Israel pre-emptively took out the plant before the Syrians could get one put together. No government around the planet complained. None. The same governments failed to complain loudly when Israel took out the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. So we have twenty-seven years and two pre-emptive reactor take-outs by Israel and no major fuss made by other nations.

No. The UN (and separately, individual nations, including the US) specifically condemned Israel's attack on the Osirak reactor.

Posted at April 26, 2008 4:02 PM in response to 5 Comments on the Syria-Israel-North Korea Revelations

Wolfowitz became a "resident scholar" at AEI after losing his World Bank gig, so he's set.

I've heart Abu Gonzales is hurting for work, tho.

Posted at April 25, 2008 10:06 AM in response to Feith Loses Teaching Gig

I'm suprised Josh's staff isn't a bunch of raging alcoholics by now.

Posted at April 24, 2008 12:51 PM in response to The Daily Muck

...Yoo specifically authorized the use of drugs on detainees "as long as they did not inflict permanent or 'profound' psychological damage"...

Heaven forbid we inflict damage on detainees by injecting them with drugs during torture sessions.

I had no idea Yoo was such a softy.

Posted at April 22, 2008 2:48 PM in response to Were Drugs Used to Interrogate Detainees?

"I'm still for him compared to either Gonzales or a vacancy."

I'd prefer a vacancy.

Posted at April 18, 2008 3:41 PM in response to Better Than Fredo

"The Center for a Free Cuba describes itself as "an independent, non-partisan institution dedicated to promoting human rights and a transition to democracy and the rule of law on the island."

Weird. Via
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1892

It's been getting grant money from http://www.donner.org/

"The Trustees and Officers of The William H. Donner Foundation have held steadfast to two key philanthropic principles of the founder--acceptance of clearly defined risks and the judicious use of incentive grants to advance thoughtful, creative projects."

Posted at March 28, 2008 4:34 PM in response to AP: WH Aide Resigns, WH Refers Case to Justice Department

Interesting that 12 Dems voted against the House bill while 0 Republicans voted for it.

Nice to see some actual & meaningful obstructionism (for a change).

Posted at March 14, 2008 5:44 PM in response to House Passes Surveillance Bill without Retroactive Immunity

In 3 words: Neoconservatism is dead.

My overall impression is that Bush 41 has never, to rather understate the matter, been a fan of neocon ideology.

Posted at November 8, 2006 6:05 PM in response to Rumsfeld, Gates, and the Bushes

why haven’t we been attacked since 9/11?

Given the resources (time spent working through the logistics, learning to fly airliners, funding, etc) that went into planning the attacks, 9/11 seems like a one-shot deal. Beyond the purpose of terrorism itself (destruction, death, fear), it appears to have been a deliberately provocative act, one designed to evoke a response.

The people who put this operation together are obviously not dummies, and they must have known the US would retaliate with full force, guns blazing. My guess is that after the 9/11 plan went into effect, al Qaida's resources were directed towards surviving retaliation rather than, say, directing another (incredibly lucky) terrorist assault on America. Terrorists do not fight standing battles against national military forces (the recent Hezbollah/Israeli conflict is an arguable exception...or not).

Agreed that the Administration has made further attacks against the US much more difficult. At least, in the short term. Also the distance of several thousands of miles, a few of which are ocean, probably helps. Beefing up airline security is another bonus.

I agree that measuring US safety by the absence of attacks seems a false barometer. We all felt safe on 9/10.

But that question itself may be the wrong one.

How is it that we were attacked on 9/11? might be a better one. With an annual defense budget surpassing $300 billion (circa 2001 figures), how is it possible that the Pentagon itself was attacked?

Posted at September 8, 2006 7:50 PM in response to The Wrong Question to Ask

Matt's right: Hamas is an elected political party, so Bush is just being stupid when he says Hamas is anti-democracy.

Matt's wrong: Hamas desires nothing less than the destruction of Israel. This is not something Hamas "perhaps" wants; it is their raison d'etre. Ditto Hezbollah.

Posted at July 28, 2006 6:57 PM in response to Deep Thoughts From George W. Bush