The Spectacle Blog

Yaliban at Foggy Bottom

By on 3.18.06 | 10:13AM

Yale Taliban (Yaliban) source points to a new break in the story soon enough, asking the question how did the Talabina regime flack with a fourth grade education get a visa to enter the United States of America? This will turn the investigation from asking what Yale's admission office did to avoid common sense to what did the State Department do to avoid the safeguards against the enemy.

Mention the thickly ironic detail that almost twenty thousand rejection letters are going out next week to those families not as cunning as the Taliban to get their prodigies into Yale.

Foggy Bottom is most vulnerable. Waivers get reviewed. Officials who skirt safeguards get suspended. Student visas get canceled.

Yaliban looks like a good bet for Lahore University with his own show on AlQ TV: My Year With Infidels.

French Capitalism

By on 3.18.06 | 8:17AM

An oxymoron? If so, why bother? As students pick up where mad Muslims left off -- torching cars, throwing stones -- one's got to wonder whether France shouldn't just stop the anguish of failure and give in to socialism. With unemployment rates like this, who needs French capitalism?

Re: Stevens

By on 3.18.06 | 12:06AM

Quin: There are rumors about Stevens retiring almost every year. Don't believe 'em.

Re: Cheer Up, Hearts of Oak

By on 3.17.06 | 3:37PM

Jed, There are candidates who run from the right now and then. One of them is Stephen Laffey, the mayor of Cranston who's running against Linc Chafee for the GOP Senate nod in Rhode Island. The RNC is backing Chafee over Laffey. Solution: don't send your cash to the party. They don't back conservatives -- they back incumbents.

Re: New National Security Strategy Report

By on 3.17.06 | 2:41PM

James: The problem I have is that we obviously don't have the belly for it. If we were to have followed this strategy from 9-11, by now Syria would be an Israeli protectorate, Iran would be ruled by someone other than the mullahs and the Saudis would be begging for mercy and selling us oil at $5 a barrell. The more we talk the talk but motionless fail to walk the walk, the strategy -- which is right -- rings more hollow.

Cheer Up, Hearts of Oak

By on 3.17.06 | 2:28PM

Hang in there, Quin. I hope you're right about Stevens. His departure this year would be great. But if he goes next year -- or in '08 -- there's an even greater chance that the Senate (given the fact that pretty near all of them want to be prez) will be more vulnerable to pressure from our side after '06. We need these nitwits, as hard as it is to stomach them. As long as W doesn't try another Miers, we should be okay.

This whole debate stimulates the big question: how do we get people to run against these guys from the right? There's candidates aplenty to run against Repubs from the left. Where are all the stand tall conservatives?

Re: New NSS

By on 3.17.06 | 1:55PM

James, While it's obviously intended as a shot in the arm for the Bush administration's Iraq policy, it's first and foremost a late term paper -- required by law.

Jed, What’s the Use?

By on 3.17.06 | 1:42PM

Jed -- These numbskulls won't move any judges forward anyway, they spend like Ivana Trump on steroids, they act like whores to K Street, and they haven't done anything right since about 1998. SO what's the use of keeping them? As for Stevens, I think he'll retire this summer, so we'll have our shot at replacing him before the election.

Big Ben

By on 3.17.06 | 1:37PM

Guess who took Grand Rapids by storm last night? It wasn't Ann Coulter, though the local scribbler couldn't help but conclude he's no less "derisive toward the Republicans' political enemies."

Re: New National Security Strategy Report

By on 3.17.06 | 1:17PM

The big question for the NSS this time around is whether it has any point or purpose beyond the level of a particularly wide-lens stump speech. Preemptive action doctrine is quite a trip -- but what can you do for an encore? Jed, you're right to ask whether we dare actually implement the rhetoric.

The questions are multiplying. Isn't the NSS supposed to be a policy document? Does it matter if it's not? And if so, what's the point? To whom do we want to spill our strategic guts anyhow?

It's a postmodern thicket: will the text of this message self-destruct?