Bob Graham went down as the one Senator who voted against the Iraq war resolution. I always just figured he was the one guy who thought the war was a bad idea and was willing to stick by his convictions. I never thought to look at what he was actually saying at the time. The
New Republic did:
Graham used to argue that he was to the right of Bush on Iraq. On the Senate floor last year, he said he was voting against the war resolution because it was "too timid," "too limiting," and "too weak." He wanted the president to have even more authority to take on terrorists across the Middle East. But, tonight, Graham attacks from the left, reading from the war resolution and noting, "My friends, those who voted for that, gave the president a blank check. We cannot trust this president with a blank check." The line conveniently ignores that last year Graham wanted to give him much more--as he put it, a resolution that "would contain what the president has asked for relative to the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and more."
Not that I ever thought the guy was going anywhere, but whatever respect I had for him has now left the building.
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 3:28 PM
|
According to the AP, Donald Rumsfeld says the plan is to hold the
Guantanamo detainees without trial - proper, military, or otherwise - "until the global war on terrorism is over", which by his logic may take decades. Can this possibly be right?
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 7:23 PM
|
It's September 11th. Just take a moment to do whatever you feel is appropriate.
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 11:04 AM
|
A moment of silence for Warren Zevon. He's dead.
NY Times Obituary.
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 9:38 AM
|
Chuck Asay, Colorado -- The Colorado Springs Gazette
This cartoonist frequently likes to make fun of the ACLU. The odd thing is, in this cartoon, I have trouble finding what he's making fun of. I mean, it's a little goofy, but I'm not sure exactly what's objectionable about it.
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 9:25 AM
|
Take a look at the website of
Iraq Today, one of three english-language newspapers now running out of Iraq. If you want to know what's going on in Iraq, you have to ask what the Iraqis are saying. I especially suggest looking at the "security" heading. In this section, the paper posts warnings as to where civilians are and are not safe. The September 2nd edition reads, matter-of-factly, as follows:
CMCC [Civil-Military Coordination Center] cites Adhamiyah, Rusafa, Thowra, al-Muthanna, Shaab, Hurriyah, Shuahla and the Al-Ameriah ( the area around Baghdad International airport ) as uncertain or hostile areas.
Carjacking is rife in the capital. Do not walk around the streets with bags or mobile/satellite phones.
The curfew in Baghdad begins at 11pm and ends at 4am; most governorates have no curfew.
Iraq's highways are considered dangerous. Highway 10 between Baghdad and the Jordanian border is especially hazardous, particularly around the Ramadi area. Armed bandits operate this route, using fast cars to stop large convoys of vehicles.
Highway 8, between Baghdad and Hillah is also considered a no go route by humanitarian organisations.
Highway 1, between Baghdad and Qasim is also very dangerous.
Police are present on the streets of the capital but they are Out-gunned and outnumbered.
I don't think any analysis I could offer would add anything to that report. Just imagine that in a newspaper. "80 degress, partly cloudy, the Dodgers beat the Mets, you'll probably get shot if you leave your house, and the NASDAQ composite is up by a point." What could that possibly be like?
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 10:20 PM
|
