Matt Continetti highlights what should be John Kerry’s biggest problem in wooing conservatives and September 12 people.

I’ve always thought that Kerry’s flip-flopping wasn’t his chief liability. As they say at Reuters, one man’s “flip-flop” is another man’s “considered abandonment of ideology in the face of contrary political necessity.”

In fact, the heart of Kerry’s appeal to woo-able conservatives (like me) is that he doesn’t really mean all that stuff about multilateralism and sensitive wars; that, if confronted with another September 11, public pressure would force him to abandon his Eurocentrist pose. Then, working with Republican hard-liners in Congress, he would become an anti-terror, super-hawk bad-ass–because it would be politically expedient. All hail the flip-flop!

But Continetti’s piece suggests that Kerry may actually have some real convictions: He might really believe that there is no such thing as American exceptionalism and that we bring trouble on ourselves by being imperialist pigs.

Vicky Vegas rides again. A shiny nickel for the first reader who knows where the best quarter roulette on the strip is.

You should read Skinner’s piece telling you to read Norman Podhoretz’s piece because even though it’s good for you, you’re not going to slog through all 30,000 words of the original. You know it, I know it, the American people know it.

Before U2 was U2, they were The Hype, and later Feedback. Jefferson Airplane became Starship. The sub Standard is now Galley Slaves. We built this city on rock and roll, whoo-hoo.

A few things that we should have said last week:

(1) Galley Slaves is in no way affiliated with The Weekly Standard, News Corporation, or Rupert Murdoch. (Besides the fact that the three of us work at The Weekly Standard, but that’s not a connection, it’s a coincidence. You can ask Steve Hayes about the difference.) We are not The Weekly Standard‘s official blog. The Weekly Standard does not have a blog.

(2) Because we are in no way affiliated with The Weekly Standard, News Corporation, or Rupert Murdoch, none of them can be held responsible for the tripe on this website. They certainly do not endorse the mocking of snooty Russian gymnasts or toenail fungus commercials. That would be beneath their dignity.

(3) All of which means that we are not being paid for this. We are running this blog for fun, which is why we’re using blogspot for hosting. While we are happy to waste our time on this little project, we’re not happy to waste our hard-earned money.

(4) Did I mention that we are in no way affiliated with The Weekly Standard, News Corporation, or Rupert Murdoch?

After a few short days of blogging, we’ve moved the blog to Galley Slaves.

The same writers, the same writing, just a new name and URL.

See you there.

Everyone in the world seems to be quoting the disgruntled Iraqi soccer players. These fine gentlemen think that President Bush shouldn’t be allowed to brag about the fact that, should the Iraqi soccer team not win Olympic gold, they won’t be tortured upon their return to Baghdad. Go figure. Their quotes, taken mostly from a Grant Wahl Sports Illustrated article have been widely circulated, culminating this week with one of the players, Salih Sadir, being quoted on Newsweek‘s Perspectives page.

But has no one bothered to read Wahl’s entire article? Toward the end we learn that Ahmed Manajid, who seems to be the ringleader of the malcontents, isn’t just your average Iraqi citizen.

Manajid is from Falluja. What’s more, he has a personal grudge against George Bush, because, as he tells Wahl, his cousin was killed by coalition forces.

Manajid’s cousin wasn’t killed by accident–he was fighting as an insurgent. So were several of Manajid’s friends from home, who are also now dead. Asked if he would be fighting as an insurgent were he not playing soccer, Manajid tells Wahl, “For sure.”

These facts might be worth noting, no?

A man believed to be Osama bin Laden’s cook has been arrested in Pakistan. Provide your own jokes.

You don’t need to have seen last night’s Hardball with Chris Matthews to get the sense the show’s host had it in for columnist Michelle Malkin, one of the guests, who thought she was on to talk about her book Defense of Interment as well as the swift boat controversy. All you need to do is read MSNBC’s transcript and see for yourself. In particular, when Malkin mentions certain allegations in Unfit for Command, Matthews blows a fuse, trying to get the conservative columnist to admit she is the one who’s making the charges.

A brief excerpt:

MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you’re saying?

MALKIN: Did you read the book…

MATTHEWS: I’m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: I’m saying some of these soldiers…

MATTHEWS: And I’m asking question.

MALKIN: And I’m answering it.

MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: Your saying there are–he shot himself on purpose, that’s a criminal act?

MALKIN: I’m saying that I’ve read the book and some of the…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.

Thankfully Malkin has her own blog where she lays out her defense (and lays into Matthews too).