Everybody seems to make fun of American beer… at least most of the places that I have lived and visited in Europe.

My usual retort to these folks is that in General, Americans work a lot harder than most people and our climate is “warm” so we appreciate a nice crisp clean beer more than our European brethren. Especially after a day of working in the Yard or playing sports.

Dare I mention Ice House or Genuine Draft? Not too expensive and is good with American food.

In England, I LOVED the real ales. These are beers that are still fermenting and need to be at a certain temperature (mid 50s to low 60s). This is where everyone gets the idea that the English/Europeans like “warm” beer. Its not really warm, but is usually kept at celler temperature. If the beer is colder, like how we like American beer, the flavors are masked. Sadly, the new generation of British drinkers prefer nitro-keg beers (like in American bars). The beer is pasteurized and thus, not fermenting. The most popular beer in the UK when I left was an Import… Stella Artois.

The cool thing about Beer in the UK is that you get a pint, by law, which is a handy amount to get your beer in.

In Holland/Netherlands/Belgium, I think where Stella is from, they like their beers to come in small glasses that are 1/2 foam and 1/2 beer. They have a spatula-paddle thingy that the bartender scrapes the suds off when it starts to overflow from pouring it. Their philosophy is that in a small glass, your drink your beer when it is fresh and not let it sit in the glass for a long time (like with the English pint).

Germany has a lot of neat beers to. As with food, they have a lot of seasonal beers. During lent, they brew strong beers to help with your fasting… liquid bread. But they have Pils, Weizen, Bock, Hefe, Christmas beers and others. I like the dak ones myself but I always try to order something I have not had before.

Mixed drinks and Spirits.
I wish I liked Scotch more than I do. It is a cool drink to be seen drinking. I buy my dad various bottles of obscure Malts when I come to visit (in 3 weeks!). I got him a bottle of 50 year old scotch last time…. and boy was it smooth (and expensive). I liked one called Bennaiche. I think that is how it is spelled, but is is pronounced Ben-a-hee.

I like out of fashion old drinks too. A side car is one Brandy, Triple sec and Lemon.

I like wine a lot too. Which is fortunate because I live in Germany’s largest wine growing region. Unfortunately, its white wine but I am learning to appreciate its nuances.

I have been smoking way more cigars than I should. And for my money, brandy is the drink to have with them. I am not too snobby about the brand of Brandy. My cigar of choice, however, has lately been the Partagas Series D no 4.
I chee wa wa!
A nice strong 30 minute smoke that helps me forget that so many people dear to me support Kerry.

Back to the trenches for another drink!

My favorite summer drink is a Corona with lime, sipped on the porch with friends or my Dad after a hard day’s work. I love the pleasant feeling of muscle soreness as I sip on a cold one. I also learned how to add salt and to suck the resulting explosion while with the army in Texas.

When the Propaganda Minister is around, I’m partial to Heinekens, glorious reminders of or high school escapade to Burke Lake with Kirsten and Katy. I also recall his hysterical essay in the Yale Record that included a reference to “the time Mark and I slammed Heinekens at Demery’s and ended up in the gutter in our underwear.” Or the time we slammed Heinekens and ended up at a drama party - where we had such a great time dancing that we didn’t notice the skewed sex ratio. No one hit on us - either they could tell we were heteros or they assumed we were a couple. Here’s to old times, buddy.

I also have a soft spot for Rolling Rock - this was the drink of my high school years. The Laughing Lizard Lounge never carded so we would often go to comedy sports and order pitcher after pitcher of beer. Good times with Stu, John (the wildman turned accountant), Lisa, and Ann. And Occasionally the Propaganda Minister when he visited me. Here’s to the whole Laughing Lizard Crowd. I don’t think the underage drinking hurt us that badly. Stu’s a doctor, John has become respectable, Lisa is a theatre manager, Ann’s an academic folklorist, and I’m a… oh well. It didn’t seem to hurt the other people.

See here for the legend of Rolling Rock’s “33″

I’m not much for mixed drinks - my manliness quotient is lacking here. At the risk of turning in my man card, I will admit liking amaretto sours. But, (he hastens to add), I only drink those at places where mixed drinks are the norm - like country clubs or office parties.

Here’s a great story from the liberal media. It’s good to read about things like this when one starts to get down on America. Or this story.

American’s are good people, and America still can be a powerful force for good. How many global powers have tried to make a positive difference without expecting much in return?

Knowing I love beer, my cousin bought me a book rating the world’s beers for Christmas. Now, I was a little put off noting that Klein trashes Corona, which I like, and pretty much follows the pattern of trashing lighter beers, and praising heavier beers. He also refuses to rate light beers. Whatever, reading it pretty much makes it obvious he’s a beer snob. Still, I enjoyed reading the book.

That is, I enjoyed it until I decided to try what he rated as the best beer in the world; Sam Adams Triple Bock. I bought this beer against the advice of friends, including good old MaxLeader. Now, I’m a huge Sam Adams fan, and I remain so even after tasting Triple Bock.

Granted, I’m a sucker for packaging too. I bought the bottle of Triple Bock along side a bottle of Grolsch, which does have just about the coolest boottle of any beer in the world. Sam Adams Triple Bock comes in a slightly smaller dark blue bottle with a cork. Hmmm. Pretty cool.

So opening the botte, the first thing I smelled was overpowering Sour Molases. Already I’m a little put off. The website suggessts serving it in a snifter, so I poured a little into a snifter and tasted. And wretched. Boy, it’s nasty. Almost like a port that’s gone to vinegar. Best beer in the world? No freaking way.

Two things came to mind…

The first was an English professor I had in college. The second is spicy food. I’ll explain.

An English professor I had freshman year in college said that James Joyce’s Ulysses was the best English Language novel ever written. So I went out and bought a copy and struggled with it for a while until I went back to him. He was not surprised that I struggled with it. He explained that most people find it unreadable. I asked him if most people can’t read it, then how can it be the best? he went on a long rambling explanation of why it was the best, but he made the point that precisely those things that made it unreadable also made it the best novel written in English. It was at that point that I realized he was full of shit. I just nodded and pretended to get it until he was done, then I left. Got a “B” in his class if I remember.

As for spicy food, I have a lot of friends who revel in spicy food. Several of them equate spicy with quality. If I make salsa, or cook Mexican stuff, and it’s not hot enough, that means it’s not good. Personally, I like spicy food if I’m in the mood, but I also enjoy mild subtle flavors. When we go out for Sushi, one friend who fits this pattern takes double the Wasabi, and coates each piece in wasabi. What’s the point? Sushi’s a delicate taste, and you’re paying for it, so why do that? Might as well put Wasabi on a cucumber. It’s a lot cheaper. You aren’t even tasting the fish when you do that.

Anyway Klein reminds me of these two things. The prof seemed to think that Ulysses was the best BECAUSE it was such a mess. Spicaholics like Spicy food, and don’t really care what’s behind, or under, the spices. I think Klein rates Triple Bock so high because it’s such a freaking BIG taste. But BIG tastes can also suck.

You see this same thing in reading about Scotch on line. Many people rave about the BIG scotches like Laphroag from Islay (which I love) and put down the subtler, milder drinks like Glenfiddich (which I also love). Glenfiddich, in fact, takes a pounding among whisky writers because it’s so popular and easy to find. Somehow it’s more manly to like the bigger harsher tastes I guess.

No, it’s not a funny article. It’s an op-ed piece from the Washington Post about a talk Bill Cosby gave at Howard University to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education.

Read it here.

I can only speak for myself, but media bias as shown in FoxNews or the Washington Post doesn’t bother me one bit. I recognize the bias, and filter it out. Personally I like the Washington Post not because of its liberal bias, but its regional bias. living in te area, I have no problem with news coverage skewed to my region. Or my sports teams.

The only thing about FoxNews that bothers me is the attitude that SOME of it’s people have… the “Fair and Ballanced” shit, or the “No Spin Zone” stuff. It’s as biased as the NY Times or the National Review. Recognize the right wing bias and acknowlege it. If you’re a right winger, then of course you think that that point of view is correct. Just recognize that it’s a point of view that a lot of people don’t share.

The part of the Conservative media that pisses me off is mostly talk radio, and I’ll use Rush Limbaugh as an example. He’ll give opinions and “Tell it the way it is”. He makes accusations against those who disagree with him. He gets self righteous, and acts as if he is informing the masses of things that “the liberal Media” doesn’t want the masses to know. Then when he gets caught in factual slipups, “It’s just entertainment, it’s not news.” I actually heard him on an interview say something like “noone actually believes that I’m reporting facts.” Well, actually, I know a lot of people who do. And that’s the problem. A lack of accountability. He’ll say whatever he wants, and when he gets somethign wrong (and it seems to me he makes stuff up to make points) then it’s just entertainment and it’s OK.

To be “fair and balanced”, its the same problem I have with the leftist self righteous shit, Michael Moore.

And as for this “Liberal Media” crap, if you take the media as a whole, printed, radio, TV etc. There is a pretty wide spectrum of political viewpoints. Conservatives have Fox, NRO, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, pretty much ALL talk radio, and a nice slice of op-ed writers, TV pundits etc. Yes, mainstream news on TV is slanted Left. Big deal. Stop whining about it.

Don’t tell me your still smarting over that “liberal source” jab FM? (hee hee)

Aw come on! You guys are just upset that the conservative side FINALLY has a media outlet with its own bias.

I don’t have to do a comparison of AIM vs FAIR because I know who their target audiences are. It should be a no brainer about what will be found there.

What I find hysterical is that Joe liberal thinks that FOX is biased, but their favorite flavor of News media isn’t!

I have had to accept that the Job of the media (whatever the bias) is to sell newspapers or advertising time. If fair and balanced news gets reported, then so be it but I have stopped getting upset when XYZ unbiased Media outlet ENDORSES a candidate for crying out loud! no mystery that its usually a Dem.

More bad Gun news for the left
I am glad the PM posted a link to the International Crime Victim Survey’s site. The only criticism you can come up with is that you can’t find evidence of the group pre-2000? When you follow the link you provided, you find out that this is NOT some freaky American pro-gun group but a International working group made up of folks from the UK, Denmark, Canada, and other EU countries (set up in 1987 and began field work in 1989).

Their financing
“Dutch Ministry of Justice, which has also sponsored survey activities in almost all the developing countries and countries in Central and East Europe. Further financial assistence has been provided by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign affairs, the UK Home Office, the Department of Justice Canada, the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control”

Not really a who’s who of Pro Gunners eh?

IRAQ
Correct me if I am wrong, but the article in Stratfor says that it was RIGHT to invade Iraq, but wrong to fall prey to mission creep. Reinforce the western edge of the country to put pressure on Iraq’s neighbors and leave the population centers alone.

Does the PM agree with this or where you just posting the site as an alternative strategy?

Back to the Trenches.

I know I’m a biased reader, but everything on the Accuracy in Media site reads like an editorial straight out of the New York Post: the headlines are sensationalistic (”AIM Report: Dopers for Kerry the Toker” and “AIM Report: Kerry’s Marxist Bedfellows” are just two of the silliest examples) and the writing is both shoddy and defensive (the first ‘report’ mentioned above starts with a non sequitur about Kerry’s claim of foreign leader support — why? — and goes on to villify Kerry for the support of ‘drug-legalizer’ George Soros). I know that the articles at Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting support my viewpoint, but I think they’re at least trying to sound objective. And truthfully, I think the facts they present are retty damning without any spin.

Anybody else want to check in and review both sites? I’d appreciate a couple more opinions. I already know how the Foreign Minister is going to weigh in, and not because of any content issues: in a blatant attempt to coral the gun lobby, AIM uses a bullseye as their logo. ha.

Speaking of the media, here’s a cartoon from last year that is still funny in a sad way.

Incidentally, I don’t want the media discussion to distract the blog from the Strat For article and the ongoing discussion about Iraq. The Foreign Leader correctly notes that Strat For is now a paysite, but it posts sample analyses that change weekly, I think.

Since he first drew the Indian election to my attention, I would also like to know the Maximum Leader’s take on India appointing a principle economic reformist as Prime Minister. It doesn’t negate the influence the communists will have in the new government, but it shows that Ghandi’s party is at the very least concerned about the economy.

Believe.

Last year during the March to Badgad, I used to read FoxNews as my main news source. The reason behind this was that FoxNews really was faster than CNN, msnbc or any other news source that I read. Events were moving fast, and FoxNews really did a decent job of keeping on top of events… to a point.

The price was that you really couldn’t trust what they reported until it was verified. Frequently they jumped all over a news story only to have the links evaporate in an hour or two never to reappear. No retraction or correction, the story just evaporated into cyperspace. Granted, I know better than to accept a conservative news source to EVER admit a mistake. In any event, it was more funny than anything else to watch reports of battles, victories and defeats just vanish. The Mobile Weapons lab was a big one. So was the Bin-Laden/Hussein link that FoxNews reported.

So when I saw the reports of Sarin on Fox News, and the Washington Post I was concerned. Then nothing. Not much outside of conservative pundits and bloggers saying “I told you so.” Now, granted, lots of news papers, TV stations, and various media outlets carry reports that are later de-bunkes. What makes Fox News so cool is that reports that it deems particularly Fair and Ballanced get “BREAKING NEWS” front page treatment. It’s more entertaining than anything else.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader also really likes the ongoing dialouge between the Foreign Ministerand the Minister of Propaganda. But if the M of P is going to pull out the FAIR group; your Maximum Leader feels it is incumbent upon him to pull out Accuracy in Media.

Without going all post-modern on him, any interest group you can pull out to support your views can be countered with one your Maximum Leader can find to support his. Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure that these negate each other (so to speak). But they do certainly add more voices to the discussion.

As for Fox reporting about the Sarin-filled shells… Other news organizations have reported the same thing. For example: the LA Times, Reuters, and the Washington Post. While no one is claiming that a single sarin-infused artillery shell constitutes a WMD horde, it is another sign that WMD were possessed by the former regime after such time as they claimed they were destroyed.

Carry on.

I appreciate the on-going, balanced dialogue with the Foreign Minister — his links to Fox News are similiar to the links I post to op ed pieces in the LA Weekly. However, anyone who’s going to Fox News for actual ‘news’ (tee hee), should also visit the Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting website, just to be safe.

While you’re there, dig around a little and you’ll find all kinds of intriguing stuff about Bush, the campaign, O’Reilly, even NPR, etc., etc. Here’s a nice one on Bush vs Kerry media coverage (hey, hey, look at that — Bush isn’t as ’single-minded’ and ‘determined’ as his publicists want us to believe), and here’s one reaching back to Fox News coverage of the White House vandalism after Bush’s election (Fox News still sucks).

But I digress. Given their reporting history and obvious bias, I’m not really convinced by a poorly footnoted op ed piece about gun control as evidence that gun control is a bad thing. I tried to do my own admittedly haphazard Googling on the International Crime Victimization Survey, but I couldn’t find any evidence that the organization existed past June 2001. John Lott himself is a rabid gun advocate, much like our Foreign Minister (you can visit John Lott’s site directly and decide for yourself).

Concerning the chemical weapons (again reported by Fox), even if completely true, the use of chemcial agents in Iraq is hardly evidence of the massive WMD program that we invaded the country to prevent. And even the Pentagon thought the release of that story was premature — or perhaps they just don’t want to get burned by inaccurate reporting, like with the bogus ‘mobile weapons laboratories’ from last year.

Bush is still a big liar.

Believe.

For those of you inclined to glance…

I love this
“The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the most recent survey done, shows that the violent crime rate in England and Australia was twice the rate in the US.”

Back to the trenches….

Thanks for the link PM. Isn’t stratfor a pay site now? I use to check them out regularly a long time ago when it was free.

I like what what was said and I thank you for the link. As you would probably guess, I would put myself in the “ideolgue” category, and I agree that the purpose of invading Iraq is to put pressure on other Middle Eastern governments and to foster some sort of change whithin.

I know you don’t feel like Bush is the QB for this game, but I feel as strongly about Kerry. Why can’t the Dems put up a viable candidate when they feel the Rebublicans have a crappy one?

But I would imagine that you feel that Bush loosing is a sure thing… you are probably right so don’t bother to go to the polls.
Back to the trenches

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is peeved. He is downright angry. Maybe the RCOB is just now being drawn back from his eyes. Why has your Maximum Leader’s wa been disrupted? Why has he lost his famously even-temper?

This.

Now allow your Maximum Leader to explain…

Any of us who choose to blog do so for a number of reasons. Your Maximum Leader started this blog as a way of just typing out his comments and thoughts on anything that seemed to catch his attention. Eventually, he realized that he wanted to invite a few of his friends to join in the same medium. He liked talking to these friends about anything in particular; and figured that he would enjoy reading their thoughts just as much.

Additionally, there is a certain narcissism to blogging. There is a particular joy some people can get from writing something, posting it, and then knowing that someone somewhere will read it. Your Maximum Leader admits that he does get a certain degree of self-satisfaction when he looks over his site statistics and sees how the ebb and flow of readership goes.

For a time, early in his foray into blogging, your Maximum Leader wondered what he could do to make his site more popular, and to drive more people to it. Then he realized, at least for himself, blogging was an end to itself in many ways. His goal shouldn’t be to try and corral more and more readers. It should be to write about things he wanted to write about, and respond to items that his friends have written. That choice has certainly affected who comes to and who links to this site. ince you get a variety of opinion here we may not fit well into any category of blogger. And that likely has reduced site traffic. Liberal bloggers might not want to give your Maximum Leader a forum to speak to a liberal audience; and conservative bloggers might not want to give the Minister of Propaganda the chance to woo a conservative audience.

In the end, this blog, like any blog, is a forum for the authors. If you like it you are welcome. If you dislike it deliverance is a mouse click away. Your Maximum Leader has very little patience those who say “Oh I love it when you write about X. But do you have to write about Y too? I don’t like your writings about Y.”

To visit and read a blog is to accept it for what it is. You don’t have to agree with what you are reading. Often you are free, or encouraged, to disagree. But don’t go being all mealy-mouthed and say, “If only you wouldn’t write about Y. I’d like you a lot more then.”

That is why this post upset your Maximum Leader so much.

Your Maximum Leader was not upset with Dennis Mangan, but with Dr. Vallicella. You see Mr. Mangan’s delicate sensibilities appear to be unsettled when he reads some of the scatological writings of my good friend, Kevin. He states that Kevin’s blog is “not a blog I want to read.”

Fine. He looked over Kevin’s site and decided that it was not for him. Great! But what really sticks in your Maximum Leader’s craw was Dr. Vallicella’s response. Your Maximum Leader will summarize it thus: “Yeah, Kevin is a really bright guy who can comment intelligently on philosophical matters. But, all this potty humour is better relegated to somewhere where I wouldn’t have to sift through it to get the good stuff. And by the way, I only linked to him because he linked to me.”

What a sad response.

It is as if Dr. Vallicella was embarrassed for providing the link on his site. Dr. Vallicella was apologizing for upsetting Mr. Mangan’s sensibilities by providing a link to Kevin’s site. And at the same time he was trying not to offend Kevin, who is after all just being authentically Kevin.

Kevin’s site is Kevin’s site. You take it for what it is, or you don’t visit. One thing that is so appealing about it is the very fact that it is both highbrow and scatological. Your Maximum Leader cannot think of another site quite like it. And that is its charm. You read it (or choose not to read it) for what it is.

I (your Maximum Leader) have known Kevin for nearly 30 years. And I can say that I have in the past said that we needed to figure out a way to harness Kevin’s powers for good. I admit that I feel a little guilty now about those words. It is my hope that Kevin can harness some of his creative ability into a medium that a wider audience might enjoy. (Scatological humour isn’t for everyone I grant you.) But I certainly don’t want him to cease writing the potty humour either. It gives Kevin pleasure to write it. And I take pleasure from reading it.

This leads me to the one particular portion of Dr. Vallicella’s response most annoys me. The whole “The Big Ho is obviously intelligent and I would encourage him to put his talents to better use” part. Just how exactly can he put his talents to better use? His frequent intellectual and philosophical posts aren’t a good use? Or is good use exclusively contemplating the most esoteric aspects of human understanding to the exclusion of humour in any form? The mindset that Dr. Vallicella appears to be displaying is one of the most stifling. The mindset is “if you joke around and try to make people laugh you can’t be a serious scholar.” Why is it that academics and intellectuals have to be humourless? Is there really so much self-doubt in academe that you have to guard your reputations so closely against even a hint of self-deprecation or levity that you seek to stifle others?

(In my own field (History) this mindset manifests itself as intellectul elitism. I have met a number of “serious historians” who absolutely despise “historians” like David McCullough, David Halberstam, or Stephen Ambrose. Why? Because they are popular and accessible to the masses. And heaven forefend a serious historian be accessible…)

The suggestion that Kevin run two blogs I find somewhat insulting. Some people may choose to manage multiple blogs. They may choose to keep each blog to a particular theme so as to organize their own thoughts. Or they might choose to give you a single blog with all their thoughts present in a single place. That is their choice. Your choice as a reader is to frequent the sites you want without regard to the desires of others. If you don’t want to read Kevin’s humour posts - don’t. But don’t complain that you have to slog through the shit to find the serious stuff that you are really interested in. What Dr. Vallicella is really saying is that he wants Kevin to conform more to his idea of scholarship; or if he can’t do that at least hide the unseemly parts from view.

Is this what Dr. Vallicella is talking about when he discusses reaping the whirlwind? Now that the boomer generation has successfully destroyed the “bourgeois patriarchy” that came before them, they are filled with regret that hitherto fore unacceptable topics of discussion in polite society are routinely flaunted publicly? Perhaps some boomers should have given a little more forethought to what they were doing to the fabric of society at the time. Society is a fragile thing. It is like spun sugar. A beautiful elaborate structure that is a wonder to behold. But touch it without a gentle hand and it disintegrates in front of you. The boomers were all too happy to smash the structure of society when it suited them. Now they lament its passing? The irony is not lost on me.

And as for the yet unstated issue of linkage on a blog… The owner of a blog has the right to link to whatever he chooses. My own blogroll is slanted towards right-of-center blogs about politics. And it is that way because I want it to be. You are free to click through on any link. If you like what you read visit again. If you don’t like what you read, don’t click through and don’t complain to me. The very fact that a link exists on my page is a conscious choice I have made. You’re complaints that you don’t like a link of mine will get you nowhere with me. I may not (and in fact don’t) agree all (or even some of) the time with the authors of the various sites to which I link. (And if you haven’t noticed, I don’t agree with the various authors who write on my own page!) But I have selected those links because I think there is value to what they say. That value may be thoughtful, it may be humourous; but I find it valuable on some level. I don’t apologize for any link on my blogroll. If you don’t like the links, don’t click through.

I know that this whole issue has likely upset me more than Kevin. And I can’t tell you why it should upset me. But it does.

This tirade completed, your Maximum Leader’s wa is restored and his even-temper returned.

Carry on.

Do you miss me when I’m away? Work has been a bit of a distraction lately. Work, and oh yes, life, too. It still is, actually, but I want to weigh in on some recent commentary about Bush, Kerry and the war in Iraq.

As any frequent reader already knows, I’m solidly with the Air Marshal on the critique of Bush. He’s a crappy president, and spreading innuendoes about Kerry and smearing administration critics is his only hope for reelection. I’ll obviously have to be the one who starts pushing Kerry stock around here as an alternative, but that’ll have to wait until I have more time. For starters, however, I don’t think Kerry can do any worse than Bush.

Setting aside the credibility and competence of the current administration, we as a nation need more debate about the merits of the war in Iraq independent of this November’s election. It may be true, as the Foreign Minister once asserted, that Democrats will use every anecdotal failures in Iraq to attack Bush, but it’s also true that this administration has disdainfully used patriotism in an attempt to stifle dissenting opinion (one of many electoral hypocrises). The greatest foreign policy shift this nation has undergone in nearly half a century, and Bush still isn’t public about the decision.

The neocon vision for remaking the Middle East (which, incidentally is Bush’s only remaining justification for the war in Iraq) is flawed. I recently read an admittedly biased but thought-provoking op ed about this issue, but I’ll only summarize the quoted analysis of Steven Metz, director of research at the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, here:

He [Metz] noted that the neocons’ campaign was predicated on three fundamental assumptions: that an outside force, such as the United States, can play a decisive role in removing obstacles to democracy in the Middle East; that a democratic Middle East is worth the costs and will be more amenable to U.S. interests and less supportive of fundamentalist terrorism; and that a democratic Iraq can be a catalyst for democracy in the region. None of these assumptions, he suggested, is grounded in fact. Outside nations played important but not decisive roles in the democratization of Latin America and Eastern Europe, Metz noted. New and fragile democratic governments in the Middle East might reinforce themselves by pandering to their citizens and adopting anti-American positins. And there’s no telling if a democratic Iraq — if one comes to be — can serve as a model for its neighbors. “I hope this is true,” Metz said. “But we have not debated the analysis — whether this is true . . . We’ve gone barreling into this based on assumptions.”

As a former member of the Armed Services, I fear where this chain of logic is going to take us. For an alternative, read this excellent analysis from Stratfor Weekly before they update the post (their next sample post might also be excellent, but I don’t know if it will pertain to New Strategies in Iraq). I think this article will be of particular interest to the Foreign Minister, as it shares his concerns for the region but follows them to a different conclusion. Basically, it suggests that we refocus on our true mission (defeating terrorism, not reformatting Iraq) and, while keeping forces in Iraq, consolidate our troops in the south and west and cut our losses elsewhere. Personally, I think it’s an insightful solution to our mess. But whatever your opinion, I think it’s exactly the kind of idea that needs to be on the table, exactly the kind of debate we should be having, and exactly the kind of debate that the Bush administration wants to avoid. They’d rather not consider the reality of our situation at all. Shame on them.

Responding to a recent post by the Foreign Minister, I fully agree tht 9/11 changed the nature of the game. However, that doesn’t mean that Bush is the best guy to QB it. And there is no way in hell that W. would have gotten reelected (”8 mediocre years of W. presidency” my ass) in the absence of a 9/11. He’s got nothing now to run on except his status as a war president, and that’s also why he’s going to lose.

Believe.