Quote of the Day (and maybe the week) on Cinderfellerblogger via Spleenville:

Taking away a postmodernist's scare quotes is like stealing the white stick from a blind man.

 
Ozblogger Tim Bleyahh reports that Australia has been invaded. Let us all rally to the side of one of America's closest friends in the world. I've done my part. The following letter has been sent to the Royal Palace in Oslo:


Their Royal Highnesses King Harald and Queen Sonya
Oslo, Norway

Dear Harry and SonyaBaby:

It has come to my attention that the Kingdom of Norway has mounted an invasion of the Commonwealth of Australia. I must protest this action in the strongest terms.

Norway has violated every precept of international law by sending blonde, blue eyed nursing students to invade Australia. Bubbelahs, what were you thinking?! Absolutely NO ONE in Australia will appreciate them. I mean, just take a look at Margo Kingston, for God's sake. All right, maybe the odd ozblogger or two would take note, but even if they did, THEY WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY CHEESECAKE (uh, ART, yeah, that's what I meant, ART) to accompany the announcement.

Take some advice from an American who knows: Task Force NorgeNurse would be much more effectively deployed on the northeast coast of the United States, say in the proximity of that well known center of culture, military power and finance, West Orange, New Jersey.

Think of the possibilities! If your invasion is successful in establishing a beachhead, you will lay claim to the most heavily developed, most productive area in the United States, itself the premier industrial center of the world. Using the just Garden State Parkway, Task Force NorgeNurse will have easy access to New York City, Atlantic City (shitty beaches, but they have casinos), Asbury Park (maybe you can arrange to take Bruce Springsteen as a POW), Wildwood (nice beaches, no casinos) and the Tappan Zee Bridge. The New Jersey Turnpike gives NorgeNurse access to Philadelphia, Delaware and beyond that, Baltimore and Washington. (Stay away from Washington for now, though. Trust me, this is not a good time to march a regiment of nurses armed with hypodermic needles and enema bags down Pennsylvania Avenue. You'd scare the hell out of Congress. Maybe in a month or so, when Congress adjourns. You can spend that time to your advantage consolidating your hold on West Orange.)

I will grant you there are drawbacks: You would inherit some minor problems, like whether to build the New Jersey Nets a new basketball arena and skyrocketing health and auto insurance rates. And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that North Jersey probably has more lawyers per capita than anywhere else on the face of the earth. (Full disclosure: I am one of them.) But no great adventure is entirely free from risk.

But the real beauty of the proposed deployment of Task Force NorgeNurse to West Orange is that, even if you later decide that West Orange (and everything else that comes with it, like the McDonald's franchise and the summer home of the former world champions of ice hockey, the New Jersey Devils) was not worth the trouble, all you have to do is withdraw, announce that you are defeated and apply for (and receive!) massive amounts of foreign aid. You guys have seen The Mouse that Roared, no?

Awaiting the opening of hostilities, I remain

Yours in anticipated Nordic bliss,

Carey Gage

 
From CNN:
Just the kind of doctor I wanted: The kind that shows great judgment.

Law enforcement sources told CNN Friday the three medical students who were stopped as a result of a possible terrorist threat may have been playing a prank on a restaurant patron, who overheard them talking and laughing about September 11.

A federal law enforcement source said investigators were considering that theory strongly, and that he would "be very surprised" if it were not true...

The three medical students were pulled over in the early hours Friday following an alert issued for one of their vehicles after Eunice Stone said she overheard the three men making the suspicious comments in a Shoney's restaurant in north Georgia.

Stone, who was eating with her 18-year-old son, said the men were laughing about the terrorist attacks on the United States and even made a comment that if Americans "were sad on 9/11, wait until 9/13."

 
From MSNBC:

Americans are living longer than ever before, but they are overweight and physically lazy and spend far more on health care than any other country in the world, the government said on Thursday in its annual review of the nation’s health.

What do you mean "but"?

Americans are living longer than ever precisely because they spend far more on health care. And, since I am overweight and lazy, I devoutly hope that Americans are living longer than ever because they are overweight and physically lazy.

Too much to ask for? Yeah, you're probably right.

The headline to the story says that the gains in life expectancy might be endangered by obesity. What the CDC is reported as actually saying is:

"Death rates for diabetes, along with the number of cases, are climbing, largely the result of a sharp increase in obesity.

As Americans make gains in health areas, they are endangering their health by become overweight and by failing to exercise, the report said. This is especially worrying when it comes to children and teen-agers."

But the "obesity epidemic" has been around for quite some time, and life expectancy is still rising to new records.

I think MSNBC ought to reconsider that headline.

 
In the Washington Times:

In Ohio, a state office building was evacuated after a man told an employee he was there to install a bomb...

In Columbus, Ohio, a 41-story state office tower that houses the Ohio Supreme Court was evacuated for about two hours yesterday after dogs detected a scent of explosives and a man told a state worker, "I'm here to install a bomb," the State Highway Patrol said.

No explosives were found, and Oscar Sesmas, 35, of Columbus was taken into custody and charged with inducing panic.

More from the Columbus Dispatch (registration required):

He looked straight at me and said: 'Yes. I'm looking for a place to hide a bomb.' ''

"I just froze. I must have turned white because he looked back at me and then, in very broken English, said he was there to put up some vinyl blinds. But I couldn't answer.''

"Vinyl blinds"/"Hide a bomb". Broken English (meaning heavily accented).

Unless the man was carrying an al Qaeda business card, I'm not at all convinced that he said "hide a bomb".

Assuming that he did say it, I will grant you that it was a dumb (not to mention insensitive) thing to say, especially on September 11. But announcing that you are there to hide a bomb constituting "causing panic" and resulting in an evacuation of a 40 plus story building?

Someone needs to get a grip.

 
Drudge relays a report in the Washington Post:

Iraqi newspapers marked the anniversary of Sept. 11 with banner headlines describing the terrorist attack as "God's Punishment" against America, and ordinary Iraqis also voiced anger at a country they fear might be preparing an invasion of their country.

I don't know whether this was a punishment from God, and neither do they. But some of them will have the opportunity to ask God about it in person. Soon, I hope.

Damian Penny reminded me of the 1991 incident in which Saddam took civilians as hostages:

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, troops seized about 1,200 expatriate Britons. On Saddam's orders they were placed at key installations as "human shields". Their presence, Saddam reasoned, would deter allied air strikes.

The tactic prompted worldwide revulsion, especially when Saddam was filmed trying to create favourable propaganda by urging a five-year-old boy, Stuart Lockwood, from Worcester, to sit on his knee. The terrified boy refused.

For that alone, the man deserves to die.

 
This is why its called a special relationship.

Via Instapundit

Also through the professor, a reminder from September 16, 2001:

When Jeremy Glick called his wife, his first question was an attempt to confirm something another passenger had heard on his spousal call: was the World Trade Center story true?

Lizzy Glick paused, thought for a minute, swallowed hard, and told him the truth. Yes, they had. Moments later, still on the line with her husband, Lizzy Glick saw that another plane had run into the Pentagon. She passed that information on as well to her husband, who relayed it to the other passengers.

Jeremy Glick then told her that the passengers were about to take a vote and decide if they should rush the hijackers and attempt to foul up whatever evil plans they had.

He put down the phone and a commotion was heard by those on the other end of the line. Then nothing. A dead line. An aborted missile launch against the town where I live.

That was 10:37 a.m. on Tuesday, September 11... just 109 minutes after Mohammed Atta rammed the first plane into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

Just 109 minutes after a new form of terrorism -- the most deadly yet invented -- came into use, it was rendered, if not obsolete, at least decidedly less effective.

Deconstructed, unengineered, thwarted, and put into the dust bin of history. By Americans. In 109 minutes.

And in retrospect, they did it in the most American of ways. They used a credit card to rent a fancy cell phone to get information just minutes old, courtesy of the ubiquitous 24-hour news phenomenon. Then they took a vote. When the vote called for sacrifice to protect country and others, there apparently wasn't a shortage of volunteers. Their action was swift. It was decisive. And it was effective.

United Flight 93 did not hit a building. It did not kill anyone on the ground. It did not terrorize a city, despite the best drawn plans of the world's most innovative madmen. Why? Because it had informed Americans on board who'd had 109 minutes to come up with a counteraction.

And the next time a hijacker full of hate pulls the same stunt with a single knife, he'll get the same treatment and meet the same result as those on United Flight 93. Dead, yes. Murderous, yes. But successful? No.

So I think the answer I come to is "yes, but at least not for long."

They did whip us. And maybe those of us who've demanded to be let on airplanes at the last minute fed a culture of convenience that made it possible.

But they only had us on the mat for 109 minutes.

By Brad Todd.

 
Via Jonah Goldberg and NRO.

Tom Daschle is annoying. He is annoying me. I think he's doing it on purpose. The man must get into the office in the morning and, right there, at the top of his to do list is "find something to say to annoy Carey Gage." Or maybe his wife gives him a note with his morning newspaper and coffee.

First he says (or at least is quoted as saying in the Washington Times):

"Most Democrats believe that the president has yet to make the case for taking action in Iraq. We were thinking about having a debate among those within the administration so that we might get both sides."

A Congressional debate about the war? I have no problem there. If there is to be a declared war, Congress must issue the declaration. Short of a declared war, it gets a bit murky, what with the War Powers Act. Every administration since LBJ (I think) has disputed the constitutionality of that law, but no one has had the guts to take it to the Supreme Court to actually figure it out (most likely because both sides fear they would lose). Instead, every President that has wanted to use force abroad has come to Congress for authorization for that force while simultaneously declaring that there is no requirement that he do so. But, legal requirements aside, even if the Bush administration wanted to effect a "regime change" (our euphemism du jour) in Iraq without formally declaring war, it would be politically unpalatable to do so without a Congressional vote on the matter. So either way, a Congressional debate about war in Iraq is not only a good thing, its inevitable.

Then, the very next day, there is this colloquy during the daily briefing:

QUESTION: How quickly, Senator, will you get to the question of Iraq? Assuming the president spells out something in greater detail next week, can you get something done before the elections? And what's your priority? Would you like to get it done in a couple of weeks, or do you see this taking months? And do you have any details from the president as to what his timetable is to actually put something in writing?

DASCHLE: Well, I'm more concerned about getting this done right than getting it done quickly. And getting it done right means that we have to ensure that we have the answers to questions that you've heard many of us ask now for the last several days.

I think getting it done right means involving the international community. And of course that will involve a major test when the president goes to the United Nations on the 12th of September. I would hope he would get a Security Council vote of approval, like his father did. I would hope that he could get the kind of support from the U.N. that his father did. And that, too, will be a central factor in how quickly the Congress acts. If the international community supports it, if we can get the information we've been seeking, then I think we can move to a resolution. But short of that, I think it would be difficult for us to move until that information is provided and some indication of the level of international support is also evident.

In other words, Bush should not go to Congress to have a debate, he should go to the UN (first). Specifically the Security Council. Now, Daschle specifically denied that he would refuse to support a war if the UN refused to support it. He hinted that that's what he would do, but he denied that's what he meant.

DASCHLE: ... What I said was that it would be in everyone's best interest -- it would certainly be in the president's best interest, our country's best interest, for him to go to the Security Council, to the United Nations, to solicit their support and to encourage and to acquire their active engagement in this effort, just as his father did. That would be the ideal that I believe would be very advantageous. If he does that and fails, I don't think that necessarily precludes the U.S. or this government from acting without their unqualified endorsement or their support in some manner, but I think it makes it harder for us as a country.

Sure, having the UN Security Council behind us would be great. But it clearly is not going to happen any time soon, and time, as they say in real estate contracts, is of the essence. So what does Daschle propose to do in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution in favor of ousting Saddam? He won't say. It doesn't "necessarily preclude ... the US from acting ..." Strong words, huh?

Leaving that aside, however, the current members of the Security Council are US, UK, France, China, Russia, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, Guinea, Ireland, Columbia, Cameroon, Bulgaria and Syria. Does anyone think that Syria should be given the same sensitive information (intelligence estimates, orders of battle, etc.) that, say, members of Congress would get in a briefing by administration officials? I didn't think so. So what Daschle is proposing is to have a debate about the war with less than all of the facts available.

Next, Daschle seems to have figured out that talking about a potential war just before an election isn't as good for Congressional Democrats as talking about Enron and WorldCom, or social security or drug benefits for seniors or any of the gazillion ways Democrats have to spend my money. So, as reported in a Wall Street Journal editorial that I haven't read (because I no longer subscribe), Daschle wants to put off a Congressional debate on the war (where presumably all of the known facts and intelligence estimates would be available) until after the election.

Give Saddam another four to six months to build his bomb? Who cares, if another seat or two goes (or stays) Democratic.

And other Democratic operatives are criticizing the administration for "suspicious timing" (Jim Jordan, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) and "changing the subject" (Joe Lockhart, former Clinton spokesman).

Bush isn't changing the subject, he is responding to the reasonable requests of the Democratic leaders of Congress that there be a debate and/or consultation about a war in Iraq. The timing isn't suspicious (except for Daschle's attempt to postpone the debate). This has been going on all year.

The daily daschle annoyance has a very simple cure, this time, however. Whether or not the formal Kabuki dance that is a Congressional debate takes place before or after election day, simply ask the candidates what their position is on the war. Accept no evasions. Get an answer.

Do you want to know how? Well, you can start here for your Representative and here for your Senator. As to their opponents, look in your local dead tree paper to see who is running against them.

I used the site to write to Bill Pascrell, my representative.

Here is the entire letter. His response will be posted when received.
Dear Congressman Pascrell:
If a vote on going to war in Iraq were held in the House of Representatives today, would you vote in favor of the war or against it?
Thank you in advance for your response.
The same letter is going to Pascrell's opponent.

Uh, that is as soon as I figure out who it is.

 
Captain Clueless meets Captain Bizarro. There are no words. Go read it for yourself.