an in-between move

Cool kids read The Bellman.


Don't read this blog!

I mean, thanks for dropping by my little corner of the blogospheric backwaters, but the blog you should be reading is The Bellman. The stuff I post there is much, much less likely to be imbued with dormitive powers.


[German, from zwischen, intermediate + zug, move

Literally an "in-between move". A move in a tactical sequence is called a zwischenzug* when it does not relate directly to the tactical motif in operation. |source|

image copyright TWIC

From this position, black played a zwischenzug: 19…d5
(Linares 2002, 1-0)


about your blogger

David Rowland studies philosophy at the University of Illinois - Urbana / Champaign, where he's an active member of the Graduate Employees Organization. He used to play a lot of chess, but wasn't all that good. He has a blog. And email.



Just because you're paranoid...
California Grocery Strike
Every man shall receive his own reward according t...
Zwichenzug media watch, international edition
Warmongers of Mass Deception (WMD)
DeLong keeps the data coming...
Noncompliant browsers
Zwichenzug media watch...
State of the Union
The Nation's (best?) Newspaper


error log

January 2004  
February 2004  
March 2004  
April 2004  
May 2004  
June 2004  
July 2004  
August 2004  
September 2004  
October 2004  
November 2004  
December 2004  
January 2005  
February 2005  
March 2005  
April 2005  
May 2005  
June 2005  
July 2005  
August 2005  
September 2005  
October 2005  
November 2005  
December 2005  


$zwichenzug$ sell-out zone





Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under
a Creative Commons License.

Union Label

Direct Action
Gets the Goods!


some folks I know

Mark Dilley
a daily dose of architecture
Safety Neal
January Girl
mimi jingcha
Hop, Skip, Jump
ambivalent imbroglio
Brooke & Lian


some blogs I read

strip mining for whimsy
It's Matt's World
School of Blog
Fall of the State
Dru Blood
Echidne of the Snakes
Colossal Waste of Bandwidth
Running from the Thought Police
Bionic Octopus


some philosoblogs

Fake Barn Country
Freiheit und Wissen


some labor blogs

Confined Space
Working Life
Dispatches From the Trenches
Labor Blog
Eric Lee


some A-list blogs

This Modern World
Matthew Yglesias
Andrew Sullivan
Political Animal
The Volokh Conspiracy


some other links

Rule 33
This Week in Chess
War Nerd
National Priorities Project
Bible Gateway
Internet Archive
A Weekly Dose of Architecture
Orsinal: Morning Sunshine
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Safety Sign Builder
Get Your War On


some philosoblogging

Six views about reasons
Seidman on reflection and rationality
And another thing
Tiffany's argument for strong internalism
Internalism v. Externalism
What do internalists believe anyway?
Rationalism and internalism
The experimental method in philosophy
Advertising to children
On moral skepticism
A linguistic argument
More on Williams
Williams on reasons
General and particular
Normativity and morality
Political intuitions
What it is, what it was, and what it shall be
Objectivity and morality
Thinking revolution
Abortion and coercion
Moore on torture
On the phenomenology of deliberation
Even more Deliberation Day
more Deliberation Day
Deliberation Day run-down
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge, cont.
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge
Every shepherd is an abomination
Droppin' H-bombs
ad hominem

Monday, January 26, 2004


Operation 'We Don't Need No Stinkin' WMDs", continued

Another Bush Administration official has jumped into the public debate on the existence/relevance of Iraqi WMDs. This time it's John Ashcroft, who says that the Iraq War was justified even if Iraq didn't actually have any WMDs because they did have, "evil chemistry and evil biology."

(Read about Ashcroft's statements here)

Since the Attorney General isn't usually considered an expert on foreign policy, and we all know that the WAR ON TERRORISM isn't a criminal matter, it's more than a little odd that Ashcroft has anything to say about the grounds of justified war. Unless, that is, he's part of a coordinated Administration effort to ease into the admission that Iraq didn't have any WMD stockpiles.

Ashcroft fits neatly into the pattern I began blogging about Friday and mentioned again yesterday. As a loon Ashcroft is well positioned to float the idea that the war was justified by the imaginary existence of weapons. He's marked out territory that seems distinct from that occupied by Powell, Cheney, Bush, and Kay, but isn't really. And the press is, predictably, balancing Ashcroft's statements with a recapitulation of Kay's claims from last week.


On a related matter, .jasonblog. argues that the Administration's strategy won't work, because the Democrats will be able to put Bob Graham, "on television every Sunday pointing out that he saw the same intelligence, and was unable to conclude from it that the threat was imminent. The message will be front and center: The intelligence was not to blame."

While this is certainly something the Democrats will do, and will have to do, I'm not confident that this kind of response will succeed. In fact, it seems to me that it plays into Republican hands.

What the Bush Administration is trying to do is shift the debate from 'does Iraq have WMDs?' to 'how should one respond to the suspicion that Iraq has WMDs?' Then they can characterize themselves as, at worst, overly zealous in their desire to save American lives. Their critics, on the other hand, will be soft on terrorism.

+ - + - + main + - + - +