I heard a bit on XM's ABC news radio broadcast the other day that was a "Newsweek Minute" or something like that, where they were talking to a Newsweek reporter. The topic was Syria, and the reporter was going on about how Syria wasn't really a bad guy country, that they were more likely to go like Libya than Iran. He cited some help we had gotten from Syrian intelligence to catch terrorists. The upshot of all this was that the Bush administration was wrong for pressuring Syria, because they were going to turn off this erstwhile friend.

Now, I have been arguing that we have been trying to get Syria to pull a Libya since last July (and also arguing that Iran is trying to distract us from Syria in that same post), but it obviously has not yet happened. The Hariri assassination is an indicator. The Newsweek guy cited Assad's replacement of his intelligence chief as a sign of good will, that perhaps he didn't have control of his intelligence and that he placed his brother-in-law in charge to get control of his rogue agency that was doing stuff he didn't approve of. I don't think it was good will, it was an attempt to save his ass. And then I see this over at Captain Ed's: "Syria Coughed Up Saddam's Brother."

Seems they turned over Saddam's brother and about 30 insurgent leaders who have been - surprise surprise - hiding out in Syria! And, this after we've ratched up the pressure on them! Could it be that our pressuring them is what is making them do (some of) the right things, not a tyrant's good will? Maybe the pressure will make them pull a Libya.

Let's hope so.

Sighted over at Protein Wisdom:

Academics and members of the appointed consultative council in the United Arab Emirates came out in favor of elections in the Persian Gulf state, arguing that it could not stay out of the regional trend toward elected bodies.

When millions of Arabs in Palestine, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have gone to the polls, the UAE cannot continue to lag behind, Professor Abdul Khaleq Abdullah of the UAE University told the English-language daily Khaleej Times.

Meanwhile, sighted at Instapundit:

In a surprise announcement Saturday, Egypt's long-ruling president, Hosni Mubarak, ordered constitutional changes that would open the door for the first-ever multiparty presidential elections in the world's most populous Arab country. The move is the latest indication of a cautious democratic shift under way in the Arab world.

Fear factor must be up for Chris Matthews.

Via Ace, LGF noted that Representative Hinchey of New York was on Hannity's show today.

I heard the Congressman on the show today, and while I didn't hear him say exactly that, he couldn't make a sentence that didn't contain Gannon's name. This guy is totally wack on the subject. And if it is true that there are Democrats who want to start an investigation, the crackup of the Democrat Party is full and complete. Dr. Dean is the perfect head of the Party.

Hillary will be the most electable Democrat candidate by dint of being sane.

Remember all that stuff about how we were destroying our reputation with the "Arab street?" I recall that Afghanistan was going to inflame them. And then Iraq. And more Iraq. Well, who is the Arab street mad at now?

Syria, Egypt, Iran. All of that Iraq is the Berlin Wall stuff sounds like we are on the right track - especially when you consider Bratislava, below.

Also on the WaPo front page: U.S.-Russia Pact Aimed at Nuclear Terrorism. Certainly there is some to worry about with Russia, with their backsliding a bit on democracy, and their support of Iran (which is commercially driven). But I think they are mostly on our side. That's a good thing.

Also, the meeting between President Bush and President Putin today is in Bratislava, Slovakia. A country that used to be part of Czechoslovakia, and part of the Warsaw Pact. A country that is today a functioning democracy, and part of NATO. I think that is in itself a powerful message.

I pick up today's WaPo out of the snow, and this was the front page image:

Click for bigger.

I don't think that anyone, anywhere, could ask for better imagery. Just look at the placement it got. Even more interesting, there is not a story about the Secretary of State on the front page.

Applauding soldiers, the American flag, stylish in all black - those boots are made for walking, no doubt. I know the editorial board over at the Post loved General Powell, but he never got anything like this.

UPDATE: Hi everyone! Also, some notes in the comments talk about antipathy from the "hard right" toward a Rice candidacy. Patrick Ruffini's report on the CPAC straw poll I think puts the lie to that.

That should rev up the Google hits.

I opined before why I thought that Rice 2008 probably won't happen (though it isn't impossible). Ace gots more on that, essentially in the same vein.

But because I am a lazy blogger, I didn't write my piece on Clinton 2008, and why that will happen (meaning all the way to the Presidency). So James Taranto got way out in front of me on that issue. Like that's never happened.

Anyway, what Taranto said, and more. Much has been made about Senator Clinton drifting right in her speech. If that is indeed what is happening, she's about 10,000 times smarter than Howard Dean. Dean goes around saying that he'll talk differently about God and values and such, but doesn't actually do it, and when he does, he's already telegraphed the plan and it wll be spotted for the phoniness that it is, or will be. Plus, whether she means it or not, she can get away with it by her party. The same nastiness that was launched on Tim Roemer will not be brought to bear on Senator Clinton even if she came out full-bore pro-life.

All of her baggage will be deeply discounted as old news - if it couldn't burn President Clinton, it surely isn't hot enough to singe her by association. And most importantly, she is the one Democrat potential candidate who appears to "get it" about the war on terror. The American people will not vote for someone rooting for our failure in that conflict. She has proven through her record that she is serious about it - even voting "Yea" for Michael Chertoff as Homeland Security Secretary.

She even sounded more positive about Iraq than did John McCain. Think whatever you will of the politics of the Clintons, but they certainly are always aware of which way the wind blows - by saying the insurgency is failing, she is saying that we are winning.

She is smart enough to know that she won't be running against George W. Bush in 2008, so she doesn't waste energy on that.

You know, if we could make deals on voting, I would agree to this deal - I'd vote Hillary if it meant for sure that the Left and the press (same thing, I know) would get on board on the US side of the conflict.

I made sure to watch the show last night, and I have to say that I enjoyed it quite a bit. The narration was minimal. It was truly documentary in its approach - the team that made this filmed what happened.

They showed what those guys went through. They showed that some things don't work, and they showed that some things do. I have to agree with the Pentagon source I quoted below - "It proves once again that it is our Soldiers who are our best spokespeople."

I got a note from Jessica Smith thanking me for posting, and also letting me know that the entire show will be available online after Friday. If you missed it, it is definitely worth watching, regardless of where you fall on what we should or should not be doing in Iraq.

The outreach coordinator sent me another email.:

The first, "A Company of Soldiers" (see PBS and AFN Spectrum broadcast dates below), is a powerful first-hand account of the War in Iraq through the eyes of the men and women fighting it. Viewers are with the troops as they come under sniper fire, respond to car bombings, work with the Iraqi people to restore the country's economy and infrastructure, and grapple with the daily possibility of fatal attacks.

"The Soldier's Heart" (see PBS and AFN Spectrum broadcast dates below), tells the stories of soldiers returning from Iraq and suffering the psychological effects of what they've seen, done, or not done, during their tour of duty. The film includes interviews with returning troops, their families, and mental health experts about the challenges of readjusting to civilian life.

We've paired these two films to give viewers a glimpse into the tough realities faced by our troops at war and the subsequent psychological fallout--an underreported story of the War in Iraq. I've pasted a short description of each film below for your convenience with links to the full press releases. For your convenience, I've also included broadcast dates for American Forces Network.

Please contact me if I can be of assistance. I encourage you to forward or post this message.

Sincerely,
Jessica Smith

A COMPANY OF SOLDIERS

Airs Tuesday, February 22, at 9 P.M. on PBS (check local listings)

Airs Thursday, February 24, at 9 P.M. on AFN Spectrum (viewer time (CET/JST/KST)

FRONTLINE reports from inside the U.S. Army’s 8th Cavalry Regiment stationed in Baghdad for an up-close, intimate look at the dangers facing an American military unit in Iraq. Shot in the weeks following the U.S. presidential election, the film tracks the day-to-day challenges facing the 8th Cavalry’s Dog Company as it suddenly has to cope with a dramatic increase in attacks by the insurgents.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/company/

THE SOLDIER’S HEART

Airs Tuesday, March 1, at 9 P.M. on PBS (check local listings)

Airs Thursday, March 3, at 9 P.M. on AFN Spectrum (viewer time (CET/JST/KST)

As the War in Iraq continues, the first measures of its psychological toll are coming in. A medical study estimates that more than one in seven returning veterans are expected to suffer from major depression, anxiety, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. For those who have survived the fighting, the battle is not over. For some, the return home can be as painful as war itself. FRONTLINE tells the stories of soldiers who have come home haunted by their experiences and asks whether the government is doing enough to help.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heart/

Some Frontline shows are better than others - these may be pretty good - another press release I have seen on "A Company of Soldiers" includes this:

One senior confidential source at the Pentagon who has seen the film told us: "It is compelling stuff. It proves once again that it is our Soldiers who are our best spokespeople. It is not only courageous filmmaking (both figuratively and literally), but it's also an example of very insightful filmmaking. The film captures our Soldiers' humanity, putting a human face on a very complex set of issues - that is priceless stuff."

Then again, it might be like the last time I was alerted to a Frontline show - a vehicle to attack US policy. Who knows. But I'll probably watch both.

Well, obviously the US is not ignoring the Hariri assassination. We have recalled our ambassador. While we haven't blamed the Syrians directly, the implication is certainly there.

And then there is this: Iran, Syria to form 'united front'.

Iran and Syria, who both are facing pressure from the United States, said Wednesday they will form a "united front" to confront possible threats against them, state-run television reported.

You don't say.

I ended up taking the new job. All looks good. More pay is always good. Significantly less travel is good, too. That means my gallivanting about the country is over for the near future. It also means increased responsibility - I won't be a lone cowboy consultant going out to solve the problems of the customers anymore, I'll be a director of an IT shop - I am looking forward to it. New job starts the 28th.

The best part is that this promises to be a travel gig from Hell. Starting with Dulles being absolutely packed, and then my flight is delayed. A great way to wrap things up.

So, anyone in Savannah, Georgia?

I am always convinced that everyone has read Steyn's latest by the time I get to it. Haven't seen much on this one, so maybe not.

Not exactly the same argument, but much the same conclusion:

It's an open question if the West will survive this twilight struggle: Europe almost certainly will not; America might. On the other hand, the psychosis to which much of the culture is in thrall may eventually reach a tipping point into mass civilizational suicide.

Steyn is usually described as "irrepressible." He seems kinda repressed in this one.

An interesting take on the assassination in Lebanon today - Batchelor has a guy on - Naji Najar (sp?) - who is talking about the bombing. Batchelor described the bombing as part of the couterattack on democracy in the Middle East. Najar is emphatic that the assassination is aimed at the US - even though Hariri is not tied strongly to the US - and that our response to it is very important in the GWOT, much like the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks.

I don't know that I agree to that degree - the US not taking any action in response would not be as powerful a message as our withdrawal from Lebanon was then. But I do think that it is a part of the GWOT - the strategic part. I still think Syria is "next on the list" - if there were a list - and that the Iran/North Korea craziness is strategic to draw heat away from Syria.

Loftus will be on shortly - I wonder what he'll have to say.

Interestingly, I heard on Fox earlier that the group that claimed "credit" for the bombing was some previously unheard of jihad group, and that their stated reason was the ties Hariri had to the Saudi regime. Noone seems to be buyiong that, and they are all pinning it on the Syrians.

UPDATE: Loftus update is quite interesting. He echoes Najar, that this is the counterattack beginning. He implicates the Iranian as being behind the Syrian assassination of Hariri. And he has this bombshell - the Iranians are planning to assassinate Khaddafy. The story on that is that Khaddafy will spill the beans on the Iranian nuclear program, through the AQ Khan network. He doesn't come right out and say it, but he suggests that the current Iranian craziness is meant to draw attention away from the counterattack on democracy.

But wait, there is more. He suggests that the new Iraqi government may invoke the right of self-defense against Syria and Iran in the UN.

Tonight, I heard Michael Savage going on about how the Shi'ites winning in Iraq means that radicals will rule, just like in Iran, and that makes the whole Iraq war lost. Savage soured on the war a while ago, and he's a lunatic, but he should at least have a better understanding than this.

Feel free to email or leave a comment with further examples of this "reporting."

Today in the Washington Post:

But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.

I could have written this article by Robin Wright weeks ago. In fact, I did:

Likely Sistani's slate will do very well, and Allawi will not be the new President of Iraq. This will be reported as a huge defeat for the US, and Sistani's Shi'ites will be compared to Iran's. Don't believe either.

An opposition politician - opposition to the Syrian occupiers - is assassinated in Lebanon. In The Corner, some insight:

"Last fall a car bomb – almost certainly planted by Syrian intelligence agents in Lebanon -- missed one of his allies, a Druze former minister. In September 2004, the United States and France introduced UN Security Council Resolution 1559, calling for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Hariri supported the resolution. Media in Lebanon yesterday quoted French and Western sources warning the Syrians not to harm Hariri. Today, sources from the Lebanese opposition charge that the Syrian regime was behind the assassination.

“Other sources have said that Hariri endorsed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ plan to disarm Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It is known that Hezbollah, a close ally of Syria, has vowed to support the radical Jihadists against Israel, and against any settlement between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

“This assassination may trigger a significant confrontation between the Lebanese opposition and the Syrian military occupiers.”

This must be why Syria needs cover by Iran - and North Korea.

Seems to me that the Left has gone looney on Gannon not so much because he isn't a "real journalist" (surely someone that is - or was - actually in the pay of campaigns while "just a blogger" would not go down that avenue), but because his point of view is sympathetic to the President's. If hostility to the President's positions is the sole accreditation for being in the White House Press Corps, wouldn't Clinton press conferences have been empty except for Brit Hume and Lester Kinsolving?

Results of the Iraqi election are out. No party has a majority, but it seems rather unlikely that Allawi - whose party got a small portion of the vote - will be the new Prime Minister. And, as predicted, this is being called a failure for the United States. But I am surprised at who the first winner of this prize is - Michael Ledeen:

The Allawi list was outvoted five to one by its major opponents, even though Allawi commanded a treasure chest vastly greater than that of the others. Ambassador Negroponte, Secretary of State Rice, and DCI Goss should tell their "experts" to admit error, and cease their efforts to install a president and prime minister who reflect the consensus of Foggy Bottom rather than the will of the Iraqi people. If they persist in attempting to dictate the makeup of the new Iraqi government, and continue to meddle in the drafting of the new Iraqi constitution, they will turn the majority of Iraqis against us. Despite countless errors of judgment and commission, we have, for the moment at least, won a glorious victory. We should be smart enough, and modest enough, to accept it.

I think that this is wrong for the same reason that the MSM will get it wrong when the leadership is announced - I think that this has always been the expected outcome. Just looking at demographics, it is the most likely outcome, so I am not sure why we would be expecting anything differently. Maybe the folks at State who want "stability" and the CIA that is obviously not all that good at gathering and analyzing intelligence expected something different, but they were not driving the train in Iraq. The President was. And as in the "Palestinian situation," the President seems to have "gotten it" in ways that plenty of wise people on the topic haven't.

The rest of this Ledeen piece is pretty good, though for those who are convinced of neocon evil, this will be considered a climbdown: "The instrument of their destruction is democratic revolution, not war, and the first salvo in the political battle of Iran is national referendum." But this has always been Ledeen's position. And I think that it is also the President's position. I think the current attention on Iran is a sideshow designed to distract from Syria - and the Iranians are behind that design.

I clicked on a link over at Instapundit, and I have my response to pittspilot's post below. This bit of sunshine from Kos. Nice.

Just like Dr. Dean's hate machine, this stuff is not the stuff of winners, of people confident in themselves or their ideas. It is just plain old hate, and it doesn't even pretend to be anything else. (Read the poll). If that's all they have, we'll win.

Today Howard Dean gets elected Chairman of the Democrat National Committee! That is so excellent!

I saw a clip of him on TV last night talking about how the Democrats need to learn to talk about their principles in different ways. Really, they do believe that the American people are stupid. If they simply cloak their message, they'll fool us into voting for them.

Hint for Dr. Dean: you could start by not centering your message on hatred of Republicans. Seriously.

I haven't had anything to say about a lot of things, not posting much. So here's some quick hits. Eason Jordan. Another big media blog takedown. I bet those guys are all shitting bricks, now. The New York Times, CBS News, and CNN - their journalistic integrity is all in tatters. The bias is exposed, and the editors are shown as enablers, not watchdogs.

Elections in Iraq - went pretty well, once again we see the President's wisdom. When the results come out, remember my prediction, and warning:

Likely Sistani's slate will do very well, and Allawi will not be the new President of Iraq. This will be reported as a huge defeat for the US, and Sistani's Shi'ites will be compared to Iran's. Don't believe either.

I think the results are supposed to be announced starting this weekend. We'll see what is said.

Ward Churchill. Simply not interested in that whole thing. A wacked out professor says loony things? Shocker.

Jim Gannon? Please. If that's bigtime for Kos and company, well, enjoy.

Condi Rice 2008? Sorry, but she's never run a campaign. I think that's important. Americans tend to shy away from hiring political novices to the top spot. Unless they defeated Nazi Germany or the Confederacy or something like that. If Condi can pull of a full meal peace deal out of the Middle East, all bets are off, though. Abu Abbas may be able to determine our next President.

I wrote about my first experience with satellite radio a while ago. THat time it was Sirius. I loved the programming, but was concerned about signal coverage. A friend recommended XM. It's cheaper than Sirius, and has better signal.

I finally took the plunge and got one. I am very impressed with the coverage, though I think part of it is that the terrestrial repeaters reach out to where I live near DC. Which is fine. But it is great. The number of talkers available is pretty cool - no Rush, but Hannity, John Batchelor, Savage if you go for that, Glenn Beck, etc. and so on. And they are in digital clarity, and never preempted by Maryland basketball. There are lefty talkers, too, but I wouldn't know if they are anybody anyone has ever heard of. I suspect not.

The programming is a little less specifically targeted than the Sirius Streams. And in naming the channels, they go cutesy rather than descriptive. The "New Wave" channels on XM are named Fred, Ethel, and Lucy. Not exactly what I would have picked, but whatever.

But I'll never go back to regular radio. It's great. However, I have a funny XM moment. I was on travel in a hotel, and had on Audio Visions, which is kind of an ambient channel. At about 4 am, I woke up - gurgling water! The bathroom was overflowing! No, just the selection on the radio. Whew. But then the sound of a bubbling brook in the early morning worked its biological magic, and I had to get up.

Note to programmers - not a good 4 am selection!

Patrick Ruffini has a good question.

One thing that pittspilot writes below is that we won't be able to prevent Iran and North Korea from getting nuclear weapons. Well, we've suspected that NK has had them since 1994, so that particular barn door is swinging on its rusty hinges in the wind.

But what is interesting is that these two issues are front and center at the same time. Secretary Rice took great pains to say that there were no plans to attack Iran. And suddenly they are all wild-eyed, saying they will do what they damn well please, and that emotional woman is going to make them make nuclear weapons. Oooo-kay.

Meanwhile, halfway around the world, Kim Jong Il is not even mentioned, so he starts stomping his feet, too. Hah, we do have nuclear weapons!!! And we'll pull out of the 6-way talks!!! Bwahahahahaaa!

It is almost as if these guys are working in concert to do bad things. Like they were in some sort of Axis of Evil or something!

Here's my take. Right now, the target box falls on Syria, which is working in concert with Iran to defeat our plans in Iraq. Hizb'allah folks were recently arrested in Iraq. Hizb'allah is - or was - the joint enterprise of Syria and Iran in Lebanon, attacking Israel. And they are the terrorist group that has killed the second largest group of Americans, behind Al Qaeda. The Ba'athist "resistance" leaders operating out of Syria are causing us too much trouble, we are going to have to take the battle to where they are. Which happens to be Syria.

Iran's bluster - and North Korea's - is strategic. They are taking the heat off of Syria by going all nutty. Conventional wisdom says the military is too stretched and we don't have any moral authority to do anything after Iraq. Which is why these guys are acting in what appear to be irrational, anti-survival ways. They are waving red flags at the bull because they think there is a fence there.

At the same time, if we focus on Syria, there will be people who will say that we are detracting from the "real problems," Iran and/or North Korea.

That's all fine and dandy. But I think we have their number.

Okay, I've been lame in posting. And, unlike Allah, going away doesn't drive stats up.

Anyway, real things going on the "real world." Like taking a new job (I think I will - I plan on giving notice tomorrow.) Other things to be revealed later. Not like pitching a script, but you'll see.

Pitts has an interesting post below. My pessimism is more episodic, so I don't agree with it all, but there are some good points. I'll respond to it, I think, later....

If you have been reading my stuff for a while, you should have noticed a pessimistic streak. I do tend that way, a trait that can be helpful, and then again not

I have spent the last couple of years watching the argument about Bush's strategy for the War on Terror, and have come to the conclusion that it is not going to hold out. It has for this long, but it is going to implode in the face of it's own structural weakness, the inherent institutional weakness of the American political systems and the unremitting attacks on the strategy by both anti-war folks, the MSM, and the world at large. I cannot see anything else happening, and invite anyone to try and change my mind.

Let me explain, so that weaknesses in my logic can be pointed out.

Initially we deal with the inherent weakness of the argument. Lawyers hate defending the least worst scenario. It's a weak position, because definitionally your argument is weak.

Bush's argument about the War on Terror has always been the least worst solution. That is not his fault. The Western world has been kicking the problem of Islamic Facism down the road for decades. One the one hand this is understandable, on the other it was shortsighted. Once technology caught up with us, and made nukes and other horrors available, the problem became one that we could no longer ignore. Especially in the harsh light of 9/11, although many people had been warning since the early 80's.

But the light of 9/11 revealed a problem that was far bigger then we could deal with in light of current political considerations. In fact the problem may be insoluble regardless of political considerations.

The problem, in a nutshell, consisted of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, N. Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, and a number of others. The problem was that all these nations were working, either together loosely, or by themselves to create a WMD armed Islamic Fascist entity. I realize that this is oversimplified, but it basically holds.

This has to be prevented, especially in light of 9/11. The problem, of course is how? Bush chose the strategy of taking down Afghanistan first and then turning to Iraq, believing that this would have a braking effect on the efforts of the others. At least, that is what I see the strategy as being. The problem is that the strategy is not all that great, but is forced onto the Administration by political and pragmatic considerations.

After all, we could not turn to the UN. I think the deficiences of that body are well documented, and we could not have stopped the WMD race through them. The Europeans are constitutionally incapable of helping us. I think they have been militarily defanged, and without fangs, diplomacy is useless. There would, of course, be economic leverage, but this is dissipated by Oil.

Thus, outside of attackign with everything we have, something that is not politically or pragmatically possible, we are forced to deal with the puzzle a piece at a time. That would be fine, if time were not so short.

The other problem is that this piecemeal approach is vunerable to attack because it is the least worse solution. Who likes to slog through the worst solution? No human I know. It gets especially tough because the solution is highly susceptable to being nitpicked to death. After all, it's not like the solution is perfect. It makes it even worse when the political considerations make rejoinder to the nitpicking impossible for the proponent.

The Bush Administration faces a number of political considerations when advancing its argument. To be sure, the Administration has not done the best job at advancing its argument, but the obstacles must be recognized.

The first dehabilitating one is the fundamental assertion that our prior diplomatic and military efforts have been completely flawed when dealing with this situation. The Administration simply cannot come out and say that. There must be continuity between Administrations for a number of other reasons, and there is because the State Department employees and CIA employees and others survive from one Administration to the next. Changing the minds of those entities takes time, something we do not have in surplus.

The next problem is the electorate. The Bush Adminstration is faced with the competing demands of educating the electorate, while trying to keep its strategy somewhat quiet. Naturally while educating the electorate, the Administration will face a hostile media, and hostile opposition. And in addition to the hostile elements, the Administration must make the argument of Islamic Facism, without crossing institutional redlines. By this, I mean that the Administration must consider popular values such as tolerance, open-mindedness, and diversity that have been instilled into the population for decades now. For a thorough dissertation see Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom.

The Administration had to make a case for prosecuting an action against Islamic elements that were, in my opinion, hopelessly entangled with mainstream elements of the Islamic religion. We, as Americans, seem incapable of this discussion without lasping into generalities about tolerance for divergent viewpoints. It's become institutional in our opinion making process, and I see no way around it. It's the downside of the tolerance injected into out system. We respect all divergent viewpoints, even when that viewpoint wants to kill us all.

This institutional flaw allows those opposed to this strategy to attack it without having to suggest an alternative. If the opposition had a better alternative, they would have already won this fight. I am also open to better alternatives.

However, looking at public opinion, I think it is clear that we cannot keep fighting the least worst alternative, especially when it is losing. I think we are going to be unable to stop Iran and N. Korea from exploding a nuke. The problem is that if we lose this argument, we will be forced back into doing nothing. And while we do nothing, the Islamo-Facists will be busy. They will force us into the next move. I fear that our hand will be forced by a large scale chemical or nuclear attack.

At that point, it's all out war.

So please, point out where I am wrong?

If you are really cool, you know his albums.

Michelle Malkin notes that Andrew Sullivan raised $200k last year in donation drives and is now on hiatus, and off to European vacation. It's like when Martin is calculating the revenues for his shows, and goes:

3000 seat hall at $800 a seat...two point four million dollars.

One show...goodbye.

As former governor of Texas, I am sure that he is aware of what happened with the Galveston County employee retirement system:

The Alternate Plan that began as a fledgling, upstart employee benefit plan has stood the test of time and has shown that it can and does outperform Social Security. The plan that started in Galveston County ended the first year with a modest balance. Today, with over 5,000 employees from these three counties The Alternate Plan has grown to a very healthy and sizable portfolio. Those who retire after 20 years will receive three to four times the rate as under Social Security. This Alternate Plan is not just an isolated act of a group of responsible and dedicated Texans. There are countless other examples of other local and state government entities showing the same responsibility and initiative throughout the United States. There are now five states that are not under Social Security and have their own plans: California, Nevada, Maine, Ohio, and Colorado. In the Colorado plan they now have over $14 billion in assets. Local govern-ment entities such as police and fire depart-ments have long handled their own retirement plans.

Heard this on Hannity's show today (working at night in a datacenter leaves free time in the day). No doubt you"ll hear more in the future.

I wonder if Democrats want to attack CALPERS.

I ended up being at work until 11 last night (once again, the joys of working in datacenters), so I missed the speech. Near as I can tell, reaction is good. Heard some Democrats trotting out the old "he's planning to starve your grandma" stuff, but I don't think that is going to sell.

People are pointing to this column and Jon Stewart's statement about Bush maybe being right in the euphoria over the Iraqi election. It reveals something powerful. That the Left fears George Bush (and hence the United States) succeeding more than it fears losing to the terrorists. I guess this opens up a lot of "I told you so's," but this was revealed a long time ago - Chris Matthews said it explicitly on Hardball a while back:

If we do succeed in reconstructing Iraq along the lines of a moderate democracy, then the people who supported the intervention, the preemptive act, the preventive attack on that country, will say we were right. That‘s the problem.

And if he's right about Iraq, maybe he's right about the whole Middle East, the problem is a scarcity of freedom. After Arafat's death, it seems Bush was right about him, too.

UPDATE: I actually had a specific point in mind when I got started with this post, and forgot it as I wrote. My point is, even with this writer saying "maybe Bush was right," his immediate concern then is our "exit strategy." I continue to say that the phrase "exit strategy" has been GEN Powell's biggest disservice to this country. There are no exit strategies, there is only victory or loss. Note that we have troops in Germany, Italy, and Japan today. And you know what, we talk about withdrawing troops, and they aren't parading in the streets - they get mad that we are leaving.