This Morning

I didn't feel like doing anything productive at work this morning so I hit the web. Kind of pathetic that the only major paper to have an opinion on the Syrian hit on the former PM of Lebanon was the NY Times. Not bad for the Times except I don't think they need to worry about the opposition keeping quiet. Last night they tried to burn down the Ba'ath Party Office in Lebanon and the Army has been put on alert. The Washington Post carries an interesting op-ed on Castro's role as peacemaker in the brouhaha that broke out between Colombia's Uribe and Venezuela's Chavez. This is why Castro is still around, because analysts always underestimate him. Fidel knows when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. In the '90's when he was running low on friends and international standing he tried to "mediate" between the Colombian gov't and and the insurgency. The piece is also wrong on two other counts. First it criticizes the Rice and the US for coming down hard on Venezuela and siding with Uribe, stating that we should have had a more even approach. An even aproach in which a close ally has a neighbor that harbors known terrorists? Then the piece implies that we get close to Fidel in order to get to Chavez when we need to. Sorry, but there is more than one way to talk to Hugo. Granted Fidel is his best buddy, but he is unlikely to help us out of a jam. Better to go through Lula when we need help.

The resident conservative at the NY Times, David Brooks, has a good op-ed today (a rarity). He explores the US - Europe divide and touches on something that few have - that even the Dems disagree with the Euros. There is a conflict of visions (see Thomas Sowell) that cannot be reconciled. A prop used quite brilliantly in the op-ed is a chance meeting with a bunch of Marines returning from the Sunni Triangle.

The LA Times explains why China is willing to rein in N. Korea's nuclear aspirations.