Moqtada al-Sadr's faction boycotts the Iraq Government
Good news from Iraq:
A bloc of Iraqi lawmakers and cabinet ministers allied with militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr launched a boycott of their government duties Wednesday to protest Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's decision to attend a summit in Jordan with President Bush.
"We announce the suspension of our participation in government and parliament," said Nasar al-Rubaie, the leader of Sadr's parliamentary bloc. "We gave a promise last Friday that we will suspend our participation if the Prime Minister met with Bush and today [Wednesday] we are doing it as a Sadrist bloc."
Now if only they could find a way to extend the boycott indefinitely and recompose the Iraq government.
So what do all of you think of this exchange between Bush and James Webb, newly elected Senator from Virginia, at a meet and greet, reported on by the Hill:
At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.
Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.
“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source.
Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’t be taking any overseas trips together anytime soon.
Would Senatorial etiquette lessons be out of place for this titan? Or skip that and head straight for anger management intervention?
And why is he confessing, before he even begins his job, that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief? Is he feeling unloved by the Koz Kidz today and wanting a pick me up by displaying the kind of behavior they would love.
On the other hand, Chuck Schumer's defense of Webb is an instant classic:
"He's not a typical politician. He really has deep convictions," said Schumer, who headed the Senate Democrats' campaign arm.
The hot new political question - which I imagine will be with us for some time, but there is nothing like getting an early start to sow doubt among what might be his constituency - is: Will Christian conservatives and other conservatives vote for a Mormon? In this case Mitt Romney for President in 2008.
Heh. In my case, I no longer have to wonder. The question no longer exists only in the realm of the academic.
I had completely forgotten about it until I read this post by Dean Barnett, but I actually voted for Romney already in 1994 - when he was running for Senate against Ted Kennedy. Dean Barnett tell us:
I first met Mitt Romney in early 1994 when he was beginning his Senate run against Ted Kennedy and was a washed up pol at age 27, having lost my bid for state representative in 1992. I’m proud to say that I was one of the first volunteers for the Romney for Senate campaign.
I still don't have a very good sense of what Mormonism is besides the rumor of a few weird practices here and there, but Rebecca Lesses points out, at Mystical Politics, that the representation of the physicality of God in Mormon theology reminds her of the understanding of God in Judaism as represented in [the elusive] text of the Shi'ur Koma, a key tenet of the early mystical tradition in Judaism, known as Merkavah Mysticism. It's a text which in some way gives us the actual measure of God.
Unfortunately most of our knowledge of the Shi'ur Koma exists as guess work, as the text itself is very difficult to undeerstand; but modern scholars think that it was mystical commentary on certain verses of the Song of Songs, a book that uses allegory to describe the relationship between God and the people Israel.
And a commenter at Rebecca's site points out that the Enochic traditions, also essential to Merkavah Mysticism, plays an important role in Mormon theology.
Which makes aspects of Mormonism sound almost like a displaced apocalyptic cult from the first or second century CE Israel that somehow landed in 19th century America.
The hot new political question - which I imagine will be with us for some time, but there is nothing like getting an early start to sow doubt among what might be his constituency - is: Will Christian conservatives and other conservatives vote for a Mormon? In this case Mitt Romney for President in 2008.
Heh. In my case, I no longer have to wonder. The question no longer exists only in the realm of the academic.
I had completely forgotten about it until I read this post by Dean Barnett, but I actually voted for Romney already in 1994 - when he was running for Senate against Ted Kennedy. Dean Barnett tell us:
I first met Mitt Romney in early 1994 when he was beginning his Senate run against Ted Kennedy and was a washed up pol at age 27, having lost my bid for state representative in 1992. I’m proud to say that I was one of the first volunteers for the Romney for Senate campaign.
I still don't have a very good sense of what Mormonism is besides the rumor of a few weird practices here and there, but Rebecca Lesses points out, at Mystical Politics, that the representation of the physicality of God in Mormon theology reminds her of the understanding of God in Judaism as represented in [the elusive] text of the Shi'ur Koma, a key tenet of the early mystical tradition in Judaism, known as Merkavah Mysticism. It's a text which in some way gives us the actual measure of God.
Unfortunately most of our knowledge of the Shi'ur Koma exists as guess work rather than text, as the text itself is no longer extant; but modern scholars believe that it was mystical commentary on certain verses of the Song of Songs, a book that uses allegory to describe the relationship between God and the people Israel.
And a commenter at Rebecca's site points out that the Enochic traditions, also essential to Merkavah Mysticism, plays an important role in Mormon theology.
Which makes aspects of Mormonism sound almost like a displaced apocalyptic cult from the first or second century CE Israel that somehow landed in 19th century America.
The hot new political question - which I imagine will be with us for some time, but there is nothing like getting an early start to sow doubt among what might be his constituency - is: Will Christian conservatives and other conservatives vote for a Mormon? In this case Mitt Romney for President in 2008.
Heh. In my case, I no longer have to wonder. The question no longer exists only in the realm of the academic.
I had completely forgotten about it until I read this post by Dean Barnett, but I actually voted for Romney already in 1994 - when he was running for Senate against Ted Kennedy. Dean Barnett tell us:
I first met Mitt Romney in early 1994 when he was beginning his Senate run against Ted Kennedy and was a washed up pol at age 27, having lost my bid for state representative in 1992. I’m proud to say that I was one of the first volunteers for the Romney for Senate campaign.
I still don't have a very good sense of what Mormonism is besides the rumor of a few weird practices here and there, but Rebecca Lesses points out, at Mystical Politics, that the representation of the physicality of God in Mormon theology reminds her of the understanding of God in Judaism as represented in [the elusive] text of the Shi'ur Koma, a key tenet of the early mystical tradition in Judaism, known as Merkavah Mysticism.
Unfortunately most of our knowledge of the Shi'ur Koma exists as guess work rather than text, as its not precisely extant.
And a commenter at her site points out that the Enochic traditions, also essential to Merkavah Mysticism, plays an important role in Mormon theology.
Which makes aspects of Mormonism sound almost like a displaced apocalyptic cult from the first or second century CE Israel that somehow landed in 19th century America.
The hot new political question - which I imagine will be with us for some time, but there is nothing like getting an early start to create doubt among his constituency - is: Will Christian conservatives and other conservatives vote for a Mormon? In this case Mit Romney for President in 2008.
Heh. In my case, I no longer have to wonder. The question is no longer in the realm of the academic.
I had completely forgotten about it until I read this post by Dean Barnett, but I actually voted for Romney already in 1994 - when he was running for Senate against Ted Kennedy. Dean Barnett tell us:
I first met Mitt Romney in early 1994 when he was beginning his Senate run against Ted Kennedy and was a washed up pol at age 27, having lost my bid for state representative in 1992. I’m proud to say that I was one of the first volunteers for the Romney for Senate campaign.
I still don't have a very good sense of what Mormonism is besides the rumor of a few weird practices here and there, but Rebecca Lesses points out, at Mystical Politics, that the representation of the physicality of God in Mormon theology reminds her of the understanding of God in Judaism as represented in [the elusive] text of the Shi'ur Koma, a key tenet of the early mystical tradition in Judaism, known as Merkavah Mysticism.
Unfortunately most of our knowledge of the Shi'ur Koma exists as guess work rather than text, as its not precisely extant.
And a commenter at her site points out that the Enochic traditions, also essential to Merkavah Mysticism, plays an important role in Mormon theology.
Which makes aspects of Mormonism sound almost like a displaced apocalyptic cult from the first or second century CE Israel that somehow landed in 19th century America.
he hot new political question - which I imagine will be with us for some time, but there is nothing like getting an early start to create doubt among his constituency - is: Will Christian conservatives and other conservatives vote for a Mormon? In this case Mit Romney for President in 2008.
Heh. In my case, I no longer have to wonder. It's no longer in the realm of the academic.
I had completely forgotten about it until I read this post by Dean Barnett, but I actually voted for Romney already in 1994 - when he was running for Senate against Ted Kennedy. Dean Barnett tell us:
I first met Mitt Romney in early 1994 when he was beginning his Senate run against Ted Kennedy and was a washed up pol at age 27, having lost my bid for state representative in 1992. I’m proud to say that I was one of the first volunteers for the Romney for Senate campaign.
I still don't have a very good sense of what Mormonism is besides the rumor of a few weird practices here and there, but Rebecca Lesses points out, at Mystical Politics, that the representation of the physicality of God in Mormon theology reminds her of the understanding of God in Judaism as represented in [the elusive] text of the Shi'ur Koma, a key tenet of the early mystical tradition in Judaism, known as Merkavah Mysticism.
Unfortunately most of our knowledge of the Shi'ur Koma exists as guess work rather than text, as its not precisely extant.
And a commenter at her site points out that the Enochic traditions, also essential to Merkavah Mysticism, plays an important role in Mormon theology.
Which makes aspects of Mormonism sound almost like a displaced apocalyptic cult from the first or second century CE Israel that somehow landed in 19th century America.
The United Kingdom should be broken up and Scotland and England set free as independent nations, according to a huge number of voters on both sides of the border.
A clear majority of people in both England and Scotland are in favour of full independence for Scotland, an ICM opinion poll for The Sunday Telegraph has found. Independence is backed by 52 per cent of Scots while an astonishing 59 per cent of English voters want Scotland to go it alone.
There is also further evidence of rising English nationalism with support for the establishment of an English parliament hitting an historic high of 68 per cent amongst English voters. Almost half – 48 per cent – also want complete independence for England, divorcing itself from Wales and Northern Ireland as well. Scottish voters also back an English breakaway with 58 per cent supporting an English parliament with similar powers to the Scottish one.
In related news, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted the collapse of Britain, attacking what he called their ``oppressive behavior.''
Hey, do you think he's been reading British polls?
In a new first, Fatima Omar Mahmud al-Najar, a Palestinian Grandmother, blew herself up in a suicide bombing on Thursday, November 23, killing herself and lightly wounding three Israeli soldiers.
The mother of nine and grandmother of 41 became the oldest Palestinian suicide bomber at the age of 57, approaching troops operating to curb daily rocket attacks, the army said.
"Troops saw a woman approaching them in a suspicious manner and identified her carrying an explosive device," a spokeswoman said of the incident in the northern town of Jabaliya.
"They then threw a stun grenade in her direction but she managed to blow herself up," the spokeswoman said, adding that three soldiers were lightly hurt.
This was obviously a very proud moment for Hamas for reaching and surpassing this hurdle, as the bombing was claimed within minutes.
Apparently, it was a proud moment for the entire family as well that their mother and grandmother reacted to the Israeli shelling at Beit Hanoun where faulty equipment led to the death of 19 civilians by blowing herself up to become a martyr.
Relatives said Najar had seven sons and two daughters, plus some 41 grandchildren, and that they were proud of her "martyrdom", which daughter Azhar said was a direct response to the Beit Hanun shelling.
"She did this operation in response to the Beit Hanun massacre. She was very moved by what happened," said Azhar, speaking from home in Jabaliya where relatives came to congratulate Najar's nearest and dearest.
Azhar also said her mother had taken part in a daring rescue operation, staged by Palestinian mothers and wives, who acted as human shields to free more than a dozen gunmen holed up in a Beit Hanun mosque on November 3.
Zuheir, Najar's 20-year-old son, told AFP from the family home: "We are really happy. It's a big operation. She told us last night that she would do a suicide operation. She prepared her clothes for that operation and we are proud.
"'I don't want anything, only to die a martyr.' That's what she said."
Lovely sentiment.
Another thing to be thankful is that we were not born into and propagandized by this death cult.
He started off by mentioning that "tomorrow is an extremely important day for America," and the crowd went wild, thinking he was talking about taking power. But of course, he launched into his praise of the Marine Corps, and the crowd cheered a little less loudly. Then he thanked all the brave veterans and brave men still fighting, and the crowd cheered a little less loudly again.
Then he mentioned that he received a call from Sen. Allen, and the crowd went nuts again. Then he mentioned how pleasant and dignified Allen was, and the crowd grew quiet. Then he said he was having lunch next week with Allen — and the crowd was dead silent. Finally he told the audience that they should all thank Sen./Gov. Allen for his many years of dedicated service to the people of Virginia — and you could almost hear the people gathered looking at each other asking, "What the $#@! did we just do?"
It was priceless.
They've elected themselves a paleo-con, that's what.
A purported audio recording by the leader of Iraq's al Qaeda wing gloated over the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as a top U.S. general said the military was preparing to recommend strategy changes.
Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, said in the recording posted on the Internet on Friday that the group had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq.
Iran's most powerful leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in the congressional elections an "obvious victory" for the Iranian nation.
"This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world," Khamenei said in remarks reported by Iran's student news agency ISNA on Friday.
"Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."
Today the Mighty Media Notes Spotlight turns on the liberal pundits and whether they are being magnanimous in victory.
Answer: Not.
Twelve years after congressional Democrats were relegated to the minority offices, six years after they were evicted from the White House, the liberals are hootin', hollerin' and high-fivin' their way through the week.
"WE WON!!! WE WON!!! WE'RE TAKING BACK AMERICA!!! The Stephanie Miller Show was a full-on gloat zone this morning."
That's from the L.A. radio host's own blog , and she was so gleeful that she started playing the nah nah nah nah nah chant seconds after saying hello.
Unseemly? They don't care. And Stephie has plenty of company.
Winning is not a strategy, victory is not a strategy.
What the Dems will do:
We’re gonna say, here’s a plan that we have, and Speaker Pelosi has signed on to the plan I have, stability in the Middle East, stability in Iraq comes from redeployment of our troops, and that’s gonna be what we’ll work for.
On the Presidency:
Listen, this is not a dictatorship. The President can say all he wants to. The President has, has no power. The President is a, a perception of power. And he’s lost that power in this election.
Well, we can take it. We're strong. And we'll come back stronger.
I wanted him replaced two years ago, and said so. (I wanted Condi replaced too, for that matter). I thought he was a bad manager, and a poor judge of people (some of his top aides don't belong there). It took me quite a while to get to that conclusion because of his reputation as an outstanding manager, but that's what I think, and I'm sad to think it. Because, in a town overpopulated with journeyman minor leaguers, he's an all star. He shakes up the system, which is not always a good thing, but it almost always is. He's the only member of the Cabinet to do that, and DoD, for all of its faults, is probably the most interesting building in town. It's sure a lot better than the White House and the NSC, and none of those people—the Hadleys, the O'Sullivans (a name you probably don't know, but she is in charge of Middle East policy at the NSC), the Abramses, etc.—is walking the plank. We can't prevail without people like Rumsfeld, the meteors of the political universe. He's a pure American type.
He's one of those people who does a lot of good things you never hear about, because he doesn't talk about them and he doesn't want his people to talk about them. One example: there's a Pentagon program to train dogs to assist blinded and crippled soldiers. It takes about two years to properly train the dogs, and the cost is forty thousand dollars each. One of the dogs was brought in to Rumsfeld's office for a visit, and when it was over, he took out his check book and covered the full cost of one of them. You wouldn't have read about it in the MSM, I promise you, but his future biographers should know such things.
And while I thought he should be replaced, I found the manner and the moment of his purge utterly disgusting. What was the rush? It was one of the worst moments of W's presidency. It was a double surrender by the president, throwing a severed head to the Democrats and to the terrorists. You can be quite sure that the terror masters saw the election as a great victory, and Rumsfeld's ritual sacrifice as a moment of glory. It will encourage them to redouble their efforts, both in Iraq/Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They believe they have Bush's number, that they have broken him, and all they must do now is keep the blood flowing to accelerate our retreat. My heart breaks for the Iraqis.
I think [Rumsfeld] was right, and that most troops in Iraq today would agree. I was just talking to a Marine Lt. back from Haditha and Hit; his chief worry was not too few Americans, but rather Iraqi Security Forces insidiously expecting Americans to do their own security patrolling. Since sending in tens of thousands to do a Grozny-like smash-up is both politically impossible and antithetical to American policy, I don't see the advantage of more troops at all, especially when we will soon near 400,000 Iraqis in arms, which, together with coalition forces of ca. 150,000, would in theory provide 555,000—or more than the "peacetime" army of Saddam's. As a rule in history, it is not just the size, but the nature, rules of engagement, and mission, of armies that matter.
For the future, neither precipitous withdrawal nor a big build-up are the right solutions, the former will leave chaos, the latter will only ensure perpetual Iraqi dependency. As it is, there are too many support troops over in Iraq in compounds, who are not out with Iraqis themselves; more troops will only ensure an even bigger footprint and more USA-like enclaves. Abezaid, Casey, Petraeus, McMaster, etc. understand counter-insurgency and the need for a long-term commitment that marries political autonomy for the Iraqis with American aid, commandos, and air support. Rumsfeld supported them all.
A final note.Whatever Rumsfeld's past in the 1970s and 1980s, he wholeheartedly supported the present effort to offer the MIddle East something other than realpolitik. I don't see how the Reagan-Bush era 1980s and early 1990s policies in the Middle East—selling arms to Iran, putting troops in Lebanon and running when they were hit, cynically playing off Iran against Iraq, selling weapons to any thug in the Middle East, giving a blank check to the House of Saud, letting the Shiites and Kurds be massacred in February-March 1991—were anything other than precursors to the events of 9/11—when, of course, enhanced by the shameless Clintonian appeasement of the middle and late 1990s.
The return of the realists-Baker, Gates, and the former advisors to GB I-should prove an interesting mix with the Dean-Pelosi Democrats. The latter used to call for idealism in foreign policy, then got it with GWB's democratization, then turned on him, and now will get the realism that they currently profess to favor. Don't hold your breath.
We've been hearing over and over that the purported plan of the Iraq Study group is to offer incentives to Iran and Syria to help the US in Iraq.
Iran and Syria.
Iran and Syria?
How is this realism rather than stupidity? It's mortgaging an evanescent present for the future. No one will actually believe we are saving face by doing this. The entire world will simply laugh.
Now that the terrorists are finally winning with the fruits of the Democrat victory in the US still to come, how is offering them economic incentives a viable plan? Won't they simply take them, continue their activities and laugh themselves silly.
Moreover, this is the same "realism" that sold out Lebanon to Syria after our marines were killed there by the proto-Hezbollah movement, which sold out the Kurds and the Shi'ites to Saddam after Bush I. Haven't we already seen how well that worked out for all involved?
It's just a return to the policy of Bush I that won't actually work, will create greater problems for us in the long term - which we will conveniently ignore until, like Afghanistan abandoned, it blows up in our faces - and will alienate a great deal of the base.
David Frum, a co-author of Mr Bush’s 2002 “Axis of Evil” speech, told The Times that Mr Baker was now “Secretary of State in all but name”, and that the appointment of Mr Gates signalled a new phase of foreign policy where negotiation, and carrots rather than sticks, would dominate.
Frank Gaffney, a Pentagon official under Ronald Reagan, described Mr Gates’s appointment as the “beginning of the Baker regency”. Mr Frum said that he suspects Mr Baker is already negotiating with Tehran — a policy he deplores — and that he believed the White House will offer Iran both an end of sanctions and a “sphere of influence” in Iraq.
Mr Brzezinski told The Times that Mr Gates’s nomination was the beginning of a “major corrective” in US foreign policy on the Middle East.
“The most immediate change will be in tone and style because he is a very different personality to Rumsfeld,” Mr Brzezinski said. “Long-term changes probably involve a more open-minded reassessment of what has been going on because he is less inclined to be sympathetic to the neo- con perspective.”
SO WHAT KIND OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE will Bob Gates be? I don’t know for sure and more ominously, I bet the White House doesn’t either. Personally, I find more to fear in his appointment than I do in Alcee Hastings’, but we’ll give him a chance. If the country is about to re-embrace Scowcroftian realism, we’re about to realize a hard lesson about that policy’s limitation. And if the military is going to return to worrying about the enemies it chooses instead of the enemies that choose us, we’ll have bigger troubles still.
UPDATE: There was a time when Baker knew that Iraq and Iran were two different countries, but his policy of giving carrots seems unchanged.
Omri Ceren at Mere Rhetoric asks whether Mr. Bush interest in RMA doctrine - revolution in military affairs has turned out to be merely rhetoric? Or has Rummy sufficiently worked changes at the Pentagon so that he no longer needs to be there to implement the changes? Still:
Maybe if Gates wasn't a Cold Warrior of precisely the opposite sensibilities of Cheney and Rumsfeld the conclusions wouldn't be as inescabable. But Rumsfeld is hated in the Pentagon far more for RMA than Iraq, and now it looks like the President is giving up on RMA.
According to Newsmax, Ed Koch is predicting a push to impeach Bush by the Dems as well:
Some congressional leaders will push for President Bush's impeachment now that the Democrats have taken control of the House and possibly the Senate, former New York Mayor Ed Koch predicts.
"I expect that [Rep. John] Conyers as chairman [of the House Judiciary Committee], now with great freedom, will do anything he can to commence such impeachment or investigatory activity, and we'll see whether Pelosi will prevent it," Koch says.
I really don't like realist conservatism. It often produces detestable, morally- cringeworthy Republican policy: for example, the retreat from Lebanon after Hezbollah bombed our Marine barracks, abandoning the Shi'ites and the Kurds in 1991, the decision to abandon Afghanistan to rack and ruin after the Soviets left, etc. And all of these realist positions have created enormous problems for us as well in the course of time, problems not visible immediately, but which have created the seeds of most of our current problems.
And so this new appointment of Bob Gates, which I note Dick Cheney opposed - good for him (see below for more) - is making me nervous. If, after our support of the last few years, Bush sells out the hawks on Iraq, there is going to be a cataclysm on the right. I hope Bush understands this in a way he did not understand how the Miers nomination would focus the ire of his own party.
To the Iraqi Shi'ites, the symbolism of President Bush nominating Bob Gates is going to be difficult and may be interpreted - rightly or wrongly we have yet to see - as the first American retreat on Iraq.
Most troubling regarding Iraq, Mr. Gates was deputy national security adviser under Brent Scowcroft in 1991, when President Bush's father abandoned the Shiite uprising that followed the first Gulf War. One reason the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki has had such a hard time dismantling Shiite militias is because Shiites fear that it's only a matter of time before the U.S. abandons them again and they will have to confront the Sunni Baathist insurgency on their own. If President Bush wants to reassure Shiites on this score and about Mr. Gates, he should announce that the recent efforts to appease the Sunni terrorist political fronts in Iraq have failed.
In addition, according to Christopher Hitchens on the Hugh Hewitt show, Bob Gates was in charge of the pro-Saddam Hussein policy at the CIA in the 1980s.
HH: I want to go back to the country, and its ability to wage this war after last night. Has it been compromised?
CH: Very much by the appointment of Mr. Gates, I believe. I mean, I think that's a disgrace. It was very lucky for Mr. Gates that he was able to escape prosecution during the Iran-Contra scandal. And before that, he was the man at the CIA who was in charge of the pro-Saddam Hussein policy of the mid-80's, including giving, directly, important intelligence to Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran. He's hopelessly compromised. I can't think of a worse choice, really, and I hope he gets a real hard time at confirmation from Republicans.
Yesterday, just after President Bush announced that he would nominate Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld, I suggested that Gates would not enjoy his confirmation hearings. After all, they will be chaired by Sen. Levin who helped lead the charge against Gates when Gates was nominated to head the CIA in 1991. Levin ended up voting against Gates. He cited Gates' alleged dishonesty in answering questions about Iran-Contra, the liberal cause celebre of a few years earlier.
But I made my prediction before I knew about Gates' close relationship with former Secretary of State Baker, the man heading up the commission that trying to figure out what to do about Iraq. Reportedly, the commission is seriously thinking about enlisting our friends the Syrians and Iranians to cover our exit.
But a source told NBC News’ military analyst Bill Arkin that prior to the election, Vice President Dick Cheney argued with other politicians over whether Rumsfeld should stay. White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and others said Rumsfeld should be removed, the source said. Both sides agreed the decision would be made after the election, when Bush would make the final call based on how Republicans did.
According to the source, Bush agreed Rumsfeld should be removed after seeing election results favoring Democrats. Cheney then lost another argument, protesting Gates’ nomination as Rumsfeld’s replacement.
On the other hand, for a positive take on Gates, see here.
Fritz W Ermarth: Well, from everything the president has said, the strategy won’t basically change. Now, I can’t guarantee that sitting here in my study, but the execution you can count on will be very thoughtful and careful. That’s the kind of person Gates is. But until the president signals it, I don’t think you ought to look for a change of strategy...
He’s very realistic, and he’s very committed to the exercise of American power in a thoughtful way, and I think for all those reasons he’s an excellent choice.
The National Interest: What would you say his ideology is?
FWE: He’s a national security professional. He comes from a camp with which I personally identify. He understands strategic realities such that he’ll know we can’t back out of the situation we have in Iraq, but we can’t stay in it either without behaving very deftly and getting as much support as we can.
I also heard Lawrence Eagleberger interviewed on Bob Gates and he was extremely positive about the man and his demeanor and his abilities.
Clarice Feldman notes on The American Thinker that the VIPS, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity who played a large role in supplying the "intelligence" in the Plame affair, appear to hate Bob Gates and regularly target him in their articles.
She writes: I consider the opposition of these moonbats to Gates as a major plus for him.
On the other hand, Powerline is sounding is even more bleak:
Robert Gates is drawing rave reviews from those who want the U.S. out of Iraq. Zbigniew Brzezinski says "I think the Gates appointment is the best appointment that President Bush has made in the course of his six years in office." Sen. Hagel says "President Bush has made an excellent choice for this critically important position. Bob Gates is qualified, competent and experienced." Rand Beers, a national security adviser to the Kerry campaign also has kind words for Gates.
That sounds an awful lot like Nancy Pelosi on Fox calling Iraq not a war but a situation to be solved.
Due to the threat of terrorism in Israel, as fallout from the unfortunate death from shelling of 19 civilians by the Israeli army in Beit Hanoun in Gaza, the Jerusalem parade will now take place as a closeted event at the stadium at the Givat Ram campus of Hebrew University.
On its original route, the parade called for an extremely high number of policeman to be on guard due to threats of violence from the ultra-orthodox, now necessary elsewhere to deal with the more than 80 terror warnings the police have received in reaction to the events at Beit Hanoun. On the current route, only 3000 police will be deployed, instead of the called for 12,000.
Despite the irony, I think it is a good compromise for all involved.
I can't see that the attempt to hold a gay parade in the city center of Jerusalem - which is extremely unpopular in the city itself - is meant to be anything other than provocative.
No doubt, democratically speaking, as the Israeli court mandated, they have that right. But in this case, the flagrant exercise of that right merely inflames hostilities.
The Virtual Talmud blog at beliefnet.com features a discussion on the issue from various branches of Judaism.
And speaking of various branches of Judaism, last week in an article in the Jerusalem Post that I unfortunately did not bookmark, I finally come across the perfect term to describe my approach to Judaism: flexodox.
It's Starting to Look Still Looking Pretty Damn Glum
UPDATE XIV: Back around to Webb. Is the Senate going to go Democrat by 1? We won't know until tomorrow.
UPDATE XIII: Tennessee holds Republican. Allen is now back ahead by 2000 in Virginia with 99.18%.
UPDATE XII: So is the Senate going to go Democrat by 1, with that 1 being Lieberman?
OMG, that is a riot!!!
UPDATE XI: Webb pulls ahead, according to CNN, with 99% in. I wonder what the absentee ballots will bring.
UPDATE X: The House still needs two to turn hands
- and in the Senate, Michael Steele still refusing to concede and he's still ahead in the counted vote.
Allen up 12,000 with 96+% in.
UPDATE IX: I just heard Senator Reid - Senator Reid! - say that he wants to be a unifier not a divider. Snort! And that statement was completely independent of the fact that I am now on my fourth glass of wine!
UPDATE VIII: According to Drudge, with 92+% in, Allen is still holding. And in Missouri, with not that much counted, Talent is up by10%.
UPDATE VII: I'm now on my third glass of red wine and somehow, even though things are still going badly in various places, I'm not feeling as bad about it. Do you think there is a correlation?
UPDATE VI: Steele is not yet conceding, according to Jim Geraghty. Good for him.
UPDATE V: Now with 91% in, Allen has pulled away a bit again.
UPDATE IV: Damn! Webb is seriously gaining!
UPDATE III: Apparently Maryland goes to Cardin - which is a shame - Steele has shown himself to be truly charismatic and intelligent.
Allen is still holding onto a slim lead now with 84% in.
Lieberman has won and Chafee has lost.
UPDATE II:
VA SEN [77.16% IN] ALLEN 858,105 49.68% WEBB 848,445 49.12%
I'm glad it looks like Allen is holding on; though frankly, Webb is essentially a paleo-con, down to the whiffs of anti-semitism emanating from his campaign. I'm sure he would have been a "realist" on Israel - which is code for the two fingered salute. But in other respects, he might not have been so bad - on the judiciary, for example. Whereas Casey, in Pennsylvania, is just a fool's fool.
UPDATE: Now Drudge is saying DeWine is also out, but I haven't seen that reported elsewhere.
More glum than I had expected. And I expected the House to change hands.
I've resorted to comfort food. Pesto and wine.
Hopes for New Jersey and Pennsylania are gone - though those two seemed obvious. One day I'd like to know the reason, though, that New Jersey keeps on voting in really dodgy politicians, one after the other and all worse than before. Though I guess they deserve their political class they receive since they keep voting for them.
I'm with Van:Can we please put the bitter partisan politics of 2006 behind us now, and finally focus on the bitter partisan politics of 2008?
Heh. You knew this was coming as soon as the death penalty for Saddam was announced.
The European Union urged Iraq on Sunday not to carry out the death sentence passed on Iraq's former leader Saddam Hussein after his conviction for crimes against humanity.
"The EU opposes capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances, and it should not be carried out in this case either," Finland, current holder of the rotating EU presidency, said in a statement.
The statement offered no direct comment on the outcome of the trial but did say, however, that the EU had repeatedly condemned "the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law committed by the regime of Saddam Hussein".
You think they'll march in Europe to protest his sentence?
UPDATE: Chris Hitchens argues for against the death penalty for Saddam.
The Nanny mindset as a factor in the debate over the Iraq War:
Earlier today, I was perusing a take down of John Kerry in, of all places, Newsweek, that bastion of liberalism, simply for the novelty. Actually, I was wondering how long I could read before the Democrat spin cringe set in, but that's another story. On that scale, this one wasn't too bad, though I came across a couple of funny lines - inadvertent, of course, which is the best kind.
According to "a prominent New Hampshire Democrat activist", Ann McLane Kuster, what precisely was the problem with Kerry's joke? It turns out he was stressing the wrong yardstick to measure himself against the Republicans.
“It’s not that this gaffe was so bad,” says Ann McLane Kuster, a prominent New Hampshire activist, “But it plays into all the traits he has that are out of touch, like using intelligence as a way to distinguish himself rather than compassion. The underlying joke wasn’t funny.”
Compassion, huh? We're still talking about a joke that mentions soldiers, right? And this is the preferable Democrat yardstick?
The way Kerry had the joke "originally", or at least in the notes he presented later, the butt of the joke was supposed to be President Bush. And the soldiers were passive victims. Simply inserted into his speech for no reason other than to allow him to make a joke at Bush's expense. Serving no purpose on their own except to gawk at and excite pity. Exhibit A in someone else's cautionary tale. That's the preferred reading, right?
It was all about the victimology.
So, either the soldiers are stupid - the way that John Kerry actually told the joke - or they're passive victims, caught up in someone else's evil plans for them. In neither case are they proud actors in their own destiny.
And yet, somehow, Ann McLane Kuster believes that the soldiers would not have been offended if only John Kerry had expressed his greater compassion for them?
This, it struck me, was wildly offbase as an analysis of what was problematic with the remark.
It is, however, perfectly illustrative of the entire culture of difference between Democrats and Hawks. In the nanny approach to the troop, more compassion is the key.
That was my offhand analysis. So I really sat up, a few hours later, when I noticed this other article today at Real Clear Politics, The Caring Culture vs. the Warrior Culture, making largely the same point.
Watching a wide range of talking heads the last few days on the various news shows, it became clear that some Democrats at least were genuinely hurt and confused by the implications drawn and accusations made that they did not care about and support the troops.
In fact, many Democrats do care, deeply, and do support those troops, with sincerity. The divide is in how they do so...
There is a clash of cultures at work in this, between the historic Democratic culture of ‘caring’, and those who value the ‘warrior culture’ of our military. Both sides care, but express that care with very different methods.
One can hardly find a Democrat anywhere who, when addressing the topic of support for our troops, does not immediately go to the subject of Veteran’s medical benefits, followed shortly by education and retraining programs. When it comes to addressing actual combat, the Democrats again almost invariably go to a lack of body armor or a shortage of up-armored Humvees and the like.The better of the Democratic left (and they are better than the condescending-to-hostile left from Kerry to numerous KosKids) look at the military and the veterans the military produces as another demographic constituency.
Like any other needy Democrat constituency, military and veterans need their help and care, naturally delivered through the offices of a paternalistic government. The warrior culture of the military rightfully views itself as the protector and defender of citizens, politicians and the state itself. The enormous gap between those two conceptions offers a profound clash of cultures
There was an oddity during the months long hi-tempo media onslaught about the troops not having enough body armor. One could find on the Milblogs and a very few news outlets complaints from soldiers in combat about being weigfhed down by too much body armor. The professional military folks understood that, as it was in the days of the armored knights, there is a tradeoff between defensive armor and aggressive mobility. Sacrificing either to the other may at times and places get you dead.
If one only listened to the media and the Democrats, one had the impression that the military were all crying out to be totally encased in body protection, even should they then have moved like Robocop.The familiar Democrat solution of spend more was obvious implicit solution...
The troops want the nation to support their commitment to victory. They do not aspire to the status of needy client, they want to be victorious warriors and commit their very lives to it.
Thus the mindset of John Kerry, in the "best" construction of his joke, and the Democrat activisit Ann McLane Kuster is revealed. Both of these two see the troops as victims, as deserving of compassion, stooges played by others, needing rescue.
I don't see them as dispossessed or pathetic. And I believe that the fact that they are reenlisting in record numbers means that they don't have this view of themselves or their service either.
There's one other interesting point in the original Newsweek article, more post mortem from a Democrat strategist, which shows a fundamental misconception of what just went on this week, and how it will be construed across the country:
“There is not a Democrat in Washington who thinks John Kerry is a viable presidential candidate after last week,” says a longtime Democratic strategist (who isn’t working for one of Kerry’s potential rivals). The strategist, who spoke freely and at length about Kerry on the condition of anonymity, says the gaffe reminds Democrats that he is politically inept. “This is not something that will linger in pool halls and bars and normal places in America,” he says, “but among the donors and activists who like to win, this memory will last a long time. Remember, his entire candidacy is based on electability. And when that’s the basis of your candidacy, and you’ve already lost once, amateur hour doesn’t begin to describe John Kerry. And that’s without even getting into the personal animus towards the guy.”
So for this strategist, the ordinary people won't remember it; but the people who count, i.e., donors and activists will remember it.
Just yesterday I read an anecdote by Austin Bay that demonstrates the utter fallacy, the cloisteredness, the unadulterated elitism of this line of thought.
I’ll add a personal story. In 1999 I briefly served as deputy commander of a Hurricane Mitch recovery operation headquartered in Puerto Barrios, Guatemala. An earthquake (6.6 magnitude) struck the region and damaged our barracks area as well as several of the dikes our engineers had erected along the Motagua River. We had to evacuate our barracks, in the midst of heavy rains spawned by a tropical depression. The day after the quake I flew to the US air base at Soto Cano, Honduras, to meet with our regional commander. After I met with the brigadier general in command I: (1) washed and dried two sets of BDUs and (2) bought a bottle of Chivas at the PX. The next morning I caught a plane flight back to Guatemala, and transfered to a helicopter to fly back to our base.
That night I took the still-boxed Chivas to one of the troops –a tired, exhausted fellow who had earned a gift so precious. He shook his head when I passed him the scotch. I told him, “You’ve earned it.” He looked at his watch, observed we were ten minutes from midnight, and said “You and I are now off duty.”...
We chatted for about twenty minutes, about my trip to Soto Cano, about the task force’s new job (earthquake relief), about the lousy weather, about how tired we were. The discussion of weariness led the conversation to our advanced age and years of service, which in part explained the conversation’s next turn. My friend asked, with a glint in his eye: ”You remember what John Kerry said about those of us who served in Vietnam?”
I nodded.
“I was in Vietnam in 1971,” my buddy continued. “I didn’t commit any war crimes and I didn’t see any. Kerry said we were committing war crimes everywhere all the time.”
Remember, readers, this is 1999. We’re in a creaky barrack, wearing t-shirts, BDU trousers, and boots. Earthquake aftershocks occasionally boom –and the booms sound and feel like heavy artillery. And he mentions John Kerry.
“I despise the man,” my friend said. “He lied and benefited politically from his lies….He lied about me.”
I simply listened — that’s what you do in a moment like this. I remember noticing I still had scotch in my cup. He had barely touched his drink. He took a long sip, put his cup down. Plop. Period. End of moment.
Just which side is out of touch with America? And their memory of politicians?
Strong yet sensitive, introducing the Bond that bleeds.
Casino Royale is the story of how Bond got started, before he became 007," he said. "Daniel Craig is such a good actor. He plays him as strong but emotionally vulnerable. For the first time you see Bond's sensitive side."
But do we want to see Bond's sensitive side?
I'd like to see him stop womanizing - because it turns all the women into objects - although I can't imagine that ever changing given the strength of the moviegoing demographic that enjoys that kind of thing. But I've never cared about his sensitive side. The movies aren't really long enough to get enough of an oomph out of his "sensitive side." Unless they are actually planning to build on that consistently in sequels - which I doubt, as that has never been part of the Bond franchise.
If they win, Democrats will immediately reach out to Bush to find a bipartisan way to begin redeploying troops "outside of Iraq," Pelosi said. They will also apply pressure to disarm the militias, amend the Iraqi constitution and engage in diplomacy in the region.
"A Democratic victory would be in furtherance of reaching that goal. Absent a Democratic victory, we'll be there for the next 10 years,'' Pelosi said.
And do the troops want to come home before their mission is finished? We already know that Bush will never agree to it before the mission is done properly.
If it were as facile as you suggest here, Mme. Pelosi, all this would have been accomplished already. All that will happen if you insist on this, is that there will be a terrible civil war we'll all rue in Iraq.
This isn't a policy, it's a mantra - "bring the troops home, bring the troops home, bring the troops home."
UPDATE: Democrats are already dreaming the big dream - double impeachment and Pelosi becomes President in 2007. Here's a new post on the subject at Talk Left, and here's a vid on the same subject.
UPDATE II: Debra Saunders at the SF Chronicle has a profile of Nancy Pelosi, scarily deemed a moderate in San Francisco.
Judging by how you talk you are probably from north Jersey, New York City, Connecticut or Rhode Island. Chances are, if you are from New York City (and not those other places) people would probably be able to tell if they actually heard you speak.
The sound I don't differentiate in my speech, which was not on the quiz is pour, poor, pore. I understand there is supposed to be a difference between them but I just can't say them.