I've mentioned Thomas Friedman's "Lexus and the Olive Tree" here before.  He has a web site which I just discovered, and a new book compiling his post 9/11 writings.  I haven't read it yet, but its on my wish list.

[via InstaPundit]

"A national strategy is certainly necessary to effectively deal with the many problems of computer security. While there are indeed well-conceived portions of the Strategy that will lead to procedural improvements in America's information security posture if implemented, the Strategy falls far short of what it was heralded as by the Administration, and were the subject of this article.

Today's release of the National Strategy To Secure Cyberspace is yet another Oval Office attempt to gain consensus in dealing with the many problems associated with effective information security in the United States. Unfortunately, in the areas most responsible for the dismal current state of information security, the Strategy fails to recognize and deal with them at all.

If the administration spent one-tenth the time or money on actual security implementation and education (thus leading to long-term solutions) that it does on convening boards of advisors, councils, town hall meetings, and issuing vaguely-worded, broadly-encompassed, slickly-packaged "feel good" reports like this one, there wouldn't be such a large computer security problem needing to be remedied in the first place."

A good writeup on Bush's Cybersecurity strategy by Richard Forno, former CISO of Network Solutions and the founder of the US House of Representatives computer security programs.  I haven't plowed all the way through the draft yet, but so far I tend to agree with his points

Good:

• Several good practical steps for improving technical security in a variety of environments

Bad:

• Industry influence is VERY obvious, and in many cases the Industry is the problem that needs to be solved
• No real concrete strategy.  This isn't really a surprise, but I'd hoped that the draft would present some sort of 'next step' and a destination for securing our infrastructure.

Again, I'll have more to say once I have time to finish reading the draft.  Work is keeping me busy ;)

"Now we know just how vicious Saddam Hussein can be. Agreeing to unconditional United Nations inspections at a time when our president had his heart set on war is just the sort of mean-spirited treachery that one can expect from this modern-day Hitler.

The only greater betrayal will be if it turns out, upon inspection, that Iraq is not still building weapons of mass destruction and has no nuclear capability after all. "

A short but entertaining article on where Saddam's offer to the UN leaves Bush, and some of the reason's he can't say no to a war.

I love the Internet.  I knew enough poking around would turn up some video of Bush's 'fool'-ish comments in Tennessee. 

[via What Really Happenned]

Did anyone else see Bush stumbling in his speech in Tennessee the other day?  I really have been good about not poking fun at the man's intelligence, but things like this scare me.  I saw this on the news but, surprisingly, can't find the text of the speech anywhere.  In any case, the rough transcript goes something like this:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee.  I know its in Texas, probably Tennessee, that says (pause with confused look) Fool me once (pause, thinking) Shame on (pause, move around, look confused) Shame on you (more confused pausing) a fool (mumble mumble) can't get fooled again"

Huh? 

"The United Nations is likely to throw into disarray America's war plans for Iraq by introducing a timetable for weapons inspections that could give Saddam Hussein a breathing space of almost 12 months."

WWBD (what will bushie do)