an xbox 360 has moved upstairs ensuring i'll never move off the couch again

Who won? Who lost? Who cares.

Oh that's right, I do. I think Hezbollah's the big winner in this latest skirmish. Except for the complete devastation of their country. And the over 1100 dead and 3600 wounded (mostly civilians, of course). The Security Counsel resolution (pdf) is a joke. In theory, the whole reason this conflict began was because Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Under the resolution, they are not immediately being returned. Plus Hezbollah doesn't even have to disarm. The main concern was not allowing the sale of arms to Lebanon without consent from the Lebanese government. Because, you know, Iran holds the U.N. in such high regard I'm sure that by just asking them not to do it they'll refrain from continuing to arm Hezbollah. What also helps is the lack of international aid except from (drumroll please) IRAN to help with the rebuilding of Lebanon. That's not entirely true. I did hear that the U.S. has pledged around 50 million dollars. Unfortunately the cost for reconstruction is significantly higher and guess who's already out there handing out money, furniture, and apartments? Hezbollah, of course!

Band-Aid. On the ever expanding gaping wound known as the middle east.

Speaking of failed middle east conflicts, an article in today's NYT is headlined thusly: "Bombs Aimed at G.I.'s in Iraq Are Increasing"

A few stats:

The number of daily strikes against American and Iraqi security forces has doubled since January. In July, of 2,625 explosive devices, 1,666 exploded and 959 were discovered before they went off. In January, 1,454 bombs exploded or were found.

Though the number of U.S. deaths has declined slightly since January (42 in Jan vs 38 in July), the number of American wounded has been huge (287 in Jan vs 518 in July).

So the theory that the violence is primarily sectarian doesn't really hold up. As does the theory that once Zarqawi was killed the insurgency would no longer be as powerful. The Bush administration continues to live in fantasy land (at least publicly) by insisting that things in Iraq are right on track. The end of that NYT article, however, suggests that mayhaps the rose-colored glasses aren't really on:

"Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy," said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.
"Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect," the expert said, "but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy."

Huh.
Really.
I can't believe it.

Because I never doubted that
a U.S.-imposed democracy in
Iraq would be nothing less than
a smashing success.

A federal judge ruled that the NSA's warrentless wiretapping program is unconstitutional.

Dang me.
Here's the ruling in pdf.

My favorite highlights:

The program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

AND

"The president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."

I'm sure it's going to be appealed (though it's really up in the air which way the Supreme Court will go. No really.) but for today let me take a phrase from his own mouth:

We Got Him.