, in war, and in peace. We'll keep doing so.

Part of pioneering is burying your dead and then moving on.

That should be the headline on the front of the Washington Post Friday. Instead, the headline is more ambiguous: Democratic Rivals' War Dilemma. On the jump page inside:

The flip side of the problem comes in a new poll by the Democracy Corps, headed by Democrats James Carville, Stan Greenberg and Robert Shrum. That poll found that when asked which party is more trusted to keep the nation strong, Americans favored Republicans over Democrats 50 percent to 22 percent. Asked which party is more trusted to keep America safe, the Republican margin was 47 percent to 16 percent.

"The American people understand that Saddam is a real menace to this country," Marshall [WIll Marshall, President of Progressive Policy Institute] said. "So temporizing or calling for processes that do not defuse that threat is not a strong position, even in a Democratic primary, because these candidates are running for president, and establishing your credentials as a potential commander in chief is the most important job facing any of these aspirants."

The reason why Americans don't trust the Democrats with security is because they are decidedly unserious in their approach, as evident in the first paragraph:

Last week, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) warned President Bush against a "rush to war" with Iraq. This week, shortly before the president's State of the Union address, Kerry said he would support telling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein he has just one more month to disarm or face military action. After the president's speech, Kerry blasted Bush for "blustering unilateralism."

It cannot be said enough - these people are going to get us killed. At least that case seems to be made with the American people.

UPDATE: Link to article.

Where never lark, or even eagle flew.
 And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untresspassed sanctity of space,
 Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

Amen.

From Reuters, by way of CNN.

U.N. arms inspectors have concluded that the 122 mm chemical rocket warheads found in an Iraqi bunker earlier this month did not contain any chemical agents, diplomats said on Wednesday.

After the Gulf War, some of my soldiers went to Northern Iraq as part of Operation Provide Comfort, helping the Kurds in Northern Iraq. They were there to help assist in the clearing of unexploded ordnance and land mines which were all over the place. One day, one of them found one of these 122mm rocket warheads on the ground. It had obviously been out there for a while, the blowing sand had scoured all the paint and markings from the round. Since he couldn't identify the round from its appearance, he x-rayed it, and noted that it appeared to be a hollow shell. Being a curious sort, he decided to see if it was really empty - and because he did know what he was doing, he was wearing his gas mask and chemical protective gear. He drilled into the shell, and as the drill broke through the casing, the pressurized liquid contents of the shell shot out, splattering him.

The liquid was G-Nerve Agent, or Sarin.

The soldier decontaminated himself and the surrounding area, sealed and packaged the round to prevent any further contamination. And then a guy in a camouflage uniform, with no unit or rank insignia, came to him and took the package, and said "this didn't happen." Just like in the movies. No debrief and warning that it was classified information that could not be revealed - just "this didn't happen."

Well, it did. Just in case you were unsure whether Saddam Hussein has possessed and used chemical weapons - he has. You can be sure that we have evidence that he still does - found out by guys from "this didn't happen" land.

But soon we'll all be seeing it on CNN. Because we all want to know what those guys know.

I finally figured out what has been bothering me about the argument "we must hear what we will do in Iraq after we win before we can undertake the fighting." I hear it from right and left. I heard it today on the Diane Rehm show, and David Brooks from the Weekly Standard was going along with the lefties on the show on that score.

I don't like it because it presupposes winning. Of course we will win, but we will not have won until it is done. Planning as if it has already been won will take away from the planning of the winning.

Imagine if, while planning to retake the Phillipines, MacArthur also had to start formulating the occupation government of Japan. Our planners need to be thinking about how to win, quickly and decisively. Determining the aftermath is best left to the aftermath. Sure, prior planning is good, but we cannot possibly account for all of the post-war requirements until the war is done. We may have a plan for who we would install in Baghdad, but what if Baghdad is a radioactive crater, or drenched in persistent chemical agents? What if "our guy" is a resistance leader, and he gets killed on the battlefield?

Yes, we need to have an idea of what we wish to do, but it is not necessary - it is in fact detrimental - to have the whole post-war Iraq plan prior to the start of hostilities.

Rod Dreher in National Review Online's Corner:

The New York Times reports today that European intelligence services are finding evidence that Islamic militants throughout the continent are preparing a wave of poison attacks and other assaults on Europe in the event of war with Iraq. This would explain, in part, the reluctance of Europeans to support the coming war. But you have to wonder: do you people really think you can appease these Islamofascist bastards forever? Sooner or later, they're going to come for you, and you're going to have to face them down. If they're planning terror strikes on you even though you don't support the Iraq war, how safe can you ever be?

Well, no mission to Mars, but I think it was brimming with optimism. And at the end, he said, essentially. Yes ma'am, I think we will have a war. But we'll win.

Also, watching the post-speech talk on Fox, Juan Williams seems to have been won over. That has to count as a win, because it was on W's issues he's convinced.

Yes, he was officially from the Federation, and a future that had abolished nationality, but he was American, nonetheless. And he was boldly going where no man had gone before - more than that - he was leading while the crew was going, too.

I haven't started TrekBlogging to drive up the geek traffic on the site, but because of the blog for spacegeeks (his term, not mine), Jay Manifold's A Voyage To Arcturus. It turned up in my referrer logs the other day, and then a lot in the past couple of days due to Instapundit linking to a post that linked to my post rewriting Sherman's letter to Atlanta. (Whew, that's pretty blogcestuous!)

Today, Jay Manifold writes on the State of the Union, and whether the President will "announce a Mars-or-bust initiative."

I hope that he will - I had an entry about a forthcoming announcement last week of just such a program. I think that a program like this is every bit as important to the State of the Union as the coming Battle of Iraq, and what we do with tax money, and how some everyday Joe or Jane is really a hero. Because a mission like that is about the future, and the future being a good thing. It represents optimism in a truly American fashion. Only a truly optimistic people could plan to go to the Moon in ten years, or to Mars in 30 (or however long we propose). Or build the Panama Canal, for that matter.

To me, the Apollo program represented a high water mark in American achievement, and optimism. We went to the Moon - a quarter of a million miles away - several times. But the last time we went, I was in first grade, and I'm no youngster. Our current space platform, the Space Shuttle, has an upper operational limit of about 300 miles. I can drive the 500 miles from Washington to Boston in less than a day. I know its not quite a fair comparison, but still. Some 30 years after Apollo, we can't do now what we did then. I am quite sure that Apollo would never get past the Environmental Impact Statement - probably the current shuttle wouldn't pass.

I visited Cape Canaveral on the Fourth of July, 1996, and there was a video to narrate the bus tour. It started: "Welcome to Cape Canaveral, where we are proud to be home to 15 endangered species." Really. And in 1997, NASA launched the "Mission to Planet Earth." As they say, "Earth to NASA: We're already here!"

Some may argue (and it looks like Jay may be in this camp) that manned spaceflight is a victim of its own success - that it cost too much and took away from other projects that could have provided more "real science"at a lower cost. But the robotic missions don't inspire the way manned missions do. Captain Kirk could no be replaced by the computer, or that living computer, Spock. President Kennedy was right - we chose to go to the Moon because it was hard. (Like it says on the Trekblog - To the stars through adversity. Ad astra per aspera.) It was a challenge, and that's what we do. Optimists seek challenge, and opportunity.

I think that manned space flight was a victim not of its success, but of the death of optimism. The 70's were a decade of pessimism, and that infection has not been cured. Our views of the future are not about it being a great place, but a bad place. Science fiction movies and books present a dystopian world, where advance in technology results in regression for humanity.

Today's world is one which contains war, famine, pestilence, and death. It can certainly make one pessimistic about the present - pessimism about the future can only make it worse. I often wonder about the 1939 World's Fair, and the people who attended. In 1939, World War II had already started in Europe and Asia, and in the United States we were still in the depths of the Great Depression. And people turned out in droves to the World's Fair, with the Trylon and Perisphere as the symbols of the "World of Tomorrow," the City of Light, and Futurama.

The Trylon and the Perisphere

Raymond Loewy designed locomotive

The City of Light

Elektro the Robot

A mission to Mars - a manned mission - would be a great start.

For all those folks who have been screaming "show me the evidence!":

U.S. to Make Iraq Intelligence Public

Evidence of Weapons Concealment to Be Shared in Effort to Boost Support for War

After a lengthy debate over what and how much of the intelligence to disclose, President Bush and his national security advisers have decided to declassify some of the information and make it public, perhaps as early as next week, in an effort to garner more domestic and international support for confronting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with military force, officials said.

She's concerned that because she's a comedian, we don't take her seriously. Howard Kurtz writes:

Entertainers must brave a certain degree of ridicule when they waltz into the public policy arena, whether it's Sean Penn going to Baghdad or Leonardo DiCaprio pitching Earth Day. They are, after all, using their fame to be heard in a way that would be impossible if they couldn't make people laugh or cry. Why, they are asked by the same programs that invited them on, should anyone care what you think?

Just a thought.

More marginalization:

While Garofalo believes Saddam Hussein is a menace -- but that U.N. weapons inspectors should be given more time -- she also tosses around the word "imperialism" and declares that "this is a manufactured conflict for the sake of geopolitical dominance in the area.

"There is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. You never even get that idea floated in the mainstream media. If you bring it up, they hate the messenger. You've ruined everyone's good time."

Take the time to read this. It's long, but its worth it. It has it all. (via Misha). Just a teaser:

In this, I am guardedly optimistic due to our recent victory in Afghanistan. Not the military victory, magnificent though it was.

No, I am thinking of things like the reopening of their soccer stadium, the field where I have seen -- thorough the camera obscura of the internet -- women in burqas forced to kneel and then shot through the back of the head for the crime of adultery. Kids play football there again. That’s a win, Noam Chomsky, you lying son of a bitch.

Little girls march to school in the morning, singing. That’s a win, Robert Fisk. Old men wept as the Afghan national flag was carried by an actual Afghan army during their first free National Day in two generations. That is a win for the Good Guys, too, Harold Pinter. I hear of Special Forces sergeants organizing little league teams and I just smile like a little kid.

Because the idiots out there, if their ideas were in the main - would get us all killed.

Noone wants war. But noone wants to be killed, either.

OpinionsGalore has moved to new URL: http://jeffbrokaw.net/weblog. The old address still works - for a while.