Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Rusty Nails 6/29/05...

Intellectuelle is launched The 7 woman group blog, Intellectuelle, has been launched, and is hosted over at Evangelical Outpost. This week is mainly reserved for each of the women to introduce themselves. Thanks go to Bonnie for her mention of my influence on her venture into the blogosphere.
###
Bush's Speech - Why did we go to Iraq? Hugh Hewitt reminds us, despite the claims of the Left, that they have understood all along why we went to war in Iraq. Classic quote from Nicholas Lemann:
In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered at least four justifications, none of them overlapping: the cruelty of Saddam against his own people; his flouting of treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions; the military threat that he poses to his neighbors; and his ties to terrorists in general and to Al Qaeda in particular.
###
Pinkie Rage From Sports Illustrated, Ragin' Rogers: Rangers pitcher goes off on TV cameramen.
Texas Rangers pitcher Kenny Rogers shoved two cameramen Wednesday, sending one to the hospital in a videotaped tirade that included throwing a camera to the ground and threatening to break more.
It seems that Rogers was hurting from a broken pinkie, which had caused him to miss his last start, and he just couldn't stand having those cameras around. Does the phrase "complete butthead" apply here? Actually, maybe it's not complete butthead because he broke his right pinkie and, if you'll notice in the pic, he's doin' his shovin' with his left hand.

2 comments:

Tom said...

re: "Bush's Speech - Why did we go to Iraq?"
Note Hugh Hewitt didn't mention President Bush's original WMD argument. The arguments aren't shifting?

But luckily Vice President Cheney assures us that the insurgency is in its death throes.

Paul said...

From Hewitt's article:
"It fails because the public has a memory,a nd they remember why the president argued we had to invade Iraq."

That's right, I remember distinctly. It's because he had weapons of mass destruction. We knew where they were, we had a base level for how quantities, and they were a clear and present danger to the safety of the US.

So why isn't that mentioned in the article?