BHS

You have to be joking. You can't possibly believe this guy.

Okay, you win. Rove is evil and he needs to be put away for a long time. Mosbacher had the goods on him in 1992. Whatever.

I know I was walking around on egg shells wondering, "When will Paul Martin do his job and congratulate Muslim imams for doing something that would be a matter of course for any other world religious leaders in a similar situation?". God, I love Paul Martin. So firm and principled, and yet willing to give when the need arises. He's, like, perfect.

Wow. Recorded interviews. I bet that prevents "abuse". I stand by my previous statement. And please, you're just as misinformed as any other member on this site. Which president would that be? Let me guess - Jimmy "The Peanut" Carter. Am I right? It would figure, that the president who didn't have the balls to do anything about American hostages in Iran wouldn't condone treating would-be mass murderers to a little water-boarding. Really, who cares what Carter, a man who can tell you what kind of cologne Arafat preferred as a Ramadan gift, has to say about anything?

That's pretty funny, coming from someone who's posting from no greater a position of authority on the matter. I don't recall you mentioning that you had expertise in national security.

I would say, that if one general making a tough-guy stance in the papers was all it took to put us in danger, then we were in danger the whole time.

mirror: let me get this straight - you're against spending $10B to prevent terrorism, which actually happens, but you're for spending billions on Kyoto penalties, knowing that Kyoto will have no effect on the environment at all? And I'm supposed to take anything you post seriously?

So, in essence, Clinton was right in ignoring increasingly bold terrorist attacks on US targets throughout the 90's, because the terrorist threat was imaginary. Makes you wonder why they went through all of that bother with the 911 commission, trying to assess what could have been done to prevent the attack, when clearly the right thing to do was what Clinton did, which was to ignore the threat and hope that it all just goes away.

Nice website. Tort lawyers blaming everyone but themselves. I'm sure that enormous multi-million dollar payouts to guys like John Edwards for lawsuits based on dubious claims of malpractice (but with heartrending stories to foist on a credulous jury), and huge billion dollar class action suits had nothing at all to do with the rise in cost of malpractice insurance and pharmaceuticals. There's no connection there at all. Well, none that a gang of semi-HTML-savvy lawyers can see, at any rate.

This is ridiculous. MLAT means that Canada will assist Americans in apprehending citizens of either nation that have broken American laws in America. It doesn't mean that American laws apply here. And as for your point about being arrested for speech: it's far more likely to be the other way around, with Americans being extradited to Canada to face our "hate crimes" legislation. Americans take freedom of speech much more seriously than we do. Besides which, I'm sure that anything you said that would be considered "incitement of terror" in the US would be illegal in Canada too, under the aforementioned hate crimes legislation. Were you planning on making a public call for jihad against the US or something?

Ever heard of yeast? A thousand years from now, when our decendants are all living in biodomes, they'll be feasting on cakes made of hearty, nutritious yeast. When they aren't levitating or reading each other's minds. And antarctic krill and their place in the lost food chain outside will be long forgotten.

You actually don't seem like a moron. (I read the link, utter garbage, kindergarten-level logic). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would be really nice if you could provide a little more of an argument than "You actually don't seem like a moron" and "Kindergarten-level logic". I don't see how logic comes in to it actually - it's a pretty straight forward re-telling of the facts of the timeline in the Plame outing case. When you can come up with something better than sputtered ad hominem attacks on myself and the Clifford May I'd love to hear it.

Um, what the hell are you talking about?

This is academic speak for 'killing off people' - the reality is the we need to the economy to grow to ensure that an ever larger number of people can live on this earth. Even if some fusion breakthrough occurs, reducing population is the only effective way to combat global warming. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So, are you for or against culling humanity?

So, it's a lie that the first article to be published confirming that Valerie Plame was a covert agent was the article by David Corn, who wrote the article having clearly spoken to Joe Wilson on the matter? If that's a lie, what then is the truth?

Good post, pateris. What do you think of the new fusion reactor being built in France? How do you think nano-engineered materials might fit into the picture?

Did you even read the article I posted? I'm guessing no, because there's pretty good evidence that the big rumour monger is Joe Wilson himself. Karl Rove is a political operative, and as such he speaks with the press on a daily basis. It's his job to keep abreast of current news stories and to spin the adminstration's take on the events of the day, and there's no better way to do that than to converse with top columnists and newspeople. Every administration has people like this. You make it sound like Rove is the first guy to have a quiet conversation with reporters. Calling him "rabid" is just plain silly and obviously partisan. Your last line sounds like a quote from Churchill - am I right? I have no idea what you're trying to say by including it in your post. That Rove is neither great nor good? That Rove should be more like a lion? That Joe Wilson is a lion (please) that looks down his nose in disdain as hyena Rove is being eaten by the jackal press? Help me out here.

Your supposition is based on the premise that Kyoto is a serious attempt at reducing temperatures due to a man-made increase in the percentage of carbon gases in the atmosphere. It is not. It is an excuse to provide supplementary income to Russia and other third world countries, and to provide our strutting politicians with another international venue for self-congratulation and rock-star comradery. Strangely, your post also completely ignores the main point of the article, that America and Australia and China and India are interested in halting climate change, and are developing a new treaty to deal with it. But I forget, that the only right way to do something is to stick with whatever the Americans aren't doing, because they're always wrong about everything.

I'm not sure if I get your point here. Are you saying that the British are going to be more humane than the Americans with whichever techniques they use to break the bombers down and get them to talk? The first article is an opinion of what the Brits should do, not what they are doing. It's wishful speculation and isn't backed up by anything. I can imagine that if the bombers continue to carry out attacks, and these guys continue not talking, the techniques used will become harsher. I'd also like to reiterate, for the record, that nudity and humiliation and threatening dogs aren't torture in the same way that hacking off fingers and pushing people off of buildings are.

Every indication is that the London bombers were raised in Britain, and until recently were living a relatively normal middle-class British life. They didn't "regroup" from anything. If you're going to go on insisting that Iraq is the main "root cause" of the London bombings at least get the details straight. These guys couldn't have been captured before they acted, because they weren't involved in any previous Al-Qaeda activities. Their own families claimed not to know, and frankly I believe them.

As I posted on a different thread, the majority of Quebecers know where the pork barrel is kept. Their politicians have developed great skill in bleeding Ottawa for a greater share of the national budget than they rate. The only reason they'd let that go, would be if they were somehow able to turn their economy from "have not" to "have" status, and that's not happening any time soon. 1995 was a little too close for comfort, and I imagine we won't be seeing it that close again.

Say the guy from ontario Ted morton looks like a nice choice rbacon, that would be great to have another province that stands for its principle in this country. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quebec hasn't seceded yet because a majority of Quebecois realize that la belle province couldn't carry it's own weight as an independant state. Better to keep a cadre of Quebec-friendly political hacks in Ottawa, and keep the federal cash flowing from West to East. So much for "principle".

Personal prediction: the US pull out from Iraq will be so gradual that Al-Qaeda won't notice it. For all we know it may have already begun. The 911 attack was a fluke and a one-off. No one could have predicted that burning jet fuel would weaken the WTC towers' structural integrity to the point of collapse. And you'll never get another planeload of Americans to sit passively while some guy threatens a stewardess with a boxcutter. That strategy was obsolete before the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania. If the terrorists are able pull off another major attack on US soil it will have to be something completely different. One horrifying concept making its rounds in the right wing blogs is that the terrorists have a variety of different nukes already smuggled into major US cities, some of which were already in put in place by the RUssians during the Cold War. I happen to think this theory is dubious at best, but that' the type of scenario we're looking at for the next major attack, if there is one. As an added note, I'd like to point out that if some sort of major attack occurs, and you blame it on the American pull out, you'll be competing in a left-wing market place flooded with theories about why it's America's own fault, including that the Americans didn't pull out fast enough.

Here's a thought: if an election is called in the fall and Liberal numbers don't improve, Martin could find himself ousted from the Liberal leadership as early as next spring. Since the Liberals have been eating their more talented young throughout the Chretien/Martin years, who will take over the mantle after Martin's gone? Are any of the rubber stamp automatons in the nose bleed sections worth looking at, or will it take Brian Tobin returning to federal politics to rejuvenate the party?

It's a bit late in posting, but I only just now discovered this article: David Corn article It appears there's credible evidence that the person who outed Valerie Plame is none other than Joe Wilson himself. But like you say, mirror: who gets caught up in the nets of this investigation, only time and the special counsel's office will tell.