!?

Zwichenzug

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.

+=+=+=+=+


Zwischenzug
[German, from zwischen, intermediate + zug, move

n.
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
Adams-Kasparov
(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.

+=+=+=+=+


recent

Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay
Zwichenzug: Your spot for Wal-Mart bashing...
California Grocery Strike, continued
Operation 'We Don't Need No Stinkin' WMDs", contin...
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...

+=+=+=+=+


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

+=+=+=+=+


syndication

Atom!



+=+=+=+=+


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
dailysoy
Hannah
funferal
Safety Neal
eripsa
January Girl
mimi jingcha
bleen
Rambleman
Washburn
Hop, Skip, Jump
E
ambivalent imbroglio
Brooke & Lian

+=+=+=+=+


some blogs I read

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

+=+=+=+=+


some philosoblogs

E.G.
Philosoraptor
Left2Right
Fake Barn Country
Freiheit und Wissen

+=+=+=+=+


some labor blogs

Confined Space
Unions-Firms-Markets
Working Life
CGEU
Dispatches From the Trenches
Labor Blog
LaborProf
Eric Lee

+=+=+=+=+


some A-list blogs

This Modern World
Discourse.net
Matthew Yglesias
pandagon
Andrew Sullivan
Political Animal
Majikthise
DeLong
The Volokh Conspiracy

+=+=+=+=+


some other links

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

+=+=+=+=+


some philosoblogging

Six views about reasons
Seidman on reflection and rationality
And another thing
Aspirin
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
Whorf
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
Factoid
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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004

 

WMD Round-Up Yeeeeeeeee-Haaaaaah!!!!!

About the only Administration official who hasn't admitted that there aren't any WMDs is Bush, who today said, "There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know. We know from years of intelligence -- not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence-gathering organizations -- that he had weapons -- after all, he used them." link

While this is far from an admission of doubt, it's also not anywhere close to the kind of certainty Bush had formerly expressed -- a fact that didn't go unnoticed in the foreign press.

The Administration will take a hit on this, but they appear to have succeeded in getting their version of the facts out to the public. Some examples:

The lead from an AP story by Katherine Pfleger reads, "The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that resigned U.S. weapons inspector David Kay is doing the nation's intelligence system a favor with his harsh criticism of the CIA's flawed prewar estimates on Iraq's weapons capabilities." link

And the New York Times today published an unsigned editorial -- widely linked to throughout the left web -- which included the following paragraph: "Although administration officials cling to the hope of finding some evidence of terror weapons in a cubbyhole somewhere in Iraq, surely it is time to focus on how the intelligence could have been so wrong and perhaps avoid making the same mistakes with the next secretive dictator to come along. Mr. Kay largely exonerates President Bush and blames the global intelligence community. He believes the C.I.A. became so reliant on the much-maligned United Nations weapons inspectors that their withdrawal left it without spies of its own." link

Slate's Fred Kaplan notices that "Kay falls short of making a full break with the Bush administration" but does so in the context of an essay built around the thesis that Kay's release from government service has freed him to speak his mind. Moreover, in a discussion of Kay's claim that Hussein was lied to by his own weapons researchers, Kaplan speculates that, "it's quite likely that the CIA itself was deceived, intercepting some of these phony reports and treating them as credulously as Saddam did."

The question is, will the Administration succeed in positioning the failure to find WMDs as a failure of the intelligence community, or will it fall on their own heads? Or maybe a better question is, what's the best way to make sure it falls on their heads?

Robert Sheer seems to have settled on the strategy of ignoring Kay's CIA allegations. He writes, "In no previous instance of presidential malfeasance was so much at stake, both in preserving constitutional safeguards and national security. This egregious deception in leading us to war on phony intelligence overshadows those scandals based on greed, such as Teapot Dome during the Harding administration, or those aimed at political opponents, such as Watergate. And the White House continues to dig itself deeper into a hole by denying reality even as its lieutenants one by one find the courage to speak the truth."

But later in the same essay, Sheer approaches the issue that's been worrying me, writing,"The maddening aspect of all this is that we haven't needed Kay to set the record straight. The administration's systematic abuse of the facts, including the fraudulent link of Hussein to 9/11, has been obvious for two years. That's why 23 former U.S. intelligence experts — including several who quit in disgust — have been willing to speak out in Robert Greenwald's shocking documentary "Uncovered." The story they tell is one of an administration that went to war for reasons that smack of empire-building, then constructed a false reality to sell it to the American people." link

There has for months been enough evidence out there to build the case that the Administration manipulated intelligence to make Iraq look like more of a threat than it was. But the record shows that most Americans weren't convinced by that argument. The anti-war left wants to believe that an admission by the Administration that WMDs won't be found will suddenly render the argument persuasive. But because the Administration can turn around and blame the CIA, the admission needn't have that effect.

Daniel Ellsberg theorizes that, "there are thousands of pages of documents in safes in London and Washington right now - the Pentagon Papers of Iraq - whose unauthorized revelation would drastically alter the public discourse on whether we should continue sending our children to die in Iraq," and calls on those who have access to those documents to take the personal risk of releasing them, "on the scale necessary to return foreign policy to democratic control." link

I tend to think that it's going to take a mountain of evidence to convince the voting public that the Administration engaged in a deliberate program of lying the nation into war. So I'd like to see Ellsberg's advice followed. But there's nothing you, me, or Howard Dean can do to bring that about.


+ - + - + main + - + - +