I've said it before - the biggest scandal about that whole Niger thing was that the CIA sent Joe Wilson to investigate it. It was probably the most important intelligence question of the day, and they chose to send that hack instead of do a real investigation. Powerline is all over it.

Jonah Goldberg writes:

This story in today's Washington Post seems to indicate that Joe Wilson is a monumental liar, publicity hound and partisan hack. Truly a must-read.

Wow, who woulda figured that? That, you know, he was actually lying about that whole Niger yellowcake thing?

I am using Netflix to get all of those "must see" movies and watched The Manchurian Candidate last night. Coincidentally, I saw a commercial for the remake on TV - I didn't know it was coming out. I really wonder how the new one will work after seeing the original.

Maybe I am now mexpecting every film to have some political message these days, but I am trying to figure out what the message of that movie was. One of the characters in this 1962 film is an obvious stand-in for Joe McCarthy/Richard Nixon, and he was a distinctly unpleasant person, stupid, drunk, and brutish. Yet in the end, he was really right - the Communists were everywhere. That leaves it kind of ambiguous. Maybe that was the point.

It needs to be said. Mickey Kaus had commented the other day on a Peggy Noonan column, and Andrew Sullivan loves it: the argument for voting for Kerry over Bush is that we, American, need a "break from history." I think there is something to the recognition that this is what some people are thinking. Kerry's promoting a return to the anti-terror tactics of the 1990's. The ones that worked so well. I know more than a few conservatives who think it might not be such a bad idea - and others who wonder why we stick with Iraq when they seem so ungrateful, killing our soldiers.

A break, yes. Glenn Reynolds links to a couple of responses to that thought, one from Roger Simon and one from John Rosenberg. My first thought when I read Kaus' take was like Simon's second commenter: "I'm certainly glad my parents' generation didn't decide to take a break from history-making and step away from the war in the 1944 election to vote for someone that would allow them to preserve the precarious gains in northern Africa, Italy, Normandy, and stop short of Iwo Jima." Though not literally, as my parents are not of the WWII generation. But, other than that, yes, exactly. But Simon makes a very, very sharp point himself: "I just think an electoral defeat of Bush will be seen worldwide as a rejection of the War on Terror and at this particular point in history that could have disastrous effects." Yes, exactly, to that, too.

I can understand the nostalgia for a break from history, the 1990's surely were that for the US. It may be true that the numbers in the current recovery are better than the Clinton years, but the go-go of those years is not present here. Young people are not being made millionaires at their first jobs, noone is giving you a BMW convertible as a sign-on bonus, and terrorism happened far away.

I can understand the longing for things to be like that again, but something is standing in the way - the murder of thousands of Americans and a permanent change in the New York City skyline. We need to make it so that never happens again. And stopping to take a breath is not the way to do it. Bin Laden thought that he could outlast us. And if the sentiment to take a break is a majority sentiment, he was right. It is important to remember that this war has been ongoing on their part for 35 years, starting with the murder of RFK. If we tire, we falter, we fail after three years, then we have no chance of outlasting them.

So the bottom line is that a Kerry presidency is a victory for the terrorists. I know, its not fair to say that. But we are unfortunately living in very unfair circumstances. It doesn't matter if people vote for him because he's a war hero, or because they care for the children, or if they think John Edwards is sexy, or because they think that Kerry can convince the French to put troops in Iraq, or because they think President Bush is indistinguishable from a chimpanzee - it doesn't matter because the terrorists, and all the other nations in the world will see it as a retreat, a change, from the work we've set out to accomplish. Even if after winning the election John Kerry vows to keep up each and every Bush policy, it will still be viewed that way.

It really is that stark of a choice. If you think that the cost of the Bush Presidency is higher than the cost of handing the terrorists a victory, then go ahead and vote for Kerry. But when the time comes, the investigative commission won't have to ask what we knew, and when we knew it. We know it now.

They are complaining about the speakers at the Republican convention not being "one of them." They complain about Pataki and Bloomberg, but as they are the Republican (even if in name only) governor and mayor of New York where the convention is held, they have to be there. And Giuliani is also a very popular New Yorker (though I guess planning this far ahead to put him in such a political role rules out his nomination as DCI - rather have him in Langley than on the podium). And Schwarzenegger is pure star power. The governors of the 2 largest electora states are Republicans - of course they get airtime. As for McCain, well, he does command a respectable constituency among folks who apparently are swayable as voters - I say sway them to George Bush.

Sullivan may actually have a point, sort of, that among the folks that the NROniks might consider "real" conservatives, there are no big names. They suggested Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, but, not to take the state for granted, but they aren't voting for Kerry. And he has no national following. John Kyl is not a bad choice, though. But whether by their own doing, or by the press, there aren't any star quality names in the full on conservatives, and I'm more disposed to their politics than most.

I can think of a number of things said by President Reagan, The Great Communicator, in his speeches, particulary "These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc," the Soviet Union as evil Empire, and "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall." I can also think of several memorable bits from President Bush, the "Axis of Evil," "with us or with the terrorists," "we will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail." But President Clinton, though people talk about how great a speaker he was, doesn't leave much memorable behind, at least not much flattering: "mend it not end it," "I did not have sex with that woman," and "I feel your pain."

Suddenly, for no apparent reason, conservatives are turning on Bush, hard. Jonah Goldberg jumped ugly on Bush this morning, saying he was "disgusted with the GOP" and "I think conservatives sacrificed a lot when we bought into the notion that the President of the United States doesn't need to be an effective communicator." Ouch. And Joe Scarborough (he's got a show on MSNBC - really!) has commentary scolding Bush for taking a "cheap shot" at Edwards:

Today, President Bush took a shot at John Edwards, suggesting the U.S. senator was ill-prepared to be vice president of the United States.

The attack was a cheap shot: John Edwards has served the same amount of time in the Senate as George W. Bush served as governor of Texas when he was elected president. The Texas legislature only meets every other year and the governorship of the Lone Star State has long been considered one of the weakest positions of its kind in America. Add to it that Edwards has sat on the intelligence committee through the days before and after September 11th. You could argue that Edwards has more experience in key areas than George W. Bush did when he ran in 2000.

Unmentioned in this commentary is what Bush actually said. He was asked specifically about Edwards by a newsie asking this question about how Edwards is "charming, engaging, a nimble campaigner, a populist and even sexy. How does he stack up against Dick Cheney?" To which the President answered "Dick Cheney can be president."

This is a good answer on many fronts. First, he didn't mention Edwards at all. He points out that the VP should be selected because he or she can be President, not because of sexiness. And thirdly, its true. Dick Cheney can be President right now, while John Edwards cannot.

I am not sure what is driving this particular wave of anti-Bush hysteria among the right at this moment. The President remains in a close race with his opponent. It isn't like he just did something really, really bad, or that people just woke up to the fact that he won't go down in history as the world's greatest orator.

First, some tidbits of stuff from open sources. It has been widely reported that Tony Blair said that Tony Blair has "admitted" that Iraq had no WMD. But of course, as on other topics, press outlets are not spinning on this story, they are lying. This is what Blair said:

Tony Blair conceded today that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction "may never be found" but claimed that they could have been "hidden, removed or destroyed".

Appearing before the Commons liaison committee of senior MPs, the prime minister said: "I was very, very confident the Iraq Survey Group would find them - I have to accept we haven't found them and we may not find them."

But - a week before the Butler inquiry into intelligence failures over Iraq reports back - Mr Blair warned against going to the "other extreme" and believing that Saddam never held WMD; they could have been "hidden, removed or destroyed", he added.

Another interesting tidbit found in the transcript of the interview in which Rumsfeld announced the Polish find:

In answer to your question on Syria, there have been a lot of intelligence speculation and rumors and chatter about the fact that Saddam Hussein may have placed some of his weapons of mass destruction in Syria prior to the start of the war. Until that can be validated and proved, you’ll find people in the administration not talking about it.

Tales of Iraqi WMD going to Syria have been in Newsmax and DEBKA and World Net Daily for a while now, though many of those reports are based on very credible sources, like David Kay, Senator Roberts, etc. In other words, the story has been around for a while, but I think that the two quotes above kick it up a notch.

Interestingly enough, the new special sauce is consonant with what DEBKA has been saying for a long time. Bottom line on it: the US knows that at least some of Saddam's weapons went to Syria and knows exactly where they are.

Of course that may seem like a desperate story to cover up that we haven't found all that much in Iraq (though more than the none continually reported in the press) - if it were so that we know this, then why doesn't the Administration trumpet it to bolster their own credibility?

That goes back to another post after my previous special sauce, where I wrote this:

Anon4201 - of the posited possibilities, the one that is closest to what I think is #4. [this is #4: Playing sneaky diplomacy in order to blackmail the UN and/or other countries with wmd/unscam evidence.] I don't know about blackmail, but maybe. The only reason I can think for withholding WMD info (besides the moonbat "because it all has US markings on it" that keeping the info secret only encourages) is if the information has more value as actionable intel than as a validation of one of our causes for war.

The rollup of Libya's WMD programs and the Abdul Khan ring in Pakistan happened in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. They came about with major pieces of intelligence that occurred at the same time - coincidence?

I think that we are trying to get Syria to do a Libya - own up to being bad guys and turning it over on their own (the first DEBKA link above is a plausible scenario for that, and it is from April, 2003). We would prefer that method to invading Syria, but we must have a credible threat that we would if they don't in order to get it to work. Having 140,000 troops next door does help in that regard, and Zebari's tough talk about Iraq's neighbors helps, too (Zebari said in January Saddam moved his WMD to Syria).

I think that if the US were being very public and loud and noisy about the existence of Iraqi WMD in Syria, we would almost be forced to invade - the diplomacy on it cannot be public and effective.

Meanwhile, all of Iran's shenanigans, being described as a powerplay by them, is more likely an attempt to distract us from putting pressure on Syria.

I have heard that some of the military folks who know that we know where the stuff is are frustrated that they can do nothing about it. A roommate from school who has been to Afghanistan and Iraq told me, when I asked him what it was really like over there, that "it was all political." I think he had the same frustration. That things that we know and could do something about are many times subverted to political concerns - not necessarily domestic, electoral, politics, but international, diplomatic, politics.

Let's hope that the politics can work.

Some of the old special sauce was about huge news to come out in June. The predicted huge news event did not happen. Doesn't mean that it still could not happen, but just want to be clear about the power of the sauce.

I've got some good new special sauce. Posting after dinner.

Watched Fahrenheit 9/11 (stolen, natch) last night. All I can think is that's it? That's what all the hype was about? It was really tedious. And when Moore does that sing-songy little voice, it's extremely irritating. Who exactly is he talking down to? Bush? Like he's the one who is going to be watching. one things for sure, the judges for the Palme d'Or are cheap dates.

I saw something somewhere where Moore was saying that he was upset that people considered his movie a vote for Kerry, because he isn't a Democrat, and just like he's on Bush, he would be on a President Kerry.

Does anyone believe that?

Glenn Reynolds is writing that Kerry has picked Edwards, so now he has to dump Cheney to get over that political masterpiece. Seriously, Edwards? Really, the guy wasn't all that popular with Democrats when he ran. And two Senators running? Has that ever worked? Kerry successfully hyped the secrecy and surprise of this announcement, but, really, is his choice that exciting or surprising? I don't see it. It has the headlines for a couple of days. Then its back to campaigning. (Glenn, by the way, thinks that only right-wingers don't like trial lawyers. Not sure why he has that blind spot.)

It certainly doesn't mean the President only has one option for moving news cycles. Sure, there are negatives attached to Cheney with all the conspiracist screaming about Halliburton. But dumping him would just make them all go "Look, we were right, the President knows that Cheney is wrong for this country." The press will spin it as a desperate move by a failing Presidency.

I think the President has a better thunderstealer - he is now saying he might pick a new CIA director (Tenet's last day is Sunday), something I implored him to do last month.

With the CIA report that is coming out, no better time to clean house and establish an atmosphere of reform. I am still pimping for Giuliani, of course. Put that out a day or so before the Democratic convention and let the Democrats go on TV and rail against him. See how much traction that gets. Or else they have to praise him, and at least by implication, the President who nominated him, and then they'll have a hard time voting against him. Tenet is already leaving, so it isn't desperation, and Democrats who want to score points by knocking Tenet have to gloss over that he is their guy to begin with.

At any rate, the Edwards pick is just a thing. I suspect that those who are saying that Cheney should be dumped because of Edwards would have said the same thing if it was Gephardt.

When your company is one of the top stories on Yahoo's finance pages, and is listed as a reason for a broader downturn in the NASDAQ.

Just saying.

I heard about this on Fox News this am:

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A group of armed, masked Iraqi men threatened Tuesday to kill Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search) if he did not immediately leave the country, accusing him of murdering innocent Iraqis and defiling the Muslim religion.

The threats revealed the deep anger many Iraqis, including insurgent groups, feel toward foreign fighters, whom many consider as illegitimate a presence here as the 160,000 U.S. and other coalition troops.

In a videotape sent to the al-Arabiya television station, a group calling itself the "Salvation Movement," questioned how al-Zarqawi could use Islam to justify the killing of innocent civilians, the targeting of government officials and the kidnapping and beheading of foreigners.

"He must leave Iraq immediately, he and his followers and everyone who gives shelter to him and his criminal actions," said a man on the video.

The video marked the first time that an Iraqi group made such a public threat against al-Zarqawi.

So the big kerfuffle now is that the United States spent Iraqi oil revenues on rebuilding Iraq. Weren't we just laughing at Wolfowitz for saying that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for rebuilding Iraq? And we were supposed to rush and spend the US appropriated money, just dispensing with such niceites as contracting rules and all that, right? I'm sure that would go over well.

A month ago I wrote this:

Of course, the invasion of Iraq was a month away at that point. Could Syria be about to learn the consequences of challenging us in Iraq?

Turns out the Iraqis are not all that happy that their neighbors are sending terrorists in to kill Iraqis:

Iraq's new government will this week publish evidence of ties between foreign countries, including Iran and Syria, and Muslim extremists and supporters of Saddam Hussein's regime who have launched an insurgency in the country.

Hoshyar Zebari, Iraqi foreign minister, told the Sunday Telegraph that his government had gathered information from intelligence services showing support by some neighbouring countries to the insurgents.

Money quote:

Zebari "even indicated that Iraq might not oppose attacks by American troops based in Iraq on neighbouring states if they were backing the insurgents," the Sunday Telegraph added.