CNN.com - High court bars Internet porn law enforcement - Jun 29, 2004

Not surprisinly perhaps, Justices Thomas and Scalia differed on the issue of internet pornography. Oh well, we'll take them any way we can get them.......

Wait, tell me again who it was that we attacked?

I've fallen behind on the blogging again. Duties in the other part of the universe. But Im back now and will try to keep more current. This is a older one but too good to pass up. This book will be very interesting. Perhaps part of a wider issue of infighting between the professionals in the intelligence community and the Bush people. Reports of bad blood over leaving the Company holding the bag for Iraq and the Plame affair.

Bruce, we need you Boss!!!

Im really behind. Sorry about that, been frightfully busy in the day job. Things have cleared up a bit though and I have some old stuff to post. Plus it isnt like stuff isnt happening anymore. Here is one from a week or two ago that might be worth a followup. Most of the people I talked to weren't planning to watch Bush give his acceptance speech but this would still be great. I suspect an Alvin and the Chipmunks concert would outdraw Bush in the New York/New Jersey area anyway. But that Boss, that would be great stuff. The Bushistas might have to engineer some sort of "security" issue or something to suppress it.

It appears that last year wasn't such a great year after all

I mean really. This is dreadful. As much as I would like to believe that the government made an honest mistake in determining the number of terrorist deaths in 2003, it is awfully hard under the circumstances.

More thoughtful analysis on the problems we face in Saudi Arabia

This article from the BBC presents an interesting perspective on some of the issues facing us in the Gulf region. An interesting facet of the article is that it is saying that one of the reasons we invaded Iraq was to give ourselves a place to base our military that wasn't Saudi Arabia. The administration hoped that this would relieve pressure on the Saudis and they would in turn crack-down on militants in their country. This is interesting at a number of levels. First, our country, and especially this administration, prides itself on not giving in to terrorists. Can someone then explain to me why we did the first thing Bin Laden demanded after September 11, namely to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia? So much for not showing the terrorists that their methods pay off.

Secondly, did anyone bother to tell the Saudis they were supposed to crack-down on the terrorists and militants in that country after we withdrew?

Lastly, exactly how would such a crack-down work if the royal family and the security forces are themselvs filled with people supporting the terrorists?

More reassuring news from the Arabian peninsula

Interesting to see that the apparent new head of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia is a former Saudi police officer. After being with the police he went and fought the holy war in Afghanistan and Bosnia. They are very concerned about his since he will know a lot about police tactics. I suppose if one were more optimistic than I am one could see progress here. At least he isn't a current Saudi police officer and the head of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia.

If this doesn't work can he have people in Ohio tortured?

It's good to see that Mr. Bush is finally coming around to accept the wisdom of Mr. Clintons policies. Perhaps he got an advance copy of the new book and read it over the weekend. This inspired, he went to Ohio to try to convince people that he was the compassionate president. Okay, so he didn't read the book. But maybe someone else did and they told him wha to do. Im any case, Im guessing the people of Ohio may be a bit skeptical on this one. After all it is pretty late in the game for him to be adopting Clinton domestic policy. It really just points out the difference between how he has been running things the last three years and how Clinton ran them for the previous 8 years.

While we're on the subject of outstanding editorials

I have, in recent years, seldom seen an editorial effort from a major newspaper what I would describe as heroic. But this, from the International Herald Tribune, is clearly an exception. Doesn't the New York Times own the Herald Tribune? Is some kind of staff trade possible. We really need to hear more from people who aren't afraid to speak out in clear, unqualified terms on what is right and what is wrong, as well as who is responsible for what happens.

Here is one of the most cogent descriptions I have read of the problem that faces us

I am really not a fan of the Guardian in general. However, I was struck by this editorial. But I think this is a precise description of the roots of the the terror network that the West is facing. It is also clearly describes that we seem to be dealing with the wrong country when we invaded Iraq. Not that this should be a surprise to anyone. But it is refreshing to see it laid out this clearly.

Shouldn't the people in charge have to testify too your honor?

Well, I got behind here and haven't been posting much but I will try to do better. I did a bit of travel and had a lot of work to do in the real world. I still have several old stories that I want to discuss but I will get back to them. I'll jump right to the latest. Here is an interesting story. Put Rumsfeld and Bush on the stand to testify about the environment that they created in Iraq that led to the abuse of prisoners. This should be interesting. I especially like the defense lawyer mentioning that the commander in chief said the Geneva Convention didn't apply. I actually thought it was Rumsfeld that said it, but Im sure once they both take the stand they can clear up those little details. Maybe Bush can stop off and testify on his next turkey delivery mission. Seems like a legitimate defense to me. Not that I get to make these decisions unfortunately.

I almost forgot about this very strange series of events.

Time for a little quiz. I will describe a series of events and then list three possible next events. Okay, come on, it will be fun.

1) John Ashcroft is questioned about a memo concerning torture by a congressional committee.

2) John Ashcroft refuses to give the memo to the committee for no particular reason other than he didn't want to.

So the possible outcomes of these events are:

A) John Ashcroft is impeached
B) A special prosecutor is appointed to investigate John Ashcrofts role in torture
C) The Washington Post gets the memo and publishes it.
D) Someone who has been held in jail since November, apparently without charges and under odd circumstances is produced and claimed to be an important terrorist plotting to blow up an as yet unknown shopping mall in Ohio (although presumeably not the one where the cell phone store he owned was located)
E) All of the above
F) C and D, but not A or B

Well okay, here is part of the answer. But Im sure it is a coincidence that this was announced like 3 days after Ashcroft was embarrassed over the memo. And what in the world are they doing to this guy and really what is the reason?

Lordy, lordy, lordy! What the hells goin on down thar in Washington??

Looks like the president may have it in a bit of a wringer.

Nothing definative at this point but, well, I haven't talked to a lawyer about Ms. Plame, have you?