“Saddam is the worst monster in the world! He is hateful, like Islamic fundamentalism. But the United States is hateful for its imperialistic fundamentalism!” – Susan Sontag (!), quoted in Vanguardia, noticed and translated by the “sexy scourgers of Spanish socialism” at Iberian Notes. If they or anyone else can translate the whole thing and send it here, I’ll report back on the rest of the interview.
CHURCHILL ON HANS BLIX: A reader sends in a wonderful 1953 Churchill quote about what would happen if England’s patron saint, George, were alive today, and required to go out and slay an actual dragon to save an actual damsel in distress. Here’s what Winston remarked:
St. George would arrive in Cappadocia accompanied, not by a horse, but by a secretariat. He would be armed, not by a lance, but by several flexible formulas … He would propose a conference with the dragon. He would then lend the dragon a lot of money. The maiden’s release would be referred to Geneva or New York, the dragon reserving all rights meanwhile.
Methinks the dragon would also have U.N. inspectors halfway down its throat checking on signs of fire. Nope, Nothing there, guys! Friendly little critter, isn’t he?
THE DIVIDENDS DIVIDEND: The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza has the best explanation I’ve yet read of the rationale behind the Bush economic proposal. (While I’m at it, one Reihan Salam’s sane round-up of the latest writings on Iraq at TNR.com is also well worth a read.)
A LILEKS CLASSIC: Tell us how you feel about Chuck Barris, James. Tell us how you feel.
BLAIR’S WOBBLE? I don’t know what to make of Drudge’s Daily Telegraph story claiming that the Brits are urging Bush to postpone war against Iraq till the fall. But I do know that the Blair government has explicitly now denied the charge. I’m not going to panic any time soon at the various signals that the West is now going wobbly on Iraq. In my view, the omissions in the arms declaration are a sufficient U.N. basis for war. And I presume that the only man who really counts in this shares the same view. As Hans Blix says in today’s Telegraph,
“We think the declaration failed to answer a great many questions. A more profound reading of the text has now confirmed the impression.” He said a list of Iraqi scientists omitted several key names, and he would consider taking officials out of Iraq for questioning. Mr Blix also disclosed that Iraq had imported missile engines and raw material for producing solid missile fuel in violation of UN sanctions.
What more do we need?
WHY GRAHAM’S DOOMED: “I am, and since 1973 have been, a resident of Florida. My job, I am a lobbyist (and consequently a fund raiser), requires that I follow Florida politics closely. I have followed the career of Bob Graham with particular interest. I agree that his candidacy would be good for the country. He strikes me as a strong leader and a good man. That said, he will never get the Democratic nomination. You see, back in 1984, Bob Graham, then running for the Senate, endorsed Ronald Reagan for president. The “endorsement” actually took place during a televised debate between Graham and his opponent. He essentially repudiated the Walter Mondale candidacy, stating that “Ronald Reagan has been good for America.” Florida Democrats have a long memory. Those in Hollywood and Manhattan have even longer memories.” – more insights on the Letters Page.
IN DEFENSE OF LOMBORG: The Economist gets it exactly right: “The panel’s ruling – objectively speaking – is incompetent and shameful.”
The Dish 