Redstate

it is called not having the courage of your convictions.

I thought I made it perfectly clear that I understand why they voted this way and why they will vote on these two knuckleheaded resolutions.

You confusing doubting the success of the surge with wanting the surge to fail.

If the Senators want the surge to fail, than I agree with you. If they doubt it will be successful, but hold out hope it will, then they would want the best leader possible.

if you think it is a bad idea it makes no sense to confirm the guy who will says he's going to do it. Seems to me saying the surge is "not in the national interest" crosses the threshold from being doubtful to thinking it is a profoundly wrongheaded action.

If you are just doubtful it would seem to me that maybe you'd take the position some have, of saying I doubt that this will work but I'm not voting for a resolution saying it won't work.

Sorry, you can't have this both ways. Well, you can, but you can't do it and then ask to be taken seriously.

If this were a confirmation hearing for another office - say an FEC appointment - then your argument would make sense. The nominee would have the opportunity to decide government policy (i.e., strict enforcement of campaign finance rules or looser rules). Petraeus has no such authority because he can only act as the President so orders. Therefore, holding out for an anti-surge nominee serves no practical purpose because it cannot result in a change in policy.

On the other hand, if Petraeus is the right man for this post (and by all accounts he is), blocking his confirmation to make a symbolic, non-binding point about the direction of the war could hurt the troops by leaving them with a commander who is not the right man for the post.

He did not get a chance to speak about his counterinsurgency ideas or just to speak period. All the Senators wanted to do is give speeches about the resolution they are sponsoring and their disagreement with President Bush. The only one who seemed to ask question to the general was Senator Lieberman. Even Lieberman couldn't stop himself from lecturing his Senate colleagues. The whole narcissist thingy going on In DC is kind of sad.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Really?
"I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you, to discover that there is gambling here!"

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

Congress critters being hams is not so wonderful. I too have not heard anyone who dislikes the General. There is a doom and gloom narrative that anything proposed by President Bush is going to fail. They can't let this General or anybody speak at length about steps they are taking to make the plan succeed because that runs contrary to their foregone conclusion.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

you make a very compelling case, von, for the right to bloviate.

For a private citizen it probably has some utility. After all, we really aren't in the position of inflicting our opinions on hundreds of millions of people so in my case it is a harmless avocation.

If you believe that integrity has a place in public life then your position is indefensible. Because these people are going to vote against the action the man they confirmed enthusiastically wishes to carry out.

You are the one falling into the trap of saying it is fine for politicians to have their cake and eat it, too.

If you believe that integrity has a place in public life then your position is indefensible. Because these people are going to vote against the action the man they confirmed enthusiastically wishes to carry out.

I presume that you're counting a nonbinding resolution, such as that considered by Warner (and already on offer from Biden et al.) as "a vote against the action," because that's the only way this comment makes sense. Leave aside the question whether you've described such a vote accurately. The issue is whether a Senator can express formal disapproval of a Presidential action while granting the President his chosen commander, who has sworn to carry out that very action, and still maintain his or her integrity. Again, I think it's not only possible, but, in this circumstance, is appropriate.

1. The President is commander in chief: he gets to wage this war and, absent a compelling reason to the contrary, he should get his personnel regardless of one's disagreement with how he wages war.

2. Is a belief that the President's chosen strategy will fail a compelling reason to deny the President his chosen commander? Not in this circumstance. It's unlikely that the chosen strategy will cost us the war -- if we've lost, we've lost already. It's also unlikely that this move will further embolden terrorists and weaken our national security: So long as it does not involving diverting considerable numbers of additional troops from Afghanistan and North Korea, I don't see it affecting our world-wide posture. (We already are unable to prevent the Chinese from taking Taiwan, so that issue is moot.)

3. On the other hand, had the President proposed a policy that diverted all the troops from the DMZ to Iraq or that precipitously removed all troops from Iraq, it would be a compelling reason to oppose confirmation.

4. Does accepting that the President's policy is not so disasterous that it compels the extraordinary move of denying the President his chosen commander require one to express no formal disapproval of the President's policies? No -- particularly if you believe that such a sense of the Senate resolution has a passable chance of convincing the President that his policy is wrong, and getting him to alter course. That's what you do when you think someone is making a mistake -- one that, while not particularly dangerous to the nation, will cost lives and lucre.

5. But won't such a resolution embolden our enemies? This subject has been debated since Athens -- which used to debate even its sneak attacks before an open forum of 1000s -- and the conclusive response is that such is the benefits (and price) of a democracy or Republic (although Athens quickly realized the wisdom of keeping tactics behind closed doors). A democracy/Republic appears weak and messy and, yet, it more often than not arrives at better policies than any other form of government as a result of that apparent weakness and messiness. Say it with me: The Senate is not in the chain of command, nor should it be.

6. The central question is what course would be advocated in such a sense of Senate resolution. I'm not much happy with the efforts of Biden et al.; Warner has earned the right to at least be heard.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

I presume that you're counting a nonbinding resolution, such as that considered by Warner (and already on offer from Biden et al.) as "a vote against the action," because that's the only way this comment makes sense.

Absolutely. It either that or cheap political grandstanding.

The issue is whether a Senator can express formal disapproval of a Presidential action while granting the President his chosen commander, who has sworn to carry out that very action, and still maintain his or her integrity.

The issue is whether one can vote for a resolution saying an action is not in "national interest" and then vote to allow that action to proceed.

1. The President is commander in chief: he gets to wage this war and, absent a compelling reason to the contrary, he should get his personnel regardless of one's disagreement with how he wages war.

But according to the resolutions, there are compelling reasons why this decision is bad. And the "get his personnel regardless" seems to only apply when Senators are running for cover. It has never applied to other exectuive branch appointments.

2. Is a belief that the President's chosen strategy will fail a compelling reason to deny the President his chosen commander?

Again, there are several senators who have said they think the surge is not a good idea but who would vote against the resolutions. This goes back to the Armageddon nature of the Biden resolution. If this move it truly against the national interest don't you think that is a compelling reason? If not, what would be?

I'm not much happy with the efforts of Biden et al.; Warner has earned the right to at least be heard.

He also has the right to shut up.

Again, there are several senators who have said they think the surge is not a good idea but who would vote against the resolutions. This goes back to the Armageddon nature of the Biden resolution. If this move it truly against the national interest don't you think that is a compelling reason? If not, what would be?

1. I don't like the Biden proposal. I would not endorse any Republican senator voting for it (particularly given that its author has indicated he's running for the Democratic nomination for President).

2. I do think there's a place for a nonbinding resolution indicating disagreement with this strategy. The best argument against such a resolution is that it shows that we're weak and may undermine the plan itself. But, as a mentioned, that's a feature -- not a bug -- of a democracy/republic.

3. Regardless of how good the plan is -- and, as I said, I think it comes too late, contains too few troops, and is proferred by a President who has shown less than stellar judgment on Iraq -- it requires you to have faith in al-Maliki. I don't have that faith; indeed, I don't see why, given his actions so far, anyone would have that faith.

4. Perhaps, someday, someone will explain why we should trust al-Maliki at this point. All I've heard, however, is that we've given him a stern talking too. Given that we will leave Iraq -- and he will not -- I wonder what good that's done us. He knows that he can outwait us.

von

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

The issue is whether one can vote for a resolution saying an action is not in "national interest" and then vote to allow that action to proceed.

If that is the issue, then your position requires one to directly associate voting for Petraeus with voting for the action to proceed. But the latter decision has been made regardless of whether Petraeus will or will not be confirmed - the Senate could reject every nominee sent to them and the commander in chief could still direct the action to proceed with someone else at the helm, an "acting" commander or whatever. So in light of the action's inevitability (it isn't up for a vote), the only logical course is confirmation of a person that senators feel is most capable in carrying out said action.

Perhaps the more apt association would be between those voting for such a resolution and those who propose and vote for some kind of funding restriction that disallows expenditures on the action itself. But to my knowledge such a funding restriction has been declared a non issue, something that the administration can easily work around, so this seems equally ineffective.

so principle is unimportant. That's not a news flash to me, it's pretty clear that was what I was saying.

It seems to me that if you really believe what is about to happen is wrong then you'd vote against confirming at least one guy. It isn't like the Army only has one general.

Actually funding restrictions are very hard to work around without going to prison. The Congress could easily cap the manpower dollars that can be spent on combat pay which would cap the number of troops in theater. There are lots of things they could do without being accused of defunding the war.

It seems to me that if you really believe what is about to happen is wrong then you'd vote against confirming at least one guy.

They'd vote against confirming with the end goal of making a point, correct? But for whatever reason they've chosen to make their point with a resolution, instead. Both tactics are equally ineffective in preventing the action from occuring, but only the former carries an additional consequence of not putting the best available person into an open position related to the action.

Perhaps we'll soon see legislation attempting to block funding for the action - if as you say such legislation could genuinely prevent the action, then I suspect more people would see a contradiction between voting for a resolution opposing the action but voting to approve funding for the same action...

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

I disagree.

If you know that the action is going to take place regardless, but you work the situation such that you end up with a person who will be tasked by his superior to take a course of action that they disagree with, you're only increasing the chances for general mediocrity and chaos in the chain of command that results in an increased chance for any number of other ills - troop losses, wasted time, increased friction with Iraqi officials and citizens, and so on.

Whoever is confirmed will come from the military and will answer to the chain of command. Whoever is confirmed will have the military discipline to take the chain of command seriously and follow orders from above. The question of who is most appropriate to fill that role is not one that revolves around who can best work with and/or agree with the Senate, but who can best work within the chain of command in both directions, above and below to subordinates, to effectively manage a military operation which goal has already been decided upon.

If Petraeus were not confirmed, he doesn't merely vanish into thin air leaving the administration to try and find someone else that concurs with their assessment and preferred course of action. Petraeus will still be around to advise and counsel the administration. Dnying him confirmation doesn't change Petraeus's mind and doesn't bring "surge opposers" any closer to preventing implementation.

You give a good argument but I don't think it holds up. Someone could just as easily argue that surge opposers would benefit most from having Petraeus - a surge supporter - go to Iraq and end up changing his mind once operations are underway and he's collected more data as to whether the action is working or not (that this would happen should be a logical expectation by persons who believe the surge will not bear fruit). If they send someone who already disagrees, and that person reports back that things aren't working, it's much easier to chalk up the assessment to preconceived notions, or to not giving it a truly honest chance to succeed.

These speculative possibilities aside, I think the simple explanation is the most likely one - surge opposers who want to make a point can do it with a resolution. Denying confirmation of an otherwise experienced and highly capable military commander could also make a point but has other strings attached which could even dilute the point being made and/or result in a less qualified candidate being confirmed.

which one says they voted for their beliefs? The one where Erick talks about the 18 weasels who couldn't be bothered to vote?

And you're right, I'm not Erick and I don't hate Democrats because hating them makes as much sense as hating the dogcrap you step in. Other than in extraordinary situations we don't coordinate what our posts say, in those cases there is a foreshadowing with a post from "The Directors". Hence the cacaphony.

...because they wanted to show their lack of approval for the plan to be implemented, without registerring a nay vote against the Commander in Chief's choice for General.

Look, as you well know, politics is a lot about the form of things. The Democrats... and some Republicans... and a majority of the public is against the surge.

That said, I don't know that there's a thing we can do about it at the moment, short of making our displeasure known and waiting for '08.

So we, the Democrats and some Republicans and he majority of the public have to look for every symbol we can to try and convince the President that he's taken the wrong course, while at the same time not puling the wheels off the cart.

As to your second point... about you and the other Directors having your own POV... I get it and respect it.

Just found it ironic.

"THEY" are before you posted? The "THEY" happen to be 12 Republicans and 7 Democrats. These 19 votes are not a political Bloc with any 1 common political cause for all of them to rally around. They all have all kinds of different reasons for not voting. Tim Johnson of SD and Bill Thomas of WY have the best reasons of all of the 19.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

...because they wanted to show their lack of approval for the plan to be implemented, without registerring a nay vote against the Commander in Chief's choice for General.

They will be registering a 'nay' vote when the Biden and Warner resolutions come up.

I understand gutlessness as well as the next guy. I understand that they don't know what Iraq will look like in 2008 and are afraid they will be called to account if things are looking a lot better then. And if things aren't looking better they want to be able to point to the resolution for "I told you so."

I understand all of that. The fact that I understand what is happening doesn't mean their actions are serious, or admirable, or even respectable because they aren't.

...though, put in their position, in a world in which opposing the surge is deemed Un-American... a charge that must cut to the core of someone who is serving in the United States Senate... I'd want to tread very lightly too.

I get that... to quote a great Chicago sage... "politics ain't beanbags"... but there seems to be no sane way to have a conversation about the war going forward.

all we need is an agreement that 1) we are in war, 2) and we must prevail in that war.

Right now the problem is that #2 is anathema to most Democrats.

At the moment, prevailing... as I believe you define it... is akin to picking up every grain of sand on Earth and holding them in one hand.

In other words, impossible.

We can't kill the real terrorists, because we can't stop the civil war, because NO ONE can stop the civil war, except the Iraqi people (or Saddam, who held it under his reign of terror, much like Milosovic once did) and the Iraqi people cannot be empowered to negotiate their own solution because they can't tell who's killing them... their neighbors or the terrorists.

In your mind... honest question... what would be the prevailing moment?

The moment we can say: Ok, we're done here. We can now go home.

I think prevailing has been described many times and it is in a document on the White House website.

The difference is encapsulated in your last two sentences.

There can be no "prevailing moment" because this isn't a sitcom and there are no commercial breaks. And we may never go home. We've been in Germany and Korea since 1945.

The idea that "NO ONE" can stop a civil war is silly. The problem is that we've been unwilling to stop it.

We could stop it, by putting in a giant force and agreeing to stay for a long, long time and being the police there for at least a decade, but the President has not been willing to own up to what actually has to be done. The White House has always underestimated the cost and the time and the troops.

21,500 is not going to solve this problem and everyone knows that.

So, we're back to where we started.

we don't need a force much larger than we have right now, but we do need to spend at least a decade there.

21K isn't going to solve the macro problem, but it can largely solve the problem in Baghdad

Even if we tamp down Baghdad, the civil strife exists throughout.

And the terrorists, the ones who have infiltrated the country, can simply pull back out of the green zone and continue their campaign in the rest of the country, taking potshots at soldiers from time to time.

The nightly news will be the same and eventually we'll be forced to go out into the hinterlands to engage the enemy, at which point we either leave Baghdad vulnerable or have to bring in the massive force necessary to occupy the whole country.

The 21,500 feels like neither fish nor foul, designed to push the solution to the problem into the hands of either President McCain (if things stabalize and the country is looking for another war President) or President Obama (if the current feeling holds and the country wants out).

Best to cut and run. That is really what you want to do, isn't it?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

As, do you, I assume.

And I'm sorry if asking questions... OBVIOUS QUESTIONS... ones that the Democrats and many Republicans and a majority of American's can't figure out... is somehow out of line.

I don't want to CUT or to RUN.

I may prefer a troop redeployment, especially since STAY and PRAY keeps failing, but since that ain't happening... I'd at least like to understand what those who believe in the plan THINK is going to happen.

And I really appreciate Streiff's honesty and candidness, because, my guess is, he and I both want the same thing... what's best for the country.

Can we dispense with the silly ad phrases and stick to the discussion at hand.

You verbally grovel around in typical liberal doublespeak as in "redeployment". You couldn't care less what happens in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East as long as you can drink your latte ventis and view yourself as intellectually and morally superior to those of us who actually make this society work.

Understand the Plan? Not going to happen because you don't even speak the language of those who made this Country what it is, those willing to stand against tyranny from Lexington Green to Kabul and those willing to stand and fight to preserve what those before have achieved.

As long as our warriors are not exhibiting their courage and commitment to make this country safe and to improve the opportunities of liberty and freedom for others, you don't have to feel guilty about your utter lack of the same. When they are, you can't help but "count your manhood cheap". The streets were full of your type during VietNam and millions of SE Asians died. They didn't care just as you wouldn't care.

Rational Liberal? No such thing. Rationalizing Liberal. The only kind there is. And, you can kiss my silly.... ad phrases.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I don't undestand the plan, because you don't understand the plan, and since you don't understand the plan you have to type and type and type angry little phrases to protect yourself from the reality that the plan makes no sense.

21,500 may be able to lock down Baghdad, but what about the rest of the country?

Cause if we lock down Baghdad and the rest of the country is still chaos, then all we've done is bought ourselves is an area about the size of greater Los Angeles.

And may I ask... how do you make society work?

I mean in a way that I don't?

Cause I pay my taxes (highest bracket) and vote and was a poll worker at the last election.

Are you like a SocietyWorker?

Do you wear like a green vest with a sticker that says ASK ME ABOUT SOCIETY?

Sorry to be so snippy, but I was actually getting into the conversation when you showed up to COPY and PASTE hours 1 through 4 of the Denis Plager comedy hour.

Oh, and by the way... I like Mochas.

You don't want to understand the Plan, because you wouldn't support any plan that didn't include helicopters and embassy roofs. I don't have to understand the Plan because I voted for Bush to be the CoC. Not my job, I don't care how he does it. I am far to busy "making society work" to run a war.

This is a good thing, because were I running the GWOT, big chunks of Syria, Iran and NK would be glowing in the dark, Hugo Chavez would be mowing my lawn, "Iman" would be what they used to call Islamo-nutcase clerics when there were some and anyone even suspected of being a terrorist would be enrolled in the Jack Bauer School of Western Etiquette.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

hard to click 'Next' and move on? Huh, TBone?

Just this month strieff was placing want adds in search of said Rational Liberals. He might have had one too if you hadn't come along and spewed.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/streiff/2007/jan/09/wanted_rational_libera...

As for:
... because were I running the GWOT, big chunks of Syria, Iran and NK would be glowing in the dark, Hugo Chavez would be mowing my lawn ...

I bet you think that is righteous somehow. Smiting the wicked and all that. But I swear its simply another form of extremism the world could do without.

d4n

...I really don't want anything more than a conversation and yet the view that we on the other side of the political divide are some sort of steriotype often makes that impossible.

Thanks for saving a good portion of the world with your above comment and I look forward to getting a chance to type with YOU some day.

Strieff probably didn't find a pony, either.

My new motto, Smite the Wicked, Bitchslap the Wimps.

Lighten up you serious thing, you.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

...I'd invite all my generals in for a latte (me with my mocha, of course) and come up with a plan to surrender all the states beginning with M to the French.

Thanks for the info on your plan, though.

I'll make sure to mark you under "don't really care if the plan will work".

(And, Dude, LESS caffine next week.)

I don't have to understand the Plan because I voted for Bush to be the CoC. Not my job, I don't care how he does it. I am far to busy "making society work" to run a war.

So as long as you're honest about not knowing what you're talking about, you can insult everyone else as much as you want? And disagreeing with U.S. policies is somehow a character flaw? What can I honestly say [that won't get me banned] in response? Really, why do you even read political blogs if you don't think understanding policy is valuable?

(...) were I running the GWOT, big chunks of Syria, Iran and NK would be glowing in the dark, Hugo Chavez would be mowing my lawn, "Iman" would be what they used to call Islamo-nutcase clerics when there were some and anyone even suspected of being a terrorist would be enrolled in the Jack Bauer School of Western Etiquette.

FYI: that plan would also leave big chunks of Israel and R.o.Korea covered in fallout. And that's "Imam." You're suggesting that we kill all the Imams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman I guess you're still being honest about not knowing what you're talking about.

Hey, Directors, is this really the sort of rhetoric you guys want Redstate to be asociated with? I mean, shouldn't talk like that at least get a warning?

Sorry mam, you're the one that said kill the Imams. Don't put words in my text. I say we convert them to Southern Baptists. As for fallout, I guess you do need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Dang, another undersized one.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Is it a time difference, or are there conditions?

"Look, as you well know, politics is a lot about the form of things. The Democrats... and some Republicans... and a majority of the public is against the surge."

In Iraq and Afghanistan aren't near as isolated as they were in WWII or Korea. I would think that every single soldier in the US military plus every civilian who will be affected if America does not succeed in the current conflict knows of this debate in the US. How in the world do we expect American soldiers to go out on the streets of these countries: where every move is a live and death decision, knowing that death may come at any second, and do their duty? For a country that has one Democrat Senator that supports them, and a few (unknown number of Republicans) and a minority of the public, the rest of America is telling these soldiers that they're going to die for nothing.
People, we already did this once. The American nation has 58,000 plus names on the Vietnam Wall. I watched them pile the body bags up in Vietnam on two different tours. Those body bags
contained the remains of American soldiers who knew that Jane Fonda was sitting on enemy AAA weapons telling the Viet Cong How proud she was of them. Those body bags contained the remains of American soldiers, who had already had a rotation back to the States, they knew that John Kerry was telling his phony tales of war crimes, that John Kerry was supplying propaganda to the enemy. But it wasn't just Jane Fonda and John Kerry that betrayed us then, it was every American that supported John Kerry and Jane Fonda, that made sure that the last thing these soldiers knew before they died was that their
nation; the nation that sent them there, America, didn't even have the guts to support them.
If you can't support our president, and you can't support the troops that go where they are sent and die for us, because we sent them there, I just can't see how this great nation can survive.

I'm not telling anyone they've died for nothing.

I'm telling them they've done what we sent them to do, can do little more without putting themselves in undo harms way, and we'd like to have them back here as soon as possible.

We keep extending their stays... and cutting their benifits... and changing the rules.

Jane Fonda was a LONG time ago and she has long since realized and apologized for the mistakes of her ways (I'm not suggesting you firgive her, just that we are thirty years from that event) and maybe if we could just talk about THIS war for aawhile we could gain ssome sense of perspective.

I'm not going to touch John Kerry for fear we couldn't even aproximate a similar reality.

But I know of NO LIBERAL who has said they are "proud" of any enemy in this war and if you find one... not some nut job... I will make it my duty to make sure all on the Democratic side of the aisle know of his/her treason.

the 1st, by no means the last, John Kerry and others just returned from Syria.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bennett200511141541.asp

November 14, 2005, 3:41 p.m.
Rockefeller’s Confession
What was the West Virginia Democrat doing as a freelancing prewar diplomat?

By William J. Bennett

Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

John R. Bolten in his speech on May 6 2002 to the Heritage Club, outline the reasons for including Syria in the group of nations that seek additional weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

This article outline the infor on tranfers of material to Syria from Iraq befor the war began.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.html

A comprehensive list of WCW’s individual and organizational endorsers can be viewed on the WCW website. Among the names on the list are: the After Downing Street anti-war coalition, the ANSWER coalition of New York City, Aris Anagnos, Ed Asner, Mumia Abu Jamal, Bill Ayers, Code Pink, Harry Belafonte, Bob Bossie, Ward Churchill, John Conyers, Michael Eric Dyson, Eve Ensler, Jodie Evans, Gloria Steinem, C. Clark Kissinger, Frances Kissling, Martin Sheen, Jane Fonda, the Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Association of America, Jesse Jackson, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Michael Lerner, the National Lawyers Guild, Armando Navarro, Not In Our Name, Michael Ratner, Cindy Sheehan, Gore Vidal, Carl Dix of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Alice Walker, Leonard Weinglass, Cornel West, Sean Penn, Harold Pinter, Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton
-------------------------------------------------------
Hanoi Jane is scheduled to appear at an anti-war protest at the Navy Memorial this weekend. From the United for Peace website:

10am: Women Say Pull Out! Women's Convergence for DC Mobilization Join Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Congresswomen Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey, Rhea Perlman, Eve Ensler, Mimi Kennedy, Q'orianka Kilcher, the Co-founders of CODEPINK and many other amazing women. Other co-sponsors include: National Organization for Women, V-Day, WAND, Feminist Majority, Feminist Peace Network and WATER. Don't forget your PINK!

Where: Navy Memorial, 7th and Pennsylvania NW
When: Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 10am
We will rally at 10am then meet up with the UFPJ rally and march!"

Jane Fonda's actions Today prove her apology is worth Nothing.

My citing of the Vietnam War, Jane Fonda and John Kerry,
since the day John Kerry was mentioned as a candidate for president, has been in the context of the damage these Americans have done to America. In my estimation, the Vietnam War is relative to the Iraq War. Our nation spent a great effort in each case to win, the military has done their job in each case, yet we were defeated in Vietnam by the American Left, and we are being defeated in Iraq by the American left.
The terrorists are never going to defeat us in Iraq, only the American left can defeat America.

We've been talking about this war since 9/11 2001, the American left keeps telling the terrorists to just hold out long enough and they will win because American doesn't have the will to win anything that goes too long. The right keeps saying America can win, but these things aren't completed quickly. Korea started in the 1950s and America is still at it.

"Which outcome would you like for America in Iraq Defeat or Victory?"

you both really understand what is being said and that I suppose is my fault.

I don't know that a surge is a great idea. Personally, I think that time, not troops, is the best answer. But I also am not the field commander, a thought which apparently has not occurred to many senators.

Several senators have said that they don't think a surge is a great idea but they aren't responsible for waging the war and the guys who are, Bush and Petraeus, want the surge. I think that is a perfectly honorable position.

What is not honorable is voting on a resolution, binding or no, that says the surge is a really bad idea and then voting for a guy who says he's in favor of the surge.

This action makes the whole notion of advise and consent a freakin sick joke and demonstrates why presidents try to ignore Congress on foreign policy and war making.

How's things, btw, still helping the criminal element avoid their just desserts?

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

I turned over a new leaf and am now trying to serve just desserts as a prosecutor. Whodathunkit.

I think I see your distinction, although I can't fully agree with it. We can certainly agree there is entirely too much grandstanding and meaningless gesticulating amonst the senatorial class.

The devil take order now! I'll to the throng:
Let life be short; else shame will be too long.

I always had faith that you'd come over to the light.

(Walt, if you're reading this, we still luv ya.)

We can certainly agree there is entirely too much grandstanding and meaningless gesticulating amonst the senatorial class.

Bipartisan agreement! I knew that it was possible.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

check my work and find me saying something good about Hatch.

But this war is more important than a Ginsburg. If winning the war means five Ginsburgs, then Ruth's spinster cousins are welcome on the court.

By the way, do you even know what a strawman is?

In about two years time, we're going to have a new commander in chief.

If, at that time, the American people believe that interventions in Iraq and elsewhere aren't beneficial, I expect we'll get a President who shares those views.

So it'd be nice if we could better direct and promote our efforts, instead of trying to cut off argument. If your objective is the first instead of the second, I've no complaint.

that will determine whether we "prevail" in Iraq will be settled in about 15 months. That doesn't give us much time. If we are to make persuasive arguments, they must be based on demonstrable facts and historical perspective. It will not do to accept the Left's mischaracterizations as the basis for this debate. It is my desire to establish some facts that will keep the argument from spinning off in unproductive directions.

The most important fact is that the situation in Iraq bears little resemblance to a Civil War. The militant Sunni faction (sans AQ) does not represent the political aspirations of the Sunnis in general. They just want to kill Shiites in retaliation for the killing of Sunnis which was in retaliation for the killing of ... The Shiite "death squads" are the mirror immage. This can be damped down to acceptable levels by the impartial application of sufficient government force. This is what Maliki has promised to apply, with our help.

A second significant fact is that the weakness of AQ has been exposed. The only weapon of the terrorist is terror. They employed this weapon for decades with results ranging from accommodation to indifference. 9/11 changed that. It cost AQ its base and much of its infrastructure. They tried to counterattack and met with success in Madrid. This encouraged them to sow terror from Bali to London with devastating results-- for them. They finally admitted, after Jordan, that this tactic was losing them support, even among Arab countries. They made the same admission about random bombing in Iraq. After a while, those police recruits not injured in a bombing got right back in line. Terror wasn't terrorizing anymore. Think of the Brits during the Blitz. Clean up the rubble and get on with it.

So the instigation of the Sunni/Shiite tit-for-tat, as temporarily disconcerting as it is, is another indication of AQ weakness. They could not sustain their efforts without the assistance of an entirely unrelated source of violence. Shiite-killing-Sunni-killing-Shiite has no bearing on driving the "Crusaders out of the Holy Land," or even the "Jews out of Palestine." It does not focus Islamic efforts on "Death to America." Damping down this gangland-style killing will leave AQ isolated and possibly (best outcome) even marginalized among the Muslims.