Gone To The Beach: I'm taking off at noon today and heading to the beach for a short vacation. I will not return until Sunday afternoon. That means there will be no further updates of RWN until Monday. However, rather than leave today's news on the page until then, I am going to put up a list of alternate blogs (they're already prepared) you can hit in the daily news section later tonight.

- Yesterday, more than 20 blogs linked the Steyn interview and 12,287 people actually hit the page. Thanks to Mark Steyn for taking the time to do such a fantastic interview.

- I wanted to let you know that we're still selling advertising. Currently, $10 will get you an 88x31 button in the special section for an entire month. If you're interested, all you have to do is send me $10 via the Paypal button (where you can also just donate to RWN if you don't have anything to advertise **hint hint**) and then email me your button. If you'd like to take a look at what type of traffic RWN gets before making that sort of commitment, just click on the blue & red tracking icon at the bottom of the page and you can see what our numbers look like. Remember, there are only 4 slots left, so buy them while you can (2kb max button size and I reserve the right to reject advertisers I don't think are appropriate for RWN).

- Although I am behind in putting up the last batch of link trades, feel free to email me if you'd like to trade links. The amount of traffic you get doesn't matter to me. All I require is that you update regularly, that I like your page, and that you link me back.

- I am looking to upgrades to RWN over the next few weeks. Although we already have archives (click on the permalink (the time) to get to them) I'm going to be adding a better organized system. A search button is also in the works. Furthermore, banners are eventually going to go up as well. Last but not least, there have been more than a few people asking me to put a forum. I am seriously considering the idea, but I'm not sure whether there is enough interest.

- Finally, If you've sent me an email and I haven't gotten back you, my apologies. I'm absolutely swamped and I can't keep up with the amount of email coming in (my inbox has 175 messages in it). I'll take care of my email when I return.

A Tribute To Saddam: If all goes well (my fingers are crossed) Saddam will be introduced to the business end of a cruise missile within the next 45 days or so. That's why RWN has decided to go ahead and get our "tribute to Saddam" in now, before he actually dies and everyone is cheering like 12 year old girls at an NSYNC concert over his demise. So here are a few articles we here at RWN have put up over time that mention Saddam...

The Translation Guide For Middle Eastern Dictators

Iraq To Allow Weapons Inspectors Back Unconditionally, With The Following Conditions...

George W. Bush: 'No Decision Has Been Made About Iraq'

The First 'Axis of Evil' Joint Press Conference Degenerates Into Squabbling

Interview: Saddam Hussein

A Message To The World From The Us Ambassador Of Whoop Ass

The Puppy-Oil Cannon

Special Bonus articles...

This one was written before we actually started bombing Afghanistan and it still holds up fairly well...

The War On Terrorism: Where Do Nations Stand?

Anybody remember "Operation Infinite Justice?" It's still "Infinite Justice" as far as I'm concerned...

The Top 10 Worst Replacement Names for Operation Infinite Justice -- Part 1

The Top 10 Worst Replacement Names For Operation Infinite Justice Part 2

An Open Letter To France By Ian Wolff: We here at RWN have a long, proud tradition of bashing the French. Yes, we loathed France when loathing France wasn't cool...well, it was always cool, but you get the general idea. So I'd like to thank Ian Wolff for his fine anti-French rant...and for reminding us of Pepe LaPew -- a cartoon character no one who enjoys bashing the cheese eating surrender monkeys should ever forget.

In My World: Rumsfeld: I'd Rather be Killing Commies By Frank J: Osama bin Laden is said to have released a new tape calling evil terrorist retards to arms if the U.S. attacks Iraq. In his taped message, he instructed terrorists in battle strategies aimed at causing the highest number of American casualties. These involved telling them the best ways of splattering ones blood when shot so that Americans may later slip on it.

At a later press conference, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be amused by the tape. "It's fun for them to pretend that Iraq could actually be a worthy opponent to the U.S., but, according to our analysts, the difference in length of an invasion between them using their best weaponry available and the best fighting strategies opposed to them just standing there letting us shoot them is about eight minutes."

Rumsfeld them took questions.

"Do you regret lumping Germany in with Cuba and Libya?"

"Would I have said it if I didn't mean it?" Rumsfeld asked, glowering at the man.

"Uh... no sir. Of course not," the reporter said, slinking away.

"Germany, Libya, and Cuba are all alike. They won't help us with Iraq, they are evil countries, and we are currently working on plans to assassinate their leadership."

"Actually," National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice interrupted, "We don't have plans for Libya."

Rumsfeld grumbled to himself as he snatched a nearby napkin and pulled out a pen. He then quickly jotted a few things down. "Tying timed explosives to monkeys is easy enough," he mused to himself, "but teaching them the subtleties of ninjitsu will take time." He then tucked the napkin into his breast pocket. "I'll file this later. Next question."

"What is your reaction to your German relatives who disowned you?"

"Of course, I can't have fools like that claiming my bloodline. I will hunt them down, kill them, and burn their bodies. I will then bury their ashes in a dank bog. Nothing too surprising. Anyway, I'm going to now let Dr. Rice tell you about some more of our new technology to help with our fighting.

Rice then stepped forward. "To help in a possible conflict with North Korea, we've created a new firearm safety feature to avoid friendly fire incidents." Rice held up a handgun with some sort of optical attachment under the barrel. "The firing pin is blocked until the gun detects that it is pointed at a Communist."

"How can it tell if someone is a Communist?"

"Could you do me a favor?" Rice asked the reporter as she pointed the gun at him, "Could you say 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?"

"Potato chip... of the polar... chariot?" the reporter said with confusion as Rice pulled the trigger to empty clicks.

"Wow," Rice exclaimed, "Too dumb to even be a Communist; didn't think that was possible."

"I would point out," said another reporter, "That just because someone has a Communist viewpoint, doesn't mean they should be shot."

Rice then pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger. "It works!"

"One less Commie," Rumsfeld laugh. "Damn, I hope we finish this Iraq thing soon; I miss killing Commies. Remember when I strangled one in Nam?"

"Yeah, that was last year," Rice answered, "Caused a bit of media firestorm."

"Hey, if God didn't want us killing Commies, he wouldn't have given them necks fit for strangling."

"We still have questions," interrupted one reporter.

Rice pointed the gun at the reporter and pulled the trigger - an empty click. "Fine, what?"

"Diplomats for both the French and the Germans are in town right now. Do you and Rumsfeld plan on meeting with them?"

"Yes, we do," Rumsfeld said with a sinister laugh and then ended the press conference.

In unrelated news, the "Rumsfeld Strangler" has struck again, killing French and German diplomats. This time, a videotape was left on the scene. On it, one can see Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld strangling a diplomat while he says, "I'm Donald Rumsfeld. I'm strangling you." The end credits seem to indicate he had help in the act, as the cinematography is credited to "Condoleeza Rice". D.C. police are tired and confused. Cracking an easier case, they arrested a seventy year old woman who tried to defend herself with a handgun when an assailant broke into her apartment. That assailant, who has numerous assault and drug convictions, was immediately elected mayor.

If you liked this satire by Frank J, you can read more of his material at IMAO.

Alliances Are A Two Way Street: The following exchange between Colin Powell and Ernest Hollings does a pretty job of highlighting the different way that Conservatives and liberals tend to view our alliances with other nations...

"NATO "is breaking itself up" over Iraq, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday as the alliance plunged deeper into crisis by again failing to order preparations to defend Turkey against Iraqi attack.

During a Senate Budget Committee hearing, Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, South Carolina Democrat, asked the secretary whether it was worth breaking up Washington's alliances "just to get" Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"Who is breaking up the alliance?" Mr. Powell replied. "Not the United States. The alliance is breaking itself up because it will not meet its responsibilities."

In essence, Powell is saying that an alliance is a means to an end, whereas Hollings is saying that having an alliance is end unto itself. I wish that I could say that Hollings positon was on the fringe, but unfortunately his views are shared by a majority of the Democratic party and more than a few Republicans.

That philosophy is why, even today, as we prepare to go to war with Iraq, we're scrambling to get minor nations on board with us. Sure they may contribute no more than a few hundred poorly trained men or a couple of rusted out boats to the cause, but if they're with us we can say, "See, we told you we had an alliance! They're with us too! We're not being unilateral!"

Now there is nothing wrong with alliances -- real alliances -- but an alliance for it's own sake is little more than a hindrance. There is little use in being "allied" with countries that use us at every opportunity and then when we need help, either at worst undercut us, or at best do little more than give us a, "good luck over there -- if you're determined to do this." Alliances have got to go BOTH ways and unfortunately because too many Americans have forgotten this, many of our "allies" have been allowed to forget it as well.

Crunch Time For The UN: After an agonizingly slow, plodding, more than year long "rush to war," we're about to get down to brass tacks. On Friday, the inspectors will give another report and then supposedly the Brits are going to ask for the UN Security Council to vote on commencing hostilities soon afterwards.

It's going to be interesting to see how the votes actually turn out. Both sides claim they have a majority of Security Council Members backing them, and actually both sides are probably right in a sense.

While the majority of the UN Security Council would prefer to avoid war, they're also very reluctant go against the US on an issue this important if they know they're going to lose. That's why at this point, we know little other than that Germany will probably go against us & that the Spain, Bulgaria, and the Brits will be with us.

Everybody else (and yes I'm including Russia and China in this) has their wet little fingers up the air, trying to get a sense of what the French are going to do. To be honest, I'm not sure anyone other than Jacques Chirac (and maybe not even him) really knows which way the French are going to go. Sure they caused a huge rift in NATO, but they're also sending ships to the Gulf. Yes, they seem to be giving every indication that they're going to veto a resolution to use force, but the French have a history of weaseling out and changing sides at the last minute.

Personally, I'd be love to know what Chirac's motivations are. Is this a Machiavellian plot to drive a wedge between the US & Europe? Is he simply holding out for a better financial deal in Iraq? Could Chirac be playing to the French people who are strongly opposed to invading Iraq? Has France been supplying Iraq with all sorts of illegal goodies despite the UN sanctions as Rush Limbaugh & Steven Den Beste have speculated? My guess is that a combination of all of the above is involved. However, somewhere along the line, Chirac made some sort of horrible miscalculation. Perhaps he believed that Europe would largely tow the French line. On the other hand, maybe he put too much stock in the "peace movement" and the polls that said the American people wanted the UN involved and Chirac mistakenly he could force Bush to back off.

Whatever the reasons behind it may be, Chirac has gotten himself into one hell of a mess. France has taken a tremendous public relations beating in the states, they've permanently damaged themselves with the Bush administration, and the other NATO members are not too pleased with the French either. More importantly, if France plays out their little scenario to the end and vetoes the new resolution approving the use of the force, we're going to invade Iraq anyway with 30 or 40 nations at our back and the value of France's permanent seat on the UN Security Council is going to drop faster than Enron stock.

So in the end, what is going to happen when the new resolution comes up to a vote? If I were a betting man, I'd guess that the US will get the votes it needs and France, China, and Russia will either vote for the resolution or will abstain. Of course, I would prefer to be wrong and have France veto the resolution. That's because I really can't see Bush continuing to drag this out much longer. A UN veto isn't going to stop Bush, but having the US and a horde of countries hitting Iraq over the objections of the Security Council would hamstring the UN which suits me just fine. The only thing better than sending Hussein to an early grave would be sending Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac into near irrelevancy at the same time.

Poets Against The War: Today is the much awaited (at least by me) "Day of Poetry Against the War." All over the net, people who aren't even skilled enough to even pen a proper anti-war editorial have sent their poetic scribblings to an anti-war poetry page that put 5300 of them up. I read about 50 of these poems (not even I have the time or the strength of stomach to plod through 5300 of them) and here are some snippets of poems that caught my eye...

A Message To A Fearful America

"Don't listen to Bush
listen to Elvis:
don't listen to Bush
he's a warmonger.

Don't listen to Bush
and his sounds of war:
listen to Lennon
and his sounds of peace

give peace a chance..."

Oh I see, we should start basing our foreign policy on the songs of dead musicians. Lennon is an especially odd one to mention in this case since he was shot to death. That should be clue #1 that just because you're all about peace and love doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way.

THE ANTHRAX CONSPIRACY SONG

"...It's not from out Iraqi-way,
or from bin-Laden--not today.
Maybe Dubya's dad said, Hey,
"Iran-Contra" -anthrax!

Who conceives such dark events?
Psy-Ops here have relevance.
Military intelligence
sending anthrax?"

Conspiracy theories + badly written poetry -- what's not to love? Especially when the writer says he's an, " English instructor for Minnesota State University." Wouldn't you hate to be a parent who scrimped and saved college money for 18 years just so your kid could end up in this nut's English class?

america unite this is not our fight

"america unite this is not our fight. once again the us demands domination and resources that our not ours to shed blood for,this stinks to the core. vietnam they didn't give a damm gulfwar our brothers and sisters sick ever more. the round table consists of a global conspiracy of capitalist souless pigs who dont care at the devastation, bloodshed and global conspiracy at hand, i pray throughout every day that all true americans open thier eyes and protect their children instead of piling generations in a stack of bones. while one sits on high on some throne."

I'm not being clever when I say this is the worst. poem. ever. what is with all this weird rhyming stuff, where she rambles on and on, babbling, whining, moaning, and then tosses in a word like tough. because it rhymes with stuff -- sure enough -- that's too much of this poetry -- it's for high school students who haven't learned to write yet -- bet!

You know one thing I DIDN'T see? Any poems about Saddam Hussein. Where are all the poems asking Saddam to flee the country so his people will have peace? Where are lame poets writing, "Saddam pay attention because this is key, avoid war by giving up your WMD." No, no, we can't expect Saddam to actually, you know, act responsibility or try to do anything for the benefit of his people. But who do these guys think are the bad guys here? Not the maniac who's cooperating with terrorists and building nukes, but the people who want to do something about it.

The Mark Steyn Interview: A couple of weeks ago, I was delighted when Mark Steyn agreed to do an interview via email with me. I've said more than once that I think Steyn is the best in the business at what he does and apparently a lot of people agree with me since warbloggers arounds the net voted Steyn as their , "favorite editorial writer who's not a blogger" at the, "Warblogger Awards."

Well, early Tuesday morning Mark sent me his rather detailed responses to my questions. From my email to your web browser, read and enjoy the Mark Steyn interview...

An Observation About Democrats And Toilet Paper: After the 2002 elections, Democrats came to the conclusion that their biggest mistake was not being critical enough of Bush. Personally, I think their weak stand on the war, their lack of ideas, and even the Wellstone memorial service had more to do with their faltering in the elections than failing to differentiate themselves from Bush, but obviously they're not asking for my opinion.

So now the Democrats are complaining 24-7 about everything. They don't like how Bush is handling; Korea & homeland security, spending on land preservation, Bush's judges, the war on terrorism, taxes and the budget, and pretty much every other thing the Bush administration says, does, or supports.

Of course, you have to aim a certain amount of criticism at your political adversaries, that's just how the game is played. However, at some point, you've got to have some ideas of your own to really be worthy of leading. Let me give you an example that'll get across the point I'm trying to make...

Let's say you live in an apartment with two other people and you run out of toilet paper. Well, one guy says, "no big deal, let's just go get some more." However, your other roommate is steadfastly opposed to getting more toilet paper and he gives you every reason in the book why you should forget about it. He tells you toilet paper is expensive, that you could get into a wreck driving to the store, that trees have to die so that you can have toilet paper, that within a couple of years newer, better brands of toilet paper will be out, etc, etc. The only thing he won't discuss is, "What are you supposed to do when you have to go to the bathroom?"

In effect, that is the problem the Dems have right now. They don't like anything the GOP is doing, but they themselves stand for little more than, "not being Republicans." Sometimes, that strategy in and of itself is enough (1976 and 1992 come to mind), but if the Dems want to really regain power one day, they're going to have to present themselves as something more than just the, "unRepublicans."

All Of Europe Doesn't Hate Americans Or Fall In Line Behind French: The Sun Newspaper Online has published a furiously pro-war, pro-American, anti-French article that deserves more attention. To begin with, we tend to get the impression that Europe is largely unappreciative of America and would like nothing better than to see us take a fall. Ok, so that's largely true =) But, not everyone feels that way. For example...

"Shadow Defence Secretary Bernard Jenkin said: "It's outrageous for France, Germany and Belgium to play chicken over confronting Saddam.

"If it was not for the US, we would not have won the First World War, the Second World War and the Cold War. We would be living under Soviet rule if it had not been for America."

Sacrifice ... Normandy graves of servicemen killed liberating Europe in World War Two

Tory MP Julie Kirkbride joined the criticism last night.

"France, as usual, is putting selfish commercial interests before the greater good and Germany has drifted away in a pacifist's dream."

The Sun also had a pointed message for Jacques Chirac...

"THE Sun today prints a single white feather to show our disgust at cowardly French President Jacques Chirac.

The organisation encouraged women to give white feathers to young men who failed to join the British Army as the First World War raged."

Ah, it's nice to see that there are still some people who want to stick with us, not because of purely political considerations," but because they believe that they should stand up for us in our time of need just as we did for them.

PS: Go to the Sun and read the article. Pay particular attention to the pics -- when you get the Belgium, you'll lol -- or at least I did.

Cross-Blog Iraq Debate: The Questions: The Truth Laid Bear is sponsoring a, "Cross-Blog Iraq Debate." The general idea is that the pro-war & anti-war sides will pose questions that they'd like to see the other side answer. Here are my replies to the best questions the anti-war side could come up with...

"1) Attacking Iraq has been publicly called a "pre-emption" of a threat from Saddam Hussein's regime, whose sins include launching regional wars of aggression. Do you think there is a clear and reliable difference between pre-emptive and aggressive warfare, and if so, what is it?"

Yes, there is a difference between invading a nation that threatens the safety of your citizens and invading a nation in hopes of making material gains from the conquest. We make this sort of distinction all the time. Shooting a burglar who breaks into your house and menaces your family is good, shooting someone because you want to steal their car is bad. Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland was bad, but had France swept into Germany in 1936 to enforce the Treaty of Versailles by making Hitler leave the Rhineland, that would have been good. This seems like a fairly obvious distinction to me.

"2) What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in a) maintaining it as a stable entity and b) in turning it into a democracy? Are there any precedents in the past 50 years that influence your answer?"

A) I think it will be difficult, yet possible for Iraq to become a stable Democracy. Democracies do not form overnight, they take a long time to gel (by long, I mean decades) and there are all sorts of hiccups along the way. Even the US experienced horrible growing pains (think of the Civil War) long after our nation became a Republic.

B) There have been a myriad of new Democracies that have formed over the last fifty years. Look to Eastern Europe for more of them than you can shake a stick at. But, I suspect that the anti-war folks are hinting that, "those people" aren't capable of forming Democracies -- as if their are some people who are incapable of forming free societies. Personally, I don't believe that for a second...

"3. How successful do you think the military operations and "regime change" in Afghanistan have been in achieving their stated objectives? Does this example affect your feelings about war in Iraq in any way?"

Things in Afghanistan went fantastically well. We were looking to 1) capture or eliminate Bin Laden 2) capture or kill a significant portion of his men in Afghanistan 3) remove the Taliban from power. We achieved all three goals and we did so much faster than anyone thought was possible.

Now if things would have gone PERFECTLY, we would have killed all of the Taliban, all of Al Qaida (except a few we'd pump for information), and we'd have Osama's head on a pike (instead blowing it into unidentifiable fragments). But, there is no such thing as perfection in war. We came close enough considering how badly things could have gone.

"4. As a basis for war, the Bush Administration accuses Iraq of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear), supporting terrorism, and brutalizing their own people. Since Iraq is not the only country engaged in these actions, under what circumstances should the US go to war with other such nations, in addition to going to war with Iraq?"

I believe we should go to war with any nation that supports terrorist groups with global capabilities, if we are unable to change their minds about supporting terrorism diplomatically. After 9/11, we've got to cut the terrorists off from the funding, training, supplies, intelligence info, and sanctuary that these regimes provide -- especially if they are capable of providing these terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction.

As far as a nation, "brutalizing their own people" goes, I'm generally against using military force for that alone except in the most egregious cases. If we went to war over human rights violations, we would be fighting a perpetual war from now until the end of time.

When it comes to, "weapons of mass destruction," I'm opposed to seeing them spread at all, but I become much more concerned when "enemy states" acquire them. So for example, India and Israel don't concern me, yet North Korea or Iran do. In the case of North Korea, if it came down to a choice between letting them set up a mail order nuclear weapons business and going to war, I'd say we should go to war. But in general, when non-enemy states of the US that don't support terrorism are involved, I'd support sanctions and diplomacy in an effort to convince them to nuclear weapons.

"5. The Bush Administration has issued numerous allegations about the threat represented by Iraq, many of which have been criticized in some quarters as hearsay, speculation or misstatements. Which of the Administration's allegations do you feel stand up best to those criticisms?"

It's been apparent since the Gulf War that Saddam Hussein is a belligerent, virulently anti-American dictator with territorial ambitions who has weapons of mass destruction and connections to terrorists. The people who even today aren't "sure that Saddam has WMD" or claim he has no connections to terrorists are a decade late in grasping the obvious.

The administration has only recently directly linked Saddam to Al Qaida and hasn't provided a lot of evidence, although there have been more than a few indications that Al Qaida and Saddam were cooperating. While I believe that this connection will be proven after we invade Iraq, I could understand some people not being totally convinced of an Al Qaida / Saddam connection at this point.

Dragons, Unicorns, Goblins, Ogres And Trolls -- All Have Once Existed: In today's edition of ACPOTI (Anyone Can Post On The Internet), I decide to explore the world of the paranormal on the forums of The Fortean Times -- The Journal Of Strange Phenomena. While there were more than a few scary people on these message boards, to be fair not everyone was lapping this stuff up with a spoon. On the other hand, "war for oil" doesn't look like such a big leap compared to some of the people who believe their stereos are haunted or who think they're "slipping through dimensions." Prepare yourself for another strange edition of ACPOTI...

New UN Resolution Gives Iraq Only 12 More Years By Scott Ott: (2003-02-10) -- France today will introduce a new resolution in the United Nations Security Council giving Iraq "only 12 more years to comply" with the UN resolutions of the past 12 years.

The resolution is the hardest line yet taken by the French, and has driven a wedge between France, Germany and Belgium. Leaders of the latter two nations support a competing resolution calling for "inspections forever, or until nothing is found, whichever comes first."

"We want to demonstrate that we are serious about protecting people from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein," said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (who is a man). "Some may call it saber-rattling, but at the end of 12 years, if Iraq has not disarmed we may suggest doing something about it. That's the deadline. Period."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called Mr. de Villepin "a crazy cowboy who's pushing his dream of the return of French imperialism."

If you liked this satire by Scott Ott you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

The Consequences Of The Anti-War Crowd's Position: The possible negative consequences of an Iraqi invasion have been discussed ad nauseum in recent months. We've been told that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians could die, many Americans will die in street to street fighting, that the risk of terrorism will be increased, that our attacks on Iraq will increase the chances of other striking pre-emptively, getting
rid of Saddam might be a recruiting tool for terrorists, that Saddam might launch weapons of mass destruction at us or Israel which might provoke a nuclear response, an Iraqi invasion might cause Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fall, attacking Iraq will make America more unpopular, etc, etc.

There's nothing wrong with bringing up the possible negative consequences of going to war. To the contrary, even though we know from previous experience that most of these negative scenarios are not likely to occur, being aware of them helps prepare and steel us for potential problems.

However, I think insufficient attention has been paid to the consequences of failing to remove Saddam Hussein. If we're honest, we must admit that we would face some rather severe repercussions if we allow Saddam to retain power. (Cont)

Show Us Your Hooters For Peace!: It seems that the newest thing to take the anti-war movement by storm is stripping for peace.

Since these women were nice enough to get butt naked just to get our attention, let's see what they have to say....

"The women said they are frustrated that too many Americans have passively accepted war with Iraq as inevitable and unavoidable.

"Part of it is apathy," said Kate Heim, 25. "The other part is that people don't realise it's about to happen. It doesn't seem real."

So she really thinks that there's this large group of people in America who are completely unaware of the fact that we're seriously considering invading Iraq? Come on, Bush has been talking about this for a solid year and rarely a day has passed when something related to Iraq hasn't made news. Here's another comment from the event's organizer...

"For me, it's been a growing embarrassment about being American that started before Bush. This event derives from the belief that people can do things, that people still care and can make a difference."

Yes, when you're trying to convince Americans of something, it's always a great idea to start by saying you're feeling a, "growing embarrassment about being American". That's a great conversation starter that really convinces people that they should take their eyes off of your chest and listen to what you have to say.

As to her comment about "making a difference," does she really think she's making a difference by getting nude? Do you think the average hawkish American is going to publicly beg Bush to call off the war because some women are getting naked? Hell, this might increase support for the war if men come to believe there are going to be naked protests every day.

Can I make a suggestion? Maybe Madonna, Cheryl Crow, Shakira, etc, can all get, "naked for peace?" Then maybe they could move on to a, "Free wide screen TVs for peace" protest or if they don't have that much money in their budget, "free chicken wings and back rubs for peace." For example, I'd certainly listen to Shakira's empty-headed, pacifist babbling if she were giving me a back-rub while I ate free Hooters' chicken wings. It's just a thought...

The First Annual Warblogger Awards: In order to recognize the excellent work some of our fellow warbloggers have been doing, RWN created the first annual "Warblogger Awards". More than 125 bloggers were invited to vote for their favorite blog in numerous categories. Of the 125 bloggers who were invited to judge the contest, 67 responded (Cont)

***Update***: I've noticed several people asking, "how is it that all the bloggers who made the "overrated" list also made the, "best blog" lists. Keep in mind that there were 67 bloggers voting and the people voting blogs as, "overrated" weren't the same ones voting those blogs into the, "best blog" category. Think of it as the, "Britney Spears" effect. The more popular you get, the more people who either learn of your existence and are annoyed by you, who are jealous of your success, or would just plain old enjoy seeing you taken down a peg or two.