I know your background so am not surprised you want us to give the spooks more free reign. It might be a tough sell politically, though, given how they have been have been doing lately. Intelligence failures were part of the cause of the two U.S. catastrophes in recent years, 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Now you're probably going to say they weren't really intelligence failures, the administration has just spun them that way to cover their own butts.

What did you think about the operation against Mr. al-Zarqawi today? Is this the type of thing you are prescribing? FWIW I am applauding.

The girls aren't in college yet but it sure seems like they are headed there with the speed of bullet trains. Tomorrow Allie finishes 10th grade and Emily finishes 7th grade.


>Rumsfeld, Cheney - those left-wing pacifists ?
>
>I'm kind of a PJ O'Rourke conservative. <g> On most social issues I'm probably a lot more "liberal" or maybe libertarian than pretty much anybody, but on issues of national security I get real medieval real quick. I wouldn't attempt to defend the implementation of what has gone on in Iraq since Baghdad fell, but from a strategic point of view, I have very little doubt it really is necessary to have a very very aggressive approach. I favor very aggressive intelligence black ops over military action, as a general proposition, but I am very convinced the danger is very real and that most discussion of national security issues is clouded by emotional stuff that has nothing to do with how the world works. The whole WMD thing was a very good example of people not understanding the difference between public information and intelligence realities. It's like tabloid reporting on what went wrong with Brad and Jenn. Those who know don't say and those who say don't know. Everyone else just
>spouts, reflecting more their own issues than anything involving facts of the case.
>
>The Europeans, Canadians etc are like adolescents living in the parent's basement - lots of opinions, little responsibility because when it hits the fan somebody will bail them out. ( yeah, that was pretty much deliberately infamatory, but I dreamed last night about having some very Bibically proscribed sex with Ann Coulter ) I don't believe in Bush's idea that liberal democracy is easily exportable ( really suggest reading people like Robert Conquest ) but I do believe good behavior can be encouraged and bad behavior "disinsentivized". <g>
>
>As far as a war for oil - you know there is a LOT of oil in Canada. It is an easy commute, a pretty soft target, and not much of a language problem... Their citizens are so up in arms right now they are trying to behead the prime minister. Do I hear "Peace Keeping Force " ?
>
>
>
>Hey, are the girls in college yet ?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>I'm with you on this one. I'm so right wing on foreign policy issues I scare Paul Wolfewitz, but Bush and the "Values Conservatives" really lose me on stuff like this. This crazed 'defense of marriage' demagoguery is like a campaign to crack down on witches or Indiana wanted to make math easier for kids by change the value of pi to 3. Heterosexual marriage could only be helped by the example of people who actually care enough about the idea to fight for it. I just don't believe new options under law would change many people's gender preference for a partner <s>
>>
>>The proposed Constitutional amendment "defending" marriage went down in flames in the Senate yesterday, as everyone knew it would. It was just a sop from Bush to the conservative base with an iffy-looking election coming up.
>>
>>Please define "right wing on foreign policy issues." I guess I don't know you that well because I wouldn't have guessed that. If you're out there with the Cheneys and Rumsfelds, viewing the rest of the world as existing to serve U.S. interests, well, we part company. I might even stop listening to Rusted Root ;-) (Thanks again for that recommendation so many moons ago -- I still listen to them).