JustOneMinute

Mr. Sullivan, Take Your Bow

Mr. Sullivan, Take Your Bow - And Extend Your Metaphor

It seems like only two weeks ago that many of us were having fun with the apparent disarray in the Bush Administration on its approach to Iraq. Powell wanted UN involvement and a new round of weapons inspections, Cheney wanted the US to go it alone - c'mon, guys, get it together. Andrew Sullivan, however, back from vacation and ready to blog, thoughtfully stroked his chin and ruminated about "good cop, bad cop".

Well, here we are, with Bush's resounding success at the UN. And when a plan, or a metaphor, is working, stay with it. Look, Bush's speech at the UN was simply a casting call, inviting foreign leaders to play good cop to his bad cop with Saddam Hussein.

Now, we loved the good cop-bad cop scene from LA Confidential: Russell Crowe dangling James Cromwell out of a tenth floor window by his ankles while Guy Pearce explained to him the wisdom of cooperation. So, let's recast our little project. Russell Crowe plays George Bush. Who does Guy Pearce play as the good cop? Kofi Anan? Chirac? Putin? We'll see. Slated for a bit of window-dangling, James Cromwell is clearly Saddam Hussein. Kevin Spacey will be a natural as Tony Blair. And who does that leave for the luscious Kim Basinger? Hmm, someone who knows the players, know the issues - hey, this fine lady has been in the news. Go to script.



Gazing Into the Future on Iraqi Errata

Will it be days, or weeks, until the NY Times delivers this insider account: Colin Powell, bureaucratic infighter extraordinaire, manipulated the media and his adversaries while bending the Bush White House to his implacable will? I only ask because it is received wisdom that Bush is not capable of this subtle a strategy.

And while on Powell, what should we do with all the stories of a frustrated, isolated Powell who was unlikely to finish out Bush's first term? Bluff, adroit media-manipulation, what? If you read the stories on-line, I have no advice. However, dead-tree versions should be ready for the bottom of the bird-cage, if you don't have a puppy to train.

Two Intriguing Social Experiments Launched

Two Intriguing Social Experiments Launched in Blogosphere

Hey now, not one, but TWO tests of the power of the Masters of the Blogosphere are underway. Hmm, will simultaneous testing invalidate the experiments? Anyway, here they are:

The Insta-man reports on a vicious "full frontal Fisking" of Ben Shapiro. Ben is an earnest, yet execrable young Righty writer, so the postings have a certain "Right on Right" note-worthiness. Hey, is that why my man at Pandagon was overlooked? Pandagon attracted some "right on right" in the comments, but who knew? Anyway, Social Experiment: Look for an upsurge in "right on right" assaults. Probably good for the Blogosphere, and heaven knows there are plenty of targets. Interesting test of Glenn's influence. And, bonus, say good-bye to "Has-Ben" Shapiro.

The second experiment is being conducted by Steven Den Beste. A while back, Dawn Olsen offered her thoughts on sexism in the blogosphere. Her thesis is that she ought to be able to run a site devoted mostly to soft porn and pictures of her fab bod, but on the rare occasions when she posts something on a serious subject, Den Beste, the Insta-man, and the rest of the A-list should link to her. Just like they link to, for example, me, whenever I say something sensible, me being a guy and all. That they do not is, of course, in Dawn's case sexist.

Oh, please. Still, from humble acorns mighty oaks can grow, so sometimes you need to start with a nut. From that laughable beginning, The Bear and Meryl Yourish kicked off a surprisingly lively and insightful discussion of sexism in the blogosphere. Ms. Bias was reliably sensible, but the best round-up of which I am aware is over at Meryl's site. Start here and work up, and down, and around. Just work it! I, of course, pitched two cents into that discussion as well, but I'm linked at Meryl's, and I seem to be light on linking today, so check it out there.

So, Social Experiment Two: Can anyone count the times Mr. Den Beste has counseled against appeasement, and against rewarding bad behavior in the Middle East? And what has he done here? Ignore substance, reward whining.... hey, I liked Glenn's experiment better.

So, depending on their relative clout, look for lots of "right on right" assaults, and a lot of whining about it. Oh, man. This could be a long couple of weeks. But I have to say, I'm a huge Clint Eastwood fan. There may be something for me here.

More Reaction to the Bush

More Reaction to the Bush Speech

Maybe not as important as Andrew Sullivan (below), but Reuters gives us the glowing headline and story: World Warns Iraq to Obey UN or Face Consequences

Starting to look like Saddam and a few Congressional Democrats versus the world.

The Blogger Barometer So, reaction

The Blogger Barometer

So, reaction to the Bush speech to the UN? Andrew Sullivan is dancing in the end-zone... sorry, showing off his home-run trot. He links to Slate and The New Republic, and graciously accepts their concession speeches.

Meanwhile, TAPPED offers "one fairly significant quibble with TNR" before switching to Janet Reno and Social Security. Rousing stuff, chaps.

And Eric Alterman salutes John Unitas, then prints a bunch of reader's letters before heading out for the holiday.

Presumably we will see a bit of a resurgence from the Left next week.

UPDATE: Oh, man, M Pine is looking like a Red Sox fan with these two posts: "DESPONDENT ON THE DEMS" and "BUSH AT THE UN".

I should not have skipped always-interesting Josh Marshall. Well, maybe I should have, because he is whining:

"...After reading the speech several times it seemed to me that when you peeled away the Cheney-esque bluster you had a Powell-esque policy.

No one is mentioning this. The White House had one policy. They hit a brick wall. Now they've changed policies.

And that's good. Because this is a better policy."

Right. This is so much easier than admitting that Powell has been Secretary of State from Day One, and that when Bush said he was studying his options he was, in fact, studying his options.

VERY LATE UPDATE: Saturday afternoon, and lefty quipster Bob Shrum finally delivers on Bush's speech. Worth the wait?

MORE: Smarter than your Above-Average Bear? And, scroll down to find a Josh Marshall fan. Which makes two of us, I should be clear, but not on this point. So, two "Pick-ems" for your Sunday card.

File This Headline Under "P"

File This Headline Under "P" for "Penny, Dropping"

Specter of Second Gulf War Hangs over Iraq Crisis

The Ever Changing Times My

The Ever Changing Times

My Dead Tree Times, Late Edition, with a front page supplement to the headline story about Bush's UN speech:

A New Face In the Sights
Bush Names Hussein Public Enemy No. 1
by Patrick E. Tyler

Your internet Times:

Bush Names Hussein Public Enemy No. 1
By PATRICK E. TYLER

Everything that is old is new again, as the editors eventually realized.

Not Yet Seen On A

Not Yet Seen On A New Hampshire License Plate

We expect to see Bush's speech to the UN summarized thusly:

Give Peace a Chance, or Die

Bush Releases Skunk; Congress Scatters

Bush Releases Skunk; Congress Scatters

A few profiles in courage from today's Times, as Congressional leaders respond to Bush's speech at the UN, with occasional emphasis added:

Bush's Address Draws Praise in Congress, but Doubts Linger
By ALISON MITCHELL

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — President Bush's call for the United Nations to confront Iraq drew wide support from Congress today, strengthening his hand and winning praise from lawmakers who had warned against unilateral American military action.

Even so, it was too soon to say whether the president's address setting out the case against Saddam Hussein was a turning point on Capitol Hill. Many Democrats said they still wanted to await action by the United Nations and a response from allies before voting on the use of force.

Emphasis added, and "lead, follow, or get out of the way" springs to mind.

But the criticism of the administration was tamped down. In contrast to just a week ago, more Republicans rallied to the president's side. One potential Democratic presidential contender, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, called for Saddam Hussein to be deposed.

Whoa. Let's look for quotes, because he is carving out some new turf in his party. Sorry, none in this story. Oh, dear.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, prominent Republican skeptic: "a compelling first step in laying out what a dangerous situation the world faces."

...Democratic leaders praised the president while staying noncommittal about a quick vote on Iraq.

Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader from South Dakota, said in a news conference that Mr. Bush "gave a strong speech today" and that he was "encouraged by his express desire to go to the international community."

For the first time, he said he considered it "likely" that Congress would vote on a resolution authorizing military force before it leaves in October. But then Mr. Daschle quickly backed away, saying, "I don't think anyone is committed to a course of action legislatively or militarily at this point."

Oooh, even the Times is noticing. Daschle can not run for President as Senate Majority Leader. Oh, another time.

...Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, the minority leader, said that the administration was still presenting its plan and that "it's not wise or possible now to be setting a timeline."

Gee, lots of project managers use timelines. Yeah, and leaders lead. And Congressman run nothing but a staff of twenty and their mouth.

...Senator Trent Lott, the minority leader from Mississippi, was joined at a news conference by a frequent adversary, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and pressed for a speedy vote on a resolution authorizing force.

Correction to Times: That would be "Saint John".

Lott: "I think it's vital for the Congress to show the world we back this president We must vote to show support for the president right now."

St. John: "I would not like, as a representative of the people of Arizona, to vote ex post facto I think that it would be important that Congress express its will before this military buildup [in Qater]."

...Many Democrats were still resisting a quick timetable, preferring to vote on the issue after November. They cited policy grounds and the dangers of the highly politicized atmosphere in the last weeks before an election when control of the House and Senate are at stake.

"Some issues are so serious, so important to the United States that they should be taken as far out of the realm of politics as possible," said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Delaware Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Gotta keep the politics out of politics. His opinion on keeping politicans out of politics was undisclosed.

More from Mr. Biden: it would be "somewhat foolish for the United States Senate to be up here essentially issuing a declaration of war" if action against Iraq could be averted.

Yeah, I think if we show a disunited front that is not ready to act, we will be taken more seriously in the negotiations. Look, I need to raise some quick cash. Does anyone know if Biden plays poker regularly, and can I get an invite to the game?

...Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said Congress needed to give the United Nations a legitimate opportunity to respond to Mr. Bush's challenge that it enforce Security Council resolutions against Iraq.

Someone, anyone, please go first.

More: Mr. Kerry suggested today that one avenue would be for Congress to pass a resolution calling on the United Nations to support the United States in holding Mr. Hussein accountable.

Sounds remarkably like a no-authorization, "sense of Congress", "won't you all play nice" resolution. Well, resolution has "resolute" as its root. Let's describe this as a hope, or a song, or a chant, or something. Hey, here's a little something for everyone: "Give peace a chance, or die!"

...Aides in each party said that if Mr. Bush seeks a resolution of force, majorities in the House and Senate would ultimately support him.

Well, the bottom line is at the bottom, but there it is. Some politicians may try to delay a one-way vote, and others of us will ridicule them every wriggle and waffle of the way.

UPDATE: Well, I won't be lonely in the ridiculing. Here is Bush himself, on the AP wires Friday:

"he mocked Democrats and other lawmakers who want U.N. action before a congressional vote.
"Democrats waiting for the U.N. to act?" Bush asked with chuckle. "I can't imagine an elected ... member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying 'I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision'."

Bush added, "It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States."

Just can't seem to keep the politicians away from the politics, after all. Hard luck, Joe.

More News From The Front

More News From The Front

OK, I'm jumping the gun - it's not a "front" yet. But here we get some encouraging info from our Saudi friends:

"This makes this region the most explosive region in the world".

Well, maybe just a few primer bombs will be enough then. Don't you hate trying to burn wet leaves?

Man Bites Notes The Man

Man Bites Notes

The Man Sans Qualite rips up his Notes on the Florida and New York primaries. And comes back for more.

Preserving the Fallback Position Iraqi

Preserving the Fallback Position

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri denied his country had weapons of mass destruction and said Baghdad still hoped to avoid any attack.

"But if we are attacked, we will choose our own means by using every thing at our disposal, even sticks, kitchen knives, our hands and stones," he said.

Intelligence analysts are scrambling for clues to determine Saddam's plan for the kitchen sink.

UPDATE: The Amish come up big. WARNING: Don't be drinking coffee or Coke while reading this. And there may be an archive bug, but just look around - can't go wrong at that site anyway.

Seen on the MSNBC Crawler

Seen on the MSNBC Crawler

"September 11 will not be remembered as a day when innocent lives were lost; it will be remembered as a day when heroes were born."

I'm paraphrasing from memory, and cannot provide attribution, but I expect we will see these words again.

A Personal 9/11 Observance Severe

A Personal 9/11 Observance

Severe windstorms are buffetting the New York City area, knocking down trees and power lines in the outlying suburbs. Although Utility crews are doing their best to keep the streets clear, driving on suburban streets in these conditions can be treacherous.

A tree had fallen just down the street from our house and was blocking a well traveled intersection. Only yesterday I had been clearing some branches around our yard with my eight year old son. Seeing the downed tree, his first words were, "Hey, Dad, we can clear that tree".

Hmmm. Cars squeezing by, high winds that could knock more branches onto our heads - don't they have people who do this for a living? On the other hand, could there be a better day to celebrate the power of individuals rallying to help the community? "Sure, kid, let's go for it". So, we donned some brightly colored clothing, gathered our saws and clippers, and set off down the street.

Now, for those of you who have not tackled this sort of project with an enthusiastic eight year old, there are a few simple rules: the saw you are using is the saw he needs; when you pick up the clippers, he was just about to use them; and the branch you are cutting is the one he was planning to cut. Master these rules, harness the energy, and marvel at the result.

The two of us had this tree outnumbered. My son cut and moved branches. I spent some time rescuing people from burning buildings, and some time fighting alongside my fellow passengers in the aisle of a hijacked plane, but mostly I cut branches too. Soon enough, the tree was a jumble of wood by the side of the road. Some passing morotists honked and waved to thanks us. Hey, some people got home one minute sooner because of our efforts. I give my son a big hug for a job well done. This is a day of hope.

What Time Does Bush Speak

What Time Does Bush Speak to the UN on Thursday?

The Judd Brothers think it is High Noon.

Note to Susan Sontag: the Judd Brothers post is an example of a metaphor.

9/11 Observance Susanna Cornett Jane

9/11 Observance

Susanna Cornett

Jane Galt

Brad DeLong with pictures and the Dave Barry column.

Pandagon

Lynn Sislo

Bit of a perma-link problem at some of these sites. Sorry.

These Chicks Just Don't Get

These Chicks Just Don't Get It!

NO, I would never say that! Regrettably, a Regular Reader would; deplorably, I will reprint (with permission) a bit of his fascinating e-mail.

As background, the blogosphere has been having a bit of a round-and-round about sexism in the blogosphere. Meryl Yourish seems to have the most comprehensive round-up, but look around because she is adding stuff. I also pointed out links to Susanna Cornett, and Diane E, author of "Letter from Gotham".

This reader was struck by the following comment from Ms. E:

"whatever certain male bloggers say is accepted and worthy of the blogosphere richochet; whereas if a woman were to say it, it would have been dismissed or ignored....

Example: me and Steven den Beste.

Steven den Beste is linked everywhere..."

And she goes on. In response to which, my Regular Reader offered the following:

"These chicks just don't get it! Hello, Diane, wake up and smell the Starbucks! Here is a nice double latte, no foam - Steven Den Beste gets no traffic. None! Look, he is a techie turned warblogger. He and a few of his accomplices have enslaved a bunch of networked PCs, probably at various campuses and corporations. These slave PCs in effect mimic very low-level DOS attacks on Den Beste's site, giving the appearance of huge traffic. I bet his only regular readers are him, his mom, and his cat, and if he ever posts four pages on his cat's dining habits, mom is logging off. Appearance drives reality, babe."

I didn't know that. And it seems a lot more plausible than the Turing Test I read about somewhere. So, Diane E, wherever you are, be of good cheer.

Somebody Had Their Camera Out

Somebody Had Their Camera Out

What Has the NY Times

What Has the NY Times Learned in the Past Year? Defend Civil Liberties!
The visual impact as one unfolds the Dead Tree Version of the NY Times is quite impressive. Susan Sontag, Nicholas Kristof, and Paul Krugman provide all the "op" pieces, which follow the theme of the lead editorial, titled "The War on Civil Liberties". Roughly half of the total space of two pages is devoted to the key lesson of the past year, namely, that we must jealously guard our civil liberties. And that is all we have learned?

Let's skip about here. From the lead editorial, we learn that "The 1,200 detainees rounded up after Sept. 11 and held in secret were mainly Muslim men with immigration problems...". Well, that is about how I remember it. In fact, it was crystal clear at the time that we had nothing to worry about from these guys.

Ms. Sontag: "Real wars are not metaphors. And real wars have a beginning and an end....But this antiterror war can never end. That is one sign that it is not a war but, rather, a mandate for expanding the use of American power."

Paul Krugman: "There will never be a day when we can declare terrorism stamped out for good. It will be more like fighting crime, where success is always relative and victory is never final, than like fighting a war.

And the metaphor we use to describe our struggle matters: some things that are justifiable in a temporary time of war are not justifiable during a permanent fight against crime, even if the criminals are murderous fanatics."

Hey, Krugman and Sontag - ever photographed together? Oh, cheap shot. Krugman's piece is actually reasonable and remarkably restrained. Several times he suggests a need for national sacrifice and comes as close as "But this emergency is neither severe nor temporary... So we had better figure out how to pay the government's bills on a permanent basis" to calling for an end to the Bush tax cut. But he holds back, and if I hadn't been staring at his piece right next to the others his point about civil liberties would have been unexceptionable.

Finally, in far and away the most balanced piece, Kristof: "When we look back at how our country has handled the last year, we have much to be hugely proud of — and, perhaps, one thing to be just a bit embarrassed about.

That's the way some people's civil liberties have been steamrolled since 9/11. I fear we'll look back on this with a hint of shame, much as we recall the abuse of "Reds" after the Bolshevik Revolution and of Japanese-Americans during World War II."

Well, the Times mentions the Padilla case, as it should. The internment of Japanese-American civilians as a response to an attack by the Japanese Navy required a logical leap I personally do not follow these many years later. However, I think most people look back on the Japanese American experience during WW II and focus on the fact that we won the war. Hindsight is 20/20, but if Bush had not rounded up some people with immigration problems, and another terrorist incident had occurred, there would have been no explanation. Will this be a permanent state of affairs going forward? Time will no doubt tell.

So, free advice for Democratic strategists: casting this as a war on civil liberties, and making the preservation of our civil liberties the centerpiece of criticism of the Bush administration, may help raise some Hollywood money. But it will, IMHO, have little to no resonance with the American public at large. People don't understand why Granny has to be strip-searched at the airport while the bearded Palestinian youth behind her gets welcomed aboard, and they will not understand why the Times is focussing on civil liberties virtually to the exclusion of all else in what seems to be a "what we have learned" retrospective.

UPDATE: The Brothers Judd challenge the "war as a metaphor for war" theme developed by Sontag and Krugman. Best of the Web joins in, with their "Stupidity Watch". Mind the criticism of Krugman comparing 9/11 to a natural disaster - he was speaking in terms of economic impact, as his comments make clear. Link thanks to Matthew Hot, traffic cop. And Andrew Sullivan also wonders if Sontag and Krugman were ever photographed together, although he elects to use the English language rather obscure code.

Judge Takes War on Drugs

Judge Takes War on Drugs to Court

The InstaPundit sent us to this site for something else, but what a great story from Colby Cosh. Go to the bottom of "Loose Ends" and look for:

"Courtesy of Fark:

SANTA ANA - The 20-year-old defendant told the judge that marijuana made him a better basketball player.

"Oh, yeah?" replied Judge Marc Kelly, peering down at Alvaro Alvarez, charged with pot possession. "I'm a 42-year-old man. I don't think you can take me on."

Follow the links. Great.

Night of the Zombies, Part

Night of the Zombies, Part XII

A timely, yet timeless, story from the NY Times:

"Desperate to defend the nation's banks from plunging share prices, Japanese lawmakers today introduced a plan to bolster the equity market..."

Care to guess the date? I know, its been a long decade, hasn't it. Fine, it's today. The latest apocalyptic accounting deadline is September 30. Until the next one.

The Shadow Descends Brad DeLong

The Shadow Descends

Brad DeLong has had some interesting pieces recently on challenges facing the European Central Bank as it tries to set an appropriate monetary policy for the Euro zone. Recently he offered a piece which described the ECB as maintaining a high interest rate policy in order to force the restructuring of failing Eurpean companies. "Not so fast!", said the Professor, although much less breathlessly - surely market forces, such as higher default premia, will raise interest rates for troubled companies regardless of the actions of the ECB. "All very well in theory", said some of his commenters, "but will the European governments actually allow the market to work, or will they keep troubled companies on life support?" Only time will tell.

And today, the Times tells, with the following headline: " Fall in France Télécom Shares Raises Pressure for Rescue". Now, they are 55% state owned, but still, where is the market discipline? A bit of selective excerpting gives us:

"Other options on the table include a government loan or loan guarantee to France Télécom; government help in lining up a refinancing plan with creditor banks; a sale of fresh stock in France Télécom; or a mixture of remedies."

This does not necessarily mean that the ECB policy makes sense, IMHO. However, it leaves me wondering if the Professor has further thoughts on the way forward for the ECB, or would like to point us to people that do.

Michael Pine, Call Your Blog

Michael Pine, Call Your Blog

In "JEWISH MONEY, BLACK CANDIDATES", M Pine tells us that the McKinney and Hilliard defeats do not bode poorly for the Democratic Party alliance between blacks and Jews, and he has the Weekly Standard piece to prove it. Well, my NRO says differently. Edward B. Miller, "an attorney practicing in New York and formerly a Republican pollster", opens with this:

" For some time now, Jewish voters have been disproving the old adage that Jews live like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. Republican incumbents such as New York's George Pataki and Ohio's George Voinovich, and recent Republican officeholders like New York's Rudy Giuliani and Al D'Amato and Massachusetts's Bill Weld each won more than 40 percent of the Jewish vote in one of their campaigns. However, if the recent division between blacks and Jews in the Democratic party continues to grow, these politicians will no longer be the exception and Jewish support for Republicans will be the rule."

And he goes on to explain why. Eye-catching stat: "Jews raise at least one-third of all Democratic funds". OK, M Pine says "Jews... donate in amounts staggeringly disproportionate to their numbers". Fine, but one-third? How would Edwards know? And what about his thesis that US policy towards Israel will increasingly divide blacks and Jews?

So, M Pine and Nathan Newman have been on this, but of course all comers are welcome. Gentlemen?

Sound and Fury on the

Sound and Fury on the Central Park Jogger

The NY Times discusses new information on the 1989 Central Park Jogger case here, and here. The Sound and Fury has more, and some blog links, but not this one.

UPDATE: YES, I have an opinion on this. The NY Times is in no hurry to exonerate the five men already convicted for this crime (they have already served their time and are out), and neither am I. And, since the Times presents the scenarios so succintly, let me excerpt them:

"Another man who raped the jogger has come forward, and proof that he did it has been established. He says he acted alone, a claim that if true would seem to exonerate the five convicted in the case.

But the man, a murderer-rapist serving life in prison, could be lying; or, even if he is not, it might have happened that the others came along after, before or during his attack, investigators say."

Max Power, of Sound and Fury, also points out that these boys were not busted at a Sunday School picnic:

"The convicted rapists were not innocent bystanders; they were part of a gang of youths engaged in a crime spree that attacked nine other people...I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone whose best argument is that it was a coincidence that they were mugging someone else feet away from where someone was raped and permanently brain-damaged."

This sentiment was memorably expressed by Gene Hackman in in the Clint Eastwood classic "Unforgiven". Told that he had just "kicked the shit out of an innocent man", Hackman replied coldly, "innocent of what?".

So, we wait and see what they are innocent of. If anything.

Ain't No Way To Treat

Ain't No Way To Treat a Lady

But it's how we treat bloggers, especially Playful Primates. Meryl Yourish has a post addressing sexism in the blogosphere. Now, full disclosure: I am a regular reader of at least three sites that love, not like but love, Meryl. I have read a million good things about her, and she has an interesting, thought provoking blog. That said, I thought her post on sexism was daft. Oh, that's not right - let's say it could have been a lot better.

First, I had no problem with her advice to Dawn. If Dawn wants her motto to be "My ass is my blog", and present pictures of her evidently red-hot bod, well, go for it. But don't be surprised if people overlook your PhD in nuclear physics.

My puzzlement starts here, and I will excerpt freely:

"The problem here is that there are two issues. The first is the issue of sexism: Do the A-listers link more often to male bloggers and ignore female bloggers? Do the guys have an online boys club where they check their buddies out first? Was it sheer coincidence that NZ Bear shot up to the top of the blogosphere? Or was it sexism, as no female blogger has ever garnered the attention he received quite so quickly? (We're talking pre-ecosystem—Glenn Reynolds, Bill Quick, and Stephen Green treated Bear like a long-lost brother returned home....

The answer to the first question: Yes, I think there is sexism in the blogosphere, and it is for the most part unintentional. I was working on a post on that topic months ago, and as a for-instance, I checked the blogrolls of the weblogs I visited regularly and discovered an appalling ratio of female-to-male bloggers on blogrolls. As I recall, the best ratio around was on Bruce Hill's War Now!, but it was still a pretty pathetic ratio, something like only 14%. And even more surprising, most women bloggers had abysmal female-to-male blogger ratios on their blogrolls."

OK, most men, and most women, link to other men. Is there an obvious follow-up question?

"The larger question which begs to be asked, of course, is whether or not there are that few women writing warblogs, techblogs, or other "serious" blogs. The answer: I think so..... it does appear that the majority of "serious" weblogs— the non-journals, non-frivolous political or tech blogs—are still overwhelmingly written by men."

Well, if most blogs are by men, then why, exactly, is it sexist if most links are to men? Is there some approved link ratio to which we should aspire to ease our male guilt?

Oh, I'm not going to rant. Meryl did not even seem to have convinced herself. And the story of the Bear is just one story - if most bloggers are men, then most of the (rare) supernovas will be men.

So, new direction - why so few woman bloggers? Presuming that to be the case, of course, and I am prepared to. Well, let me throw out some ideas, and duck for cover:

Blogging is a hobby: Men come home form work and blog, women come home from work and mind the kids and the home.

More on "Blogs are a hobby": Blogging can involve a lot of vigorous debate - look at Eric Alterman, author of "Altercations", or the round and round with Andrew Sullivan or Paul Krugman. Now, I am not saying that women can not be effective and forceful advocates: the notion of a young Maggie Thatcher running a blog would strike terror into the hearts of many. But as a pleasant way to spend an evening, there is an old idea that men seek confrontation and women seek consensus. Hey, if you can't take the heat, get back in the kitchen! Maybe if more women were blogging, the atmosphere would change, but right now I can see where a calm, reasonable person might prefer a different pasttime.

It's Insidious: Check the regular columnists at the NY Times - Maureen Dowd and seven men. I haven't checked the NRO, but go ahead.

It's The World: Most bloggers, based on casual observation and vague memories of what might have been a Volokh post, are lawyers, economists, journalists, techies, or right wing cranks (I needed a category for myself). Do any of these categories have a 50/50 male/female ratio?

And, Bold Idea: If sexism is really a problem, try anon-a-blogging. George Sand may be taken, but the pros and cons have been exhaustively and exhaustingly covered.

Look, I have no doubt that Meryl is an intelligent and reflective woman who has something sensible to say about sexism in the blogosphere. I'm just sort of wondering when she will say it.

UPDATE: Brad DeLong is not sexist. Well, I say that based on my acquaintance with his written work, but it is a point I am prepared to defend long after I have exhausted the patience and good will of anyone arguing to the contrary. So, my point? Over the weekend, the Professor provided an economist's dozen of cool econo-blogs. A feast for economics junkies, and all the bloggers are male. Go figure.

UPDATE 2: Susanna Cornett is quite sensible on this subject, and the sun rises in the East.

For a complete round-up, check out Meryl Yourish, who has several posts, so look around. Having taken some cold medicine, she is kicking ass and taking names.

Diane E. thinks that, if not for sexism, people would now she was da best. And Jane G joins in.

And hey, its A Rod, P Diddy, and M Pine. What's up with Diane E and Jane G? This is what I'm talking about. So, J Galt. Can't seem to help with Diane, so make it DE.

Zell Miller Stands Up And

Zell Miller Stands Up And Is Counted - Twice

Zell Miller is a Red State Democratic Senator from Georgia, who has been a somewhat reliable Republican vote, as, for example, on the tax cut. So we might expect an uncertain stand on the Iraq question. However, writing in Sunday's Washington Post, Sen Miller takes the concept of "fully supportive non-support" to new heights. Here we go:

Questions for the Commander in Chief

When it comes to showing deference to our president in a time of war, I doubt there are many who have more respect for him as a leader and an individual than I do....

I also believe he has gathered together the finest national security team since Harry Truman had George Marshall.

So, when it comes to expanding the war on terrorism to Iraq, I stand with the president and I will not criticize his judgment. He has already made the case with me, and I am convinced that Saddam Hussein has to go.

OK, so far I think we can infer that he backs the President.

But I always like to run things by my focus group back home, and lately the comments from my focus group tell me that the folks out there in Middle America, sitting around their kitchen tables, have questions that need to be answered before we march our soldiers into Iraq.

Oh, no, here we go.

Now, my focus group is not one of those formal meetings where you pay people to sit around a conference table in an office building. It's a very informal chat with the regulars at Mary Ann's Restaurant, up the street from my home in rural Young Harris, Ga. They are construction workers, retired teachers, farmers, preachers and the waitresses who chime in with their opinions as they pour coffee and bring more biscuits. Several of these folks have previously worn the uniform of this country, some in combat. Not an Ivy Leaguer in the bunch. Not a single one reads the New York Times, The Washington Post or the Weekly Standard. And their television time is devoted mainly these days to the evening news and to watching the Braves, who are close to clinching another division pennant.

Voices of the heartland. And if the Braves are close to clinching, then they must be close to getting bounced from the play-offs. Sorry, re-focus.

I jotted down some of the questions that they want the president to answer in building a case for going to Iraq.

(1) Even if Hussein has nukes, does he have the capability to reach New York or Los Angeles or Atlanta?

(2) The old Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear missiles for decades, many of them capable of reaching our major cities, and yet we didn't get into a war with the Soviets. The president needs to explain why Iraq is different.

(3) Who will join with us in this war and what share will they be willing to bear? (There was also some grumbling about our boys in Afghanistan "just doing guard duty" to protect those warlords.)

(4) What happens after we take out Hussein? How long will our soldiers be there? And, again, with whose help?

(5) There is concern about too much deployment. We've got our soldiers stationed all over the world. Someone needs to bring us up to date on where they all are, why they are there and how long our commitment to keep them there is.

(6) How does our plan in Iraq fit in with the whole Middle East question? How will it affect Israel? How will it affect our war on terrorism? Does taking Saddam out help or hurt that entire messy situation?

(7) At Mary Ann's Restaurant, Tony is all right. But Putin is not. Why are we putting so much trust in him? Is he still with us in the war on terrorism, or was that just so much talk at a photo op?

(8) The people at Mary Ann's know very well who fights our wars -- the kids from the middle-class and blue-collar homes of America. Kids like their grandchildren. They want to hear the president say that he knows and understands that.

(9) Forgive my bluntness, but these folks also want to hear the president and the vice president say that this war is not about oil.

(10) They also want to hear an explanation of why we didn't take care of this in the Persian Gulf War, and why it is on our doorstep again so soon.

None of the above in any way should be interpreted as my backing down in my support of the president's effort. His position and his principles have already made the case with me. I write this in the spirit of trying to get a better explanation for the folks back home and the folks across Middle America. Those folks who love their country very much and who respect their president, but who need a few more answers.

OK, now I am at sea. Is good old Zell saying that he does not himself know, or care, what the answers to these questions might be, that he supports the President regardless? Seems like a bit of a suspension of the old critical faculties for one of our nation's erstwhile "leaders".

Or is Zell telling us that, in the comfort of Mary Ann's Restaurant, his constituents look him in the eye, listen to his explanations, and don't believe him? Or they do believe him, but he's only a Senator and that doesn't count? Or that, although he completely supports the President, that support does not extend as far as trying to explain the President's policies to his own constituents? Or what? The only firm conclusion one can draw from this article is that the breakfast menu at Mary Ann's Restaurant includes waffles. And at least one Senator is serving them.

Tomorrow's Kaus-Files Today A NY

Tomorrow's Kaus-Files Today

A NY Times/CBS News poll is out. How is it covered?

CBS News:
Poll: Don't Go It Alone On Iraq

(CBS) There's no question most Americans would like to see Saddam Hussein removed from power in Iraq, something a majority has wanted since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll.

But while they approve of U.S. military action to try to remove him, and believe war against Iraq is inevitable, most would prefer to wait -- for the U.N. to try to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq, for President Bush to get the approval of Congress, and for U.S. allies to join in.

NY Times:

Poll Finds Unease on Terror Fight and Concerns About War on Iraq
By ADAM CLYMER and JANET ELDER

Americans increasingly doubt that their government has done enough to protect them against terrorist attacks and are convinced, despite misgivings, that there will be a war against Iraq, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows. Majorities do not want war without Congressional and allied support first and a clear explanation from President Bush.

Oh, Those Unilateral French! The

Oh, Those Unilateral French!

The InstaPundit points us to a fascinating piece in the Washington Times. While the US has been slugging it out with the rest of the world on questions surrounding the International Criminal Court, the French negotiated a seven year exemption for themselves back in 1998. Why didn't we think of that?

The John Kerry for President

The John Kerry for President PR People Die And Go To Heaven

How about this front page of the NY Times? Stand tall and pledge allegiance, Big John! And, a nice piece inside with Bill Keller. Keller provides a retraction of an earlier dig at Kerry, denounces the "chicken hawk" argument, and beams at this Presidential hopeful. A big day for Big John, and for people who laugh out loud at the subtle politics of the NY Times.

Marketing Mavens At Work When

Marketing Mavens At Work

When I go to check out the Andrew Sullivan analysis of Frank Rich at Salon, the page has a space for a pop-in ad. This ad has been either for vodka or gin. Targeted to just me, or do the demographers believe that a Sullivan-Rich combo will drive anyone to drink? It's working!



Oakland A's Streak Ends, Not With a Bang, But With a Whimper

Alex and Derek King Are

Alex and Derek King Are Found Guilty; Rick Chavis Acquited

The District Attorney's office and the State of Florida would have faced a major embarrassment if the now-unsealed verdict in the Rick Chavis trial had also come back "guilty". Asked to comment on this, the prosecutor said "Hey, I'd rather be lucky than good."

NO, of course he didn't say that, that's Yankee legend Lefty Gomez. I am not kidding about the verdicts, however - follow the link, and have a nice weekend.

UPDATE: OK, more on this from Reuters. And apparently, only We, the People were actually in suspense on the Chavis verdict. Hmm, that means the prosecutor also knew that in the King brothers trial he was playing for keeps. Defense attorneys see grounds for appeal - well, one would hope so.

Due To Technical Difficulties, The

Due To Technical Difficulties, The Invisible Man Will Not Be Seen Tonight

Can we make it up to you with a Claude Raines Gambling Awareness Award?

Note To Starbucks - You

Note To Starbucks - You Should Sponsor This Guy

A quick look at the old traffic meter, and I'm agog. Hey, Atrios! Do your readers ever sleep?

The Man Who Would Be

The Man Who Would Be President

John Kerry address Iraq and manages to put himself squarely on both sides of the fence. I could learn a lot from this guy! Excerpts, please:

"It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to — not because we want to....

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein — the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism — should be the last step, not the first....

There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home....

For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

So, he objects to the process but seems to favor the result. Congressional approval, but no new UN resolutions (I added the emphasis). It should be multi-lateral, unless we have to go it alone. Got it.

Not Your Grandfather's War My

Not Your Grandfather's War

My man Andrew pounced on Frank Rich, and set off questions as to when Saddam was put in Bush's cross-hairs. CBS News, with a breathless account of Rumsfeld doing his job, also caught the imagination of Alterman, although Atrios seemed to be more measured. So, in response to Rich's comment that "We are now gearing up to fight another war that has been grandfathered into the war on terrorism", Andrew gave us this:

"The point is that the president stated his hope of removing Saddam Hussein even before he took office. 9/11 showed that we were even more vulnerable to his weapons of mass destruction than we thought before. This war against Saddam is therefore not new nor improvised nor in any way "grandfathered" onto any other war. It is now and long has been a critical element in securing the safety of the citizens of the United States."

True? A modest hint can be found in James Baker's piece of August 25 (now NY Times premium): "And thus regime change in Iraq is the policy of the current administration, just as it was the policy of its predecessor." Or, if you don't believe Old Jim, check this timeline, or the short version, which I further shorten:

"April 3, 1991: U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 687. It includes many demands but states that once Iraq complies with the weapons inspection regime, the sanctions "shall have no further force or effect."

May 20, 1991: James Baker, Secretary of State: "We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power."

January 13, 1993: Incoming President Clinton: "If he [Hussein] wants a different relationship with the United States and the United Nations, all he has to do is change his behavior."

January 14, 1993: Clinton backtracks: "There is no difference between my policy and the policy of the present Administration.... I have no intention of normalizing relations with him."

January 12, 1995: While inspections were taking place, Ambassador Madeleine Albright said the U.S. was "determined to oppose any modification of the sanctions regime until Iraq has moved to comply with all its outstanding obligations." She specifically cited the return of Kuwaiti weaponry and non-military equipment.

March 26, 1997: Albright, in her first major foreign policy address as Secretary of State: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions.... And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful."

November 14, 1997: Clinton: [When Iraq broke the inspections regime] "What he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the end of time or as long as he lasts." "

Go, Maddy. Go, Bill.

Your Reservation Is Confirmed Arab

Your Reservation Is Confirmed

Arab foreign ministers warned on Thursday that military action to topple Saddam Hussein would "open the gates of hell". Good. No reason to keep Saddam waiting outside - he's been expected for some time now.

UPDATE: Swiss watches tick, and the Amish spot this.

We Happy Few, We Band

We Happy Few, We Band Of Brothers

How are we doing on the other side of the pond with respect to Iraq? The Man sans Qualite presents the declaration of war by "The Economist". Against Iraq, yes. Volokh the Elder delivers the Times of London, which advocates "political support and armed assistance" for the US.

And how about Tony Blair, the Battling Brit himself? Andrew Sullivan swooned over his press conference from a few days back. Blair having a "Thatcher moment"? That's up there with "Churchillian". John Derbyshire at the NRO is hoping we were all on vacation, but no, we remember his piece on Blair. A quote, to intrigue you? How about: "Blair is a clever little chap, though, and he will find a way to retain the affection of his party, and probably of the electorate, too, by ratting on us." Hey, Derby's horse may yet come in; Tony's just climbing the wrong way on the pole right now, if I may mix my metaphors.

OK, beyond Blair, we have some Straw-man arguments. But I mean that in a good way.

So, will the Brits answer the bell? C'mon, they are fighters, not lovers.

Meanwhile, the current German Chancellor has weighed in against an Iraqi war. Hmm, Brits with us, Germans against us - haven't we cashed this ticket before?

UPDATE: NO, the "band of brothers" isn't the Doobys. And please put yours out, this is a no-smoking blog. Here's a source.

Sometimes Nothing Is A Real

Sometimes Nothing Is A Real Cool Hand

But that doesn't mean you get rid of your best cards to leave yourself nothing. M Pine explains poker to his fellow Democrats.

The InstaPundit Asks Himself One

The InstaPundit Asks Himself One Question On Iraq

What would JC do? Know that, and you know the path of wisdom.

There's The Easy Way, And

There's The Easy Way, And There's The Oakland A's Way

Over 55,000 fans jammed the Oakland A's park to see if they could beat the Royals and set an American league record with twenty straight wins. Fans enjoy the game and the beer when the A's go up 11-0 after three innings. But not so fast! The Royals score five in the eighth and one more in the ninth to tie the score at eleven. Then, Oakland gets the walk-off homer from Scott Hatteberg to win 12-11. OK, I'm a Yankees fan and Oakland is my worst nightmare, but this is great baseball.

Susanna Cornett on the World

Susanna Cornett on the World Trade Center

And Rand Simberg with an optimistic perspective.

I Wish I Were In

I Wish I Were In The Land of Cotton

"Old Tom" takes us back to a time and place when conservatives really were evil, liberals were good, the Feds were good and States were evil - Has time re-written every line? I guess we should try to remember.

I'm Fed Up With The

I'm Fed Up With The Passive Voice

The mysterious Juan Non-Volokh offers this on the Norah Vincent imbroglio: NORAH VINDICATED? It seems the tide is turning against charges that Norah Vincent plagiarized.

Wrong. It seems Juan Non-Volokh turned the tide. Well done, and a "Golden Canute" for the mystery man.

UPDATE: I am having a serious problem with attribution. The "Golden Canute", for those who missed the press conference, is based on the story of this man. The nine-inch statuette has been shipped, and Mr. Non-Volokh should be receiving a parcel from United Parcel Express or Federal Service shortly.

Tom Friedman Salutes The Flag,

Tom Friedman Salutes The Flag, Apple Pie, And My Mom

Totally Co-opted, or "Apocalypse When?"

Totally Co-opted, or "Apocalypse When?"

First it was the blessing of Andrew Sullivan. The next day, enthusiastic Euro-bashing. But the Seventh Seal will be broken when DeLong begins fact-checking Krugman. When?

The Road To Baghdad Foreign

The Road To Baghdad

Foreign leaders

Ehud Barak, Israeli PM 1999-2001 on the next step: "But at the end of the day, given the world as it is, a [new] Security Council resolution is a must."

Tony Blair on Saddam: "The threat posed by the current Iraqi regime is real."; "Either the regime starts to function in a completely different way, or the regime changes"; "How we deal with it, as I have said to you on many occasions, is under discussion. But that we have to do it is not in doubt."

Blair on UN Resolutions: "The Iraqi regime know perfectly well what they have to do. There is no negotiation about this. They have a complete and total obligation to let the weapons inspectors back in any time, any place, anywhere. They've had that obligation for 10 years. It's there in the United Nations resolutions. It doesn't need to be negotiated."

Well, a current British PM trumps a former Israeli PM. No new resolutions are necessary is how I hear that. Anything else?

[Blair] promised that the British government would, in the next few weeks, publish a dossier outlining Mr. Hussein's program to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. "I think that when that happens, people will see that there is no doubt at all." Similar to the run-up to Afghanistan. Strong words from the Fighting Brit.

Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister" "We are ready to cooperate with the United Nations. If the question of so-called weapons of mass destruction is a genuine concern by the U.S., then the matter could be dealt with."

And, in a bit of an Alphonse/Gaston improv, "In a new poll, 6 out of 10 Europeans said they would favor an American-led invasion of Iraq if the United States first receives the support of allies and the United Nations." Ahh, meaning they would support it if they support it? Good to know.

Meanwhile, on the domestic front:

Colin Powell, ever the diplomat: "He also said that Mr. Cheney's case against inspections — which he called "powerful" and "vivid" — was not entirely different from his own position. They agree, he said, that the goal is to eliminate Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. The debate is over how.

"The issue is not the inspectors," he said. "The issue is disarmament."

and: "President Bush would decide "in the very near future" what that action should be."

On September 12 Bush will address the UN General Assembly. Hard to see him reading from Hamlet.

Senators:

Trent Lott, (Rep, Mississippi): "I do think that we're going to have to get a more coherent message together"

Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the majority leader: "I think most Democrats believe that the president has yet to make the case for taking action in Iraq. That hasn't been done."

Larry E. Craig of Idaho, the third-ranking member of the Senate Republican leadership, said that if a vote were held today he would oppose military action against Iraq "because I don't think the case has been made to the American people."

And John McCain (R., AZ): "I believe technically the president is not required to come to Congress; politically, I believe it would be foolish not to. I think it would be good for the country to have the debate here."


OK, what does it mean? Fortunately, I have my crystal ball working. First, the UN. Apparently they are opening the meeting two weeks early to accomodate the US. Heads of State here for 9/11 ceremonies will be able to hear George Bush address the UN General Assembly on Sept. 12. Now, what are the rules for the care and feeding of diplomats? They like to feel important, and they like to duck controversy. Bush will thank them for their continued support and deliver both bad news and good news - the UN has been flouted (bad), but fortunately, the Security Council has already acted. Based on existing resolutions, the US is announcing a weapons inspection regime. Saddam can take it or leave it - no more chit-chat. And, I expect, compliance will be damn near impossible.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Congress recesses for the elections in early October. So, consultations between the White House and Congress begin this week. We will have new evidence, some debate, and a token vote authorizing the implementation of existing UN resolutions. The plan will be for Congress to be involved, yet off the hook, since this is not a vote any one wants to be a part of just before an election.

Therefore, in an amazing flurry after a peculiar summer, the UN and the Congress fall into line in the next month. And then what? Presumably a truncated weapons inspection dance, and war. We'll see soon enough if I am right about any of this.

UPDATE: Oh, why do I bother? I have a crystal ball, you have news services. Bush speaks after his meeting with Congressional leaders.

Something To Chew On The

Something To Chew On

The Economist looks at the American diet. Meanwhile, in the "new Coke" move of 2002, McDonalds announces it will change the oil it uses for french fries. Less filling! Tastes great! And finally, in a special plea to Jane Atkins and other high-protein thrill seekers: please, please DON"T EAT BATS! I mean, you'd have to be bats. Belfry-wise, that is.

TAPPED Delivers An X-Files Script

TAPPED Delivers An X-Files Script

What a great conspiracy! In a moment of hubris, TAPPED also thinks they have Mickey's number. (Study the link reference for more TAPPED humor). However, as ths TAPPED post shows in the P.P.P.S, they're still a step behind. A poetry excerpt then:

None has ever caught him yet, for [Mick] he is the master;
His songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster.

You really shouldn't need a hint, but here is one: this character did not make it into the first movie.

Death Takes a Holiday So

Death Takes a Holiday

So maybe Deceit does too.

Hope You Enjoyed the Weekend.

Hope You Enjoyed the Weekend. Now, Back to Business:

Nicholas Kristof Hates the Farm Bill

I hereby promise to link to any favorable mention of the farm bill that I run across. No bull.



More Law and Order in the Sunshine State

"Two Opposing Theories in a Murder, and Both Are the Prosecution's" says the Times. Maybe Alex and Derek King were telling the truth when they confessed, or maybe they were telling the truth when, four months later, they implicated Rick Chavis. Too confusing for the prosecutors to sort out, but they weren't short of great ideas: let's have two trials, two juries, and maybe convict all three defendants!

Could it be something in the orange juice? That's why I've switched to beer for breakfast.



Krugman Smacks Greenspan On The 90's Asset Bubble

Greenspan delivered a stirring "How could I have known; what could I have done" speech at an economic conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, which the Times summarizes here. Paul Krugman's response, titled "Passing the Buck", says....well, it says the buck stops there, at Greenspan's desk. Left unmentioned are two other wonder-boys of the 90's expansion, Rubin and Clinton. Well, perhaps the buck really does stop at the Fed Chairman's desk, although Harry Truman thought otherwise. Brad DeLong offers an "efficient markets" defense of Greenspan, for those not inclined to believe in the superior wisdom of our leaders.



Election Season Underway

Could "The Torch" be passing in New Jersey?

Putting His Cards On The

Putting His Cards On The Table

The Economist reviews what we smilingly refer to as the public relations campaign of the Bush Administration on Iraq. Although unconvinced, they do make the following points regarding the general skepticism:

"But three reservations need to be expressed. First, the administration has only just begun to make its case more clearly. Mr Bush, who has not weighed in recently, is due to address the UN General Assembly on September 12th. Second, the administration needs to hold off making its case with full vigour until it is nearly ready to launch a military action; otherwise it risks adding frustration to disagreement. Third, Mr Bush may get allied support only on the brink of war, or even after bombing has started. As Mr Rumsfeld insisted, “leadership in the right direction finds followers.” "

They left out point four: Real men never pull over and ask for directions.