Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Clinton

Chris Wallace’s interview with Bill Clinton this weekend was an extraordinary moment of television. When so much of what we witness on the Sunday chat shows is carefully scripted spin, it is quite a unique moment when a skilled politician goes “off script”. This is doubly so when that politician is the old Spin Meister himself, Bill Clinton.

There has been substantial debate on the right about whether Wallace was set up or not. Those who believe that it was argue that Clinton, for reasons that are unclear to me, wanted to exploit the interview as an opportunity to do one of several possible things:

  • Criticize Fox News in an effort to reestablish his bona fides with the left
  • Neuter any future criticism of his policies in an effort to protect his legacy
  • Give his wife an opportunity to respond to the same questions and appear sane in comparison

None of these possible motives strikes me as particularly compelling, and anecdotal evidence coming out of Fox following the interview suggests that if it was a ruse, it was an unusually complete scheme.

We therefore, I think, can assume that Mr. Clinton did not intend to go berserk when he agreed to the interview. My guess is that he was “pre-sensitized” to any questioning of his administration’s failures due to the recently broadcast ABC mini-series that was highly critical of his lack of action. This was compounded by the fact that at Fox, he probably felt that he was “behind enemy lines”. Of course this second point is ridiculous, it was Chris Wallace after all not Sean Hannity, but none-the-less, Mr. Clinton’s persecution complex is, fairly well documented; which, by the way, is not to say that it is unwarranted.

The bottom line in all this is that it was an extremely poor decision for the ex Commander in Chief to make. His complaints to the contrary the fact is that conservatives have largely left Mr. Clinton alone when it comes to assigning responsibility for 9/11. While it is true that his actions in hindsight were woefully insufficient in the face of an avowed enemy, it is also true that given the political and cultural atmosphere in this country in the run-up to the millennium, Mr. Clinton would not have been able to do much more than focus on trying to get bin Laden. Any wholesale invasion, such as that undertaken by the Bush team, was only doable following the attacks and even then had strong opposition on the left.

Mr. Clinton was left with two choices in the coming weeks; keep his mouth shut and let the controversy generated by the ABC mini-series dissipate (indeed both sides of the political spectrum found the “fiction as fact” based movie too flawed to regard with credibility), or stake out a public position that is equally in opposition to the facts and declare his willingness to fight. Bizarrely, Mr. Clinton chose the latter, and he has done so at his peril.

Already, the Secretary of State has pointed out where Mr. Clinton is wrong on fact. Further, the authority that he sites as proof of his position, Richard Clarke, is at odds with him on several key points, not the least of which is that a “comprehensive strategy” was handed over to the Bushies as he left office.

Further compounding Mr. Clinton’s error is his insistence that his critics accused him of being “obsessed” with bin Laden while he was in office. While others have already demonstrated that nothing could be further from the truth in the public realm, I think it does give us some insight into the internal debate that must have been underway in the administration. That debate is the question of whether or not the U.S. should have focused on bin Laden, or on the states that sponsor bin Laden and his sort. Whatever the merits of either argument, it seems the side that won the debate in the Clinton administration was the former.

Following 9/11 there can be little doubt that many in the previous administration, perhaps Mr. Clinton himself, had second thoughts about whether they made the right choice. They may even have realized that there wasn’t a choice to be made, and that they should have pursued both options. Obviously this kind of second guessing is bad enough when others engage in it, and must be terrible to contemplate when looking back at one’s own actions. I cannot comprehend the incredible burden that some of these people must carry knowing the awful outcome. That burden is multiplied by the judgment of history that will be levied at some point in the future, and I think that this, more than anything else, is what plagues our former president.

I never thought I’d say this, but I feel a bit sorry for Mr. Clinton. While his foibles were certainly many, and his obsession with his legacy was in many ways damaging to world security, on this matter, I’m not sure he really could have done more than he did. I think the country is willing to agree on this point, and Mr. Clinton would be wise to let things lie as they are.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Watch Out! He's Going to Kill You!


"I don't have a last line yet....."

As far as I can tell it's because he's an talentless hack who looks more greasy than hot, and is unquestionably planning to use that mallet on his victim's noggin.

Not quite what the Brawny folks had in mind I bet, but it appears they aimed for sexy and came up with creepy.........just as Spinal Tap said, "It's a thin line between clever and stupid"

Welcome Back New Orleans......Can I Ask One Small Favor

Good to see everyone celebrating a big Saints game tonight, even if they have to endure the presence of the awful Joe Theisman as the price. If the citizens wouldn't mind, I do have one tiny request:

Could you please stop playing that "Oh When The Saints" Song?!

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Redefining the Conventions

The global war on terror has forced Americans to think a lot about our role as the world’s sole super power, history’s leading light of human rights and self determination, and how we reconcile these exceptional positions with the need to win a war that not all of our citizens are willing to acknowledge exists. Of course this is not the first time that global conflict has forced this debate, as we saw a similar dynamic between the political left and right during the cold war. Indeed, I would be stunned at the level of self delusion the left has employed to deny the evil goals of Islamic terrorists had I not been witness to the left’s denial when it came to the Communism’s goals during the second half of the 20th century. The more things change, they say, the more they stay the same.

Normally, I would think that it goes without saying that nobody is happy to go to war. I say normally because in some of the debates that have arisen around our tactics, members of the left, who are the first to cry foul when they think their patriotism is being challenged, have been quite willing, even eager perhaps, to impute the most nefarious of motives on those of us who see things differently. We’ve been accused of revoking the civil rights of citizens, sanctioning war crimes, and worst of all, desiring to turn the U.S. into a “torture state”. Such charges are obscene in both their exaggeration of legitimate war time tactics, and in what they say about the left’s willingness to politicize the debate for their own selfish goals. The great irony, of course, is that those on the left who look to gain politically by employing the aforesaid distortions, ultimately have the most to lose should we fail to win this, the battle of our generation.

Having said that, there has been, in recent weeks an honorable debate over how the U.S. will interpret the Geneva Conventions. Unlike the irresponsible left, a group of Republican Senators has led a principled charge against the administration’s attempts to more explicitly define what constitutes, “outrages against human dignity” in the treatment of prisoners. Because I believe in the senators’ good intent and concern for their country, I’ve thought quite a bit about what is and is not right in this new kind of war.

Their arguments, it seems to me are built around two basic premises. The first is concern that if we change our interpretation of the Conventions we will put our soldiers at risk in future wars with enemies who will use our precedent to justify their poor treatment of our POWs. While I fully understand the concern, I find myself unpersuaded after a simple review of the facts. The struggle for freedom that this country has led for over 200 years is replete with battles that had to be fought to turn back the spread of fascism and communism in foreign lands and to ensure our citizens’ basic human rights. It is a simple historical fact that in every single war since the Conventions were adopted (or before for that matter) our enemies not only violated the Conventions, but did so egregiously. Be it Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, or virtually any other opponent, violations of the Conventions were sanctioned by the highest levels of government. No justification was required for the awful policies these countries followed, they did what evil regimes do when they want to win, and the “rules” were not even remotely considered.

To suggest that a more specific defining of the conventions to something more clear than “outrages against human dignity” will cause countries to torture our uniformed soldiers in future battles is not supported by historical fact or by application to today’s war. We must be clear here and remember that the Conventions are applicable to uniformed combatants fighting for legitimate countries. Terrorists are neither. They do not serve as a precedent justification for future countries engaged in battle, nor as evidenced by their own behavior, do they feel any particular need to follow the conventions themselves.Whether they are attacking civilian targets or mutilating the bodies of our soldiers who died from their pointless torture the terrorists’ very existence and modus operandi is an open defiance of the conventions.

The second argument that the Republican Senators employ is the suggestion that if we more clearly define the Conventions we will “become just like the enemy”. Forgetting the bizarre logic stream that suggests that a more specific set of rules, makes us less moral, I think it is fair to say that this argument relies on a very dim appreciation for what this country stands for, and for what we’ve contributed to the human experience throughout our relatively short history. Simply put, given our legacy of human rights, expansion of civil liberties and indeed our humane treatment of the worst of the terrorists captured in this war, to suggest that some extreme treatment in the pursuit of battlefield intelligence is a non-starter.Senator McCain is in fact deeply inconsistent on this point in that he has already suggested that we will need to violate the conventions from time to time, when the need for information is urgent. The difference, in his view, is that when you do, you will have to “do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it”. This is a high price to ask our men and women in the field to pay so that a group of Senators in Washington can sleep better at night.

Having said that, I respect the Republican Senators’ views, and for the most part, am grateful for the dignity and honor that they’ve brought to the debate. I do not agree with them, and after lengthy consideration will not agree with them. I’ve read the hysterical descriptions of waterboarding temperature extremes, forced standing and other methods. Clearly none of this stuff is pleasant, but just as clearly, none of it is torture either.

More to the point, the suggestion by opponents of the administrations’ redefinition, is that in the past we never engaged in any extreme treatment of prisoners. While I have only anecdotal evidence to suggest that this view is both hopelessly na├»ve and absolutely wrong I cannot say with absolute certainty that this is not the case. Still anecdotal evidence suggests that in the past the approach that McCain outlines, (You do what you have to do) was exactly our policy.

The difference between past conflicts and this one is that in the past the left was not spending their time during the war talking about bringing war crime charges for our men and women in the field and members of the administration as they are today. In past conflicts we did what we had to do; we won the war, and then welcomed our enemies back into the brotherhood of nations. In winning those wars we pressured our prisoners for information, and I suspect treated some quite harshly. The difference is that we didn’t talk about it, and we didn’t suggest that those who were willing to put their lives on the line might have to spend some time in the hoosegow if they broke a few rules. The very reason the administration now suggests that our soldiers cannot live with a Convention that is quite “gray”, is because members of our society have decided to ignore the understanding that we had in the past.

Redefining the Conventions then is not an option, but instead our obligation, as a moral society to our men and women in the field. We must as a country agree on what we can and cannot do in order to gain intelligence from an enemy that has sworn to destroy us. Doing so is the only way we can stand behind our men and women in the field and ask them to do the things so many of us have chosen not to do.

Monday, September 18, 2006

I Need A Restaurant in Davenport Iowa

I will be spending the weekend in Davenport Iowa on a PD1 related excursion. On our last trip in the Spring to Indianapolis, another dad and I hung out at the hotel while the team and parents ate pizza and then after we had put in our time, we took leave and headed over to Ruth's Chris for the evening.

This weekend is Davenport; where should we dine?

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Are You Ready For Some Football?!!!

It's been an exciting weekend here at the Pursuit household. Last night saw Mrs. P and I dining at our favorite local restaurant where we enjoyed a seven course dinner (with wine pairing) that began with an heirloom tomato salad with cilantro sorbet, jalapeno tempera and 25 year old balsamic, and ended with foie gras and molten chocolate cake. Quite the culinary tour!

Michele that was for you.

As for the rest of you, today we finish the weekend with PD2's soccer game followed by NFL football. Is there any wonder why the Fall is my favorite time of year?

The picks for this week are:

Bears -8.5
Falcons -5.5
Raiders +12
Bengals -10
Packers +2
Texans +13.5
Dolphins -6.5
Vikes +1.5
Giants +3
Rams -3
Cards +7
Broncos -10.5
Pats -6
Chargers -11.5
Cowboys -6
Jaguars +1.5

After going 8-8 last week, I'm a little worried about how many points I'm giving up this week, but the boys at the "Pursuit NFL Statistical Pick 'em" lab said I'm good to go so we'll see. If things don't go well, some heads my roll.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Rockin' Tune of the Weekend


An oldie but a goodie today; The Offspring.

I really don't have much to say about these guys, which is no doubt, a disappointment for a readership that hangs on my every word. All I really know is that back in '92 or '93 when this CD came out, I was one of the fevered fans that made their debut the largest selling independent label release ever at that time. It may still be for all I know, and why shouldn't that be the case? Dexter and the boys know exactly how to bring the rockin' tunes home for the listener, and now I'm bringing it home for you.

Enjoy.

What In The World Is This?

I'm home today tending to PD2 who seems to have contracted a small bug of sorts. So between taking care of her and teaching Rob a thing or two I've been surfing the net for new blogs.

Well, I ran into this.

And I don't quite know what to make of it. Definitely entertaining though, and if I can remember the process - and if the quality remains - I think I might add it to my blogroll. I have right click saved their banner from the website and used it here, which I'm not sure is legal, but then I'm promoting their site so I imagine nobody will complain. You know, assuming they find my humble location.

Any way, check it out, it's good for a couple of yucks.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Can You Dig the Zbig?

Readers here will know that it is something of an understatement to say that I am no fan of Jimmy Carter. A self important jerk, and even worse President, Carter left a mess in the Middle East, yet declared “victory!” simply because he bribed Egypt and Israel into signing a peace agreement.

Empty headed foreign policy on the scale of Carter’s failures simply cannot be attained by just one incompetent peanut farmer from Georgia. Nope, as empty as Jimmy’s cardigan sweater was, even he could not have been solely responsible for the disaster that was his presidency. Thankfully, a man has stepped forward in recent days to announce his candidacy for “Carters Idiot Rasputin”.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Zbigniew Brezezinski:

Spiegel: Dr. Brzezinski, President Bush compares the dangers of terrorism with the dangers of the Cold War. He has even spoken repeatedly of a "nation at war" and will only accept "complete victory." Is he right or is he using exaggerated rhetoric?

Brzezinski: He is fundamentally wrong. Whether that is deliberate demagoguery or simply historical ignorance, I do not know. For four years I was responsible for coordinating the U.S. response in the event of a nuclear attack. And I can assure you that a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union on a comprehensive scale would have killed 160 to 180 million people within 24 hours.

No terrorist threat is comparable to that in the foreseeable future. . . .

Spiegel: Is fear, as at the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, not something very natural?

Brzezinski: Certainly, such a notion is not entirely unrealistic, but on the other hand we are not confronted with the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal. I do not wish to minimize the danger of a single or even multiple terrorist acts, but their scale is simply not comparable.


Got that? In Zbig’s world, just because Russia had more nuclear weapons they are by definition a greater danger as compared to today’s terrorists. No consideration of underlying intent, no consideration of willingness to use said weapons and no consideration of likelihood of an actual nuclear attack. If this is any representation of Zbig’s logic path, we may also be able to assume that he subscribes to all those “you may already be a winner mailings”, plays the lotto and is just certain that he is going to win really soon!

One thing Zbiggy and I agree on is that the terrorist threat is not comparable to the Ruskies. We know this with certainty if for no other reason than the terrorists have already attacked us in this country. They have taken the measure of what they would like to accomplish and decided that, yes, attacking the U.S. absolutely makes sense given their goals. The did on 9/11 and they also hit the World Trade Center in the ‘90’s. Does Zbiggy really think they’d hesitate to use a nuke if they had it?

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

My 9/12 Post

So I watched a lot of the 9/11 five year anniversary things yesterday and over the weekend. Horrible day, I suppose that goes without saying, and something I hope to never have to live through again. I thought about doing a little 9/11 post marking the day, but that seemed to be well covered by virtually everybody else in the country so I left well enough alone.

After all was said and done one thing seemed to be missing yesterday in particular, and that was a simple “thank you” to the President and his team for doing everything they could to prevent another attack on our homeland. I don’t think any of us can begin to imagine the difficulty of the job that has been forced on them by history, and certainly each and every one of us could find fault with some or several specific actions. Still, how could “thank you” not be one of the most often communicated thoughts yesterday? Is it possible to find a country that is more full of ingrates than ours?

Sorry, I suppose that was rude, but in all candor it isn’t completely inaccurate. Back in the early weeks after 9/11 President Bush told us that it was going to be a long war. We all talked about how we needed to remain united as a country, and in our grief we found hope and confidence in the single sense of purpose that united us around our common cause; and just to be clear, that cause was to kill Islamic terrorists.

Five years is a long time, and a lot has been written and said about what we should and what we shouldn’t do. In many cases we’ve had some excellent debates about strategy (Should we invade Iraq?), and tactics (When does harsh treatment cross the line to torture?). Sadly though, this debate has too often devolved into accusations that are fully beyond the pale.

Famous beagle loving bloggers have supplanted their genuine disagreement with emotional tirades motivated more from a disappointment in the administration’s position (insert joke here) on gay marriage, than on any responsible view of the President’s motivations for actions taken in the war. Lefty nut cases claim that “our civil liberties are being stripped from us every day” in one breath, and then in the other decry what they term as the President’s use of fear to move his evil agenda forward. These dolts, who hold their oxymoronic views so preciously never seem to be fully aware of the outrageous irony of their position. We’ve been subject to idiot charges of Koran abuse, and politically correct debates about just what we should call our enemy; Islamists, Arabs, Islamofacists, Terrorists and others. Did we actually debate what we called the Japanese after Pearl Harbor? Nope, we fought them to an inch of their very lives, and didn’t relent until they begged for an end.

The most recent example of the left’s idiocy in their ongoing circus performance titled, “Why Nobody Will Ever Trust Us With National Security” would be the Plame affair. Recall that this whole sorry event began with a moronic column (“I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea”) by a neer do well career diplomat, was published in the country’s “newspaper of record”. The column, not only mis-represented the actual findings of the trip (as did Wilson’s own report to his superiors who after reading his findings came to the exact opposite conclusion from what he had drawn), but also contradicted the findings of British intelligence. Worst of all, the idiot Wilson it seems, ended up as the one person most responsible for “outing” his supposedly undercover wife from a role at the CIA which many people in Washington knew about anyway.

Regardless, the left thought they had Cheney and Bush where they wanted them and a political witch hunt was born.

And what do we have now that all is said and done? Well, Wilson has been returned to the fringes of credibility where it seems most people had classified him prior to his rise as the Great Libby Hope, the special prosecutor has charged one administration official for forgetting the details of his busy appointment calendar, jailed one journalist for not telling him what he already knew, and let the one guy who broke the law the prosecutor was assigned to investigate go free.

Well done!

Which is why it is so important to say “thank you” to the president and his team. Our precious lefty’s, who spent the cold war on the wrong side of history, make much about the importance of dissent, and if their’s was a cause focused on dissent they’d be correct. Unfortunately for them, true dissent is so much more than name calling, protesting and inviting maniac ayatollah’s to speak at Harvard. True dissent is not formed in the words, “no, asshole”, but rather in the words, “no but”. As in “no we shouldn’t invade Iraq, but instead we should do……..”

In true form, the left has decided that the effort involved in responsible dissent is just a little too much for them to muster. It seems that they’ve decided that it is far better to spend their days enmeshed in Clinton idolatry and Bush hatred than to actually contribute to the defense of the western traditions and culture that they claim to hold so dear. In doing so, they’ve knowingly made the war on terror that much more difficult for President Bush to lead and for our country to win. In my view, the reason for this is because the left recognizes their own culpability in allowing terrorism to gain a strong hold in the world, and they’ve decided that it is far better to live with this evil than to admit the failure of their world view by joining in the good fight and defeating the throat slitting bastards.

I’ve been critical of Bush’s policies in the past. As I’ve said many times, when a country goes to war, it must follow a path of total dominance and destroy the enemy completely. Doing so requires us to ignore the pleas of the hand wringers who worry about Koran abuse and due process for enemy combatants, and do what is necessary to win total war. President Bush, a decent man I think, has tried to find a middle road between these two views and has ended up with the expected; hatred from a left wing that will never accept his legitimacy, and less than total victory over an enemy that is committed to killing us.

Still, the thought of Algore or John Kerry as our leaders in this battle is a reality far too traumatizing to even consider. More to the point, while we’ve not been successful in stabilizing Iraq, and continue to hang on to a very delicate situation there, the fact remains that we’ve been free from attack on the homeland for the past five years. Nobody, absolutely nobody, considered that such a success was possible on 9/12/01.

For this reason, I say thank you Mr. Bush, and I hope you take time to say it as well.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Are You Ready For Some Football!!!?


I don't know where these fine lasses are playing, but it undoubtedly would be quite a sporting event! In lieu of their game, we still have the more traditional form of the world's greatest sport and it's opening day! Here are the picks to click against the spread for week one:

Packers +3.5
Falcons +6
Saints +3
Lions +6
Texans +4
Chiefs -3
Pats -9
Rams +3.5
Bucs -3
Titans -3
Cards -7.5
Jaguars -2.5
Colts -3
Vikes +5
Raiders +3

As always, if you assume I have any particular insight into the outcome of these games, and gamble any of your money......well then you're a damn fool!

Saturday, September 9, 2006

A Reason to Love Fox News and.....

.....a reason to loathe Fox News.

All in one shot.

Via: Annika

Tuesday, September 5, 2006

It's Not Alway Glory When the Bears Play the Packers


Being a Bears fan, one becomes accustomed over time to glorious heights and soul crushing depressions. Many of the latter have been at the hands of our Green Bay enemies, and today I'd like to write about one in particular.

It was the 1980 season opener, and the Bears who were coached at the time by the less than legendary Neil Armstrong found themselves coming off of a decent year in 1979 when they lost the NFC wild card game to the Eagles. While it would be an over statement to say that hopes were high - the 1970's were a tough time to be a Bear fan - it was a new decade and the previous season gave us some hope.

The 1980 opener was a tense one that went in to overtime. Things looked grim though as the geekiest looking player in the history of the NFL, Chester Marcol - tortoise shell glasses and all - lined up to kick the game winning field goal. Suddenly, a giant Bear hand looms high in the trajectory of Marcol's kick.......it's blocked! Bear fans begin the glorious rapture of celebrating a renewed lease on life when the unthinkable.....no the unfriggin' believable happens.

The ball, which moments ago looked to be harmlessly bouncing away from the goal posts, was in actuality deflected right into the chest of a very startled Marcol. Chester, who didn't need to be told what to do, runs 25 yards into the end zone for the game winning score. The awful moment is pictured above. Game over. The Bears go on that season to post a disappointing 7-9 record, with the only salvation being that they beat the Packers 61-7 in the second game of the season in what was the most lopsided victory in the history of the rivalry. Bears scout, Bill Tobin who had previously worked for the Packers revealed that the Bears had stolen that Packer signals.

Monday, September 4, 2006

Welcome To Bears/Packers Week!

The only rivalry that matters in any sport, anywhere at anytime. For those of you not familiar with all that is Bears/Packers greatness, here is the list of Bear priorities for each new season, most important first:

1. Beat the Packers

2. Beat the Packers again

3. Win the Superbowl

If we get numbers 1 & 2, 3 is then a "nice to have".

More later. In the mean time, enjoy my post from last year, "Ed O'Bradovich and the Bart Starr Kid"

Half Moon Bay: Life Is Good


Looks like I'll be heading out here in a couple of weeks. Cool huh?

Saturday, September 2, 2006

Rockin' Tune of the Weekend: The Iceman

Albert Collins - I Ain't Drunk

"nobody gets outta here without singin' the blues".

With those words, Albert Collins , aka; The Iceman, made his star turn in the much underrated "Adventures in Babysitting". It was a small scene, but a memorable one as the movies heroine, who was for some reason or another on the run from the Chicago mob with her young charges, accidentally bumped into Mr. Collins in a Chicago blues bar.

And sing the blues is exactly what she did...the Babysittin' blues to be exact, backed by The Iceman and his formidable band. If you haven't scene the movie, give it a rent some time as it is a highly watchable representation of mid '80's Americana. It also has the classic scene of the babysitter high atop the Stone Container building, nearly falling to her death as the bad guys try to nab her. Great fun!

As for The Iceman? Well he departed these earthly bounds a few years ago, but left a treasure trove of highly listenable blues. With a guitar sound that cut through any blues club fog, like a knife through butter, the Albert Collins sound is instantaneously identifiable as one of kind. Today's song, "I ain't drunk, I'm just drinkin'" is a personal fave.

Enjoy.

The Pursuit of Happiness: Always Right

Last year this blog predicted in several posts, including this one, that Joe Wilson was the one person most responsible for outing his wife.

From yesterday's Washington Post:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Unfortunate, indeed. Still I must ask how such an obvious goofball ever got access the NYT opinion pages in the first place (have they printed a retraction yet?), and secondly how he ever was lent so much credibility by the press. Further, is it not treasonous to "falsely claim" in the middle of a war, for what can only be interpreted as political reasons, that the administration's report on the enemy's efforts to obtain uranium were debunked?

The answer in my view is yes. While perhaps not criminally actionable, it does seem that Joe has caused this country to spend countless millions on a three year investigation that resulted solely from his irresponsible actions. Shouldn't he be sent the bill?