Wikileaks UK still available here, so far.

http://wikileaks.org.uk/wiki/Wikileaks

-As Kipling was the apologist for this policy, so Kristol sees himself as the justifier of nearly identical PNAC policy.-

As a co-founder of PNAC, one doesn't have to surmise where Kristol's sympathies lie. Hmmm, lets see...PNAC?

Just a wild guess...

About thirty years ago I had a brief conversation with a brilliant young woman from India about geopolitics; specifically about American foreign policy in the latter days of the Cold War. In the course of it, she remarked to me that she thought that on the whole, the British Raj had been beneficial for India. To give her the benefit of the doubt, I imagine she meant Indian political development, but nevertheless, I was shocked. I'd expected her to by sympathetic to my criticisms of imperialism; I was surprised to find that she wasn't.

To be honest, I'd never expected to meet such a perfect example of Franz Fanon's post-colonial elites, but it's hard, in a brief conversation, to disagree about British colonial policy with someone who's smarter than you are, has graduated from Oxford and done post-doctoral studies at Georgetown, and is wearing a sari and caste mark. In fact, I didn't argue, but I did remember the conversation.

If Mr. Kristol wants to resurrect Kipling's reputation, and his attitudes toward the ocean of wogs who surround good white Christians (and their latter-day Zionist allies), let him go ahead. For all the bluster on the right, I don't believe he'll have much success. The day when a nation of tens or hundreds of millions of people will accept a colonial administration, especially a cruel and arbitrary one, supported merely by satellite-guided bombs and a garrison of 150,000 or so troops, is long over, no matter the elegance of its counter-insurgency theories.

The balance of power has shifted, and bad poetry by the ream won't restore the status quo ante. I'll be charitable and say that, in my opinion, Mr. Kristol will eventually learn this, even if he -- and we with him -- have to learn it the hard way.

Some "journalist" GOPS are as busy as the arc Devils released from Hades to serve Evil purposes.

`

Today is fix broken things day. The home computer needs lugged to the Geek Squad.

The leg leaks and where can one find a good plumber these days? At least the dentist don't get to hear me mumble with cotton gauzes stuffed in my rotten green teeth? No tooth ache, yippee.

`

Yesterday had me go home to read:

The bees, by Emily Dickinson ~

The Pedigree of Honey

Does not concern the Bee---

A Clover, ant time, to him,

Is Aristocracy---

`

David Kline writes an article 'Root Stock'...A Farm Friend Publication about bees and the "king" and queen, flower, nectar, sweet water, and how everything works together...(HINT)...

The wings beat at 250 beats per second as the bee enters a healthy colony. The article gets into biology...a bee's "king" has ovaries etc., (read it?) and with mutual participation of everything... and thanks to the Queen, the "king" and all the court! Holy Butter! Excitement.

`

I love the garden-variety talk from a lawyer. He is a good lawyer psychologist...

Scott Horton weighs in on Kristol's essay on Orwell and Kipling.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002431

In other words if it takes one to know one, then you admit that you are also what you accuse GG of. Around and around it goes, like the trick with two mirrors facing each other.

There is no "around and around it goes". First, Glenn is likely wrong about Steyn's mindset. It's impossible to know Steyn's mindset without extensive conversation with him. So the image of what Glenn sees in Steyn is a completely fabricated mirage. Second, Glenn's "recognition" of Steyn's motives and mindset is simply his own motives and mindset wrapped around another person's actions. This is called, you guessed it, projection. The only thing it reveals is Glenn's motives, Glenn's mindset, Glenn's thought process. Nothing more. Third, the only thing I've accused GG of is projection, and yes, I had been guilty of projection in my lifetime before I went and became a psychologist and learned that what I was occasionally doing had a name and was actually very common.

It is very obvious in this article. The entire thing could be about Glenn and his own crusade against the Bush administration by simply changing a few nouns here and there. It's very funny once you recognize it. Try it! You'll see.

And really, this whole thing about Lieberman at the movies is infantile. From Jeffrey Goldberg's New Yorker profile of Joe Lieberman:

Lieberman likes expressions of American power. A few years ago, I was in a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was "Behind Enemy Lines," in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, "Yeah!" and "All right!"

Far from being "psychologically exhausting," the Wars against the Most-Evil-Enemies-Ever that take place inside the head of the Mark Steyns and Joe Liebermans are exhilarating and fun, and they provide the weak, purposeless and powerless with their only opportunity to feel strong, purposeful and powerful.

Or maybe people just cheer for the hero at the movies?

You know the movies are crafted to give us an emotional response as we go through the story, and if done well, our emotional and psychological reactions will be what the screenwriter/director intended them to be. I'm sure the American military was part of the 'good guys', because that's what Hollywood does, and I'm sure it was an appropriate response to the on-screen action at the time. The only people in the theatre who were NOT reacting in that way were those who brought their own emotional baggage into the movie with them. For example, some people believe the American military is the Most Evil Enemy Ever and therefore can not cheer for them, regardless of the context even if that context would make cheering appropriate. Those people are entitled to their opinions, but they're not much fun to go to the movies with.