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]

Treating terroristm as a crime worked to thwart the millenium bombing attempt, but the Bush Administration wanted to take a broader approach and not "swat a flies" like UBL and AQ. He wanted to kick the whole hornets' nest. Nice sentiment George, but hornets sting too.

ABCNEWS.com : Clarke: Rice Testimony Bolstered My Claims

And while I'm talking about the hornets' nests, can someone explain to me who doesn't want to be free in Iraq? It seems to me that Sadr and his followers wish to be free to set themselves up in power, in their own country I might add, and be equally free to give the US a bloody nose.

And what is the difference between "...a series of actionable items" and a "plan?" Typical Bush, just like Reagan, quite the delegator but lazy manager. That strategic view is just an excuse for non-action. 33 meetings by the NSC and not one meeting on terroristm? Certainly not grounds for impeachment, nor proof that Bush et al. were in any way to blame for 9/11, but an admission that more could be done, and an apology for not following through is required.

I would have absolutely no problem with anything that has happened with regard to Iraq in the last year or so, if only one thing changed. That of course would be UN participation. I firmly believe that had we waited one or two more months we would have gotten the support of France Germany and Russia, not only in votes, but also in blood and treasure. That legality would have taken the rug out from any legitimacy Sadr's followers feel for his rebbellion and there would be no question that he could not attract popular support.

What Clarke says about undermining the WoT is so damn true. Not even getting into the logistics of troop deployments and ignoring Afghanistan, but this Iraq incursion has so cut into Bush's credibility that he has squandered the support of our allies and half of the American People, people who would otherwise be fully behind the struggle to thwart terrorists, or more accurately, islamofascists. Saddam was a stalinist and peice of dirt, but the islamofascists reside in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Gaza, but not Bagdad until Bush Inc. "freed" them.

I did like Bob Kerry pointing out that terrorism is a tactic, not a movement, or ideology, much like the "terrorists" in Iraq engaging in the tactic of kidnapping. They are rebels, just like the rebels in palestine terrorize with suicide (or if you watch Fox News, homicide) bombers. [If you don't realize by now, suicide bomber is the more accurate description, don't argue the point, you are wrong.] Remember, rebels sometimes become revolutionaries, or even patriots, but only if they get to write the history books.

I've been called un-American for my views, which are admittedly anti-Bush. Also dismissed as a blind partisan. In reality, I simply dread cleaning up the mess Bush has made of our foreign relations. I consider our foreign policy in a state of disaster and I have no confidence that Bush can fix it because he created it and sees no preoblems. I do, and I believe that the madness must stop and only will if Bush's regime is limited to one term.

You are certaily entitled to entertain an opposite opinion. But I would hope that reasonable minds would agree that our relations with most other nations of the world are less than desired and could use improvement. Likewise I would challenge anyone to convince me that W is just the guy to make things better. Quite the contrary. This is his mess and it's too much for him to fathom.

Ahh-hem: I was just saying at Blogs4Bush to wait until there's some evidence one way or another, now there is:

But intelligence officials now say that there is evidence that the insurgency goes beyond Mr. Sadr and his militia, and that a much larger number of Shiites have turned against the American-led occupation of Iraq, even if they are not all actively aiding the uprising. A year ago, many Shiites rejoiced at the American invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who had brutally repressed the Shiites for decades. But American intelligence officials now believe that hatred of the American occupation has spread rapidly among Shiites, and is now so large that Mr. Sadr and his forces represent just one element.. Reference: The New York Times > International > Middle East > Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand

OK, the old grey lady has been in trouble with blogdom as of late. How about some other sources: The Washington Post reports fighting throughout the country.

"In central and southern Iraq, fighters loyal to Moqtada Sadr, a Shiite cleric who vowed Wednesday to turn Iraq into "another Vietnam for America," tightened their grip on the holy cities of Karbala, Kufa and Najaf. Members of the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to Sadr, seized control of Kut * * * The unrest also spread to northern Iraq for the first time as U.S. troops in Hawijah, near Kirkuk, fired on an angry mob protesting American tactics in Fallujah, killing eight Iraqis. * * * violence erupted in other parts of the capital. Shortly after nightfall, gunmen opened fire on a U.S. base in Baghdad's Shiite enclave of Kadhimiya and on another in the Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiya.

God help me, I really didn't want to be right about this. Iraq Fighting Spreads

From Kevin Drum

Flynt Leverett, hired to direct the Middle East Peace process for the National Security Council, stated: ...."[George Bush] said that Condi would ride herd on this process. She never even saddled up,"

I guess Rice and NSC Mid East Coordinator considered the "Road Map" an historical document too.

Columbus- House Republicans are working on a tax reform plan that would dramatically increase income taxes on many middle-income taxpayers to help pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and the poor. Seventy-percent of Ohioans would face tax increases to help pay for about $1 billion in tax cuts for people making more than $100,000 a year, according to an analysis by the Ohio Department of Taxation. Reference: GOP proposal shifts tax burden

What the National Conservative give, the State GOP takes away. Bastards

I really hate it when these guys start agreeing with me.

CBS News | Growing GOP Dissent on Iraq | April 7, 2004 20:08:10

"I'm not buying this 'Iraqis are on the American side' right now," Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said on the Tuesday night broadcast of "The O'Reilly Factor." The leading conservative commentator repeatedly called the current conflict a "second war in Iraq."

O'Reilly added, "I think Rumsfeld has got a lot of explaining to do here. There's a lot of mistakes that are now killing American soldiers."

Fellow conservative pundit and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough of MSNBC was even more critical in his broadcast Tuesday.

Scarborough: "Do we need more troops in Iraq? Hell, yes, we do. ... Should June 30 handover date to the Iraqis be extended? You can bet your life on it ... because creating this false deadline in time for a presidential election is no way to win a war."

Funny, just when Condi ("I'm a terrible planner.") Rice is too busy preparing for her grilling to be bothered with W's stupid problems, all hell breaks loose in Rummy's sandbox. Is this a cartoon or the leadership of the Free World?

I had this thought this morning in the car listening to the local Rush echo chamber on the AM dial, when the morning guy, who follows the Clear Channel Party Line to the letter, lets loose with a diatribe on the Sadr Militia and Fallujah rebellion. He just want's to start bombing the heck out of everything, if they hold out in a mosque, the mosque becomes a fortress and a legitimate target for termination.

What's different now to make the conservatives critical of Frearless Leader? The Left doesn't like Shrub's aggression from the start, the Right won't tolerate a show of weakness, and like most bullies, loses it if you give him a bloody nose. They don't think Rummy has been nasty enough, or put enough men on the job. They actually have the twisted logic to suggest we put even more American's in harms way.

You know what's really different? Pictures of dead Americans. It's not a numbers game, it's an image problem. Liberals don't even like to think about violence, killing and war. Conservatives only seem to get squeemish when there's art. That's always been the problem with folks like O'Reilly, no imagination.

What Bill Moyers says: Calling of a Generation

A Kibosh On Chalabi
President Bush, we hear, has come down against letting Ahmed Chalabi get the prime minister's slot in postwar Iraq. Insiders say Bush is siding with the CIA and State, which don't think Chalabi has much support inside Iraq. It's a blow to the Pentagon and the veep's office, which believe in the westernized Iraqi who gets credit for talking the White House into war.

I've been getting U.S.News & World Report for 26 years (Got a subscription from Grandma at 16.). My favorite part has always been Washington Whispers. Almost like a rumor column by a political gossip with great sources. But so very often accurate.

So, I suspect very strongly that Bush will finally distance himself from Iraq's favorite bank robber. Who will be the heir apparent is even more unclear. Shrub's Bagdad Photo Op turning over sovereignty is less than 90 days away.

Also of note in Whispers:

President . . . Rice?
National Security Adviser Condi Rice's recent troubles haven't deterred her many fans. They just kicked off www.rice2008.com. The new site offers this scenario: Vice President Cheney bows out, and Rice is tapped as veep. Then she runs in 2008 with Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as her running mate.
* * *

The president fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week, but more on that later. [It was a driil, only a drill]