Well, K-Lo, the full name is "The Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo," so it's not just a bunch of kids with their sows. Have an NRO gathering there. You'll probably like all the cowboys strutting around in their tight Wranglers. I know my wife does.

From a reader:

Hello,

I'm a big fan. This is your first really MAJOR blooper I've noticed:

"2. The failure to find WMDs is the material evidence (or lack thereof)
necessary to make this the worst intelligence blunder since Pearl Harbor."

You should really read more about the history of WMD intelligence against
totalitarian regimes. It's ALWAYS BEEN WRONG. There's nothing new about
this. (And isn't 9/11 a worse intellligence failure? But I digress.)

1. Against Stalin, the CIA estimate was off by five years --- too late.
2. In India and Pakistan, the CIA not only underestimated their
capabilities, but also totally overlooked actual Indian preparations to
explode their first bomb.
3. In North Korea, Clinton's CIA consistently underestimated their readiness
to go nuclear;
4. The CIA was apparently unaware of the AQ Khan network which spread nuke
technology to North Korea and Iran. (Khan worked for a Dutch nuclear
research institute and apparently just walked off with blueprints for
centrigures). The Dutch are apparently as idiotic on weapons security as we
are in Los Alamos.

We know it's nearly impossible to uncover top secrets in totalitarian
countries. For that reason I'm surprised that YOU are surprised that we
were wrong about Saddam's WMDs. You might recall that Saddam's own frontline
officers expected OTHER units to have WMDs. It was always the next unit that
was supposed to have them. Saddam either lied to his troops, or his WMD
scientists lied to him, or both. Just like the Soviet Union, remember?

The Daily Kos seems to think I'm an idiot for relishing the news that Americans are teaching Iraqi kids to play baseball. It's often a good sign that someone's preaching to their choir when they think your position is self-evidently wrong (which, of course, it can be). But in this case I don't get it. Apparently I shouldn't be jazzed about American soldiers teaching kids to play baseball because things can go wrong like they did in Beirut. I think that's an absurd "argument." I use quotation marks because it strikes me more as a brain burp or something.

Of course things can go wrong. How does that make doing good by some Iraqi kids bad? I suppose I could've ended my post noting that a car bomb might kill all off the kids and GIs. But, hey, I guess I'm just a rose-colored glasses kind of guy.

Some folks at the Democratic Underground are planning on leaving the country. Apparently Rather's capitulation was too much. I particularly like the poster #7 who thinks staying behind would make him/her akin to a Jew left behind in Nazi Germany.

This is the sort of news I love to hear from Iraq:

ALTUN KUPRI, Iraq – Minus the sound of Muslim prayer on a loud speaker from a nearby Mosque, the Iraqi baseball game played here on Sept. 15 was reminiscent of a Little League game back in the states.

Even though baseball games are commonly witnessed throughout America, it was a very rare sight in this soccer-crazed country.

More than 20 Iraqi youth, dressed in complete baseball uniforms, made history when they played in the five-inning baseball game. Because there are no previous records of an official baseball game played during or after Saddam Hussein’s regime, the Altun Kupri youth played the country’s first one in decades.

“Outlaw” Soldiers of Company C, Task Force 2-11 Field Artillery put the game together for the Iraqi youth. All of the coaches and umpires were Outlaws or their interpreters who helped guide the youth in the game.

Throughout the game, there were visual signs that Iraq was still a soccer-dominated country as some of the fielders stopped ground balls with their feet instead of gloves. There was even frustration seen among the faces of players learning the new sport.....

Dan Rather won't let go. Here he is in today's Chicago Tribune:

"Do I think they're forged? No," Rather said. "But it's not good enough to use the documents on the air if we can't vouch for them, and we can't vouch for them."

Okay I lied. I like this email:

Ok, now I am mad. Jonah, being from Oklahoma I am not unique in being part American Indian (not native American mind you) and I am very tired of the worn out pathos such as found in the statement “…Americans bent on taking their territory from them and in the process committed genocide-…“. American Indians did not understand the concept of owning land. They took what they wanted when they were able, knowing that it could be taken from them the same way. While there were abuses in both directions, our ancestors conquered this land and subjugated the indigenous people. To quote Spike, “that’s what conquering nations do”. Tell your e-mailer to get over their 21st century feelings of guilt and make this life we have paradise on earth if that is what they long to do and to quit handing out moral “holier-than-thou claptrap.

Last word on this non-debate, from another military guy:

Jonah,

From a military point of view, the WoT is an indian fight. And this idiot is a keen example of why the left is incapable of winning it. There is no room for PC on the modern asymmetrical battlefield. Any talk about worrying what the islamicist will think is horse crap (cavalry term). This country is in very real danger and if we do not succeed in ensuring that the war is fought on ground we choose then the fanatics will bring the war to us. I'd rather look for WMDs in Iraq than find them the hard way in the US. These people are savages and we must steel ourselves as a nation if we hope to survive. The time for wishy-washy, touchy-feely hand wringing has long since passed. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE. It's war.

Yes, yes, even from just the pics I could feel the magic! Reminds me of pictures of Elvis' '68 Comeback. Same magnetism, same raw sexuality. I almost feel like I'm there with the Derb moving, panther-like around the room. Whoever says we conservatives are stuffy, geeks are going to have to contend with these pics! WOW!

From another reader:

That Army guy's comment was inappropriate- the Indians were not unified and not fighting a religious war, they were fighting an invading force of Europeans and eventually Americans bent on taking their territory from them and in the process committed genocide- we are not trying to seize Iraq or eliminate all Arabs or Muslims in the process. Referring to the extended bloody wars waged against native Americans in the formation of this nation is not right. I should think you would not want Muslims to think that is what America is doing in fighting the terrorists. BTW- your army guy should look up, scalping was not a practice largely practiced by Indians but the Spanish, also might want to look up where the term Redskins come from and why lots of native Americans legitimately think having football teams named after the term is wrong. I would hope that Muslims don't think we are trying to wipe them all out so we can have the DC islamists team one day or the Jeep Iraqi.

From a retired Army guy:

Jonah, It's an Indian fight -- a violent and bloody struggle against an enemy without morals or values as we understand them, and a way of life alien to us. In an Indian fight they took scalps; now they take heads. The US Army fought the Indians on this continent for 115 years; the British Army and Colonial militias had fought them for 150 years before that. The War on terror is going to be long and bloody, and fought on many fronts. It won't be won in the next four years, but it could be lost.

Serrin Foster, Feminists for Life president, will be speaking at the University of Richmond on tonight.

Serrin Foster will be speaking on "The Feminist Case Against Abortion"
Tonight, September 21
University of Richmond
Jepson Hall Room 118
7 PM
Reception to follow

From a reader:

Terrific column!

Some points:

1. I haven't heard anyone arguing with the proposition that we must take the fight to the Islamicists. The question is, where is that fight? For those of us who say that a good part of it is on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, we'd have to admit that we're getting more-than-expected cooperation from Musharraf. How'd we manage that? Whatever we're doing to get Musharraf to cooperate, we ought to be doing more of that in Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc.

2. Our "war burden" in Iraq is far higher than you acknowledge. We had to be 100% dead-on accurate in our reasons for war, and supermen in the way we prosecuted that war and the recovery afterward, because we were playing for the world's acceptance and cooperation in future wars of preemption. In an hour, we'll see an example of just how poorly our prosecution of the war and the recovery played throughout the world (when Bush addresses the U.N.).

3. Point #2 is critical because we don't want to have to draft 20 million Americans to fight wars against Islamicists. We want the Pakistans, Jordans and Egypts to do it for us. Yeah, we can go it alone if we have to -- but we'll be in WWII again, or worse.

4. On a different note, I am always amazed by conservatives' descriptions of Soviet mentality. You describe the Soviets as "rational." If the Soviets were rational, they would have recognized that the US was never going to attack them with nuclear weapoons, right? Why, then, did the Soviets arm themselves to death? You don't see France arming itself to the teeth against us.

Me:
1. Fair enough. However, this notion that al Qaeda -- never mind the Islamist threat -- can be destroyed if we destroy those guys in Afghanistan is, I think, fanciful. We just saw an American beheaded by the al Qaeda chief in Iraq. That al Qaeda chief has made it clear that the battle for Iraq is vital to al Qaeda's cause. Moreover, the source of the problem isn't Afghanistan it's the Arab Middle East. You cannot fix the problem without fixing the source. Also: I think Pakistan and those Arab countries are apples and oranges, alas.

2. That just doesn't wash. It was clear from the begining that the war was unpopular with the rest of the world and would have been even if we found WMDs.

3. That's a pretty far reaching hypothetical. And it misses the point. I for one still believe in the reverse domino theory. If we stand-up a prospering and democratizing Iraq, it will be very difficult for the neighbors to stay tyrannical for long.

4. I think you over-read my use of the term "rational." The Mafia is rational in that it approaches issues with a cost-benefit mentality. That doesn't mean a "rational person" would choose to join the mob. As for France, I have given up trying to explain when, where or why it chooses to pick fights and when it doesn't.

Every journalists who gets a shot at asking Dan Rather about this story must get him to explain what he meant when he said his source was "unimpeachable." If he meant Burkett, Rather's a liar and a fraud. If he meant the person Burkett allegedly claimed they were from -- a Guard officer now in Europe by the name of George Conn -- he needs to explain how he could consider the source "unimpeachable" without ever having spoken to him. In fact, to say that your source is "unimpeachmable" without ever having met him sounds likee pretty shoddy journalism. If I gave Rather some documents and said they were from Jimmy Hoffa, does that mean his source is me or Hoffa?

It seems to me that the most plausible explanation of his "impeachable" declaration was an old-fashioned stonewall. And for that alone, he should go.

Danish ping pong.

From a reader:

Remember the outrage when it was discovered that an attorney for the Bush campaign had given legal advice to the Swift Boat Vets? Collusion! Scandal! Now CBS thinks it the most natural thing in the world for the producer of a hit piece on Bush to pick up the phone for a little chat about upcoming stories, the weather, a source of some serious dirt on GWB, just the normal stuff. Perfectly ethical. Perfectly normal.

I haven't been on Wolf Blitzer's 5:00 O'Clock show in a long while, so I guess there are some people out there unaccustomed to, and uncomfortable with, um...me. I got lots of nice email from sympathetic sorts. And nice pile of email from those who are less so. Here are my two favorites. I've asterisked the naughty words -- for the children:

Jonah, You and the country know full well that every word reported in that CBS piece on the deserter Bush's NG lack of service was true, documents be damned! You're a smarmy little c**t who is unfit to even kiss Dan Rather's ass. You should resign after four years of your right wing muckraking lies, you CRACKER wannabe bastard! You're fired sh*thead.

And this one from someone who email address suggests he works at a Democratic-lefty sight I'd never heard of:

You have some nerve criticizing Dan Rather when you, Frum and other neo-cons are responsible for lying to get the United States into a war that has killed 1000 Americans and severely wounded 7000 more. As pieces of sh*t go, you're at the top of the heap. By the way, I now support the Palestinians and Arabs instead of the Israelis.

Anyone who knows anything about campaigns of any significance knows that the communications guy is busy six weeks out from election day, particularly if he's parachuting in to fix a lackluster campaign and a lackluster candidate. In other words, Joe Lockhart is busy. And yet, he took a call from Bill Burkett to discuss Bush's guard service. Why? Because the producer of the 60 Minutes broadcast felt it was vital that he do so. Because the producer of the now infamous 60 Minutes broadcast felt it was vital that he do so.

But -- pshaw! -- there's no bias at "60 Minutes."

I know conventional wisdom says that the incumbent wants to limit the number of debates while the challenger wants more. And I'm sure that the Kerry campaign is operating on that assumption. And yeah I agree with John Miller and others that the townhall style meetings are awful on the merits. But I'm not sure three debates hurts Bush. He may be a garbled speaker and all that. But the more Kerry talks the worse he does. People have already absorbed Bush's speaking style. While Kerry's ability to pull his foot up along his back, over his shoulder and into his mouth still leaves many of us speechless. I'm sure that Bush will come armed with numerous taunts to get Kerry to explain his record. And that's bad news for Kerry. Indeed, the more people see Kerry, the less they like him.

Yeah, yeah I know undecideds think the debates are supposed to be about the issues. But that's never been the case.

My guess is that the Bush campaign was able to win a great many concessions from the Kerry campaign -- format, notes, times etc -- in exchange for that third debate when in fact the Bushies didn't really mind having it.

I reiterate my position on this: Not only should they dump Schieffer, but CBS should lose all access to the White House and direct campaign access until CBS makes this whole Memogate thing right (e.g. Rather apology to Prez, somebody fired, re-education camps, etc).

Buffoonery Delenda Est!