... I still vaguely grasp the importance of this:

No Evidence CIA Slanted Iraq Data

Probers Say Analysts Remained Consistent

So, lately I've noticed that I've been getting dumber and dumber. It's like my brain is liquefying and draining from my ears while I sleep (maybe it's just drool). My memory is for shit. I sometimes put my laundry in the refrigerator, food in the trash chute, and trash in the dryer, then the washer.

What could be causing this? The early stages of dementia? Natural aging? Chronic Krispy Kreme-induced insulin shock? OR THIS:

Water in DC Exceeds EPA Lead Limit

This isn't some isolated incident. Two-thirds of the 6,118 households tested had elevated levels of lead. Between this and the disgusting yet amusing water incidents in my childhood hometown, it's a wonder that I am even functional and employed, much less trying to cobble together thoughts in a blog. These concepts are actually absotutely brilliant when they are still in my head, I swear ...

Cut me some slack, I'm freaking handicapped over hee-ah.

This report (via Instapundit) about the US quietly expelling dozens of Saudi diplomats that were "suspected of helping promulgate Al Qaida ideology" can be supported with an anecdotal firsthand observation: I live a block away from what used to be a second Saudi Diplomatic Office that was separate from the official embassy. I'm straining to remember, but its official title had the term "Information" in it. At the time this report says Saudi diplomatic staff was booted, the office closed down and then changed ownership.

Was an Al Quaeda propaganda or recruiting office operating one block from my apartment and less than one mile from the White House?! That possibility really pisses me off. And scares me.

I walked by this building every day for years after September 11th, and would curiously wonder what the guys smoking cigarettes on the front porch thought about the whole deal. I wondered if they perhaps had been quietly pleased at the attacks on NY and the Pentagon. And then, of course, I would mentally flagellate myself for being a suspicious, racist, paranoid American.

We've got to take a hard-ass, critical view on the Saudi situation. I get annoyed when leftists screech "but the real problem is the Saudis," making the assumption (based on the nationality of the majority of the September 11th terrorists) that the Saudi government is officially dedicated to supporting terror. As if any of these auto-contrarians really would advocate doing anything about it if it didn't conveniently strike them as an argument that diverges from the visible policy of this Republican administration. Assuming the official ill-will of a government based on the actions of some of its citizens is a mistake.

BUT - when terrorist sympathizers work as official government attaches, the problem goes beyond tolerating and nurturing the growth of a cancerous culture in their country, and really blurs the lines of whether even well-meaning Saudi government officials are indeed our enemies through their incompetence, impotence or some form of schizophrenic collusion.

And the new residents of the building? The Egyptian government.

Tuesday's episode with guest John McCain was fantastic. The jokes were punchy and just weird enough, McCain reminded me exactly why he would make such a better President than Bush and the panel was very entertaining.

Prediction: Within a week, David Horowitz will wind up losing his mind and pimp-slapping Naomi Wolf during a commercial break. When she's speaking so passionately, most of the time using vague language to simplify and glaze issues with overarching liberal brushstrokes of kindness to all of God's little creatures, Horowitz looks like he's fighting off a seizure.

That show needs to snake Jonah Goldberg from CNN.

Ok, Al Franken's detestable politics and annoying demeanor aside, this report pretty much confirms that the guy has some, uh, issues. Physically attacking a heckler? I don't know if there is a backstory, but it seems awful odd to me ...

Like shooting fish in a barrel:

She explained how it is important that the United States focus on helping the world's poor, such as keeping people in the Himalayas who have calluses on their feet from walking barefoot all the time.

She discovered Kucinich after hearing him interviewed on New Hampshire Public Radio a few weeks ago. She said she agrees with Kucinich on almost everything.

"He believes we should pay the Iraqis for the destruction. I don't believe that. If we stay over there, this country will have no money!"

Reminded that she had just said America needs to help the world's poor and that some of the Iraq money will go to build schools and buy medical supplies, she said, "Yeah!" and rolled her eyes. "I think most of the money goes into the military."

For all that excitement, last night's payoff was a little weak. Overall, it was an awkward first show, hobbled by poor timing between the photos and Miller's news delivery, some mediocre jokes and the love fest between Ah-nuld and Dennis in the "interview." To try and use a Millerism: There was more love in that room than a couple of senior swingers on viagra, crank, go-go-juice and E ... I mean, I had no idea that Miller could speak so clearly and perform fellatio at the same time ... eh-hehhh! (Hmmm, that shtick is harder than it looks.)

But hopefully these are quibbles, just growing pains. The panel discussion was great. Naomi Wolf elevated my blood pressure with her rhetoric, David Horowitz then lowered it with his rhetoric, and finally David Frum swooped in with a calm, factual and logical delivery that makes him one of the best right-wing talking heads on cable. I'd have him advance my argument any day.

I can't wait for tonight's episode: John McCain! CNBC @ 9.

... makes me sound like a knuckle-dragging mouth-breather (comparatively) with this great post on the multiple interpretations of David Kay's WMD comments. Maybe I need to get me one o' them Mickey Spillane hats too.

Jim Treacher:

You know, if you pull Art Garfunkel over and he's carrying some pot, how is that even a crime? Why not just lock up Stephen Hawking for possession of a wheelchair?

Hitchens on Proust. That's like chocolate-covered chocolate.

Sample:

My introduction to A la recherche du temps perdu came by way of Terence Kilmartin, who died in 1991, roughly a decade after completing his retranslation of C. K. Scott Moncrieff's original English rendering.

I like Hitchens, but Jesus! It's like ... sleeping ... gas.

What to say about David Kay's comments on NPR?

It's notable to watch how each news outlet spins the remarks. This morning on CNN, Soledad O'Brien trotted out the question of whether Dubya had some splainin' to do in an interview with a former UN inspector. The kindly Brit patiently explained to her that it was likely more a failure of intelligence than one of executive judgement.

The Washington Post Express edition had the headline "Kay Raps U.S. Intel on WMD: Outgoing inspector doubts Iraq had banned weapons." The headline encourages interpretation that is inaccurate; Iraq had banned weapons, notably missiles that violated negotiated range limits. No, it seems they didn't have ready-to-go stockpiles of Anthrax and VX - but this is a distinction that merits a more subtle treatment, especially since Kay also noted that Bahgdad had an active program to weaponize ricin.

Predictably, the blathering morning talent at the Fox Morning show fell all over themselves to make excuses for not finding the stockpiles of weapons ...

So like most news these days, it seems that most folks (including myself) will take away from this new information almost exactly the opinion that they originally brought to the table. The Dems are typically outraged at the "nefarious and incompetent" motivations that brought us to war. The administration will close its eyes, put its fingers in its ears and say and say "we'll find 'em, we'll find 'em, we'll find 'em!"

And me?

Well I'll say, "ricin?" Missiles that can hit Israel? 13 years of flipping us the bird and a proven history of deceit? These are surely good enough reasons to go to war for me.

Update: Also mentioned in Kay's comments is the assertion that "some components of Saddam's WMD program" went to Syria. I'd say this is a rather heavy piece of news.

... is the fact that this city completely shuts down when there is the slightest inclement weather. It seems that I may get to sleep in tomorrow.

Forget a dirty bomb or bioterrorism - a few inches of snow brings the nation's capital to it's knees!

"Eh-HEH-HEH-HEH-HEH-HEH-HEEEEEEEHHHHH!!!"

"Uba Tuba WES-lee."

So I'll just link to why I've come to love Dennis Miller more and more ...

Miller cautions against making too many assumptions about his politics. He's conservative on taxes and defense issues but more liberal on social policy, he said.

"If two gay guys want to get married, I couldn't care less," he said. "It's their business. If some foreigner wants to blow their wedding up, I want my government to eliminate him."

The United States right now is simultaneously the world's most loved, hated, feared and admired nation, he said.

"In short," he said, "we're Frank Sinatra."

Beautiful.

Evidently, Andrew Sullivan has been taking heat via e-mail for daring to parse out his thought process on who he may vote for in November. I saw this firsthand under the comments section of a Tim Blair post that actually agreed with one of Sullivan's snippets criticizing Bush's orgiastic spending habits. Amidst some of the mostly intelligent rebuttals and agreements, there were three or four folks who descended into flippantly referring to Sullivan as a "fag" and threatened to delete Sullivan from their "bookmarks."

For what, exactly? For daring to stray off the conservative ranch? For expressing a critical thought process on who he may vote for? While my vote is pretty solidly red state (see post below, and not like it makes a damn bit of difference in DC), I haven't shut off my mind to the possibility that any Dem, even one of the swarm of smarmy crapweasels currently running, could get my vote. If any one of them who was electable (sorry, Joe) had the stones to endorse an aggressive foreign policy and outlined a sane economic policy that doesn't dust off the ol' "hammer and sickle lite," they might have a shot with me. Doubtful this will happen, but certainly possible.

And I'm straight. Sullivan is gay.

The point about sexuality doesn't belittle or undermine any of Sullivan's thoughtful negative arguments about Bush that have nothing to do with gay marriage, rather it should give folks a reason to understand some of what constitutes his reticence about Bush overall. Some commentators seem to think the personal nature of this issue is coloring all of his views. I think such a conclusion is only partially, yet understandably, correct.

I watched a TV special on Abraham Lincoln the other day. The program delved into his views on slavery, reminding me that no matter how ardently he believed that the institution was wrong, he was always very quick to loudly acknowledge how inferior blacks were to whites. This could have been a necessary political statement for the time; it could have represented his personal views (probably both). I have no idea. But 140-some-odd years later, it did tarnish an otherwise stunning legacy, now that most of us fundamentally accept the idea that there is no inherent inferiority or superiority among the races. Watching the program, I couldn't help but wonder what our descendents might think about modern political rhetoric that dogmatically defends the idea of marriage being "between a man and a woman."

Of course slavery and the following civil rights movement aren't too analagous to the current plight of homosexuals, but most folks who have spent any serious amount of time around gay men and women have got to logically acknowledge that at least a majority these individuals have had their sexuality defined for them rather than having chosen their sexuality. This leads us to a situation where they are being denied rights freely available to others - rights fundamentally tied to who they can love and embrace officially into their family unit - because of who they are, not any sort of deviant set of choices that is intent on harming society.

So regarding Sullivan ... if I was gay ... and I was a fiscally conservative free-market fan ... strong on defense ... and if I believed in the promise of America as a truly egalitarian society ... well let's just say that it might give me pause to just swallow a declaration by my President that my very nature and the relationships that I establish are somehow less than fully equal under the eyes of the law. And there would be little I can do about it except wait. And write. And vote.

You don't have to agree with him, you might find the concept of homosexuality repellent, you might not care about gay marriage at all in light of concerns about nuclear terrorism; but you've got to be able to put yourself in the man's shoes and at least empathize with how he feels; empathize with how somewhere between 2.8 to 28 million other gay Americans may feel.

The War on Terror is becoming irrevocably tied to the War on Drugs.

The bright side? Much of the infrastructure for fighting the drug trade is in place. The downside? We are and always have been losing the War on Drugs. Draw your own conclusions.

Let's face it, this last State of the Union was thus far Bush's weakest effort. The almost singular highlight was that it included one of the most potent lines in American foreign policy in at least ten years, if not a generation (not counting this administration's previous greatest hits):

"For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible -- and no one can now doubt the word of America."

While there are more than a few cynical ways one can call the word of America into question, the application of this phrase towards the willingness to use force is currently very accurate, and easily the main reason Bush probably deserves another term.

I suspect that many Americans voting for Bush could really give a rat's ass about gay marriage, steroids in professional sports or government-funded programs to place prisoners in jobs. Some of Bush's domestic statements were pointless (and probably ineffective) pandering to expand the base, and some were actually inappropriate for the setting (Steroids?! Baseball? WTF?). The "compassionate" domestic assault strikes me as overreach and enhances Bush's weaknesses regarding what John McCain labeled as the government's "drunken sailor" spending. I'm also not sure the President really needs to set an agenda for every aspect of American life. (What does George Bush think about American Idol anyway?!)

No, the key issue that George needs to rehash over and over and over (and over) is going to be this: Do you want to change horses in midstream? Or do you want to give the Bush administration the chance to have four more election-free years (two, counting mid-terms) to drive home it's foreign policy; four more years to have the power to use diplomatic coercion in the war on terror, now that we have so strikingly demonstrated a willingness to dollop huge mounds of pain on our enemies at great political risk?

I and many others suspect that this is the most immediately bankable pay-off to the war in Iraq, even if Democracy fails to take root (God help us) and off-the-shelf WMD is not discovered (a likely scenario). At this moment, the State Department can have a discussion with Syria, state a list of demands, and the purple elephant in the room is an implicit threat that Bush is just serious (or crazy, or arrogant or Texan) enough to launch a military attack to accomplish the goal. If Bush is re-elected, this elephant grows very, very big. Some might say steroid-big, though the elephant will fly into a rage and vigorously deny it. So big that Kim Jong-Il may halt his nuclear program just to avoid drowning in elephant shit.

Does voting for a Democrat undermine the power of purple elephant shit? Probably. Ask yourself this: who is Bashar al-Assad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Jaques Chirac, Kim Jong-Il, Magneto, Satan and various other declared or covert enemies of America rooting for in November? And why?

And do your fears about domestic policy (if you disagree with Bush on many things, as I do) outweigh the importance of giving the US the chance to capitalize on this unique opportunity?

So Howard Dean is a political opportunist. So he seems a bit, uh, exuberant. Yes, yes, he fails to see the utility of deposing Saddam Hussein, and ok, he spouts ridiculous conspiracy theories about 9-11 and has a bit of a temper problem.

But boy-oh-boy has Drudge been giving this guy a royal rogering. Between the headlines of "Dean Loses It" coupled with some of the wildest-eyed photos in campaign history, to today's sad-sack headline, I almost feel sorry for Dean. Almost. In between the gales of laughter at that scream, of course.

After a long absence from blogging, indcjournal is back up! This is all thanks to Dean Esmay, who was kind enough to selflessly help a tech-clueless pain-in-the-ass such as myself get some reliable server space and find some blog software without bugs. Thanks Dean! You can visit Dean's World here.

1, 2, 3....

Is this thing on?

Looks like it is!