Sunday News Items: Telling families soldiers have died, the death of a loyal fan, and the charity of a leader of the team for which she rooted.

A few of my own comments. The first piece is an eloquent piece that can be read no matter what your position is, though it's easy to use it in an ant-war way. I heard the fan in question on talk radio, and it was sometimes hard to take given her illness and hacking cough. Sad case, she died too long, but it is a good human interest story of an ordinary person getting her little chance to shine. The final story regards Al Leiter, surely one of those athletes that makes caring about adults playing children games worthwhile. It is unfortunate (lol) that he is a Republican, since I can easily see him going into politics some day as he himself has admitted is an interest of his.

The Weekly Standard leaked a memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee that suggests there is strong proof that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida has had strong connections over the years. This would dispel the consistent criticism, one that even President Bush has basically admitted was accurate to some degree, that such links were exaggerated. Or were basically "lies." My philosophy in areas like this was that speaking in absolutes were a bad idea and that the ultimate test was twofold: (1) were the connections not just present (the organization so diffuse, I think some connections or meetings could have existed) but significant enough to be considered "major" and (2) on a cost/benefit level, was the choices made to go to war correct?

The reply to the article was tentative, but many doubted the source, argued the evidence was rough, that the Defense Department and others on the Senate Intelligence Committee weren't impressed, it serves as an example of the selective concern of the administration for secrecy, and that other countries still had much more major connections anyway. See, for instance, here (Nov. 15) and here.

My overall philosophy, though I agree with many of these concerns, is that you got to be careful with absolute attacks and do more than making personal shots at the sources. It is easy to do so when the other side basically taunts you by exaggerating, misleading, lying, and bullying as they make moves that substantively you feel are often at best misguided, at worse dangerous. Still, let's not make the mistake of trying to make shades of grey into black and white. I think this might be such a case ... no connections? I'm doubtful. Major connections? Doubtful as well. Somewhere in between that still was twisted by the administration for their own ends while simplifying a complex situation? Yes ... after all, it seems to be their de facto position on most matters of this sort.

I wrote this as I read some news online while the NY Giants bungled their way through another half. I missed their one score (a field goal on an Eagles mistake), but saw their inability to score on First and Goal on the 1, after quickly getting there once the Eagles fairly easily went up 14-3. Yes, this is not a game worth watching without doing something else. Meanwhile, the Bengals (a player of which guaranteed a win this weekend) are tied at the Half with Kansas City 3-3. The Bengals is a bad team actually showing some life, while the Giants are a mediocre team with the potential for more that has found more and more ways to look pathetic. So it goes.

The Giants have came back from the dead (only to collapse again in the post season) enough times to be more cocky than they really have a right to be. They are really pushing the envelope here, aren't they?