The following was posted in response to a blog entry at Dean's World: Yep and the article our friend Dean cites by Evan Coyne Maloney.


Deep breath. Think of your happy place. Dean did not just call you a treasonous political hack. Don't take it so personal. Because you are good enough, smart enough, and dog gone it, people like you.

As for the "rudeness" of the partisan hacks. Had Rice been a witness in a court of law, or before a grand jury (oops, got to clean up the drool from my keyboard, hang on a moment...), she would never have been permitted to filibuster, she would have been instructed to answer the question as presented and her time-wasting "speech-ettes" would have been stricken from the record as non-responsive. Of course in a court, the witnesses do get a chance to have their say, and their side can fully rebut, because there is no arbitrary time limit on the length of time to interview the witness. The urgency was doubled today in that Condi cannot be called again, nor any other administration official, as part of the agreement which laid the groundwork for the upcoming Bush/Cheney ventriloquist act.

This was not a court. And it was never going to be nonpartisan. Nothing in Washington is free of partisanship. This commission is Bi-partisan, not non-partisan and made up of very thoughtful and responsible public figures who take their jobs seriously. To expect non-partisanship in the political process is folly. Our system is flawed, but superior to anything else. Democracy is messy to say the least. Former prosecutor Ben Venista and the (as of yesterday) praise worthy Bob Kerry were dutifully playing their assigned roles.

It would have been very telling to have witnessed the afternoon session with Bill Clinton in the hot seat, just to watch the rancor switch sides. Alas it was probably more civil with the cameras off. Had they been on, I'm positive that it would be very reminiscent of a certain judiciary impeachment hearing. Condi's appearance did make for decent theater. Not as riveting as Clarke's, but that's because Condi didn't have anything new to say.

This was all about her being grilled. Designed that way. That's what it was for. It was to display Condi in front of America and the relatives of 9/11 victims whose effort alone made sure the commission was formed at all. They were the peanut gallery who applauded, not some nameless democratic partisans. They deserve answers and Condi and the rest of the administration stonewalled them at every opportunity. Naturally they applauded when Dr. Rice was given some hard questions. I'm disappointed she didn't get more.

As for coming up with a thoughtful plan to deal with terrorism, let's make sure we have our terms straight. If is the act of bombing innocents we are to prevent, I would humbly submit that the Likud has been grappling with this problem, and failing to finally eliminate it, for quite some time now. Their policies are not unlike the Bush Administration's. Their success not nearly as apparent. A couple of answers to the disparity in success rates could be that: 1. As has been suggested of the Clinton administration, maybe Bush & Co. got lucky. 2. Maybe they are more than lucky, and with UBL run completely underground and most of his henchman "taken care of," al Qaeda is no longer able to coordinate a transatlantic operation.

If terrorism is to be considered merely a tactic, symptomatic of anti-western sentiment and/or islamofascism, then the enemy is the entire culture, and more specifically the regimes and leadership of the majority of middle eastern nations. These are the hornets nest Bush should and seems to desire to deal with, instead of the flies buzzing out of individual terrorists groups.

The Plan:

1. Lets start with an honest, concerted, and completely dedicated effort to bring peace to Gaza and the West Bank. Fire Elliot Abrams and put in a Middle East coordinator who understands the nuances of the road map and a clear understanding of the obstacles in it's path. Unfortunately, I believe that at this juncture, the personal credibility of George W. Bush has been so eroded in the wake of the last year's events, that the Palestinians would never accept him as an honest broker, not any time soon. We can either wait for things to settle down after Bush is reelected, or jump-start the process with new blood in the White House.

2. Negotiate with our NATO comrades to share the security burden in Iraq. Invited them, shame them, expose them, cajole them with assurances that the peaceful transformation of Iraq is more important than US hegemony in the region. If the Japanese, Poles, and Britons are with us, there is absolutely no reason France and Germany, and even Russia are not on board, except as punishment for their lack of previous support. If that were to happen we would not be in any danger of losing Spanish troops, and would gain credibility with the indigenous population. Unfortunately, Bush's hubris will not permit this avenue to be explored.

3. Fully investigate and expose the Saudi, Iranian and Syrian involvement with the various terrorist organizations, including AQ, Hezbolla, Hamas, especially the Saudi's. Take them down if need be and as the evidence warrants. They, and not Iraq, provided the funding, organizational tools, and cannon fodder for the madrassas and terrorist networks. The Ba-athist in Syria, the Ayatollahs in Iran, and the Saudi Royal Family are all unindicted co-conspirators in our war on terrorists.

4. Use the U.N. That's what it's there for. And don't make empty rhetoric, fund the effort. And have the Iraqi's pump oil to pay for part of it too. It's almost too late, but since there is nobody to hand sovereignty to, hand Iraq administration over to the UN and security to NATO + Japan and Russia. You can only do it right if you try to do the right thing. "America first" is the harder way by far, but the motivation easier to question. We can lead by example or force. Force only solidifies opposition, making our eventual victory more difficult. True leadership is something I have seldom witnessed in the current administration if it involves any kind of compromise.

5. Rejoin the community of nations as the first among equals, respecting the concerns of individual nations and third-world regions. This would naturally involve an abandonment of our move toward Pax America, but as the unipower, we can afford to be magnanimous. We do not have to lower our own status in the process because if a comprehensive effort is made to raise the world-wide quality of life, that investment will create a rising tide which raises all boats and will pay more than adequate dividends (sorry for the mixed metaphor). It could quite possibly eliminate the discontent and jealousy which ignites the anti-American fervor of which terrorism is a mere symptom.

Maybe America is mature enough to apply quantum physics to politics. Maybe the "Quantum Candidate" has a point that is far more sophisticated than the republicans would have us believe. The "Flip/Flop canard has been repeatedly debunked. If you're interested, check out the D-Bunker. Also take a look at FactCheck.org.

The Quantum Candidate accusation might have more substance if the Bush administration could grasp simple Newtonian physics, that every action demands an equal and opposite reaction. If so, then there might have been more desire to avenge the Cole and more recently, there would be no surprise that our heavy handed handling of Sadr's militia would cause additional unrest to spread.

Personally I suspect that the military/intelligence community is playing a rather high risk game which will reap considerable rewards, and has used the Fallujah situation as the trigger mechanism to engage in reconnaissance by fire. As Sadr, who was always identified as a lightning rod and was bound to cause trouble sooner or later, began to raise a ruckus; coalition forces could count on his heretofore closet sympathizers to be emboldened, thus now identified and easier pickings. This was an essential step before any sense of sovereignty could be turned over to whomever. The bad apples had to be thrown out of the barrel.

The reason the criticisms of the Bush administration may seem to be coming from differing, and sometimes mutually exclusive rationale is because there are a great host of people out there who are less than satisfied with the present administration's policies, and they do not always coordinate. It is not only specious to attribute all criticism of POTUS to John Kerry, but it gives the lie to the argument that there is a concerted, coordinated conspiracy of the left to oust Bush & Co.

UPDATE:
"Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made," Mr. Kerry said on Wednesday on CNN.

Bush is to be given a pass for waiting 8 months before coming up with a strategy against terrorism. Fine. Then don't expect a comprehensive plan out of Kerry which will only be attacked for eight months before he even is elected.

[note to self, drafting on the windoze laptop is fine, but never, ever use it to publish. Use the Mac. I love the Mac]