Well, N.B. Christiansen, who deserves credit--or blame--for setting up this site, has introduced a new change whereby the links now open new windows. Let me know what you think. We are making progress. He said it. George W. Bush actually said it tonight in his press conference. I stayed in my hotel room tonight to watch the press conference live. He handled it with the same skill and ability that I would handle—without preparation—a test in advanced calculus right now. At one point the cameras showed Condoleeza Rice and she had a horrified look. And Bush kept saying that he does not care about polls, and the only reason he had this press conference—if you can call it a press conference--is the decline in his poll standing. He relishes press give-and-takes with the same eagerness that one looks forward to having her—or his—wisdom teeth pulled out. Would somebody please count the number of times the words free (freedom) and terrorism (terrorist) appeared in his statements? He looked so unsure—I don’t blame him—and so confused at some points. I believe that this press conference will signal the beginning of US retreat from Iraq on the long run. There is certainly a change of tone. I was shocked, for example, that external forces were NOT blamed (except that reference to foreign terrorist fighters, but that is a vague formulation). Where was the Iranian conspiracy peddled by Rumsfeld only a few days ago? And where was the Zarqawi conspiracy running Iraq which has been dominant in US propaganda about the war? None of that. Not even a reference to Syrian troublemaking. Most notable: is that Muqtada As-Sadr, who only yesterday according US military leaders in Baghdad, was to be captured or killed, now is merely expected to submit to Iraqi legal procedures, or something to that effect. That is a change in the formula—to As-Sadr’s favor, which indicates that Muqtada As-Sadr has succeeded in winning Sistani’s opposition to his arrest. Sadr is not wanted by US troops anymore, mark my words. I like it when neo-conservatives justify their wars by engaging in reverse cultural sensitivity. Bush, for example, said that we--brown-skinned people—desire freedom just like anybody else. How nice. How touching. But if US version of freedom is cherished by brown-skinned people, how do we explain the Iraq mess? True, he did identify those who are opposed to civilization. OK. That is a new theory: so instead of the Clash of Civilizations, we now have the Clash of Civilization versus the anti-Civilization. And you thought that Huntington’s thesis was a hard sell? It was incredible how he struggled to make the case for why Iraq was posing a threat to US. He did indicate that US is surrounded by oceans, and that they were not secure. That was an important piece of information that we did not know prior to tonight. He did say that Iraq posed a threat to the “region.” I wonder what that meant, and why should Americans care to support a war to protect that Middle East “region,” although I think that he may have Israel in mind. And he said that US is a liberator and not an imperialist power. His evidence: Germany and Japan, and then added Asia. I do not know what he meant by Asia. Was he talking about the Philippines or Vietnam?