Catching my eye: morning A through Z

Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

  • blackprof.com makes a good point: one of the reasons it’s harder for social welfare programs to get political traction in the United States than it is in Europe is that the United States is much less homogeneous than most European countries. Will immigration into Europe from the Middle East and Africa reduce the public support for such programs?
  • Ed Morrissey points out that nationalizing the 2006 midterm elections may not be that great a strategy for Democrats. The worst of it is that it will only be a good strategy if things deteriorate seriously and, as I’ve pointed out before, hoping for the worst is not a good longterm strategy for Democrats.
  • Clayton Cramer links to a number of articles highlighting the potentially lethal combination of alcohol and firearms. This reminds me of my all-time favorite store in downtown El Cajon, California. The sign read “Ammo and Packaged Liquors”.
  • The Chicago Tribune concludes that Bush didn’t lie and that we went to war because Saddam Hussein insisted on it:

    Did President Bush intentionally mislead this nation and its allies into war? Or is it his critics who have misled Americans, recasting history to discredit him and his policies? If your responses are reflexive and self-assured, read on.

    On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration’s arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. We predicted that this exercise would distress the smug and self-assured–those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, this war.

    […]

    After reassessing the administration’s nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege.

    […]

    Many people of patriotism and integrity disagreed with us and still do. But the totality of what we know now–what this matrix chronicles– affirms for us our verdict of March 2, 2003. We hope these editorials help Tribune readers assess theirs.

    Read all about it! Hat tip: Steve Antler

  • Apparently, PowerBlogs is having a problem: I can’t reach any of the blogs that use it for hosting. UPDATE: Hmmm. Just got to Exit Zero but am still unable to reach a number of others. Different servers?

That’s the lot.

2 comments… add one
  • Then again, theres the tee-shirt which says “Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms – sounds more like a convenience store than a government agency”.

  • LaurenceB Link

    Always click the link.

    Summary:
    The Chicago Tribune investigates nine arguments made by the Bush Administration before the war. On seven of the nine arguments they conclude that either the Administration did not lie, or that the evidence was inconclusive. On the remaining two issues they find that the public was mislead:

    1. Waging war on terror
    VERDICT
    The drumbeat of White House warnings before the war made Iraq’s terror activities sound more ambitious than subsequent evidence has proven. Based on what we know today, the argument that Hussein was able to foment global terror against this country and its interests was exaggerated.

    2. Iraq and Al Qaeda
    VERDICT
    No compelling evidence ties Iraq to Sept. 11, 2001, as the White House implied. Nor is there proof linking Al Qaeda in a significant way to the final years of Hussein’s regime. By stripping its rhetoric of the ambiguity present in the intel data, the White House exaggerated this argument for war.

    From this, they (inexplicably) conclude that the Administration was truthful.

    Wow.

    Apparently lying only 22% of the time is the same as being truthful. Who would have guessed?

    (Coincidentally, the Trib is quick to point out that this conclusion validates their previous support for the war. Imagine how pleased they must have been to discover they were right all along!)

Leave a Comment