News Bites 10/30 am

Well, this morning, before leaving work, I wandered around the net and camped out at Yahoo for a bit to check on the news. A couple of things caught my eye.

A Pakistani “anti-terrorist” attack may cause more problems than it solves, based on this report. Admittedly, given the track record, I would not be surprised to find out that there really were kids in the village—along with a bunch of terrorists. Terrorists have not, in general shown much regard for civilians, much less children. They tend to have no qualms about sacrificing the weaker elements of society.
(…although why they get away with blaming everyone else for it I have never understood…)

Meanwhile, Power Line asked a really good question. Can we control anarchy? There is no argument that the US military can beat any military force in the field. But, as he points out, we are not facing military forces. Anarchists are those who refuse to submit to established authority insisting on their own authority. That’s a pretty good description of the Iraqi militias. With Prime Minister Maliki refusing to reign in those militias,…well…can we really expect much change? It’s a tough question. What’s your answer?

Here are two announcements that seem strangely timed as a con-incidence. In this Reuters article the Democrats announced:

Even if Democrats win control of Congress in elections next week, an immediate change of course in Iraq policy is unlikely, the party's chairman said on Sunday.

And, in another not-so surprising announcement, the Iraqis want the US mandate extended.

David at The Volohk Conspiriacy had a great article on the Jews And Europe—no longer wanted by the Left, if they support Israel (i.e. nationalism). It has some great historical insight on the Jews being European victims again--for not towing the liberal/left wing line.

Here’s an interesting insight to poll numbers. According to John McIntyre, it’s about what you choose to believe. Given two basic views of the polling numbers, it all depends on how you want to look at it.

On the subject of elections, the NY Times had this not-so-surprising article. It starts with:

In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party.

The rest is interesting insight to tactics and ideas. Check it out.

And, Cal Thomas, at Real Clear Politics points out that, despite his faults, Rumsfeld can clearly see things that lie ahead. Cal points out that in 1984, Rumsfeld clearly recognized the growing threat of terror—and it’s future impact if not dealt with and planned for. We should all take a lesson, and learn to look ahead for problems, instead of just our own agenda.