The Spectacle Blog
Were three peace activists. Facts won't matter to the lefties, but according to this BBC report, quoting MGen. Rick Lynch"
1. the op - conducted, apparently, by Brit special forces - was the result of information obtained from a detainee (no word on whether someone spoke rudely to him to get him to talk);
2. it was mounted with considerable speed, and conducted successfully against a gang that wasn't insurgents but a criminal kidnapping gang; and
3. the Beeb expresses its principal relief: that fewer media correspondents are the subject of kidnappings lately.
The main fact -- that these kidnappings weren't by terrorists but by ordinary criminals -- is terribly important. Be assured that the MSM will miss it entirely.
Mitt Romney's traveling to the Vatican today to attend Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley's elevation to cardinal.
Also, he's declining to issue the annual gubernatorial proclamation celebrating the 1972 Supreme Court case Eisenstadt v. Baird, which legalized birth control for unmarried couples, as a precursor to Roe v. Wade. He issued the proclamation last year, though omitted the traditional references to Roe v. Wade.
This gradual turning away from Roe is a far cry from his answer to Planned Parenthood's 2002 candidate questionnaire. To the question "Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?" Romney answered, "yes."
John: Regardless of where the term was first used by Lowry, he was re-positioning NR after its founder, Bill Buckley wrote here that the American objective in Iraq had failed and was the cause for continuing troubles there. Never mind who Lowry might have been referring to, or whether there is anyone other than Buckley (but there are, viz. George Will and others) who subscribe to that view.
The trial of the Christian convert is disconcerting on a number of levels.
First, I know it's a bit rhetorical, but this shouldn't be the sort of freedom we're fighting for there. In fact, this isn't freedom at all. Islamic countries may choose to implement strict behavior, but to mandate what a man believes, under the penalty of death, is tyranny under state management.
Second, if this is the sort of mainstream, reformed Islam to which we're looking forward under the Bush administration's new Wilsonianism, I'm not enthused. CAIR's (the American Islam PR effort) claims that "Islam advocates both freedom of religion and freedom of conscience" are quite unconvincing.
Third, isn't it disheartening that our warm weather allies in the war on terror are more vociferous on condemning the trial than our own State Department, whose spokesman called for the trial to be conducting with fairness and transparency. What does that mean? Kill him, as long as there's open, due process? It just shows how much work Ms. Rice still has to do over there -- or isn't doing.
For those of you in the D.C. area, Capital Research Center is holding a Capitol Hill briefing Monday on the Endangered Species Act entitled, "Why Protecting Property Rights Is Good for Landowners and Species." CRC will bring their best guns on the topic, including president Terry Scanlon, TAS contributor and Greenwatch Executive Director David Hogberg, and others. It's Monday, March 27 at noon in 385 Russell Senate Office Building.
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.