I think ^(link) therefore I err

Tuesday, March 28, 2006


Illegal Immigrations
The Washington Post on the line politicians have to walk on the illegal immigration bill.
Views on immigration break into two camps. At one end are law-and-order types, mostly conservative Republicans, who want to tighten border security and step up enforcement against illegal workers. The business community, the Roman Catholic Church, many Republicans and most Democrats occupy the other camp -- joined, notably, by President Bush. Although they generally support tougher enforcement, they also want to change federal law to allow illegal workers to gain legal status so they can continue to fill many low-skill jobs that they believe would otherwise go vacant. Moreover, they say, welcoming outsiders is a core American ideal.

I'm not sure why this is so hard. Illegal immigration is just that. If we've pooh poohed it for years that doesn't mean that the illegal immigrants who are here did not skirt the law to get here. And they know that. Either they snuck across the border at night, or hired someone to help, or accidently forgot to go home or something. It seems that a reasonable discussion could be had. Yes, increase the green cards if needed, but surely a regular family that arrived here illegally can see that our borders are porous and we may want to do something about that. Sure, make the point that because we have looked the other way on this that people who have been here over 1 year may get to the head of the line or something, but quit the yelling and start the talking.

Sunday in Iraq
Sunday in Iraq.
BAGHDAD - US commanders in Iraq have accused powerful Shi'ite groups of moving the corpses of gunmen killed in battle to encourage accusations that US-led troops massacred unarmed worshippers in a mosque.

"After the fact, someone went in and made the scene look different from what it was. There's been huge misinformation," Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, the second-ranking US commander in Iraq, said.
This is the part I mentioned yesterday about reading between the lines.
Major General J.D. Thurman, whose division controls Baghdad, said: "If it was a mosque, why are they using it as a place to hold hostages?" He added that weapons, including 34 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades were also found.

The Documents
The NYTimes is taking up the story of the documents. Luckily for us they are doing it with their usual little twists.
1) President Bush lies
WASHINGTON, March 27 — American intelligence agencies and presidential commissions long ago concluded that Saddam Hussein had no unconventional weapons and no substantive ties to Al Qaeda before the 2003 invasion.

But now, an unusual experiment in public access is giving anyone with a computer a chance to play intelligence analyst and second-guess the government.

2) I was going to add "it's a right wing conservative plot", but after re-reading it, maybe not so much. Just a first impression, so I'm letting it go. It's a short article. Read it, see what you think.
This article does claim that ALL the documents have had a quick review. I don't believe that was the case, but I suspect whoever is posting these must make a quick review anyway.