Heard on the radio:
Non-
Athletic
Sport
Centered
Around
Rednecks

Quiddity at uggabugga diagrams William Safire’s model of the Middle East: “We think it’s a highly unstable molecule, likely to break down – and emit plenty of energy in the process.”

One of the interesting subplots of the whole 9/11 commission is reviewing the priorities government agencies had at the time and how they translated into government policy. This issue, of course, has been at the heart of Richard Clarke’s criticisms–that the administration didn’t make counterterrorism a high priority.
But this is all 20/20 hindsight. 9/11 changed everything. The administration is now all about using the power of government to keep us safe and secure, right?
This explains why the Department of Justice has opened a new front on the War Against . . . Porn?

In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO’s long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains.

Nothing like a supposed freedom-loving government cracking down on the freedoms of consenting adults. Even usual blogosphere allies like Instapundit are on this one.
Here’s another approach to fighting porn: since the administration is so intent on funding religious faith-based organizations to solve America’s problems, perhaps they should have this group take the lead in tackling our national crisis.

Take this, Richard Clarke:

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has faced a steady exodus of counterterrorism officials, many disappointed by a preoccupation with Iraq they said undermined the U.S. fight against terrorism.
Former counterterrorism officials said at least half a dozen have left the White House Office for Combating Terrorism or related agencies in frustration in the 2 1/2 years since the attacks.
Some also left because they felt President Bush had sidelined his counterterrorism experts and paid almost exclusive heed to the vice president, the defense secretary and other Cabinet members in planning the “war on terror,” former counterterrorism officials said.
“I’m kind of hoping for regime change,” one official who quit told Reuters.

I’ve not read Richard Clarke’s book, but I’ve seen him on TV quite a bit. Undoubtedly his own biases have shaded some of his views, particularly the subjective commentary (e.g., Rice appearing as if she’d never heard of al Qaeda before). But almost all of the reporting since Clarke came out has substantiated his thesis on counterterrorism and the war in Iraq. No, terrorism wasn’t a high Bush priority prior to 9/11, and yes, Iraq has been a diversion from fighting al Qaeda. It turns out that all the foot soldiers who came out to discredit Clarke a couple weeks ago are, uh, being discredited.

I just heard Rush Limbaugh parroting President Bush’s standard rhetoric on Americans needing “resolve” to deal with the situation in Iraq. Limbaugh was saying we need to show the backbone of the troops (and their families), the ones who are actually paying the price for our militarized foreign policy experimentation.
How does Limbaugh show his “resolve”? What does he have on the line in this fight? What kind of sacrifice has he been willing to make? The only effort Bush has requested of Limbaugh or anyone (outside the military) during the “war on terror” is that he spend his tax cuts rather than hoard them. What a burden he is shouldering. What fortitude. What courage.
I wonder how long Limbaugh and company would support the war in Iraq if the government did now what it has done in every previous war–raise taxes to pay for it. How tough do you think Limbaugh’s “resolve” would be if Bush asked him to help foot the bill?
One wonders.