The Spectacle Blog

Re: To Hell and Back With Them Hawks

By on 3.22.06 | 2:13PM

Jed: To the first point, that Corner post was definitely the first time Rich used the term "'to hell with them' hawks." Buckley probably had something to do with it, but since I can't read Rich's mind and he didn't mention Buckley in the piece, I can't say for sure. Buckley might fit the "'to hell with them' hawk" description, though I'm not sure he's even written on every topic that I noted by letter, let alone that he believes what "'to hell with them' hawks" are said to believe. The same goes for other NR-niks, like Andrew McCarthy and Jeffrey Hart, who seem to tend in the to-hell-with-them direction. That was my point: The NR cover story is written too much like there's a group of people who have signed on to a particular manifesto of positions.

To the second point: What do you consider a significant attack? Does 9/11 qualify? You don't really need state support to kill a few thousand infidels these days. Terrorism is just too easy. The relationship between Middle Eastern regimes and the radicalism they breed is much more complicated than a head/body metaphor implies. We're not threatened by a single organism -- more like an ecosystem.

Romney Movement

By on 3.22.06 | 1:00PM

Another sign that Mitt Romney's gearing up for his presidential run: shifting staff from his official offices to his Commonwealth PAC.

Readers, Respond Please!!!!

By on 3.22.06 | 12:52PM

Okay, readers, here's a VERY important poll, because some important people may be looking at it. Of the appeals court nominees now pending (look for ones listed beside "CCA" on the list) which of them do you think are the three most important to be confirmed, and why? Please be thoughtful and constructive, and please be as specific as possible. By the way, my own answer begins with Brett Kavanaugh.

One more vote for the endgame

By on 3.22.06 | 11:27AM


Since I'm an old printer, here's one I know. Corrupt nation states like those you've mentioned supply terrorists with documents -- passports, cartes d'itentite, etc. -- through suborned and infiltrated government printing offices. It's an essential element in the terror arsenal, without which the jihadist movement would be seriously crippled. If for no other reason, shut down the corrupt states to shut off the supply of travel documents to terrorists.

Many jihadists, I have read, are still traveling on Kuwaiti documents printed up during the Iraqi occuption of that country.

400 Percent Wrong

By on 3.22.06 | 11:20AM

I missed GM's restatement of its 2005 loss. Instead of $2 billion, it's more than $10 billion. Fire the accountants.

Challenger to Burns

By on 3.22.06 | 10:16AM

Sen. Conrad Burns has a primary challenger for his Senate race: state Senate President Bob Keenan. Looks like Conrad's an inviting target for mid-sized fish among his own party. This makes his decision whether to file or not by tomorrow quite interesting.

Cox Rocks

By on 3.22.06 | 8:21AM

The smartest, most principled conservative in office in Washington is at it again, pushing reforms without stringest regulations, promoting the free flow of information to support free markets, and showing that conservatism doesn't rule out creativity. Page C-1 of today's Wall Street Journal tells the tale: former U.S. Rep. Chris Cox, now chairman of the SEC, is pushing several technology initiatives to give companies incentives to disclose financial information, using technology, that would be more understandable and useful for investors. I won't rehash the whole article here, but I do urge everybody to read it, not as much for the content of the specific proposals, all of which seem to be good ideas, but more to see how a creative conservative can promote reforms without red tape and without abandoning conservative principles. Chris Cox is great at the SEC, but he really should be in the Oval Office instead.

Re: To Hell and Back with Them Hawks

By on 3.22.06 | 5:48AM

John: Your piece deserves a more full response, and I will do that in the course of the next couple of days. But three points need to be made today.

First, Rich's piece came not as a result of Derbyshire's Corner post, but because of a column written by Bill Buckley in which he proclaimed the war in Iraq lost and our goals there unachieved. Rich had to put NR back on the right side, and this is his way of doing attempting that.

Second, you say that radical Islam is the problem and that nation-states only exacerbate it. I believe you are dead bang wrong. Radical Islam is the ideology that cannot last without -- and stands in the way of democracy only as long as it gets support from nations. Without support from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria, radical Islam would not be able to mount significant attacks outside the Middle East. State funding, training and above all sanctuary for the radical imams and their followers is absolutely essential to large terrorist operations. If you shoot the head, the body dies.

Re: The Next (Bad) Dubai Deal

By on 3.21.06 | 6:21PM

Dave: That's what I'm checking on. When you're developing a new weapon system, the technological advantages -- which become top secret -- can be found in the oddest places. Like turbine blades, airfoils and such. Don't know the level of danger in the JSF aspects Doncaster's involved in. May be nothing to worry about, may be crucial. Will report on it soon.

The New Protectionists

By on 3.21.06 | 5:36PM

With all due respect to those here with security concerns about foreign-owned companies, particularly those owned by entities based in less stable or friendly parts of the world, there are those in this debate for whom "foreign-owned" is simply a dirty word.

We should have a name for those Republicans who have have forgotten that their party's ascension was the result, in part, of successful messages of free markets and free trade. And that name?

Dick Gephardt Republicans.

Let's see how long they are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with him once the label begins to stick. Mugs and t-shirts are on the way....