Just another hot day of lawyerin'.
I went and saw Batman Begins last night at the Alamo Drafthouse with the Wilsons (who graciously saved me a seat, by the way). It was a really good flick, with a slightly new take on the Batman saga, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. I'm not sure it's any better or worse than the original two Tim Burton Batman flicks, but it's just different (and somehow, a little more believable). I had a few, relatively minor issues with this new Batman movie, but on the whole I thought it was really well done, and definitely worth checking out if you're a fan of action movies.
It looks like the Democrats are trying to go on the attack.
The problem is, Democrats are typically pretty bad at taking the offensive against their rivals. Even now, as Rep. John Conyers tries to put the heat on the Bush White House and force a response to the allegations raised in the Downing Street Memo (which states that pre-war meetings with the Bush administration led to the conclusion that intelligence was being fixed around claims of WMD in order to lend support to the decision to invade Iraq), the Democrats seem ineffectual- their outrage belated and insignificant in light of the fact that, obviously, it's now common knowledge that no weapons of mass destruction were to be found in Iraq. I understand the impulse to want to raise the ire of the public following Bush's deception (especially after suffering the persecution of the Republicans during such fun filled and meaningless events as the Whitewater investigation and the Lewinsky/Clinton impeachment fiasco), but the sad truth is, I think most Americans knew or suspected that Bush had manipulated intelligence information before going to war in Iraq even before the last presidential election, but America re-elected Bush, anyway.
Because America sees all Middle Easterners as one people (and as a group, they should collectively suffer for the sins of their brothers). And because America was still pissed off that we didn't get Saddam in the last gulf war. And because America was frustrated that we hadn't caught Osama Bin Laden. Some of those damn Arabs was gonna pay for 911, damnit (even if it wasn't one of the Arab peoples who actually attacked us).
For all of these reasons, America supported Bush's march toward war.
But the Democrats still have one hope- if Americans are better at anything than being prejudiced and jumping to conclusions, that one thing would be hypocrisy. Once Americans realize that they have made a mistake, they're always eager to find a scapegoat to blame their moral or intellectual failings upon. If the Democrats can truly convince the nation that the decision to invade Iraq was a bad decision both on a practical and moral level, the American people will be looking for someone to blame for this decision other than themselves. This could create the kind of backlash against the current leadership that the Democrats have been pining for. But I'm not sure that the Democrats have anoyone in their camp who is aggressive and charismatic enough to pull this off. The Democrats not only need to be able to show that the current administration is engaged in bad acts, but they need to be able to convince the population that there is a better way to deal with the war on terror, and that the Democrats have the skills and abilities to implement such a plan. Inspiring this kind of confidence in the public is asking the Democrats to go a long way from the snivelling, subservient position which they hold now (where they seem powerless to block the nomination of even a single Bush appointee, no matter how bad a candidate that person may be).
Yikes. I've been typing this while my secretary is supposedly translating for one of my clients here in my office (going over his contract with him). I've got no idea what I've been writing because I'm listening to their Spanish and broken English as I write this (and divided attention tasks may not really be my thing). I'm gonna publish anyway.
Sorry I made fun of the "Great Steak Disaster", Crackbass.