admin

As the Economist points out, the time to act against a potential aggressor is before they acquire nuclear weapons, in the this respect the Economist votes in favor of war with Iraq. In terms of the implications of a war with Iraq, the two most important countries that the US must focus on today, for very different reasons, are Israel to the east and Pakistan to the west. Both have nuclear weapons and both are looking politically fragile. Israel…. In Israel, a coalition government has collapsed, and Sharon has endured three no confidence votes, continuing Israeli/Palestinian violence is playing to the right. The CIA cautions against involvement against Iraq while there is violence in Israel. Remember the Patriot missile system in the gulf war – well they actually brought down none of the Iraqi Scuds – their success was propaganda. A cornered Saddam could launch a bio or chemical warhead…

Glenn Reynolds posts that Michael Moore is Panned in Canada: “His journalism, in short, on the subject of Canada and Canadians, is nothing short of shoddy, manipulative and untrue. The same can be said for his journalism on his own country, and indeed on the terrible and complicated issue he purports to adjudicate.” More accurately this should read Michael Moore gets panned by one newspaper in Canada, the National Post. – big deal. Reading other Canadian newspapers the story is somewhat different: Toronto Star “A great documentary challenges social norms and demands reaction, and on that score Moore hits us right between the eyes.” Edmonton Journal “Michael Moore remains a welcome voice in the North American conversation, especially considering how stacked the deck has become. Even when he stumbles, he’s worth watching — and he’s standing pretty tall here.” The Globe and Mail “Moore’s documentary about gun control in the…

A new blog that should provide balance to War Blogging at first glance – seems to have a slight Libertarian bias. – However, seems that the most excellent Max Sawicky is involved, so it must be OK! No War Blog

After concerns raised by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), the New York Times changes its tune: NYT October 30: “drew 100,000 by police estimates and 200,000 by organizers’, forming a two-mile wall of marchers around the White House. The turnout startled even organizers, who had taken out permits for 20,000 marchers.” NYT October 27: the “thousands” of demonstrators were “fewer people… than organizers had said they hoped for.”