I have lost my taste for study today

The news of this death overwhelmed me with bittersweet emotion. Gratitude that the suffering is over, and sadness at his loss.

A great man has left us.

KLo in The Corner notes that the press is officially bored with Kerry as CNN is entering Bill Clinton in the VeepStakes. Here is what CNN writes:

Few vice-presidential possibilities boast the accomplished resume -- or political baggage -- of former President Bill Clinton. Clinton studied at Georgetown, Yale and Oxford (as a Rhodes scholar) before returning to his home state of Arkansas. He taught at the University of Arkansas' law school for three years before, at 30, being elected the state's attorney general. Clinton later served six terms as Arkansas' governor (he won in 1978, lost a 1980 race, then was re-elected two years later), before defeating incumbent George H.W. Bush to become U.S. president, starting in January 1993. While federal law prohibits a person from seeking a third presidential term, the Constitution does not specify whether or not a former commander in chief can become vice president.

Well, no. But it does specify, in the 12th Amendment, that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Bill Clinton is consitutionally ineligible, having been elected twice to office, as in Amendment 22.

It's Friday, so of course it's time for some Victor Davis Hanson. I think he's been into my special sauce.

Vodkapundit looks approvingly on John Kerry's latest pronouncements about defense. Among the things he suggests are raising the end strength of the Army by 40,000 troops. Which is fine, as far as it goes. But Kerry doesn't propose adding to the defense budget to do this. Can anybody guess where the money is supposed to come from? Missile defense, of course.

In January, the Chief of Staff of the Army said he opposed adding 40,000 troops to the Army without adding dollars to the budget.

But Schoomaker told representatives he opposes a permanent increase in troops, and instead believes transformation and restructuring will increase lethality and efficiency in the long run. He said an unfunded end-strength increase "puts readiness at risk, it puts training at risk, it puts modernization at risk, it puts transformation at risk – and that's why I'm resisting it."

Kerry also proposes increasing e size of the Special Forces. As a commenter pointed out in the post about Kerry's statements on nuclear terrorism being a threat, Kerry seems to look at what Bush has done and then vigorously say it should be done. I am not sure if that is how it works, because I am not sure that Kerry knows what Bush is doing. For example, in the FY2004 Defense Appropriation, we increased the size of Special Forces and tripled their budget. Kerry might know that if he had actually bothered to vote for it.

So they tried to cast the June 30 turnover of soveriegnty in Iraq as a hastily conceived exit plan for Bush - now the big thing is that the Army has a stop loss, so there must be a crisis!

Not like it has never been done before. For the first Gulf War, stop loss affected the entire Army, Reserves, and Guard. Stop loss has been off and on for the Army since December of 2001. Sometimes it has been in place for particular specialties, others it has been for units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. The latest is one of those, unit based. It is just like the stop loss of February, 2003 in that respect.

Of course, the invasion of Iraq was a month away at that point. Could Syria be about to learn the consequences of challenging us in Iraq?

Not the big news referred to in the Extra special sauce post below. However, could be part of the groundwork for it. But really, it isn't a surprise. I had this post last October that pointed to an NYT article (now all but the first couple of paragraphs is lost to the archives) that included this paragraph:

Even before this latest blowup, Mr. Tenet told friends that he was worn out from the relentlessness of his job since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that he felt he had served long enough. (Only Allen W. Dulles and Richard Helms held the job longer.) Mr. Tenet, who has directed an extensive overhaul and expansion of the C.I.A. since the attacks, had talked about stepping down by late summer or early fall, people close to him said.

And of course, my pick to replace him - Rudy Giuliani.

Referrer logs have several hits from http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38466 - link to it, and you have to be a member to see the forum. Anybody know what's with these guys?

The President delivered the commencement address at the Air Force Academy today. A good speech, that deserves a wider audience. Full of good bits, like this, apropos of some of the discussion in the Advice to the terrorists post:

As we fight the war on terror in Iraq and on other fronts, we must keep in mind the nature of the enemy. No act of America explains terrorist violence, and no concession of America could appease it. The terrorists who attacked our country on September the 11th, 2001 were not protesting our policies. They were protesting our existence. Some say that by fighting the terrorists abroad since September the 11th, we only stir up a hornet's nest. But the terrorists who struck that day were stirred up already. (Applause.) If America were not fighting terrorists in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and elsewhere, what would these thousands of killers do, suddenly begin leading productive lives of service and charity? (Laughter.) Would the terrorists who beheaded an American on camera just be quiet, peaceful citizens if America had not liberated Iraq? We are dealing here with killers who have made the death of Americans the calling of their lives. And America has made a decision about these terrorists: Instead of waiting for them to strike again in our midst, we will take this fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

Lots of good discussion in the comments on that post. Today, via Instapundit, a couple of links that are in the same vein. Donald Sensing on whether AQ has a plan, Wretchard with a pretend one.

I don't think that these guys are super strategists - they constantly miscalculate the results of their actions. I think Spain was a surprise to them, and they are acting in hindsight to think they got what they wanted there.

A new helping. More WMD news to come. BIG news to blow all the other junk off the front pages within the next 4 weeks, non-WMD related.

Could be all crap. If it isn't, you heard it here first!

Saddam Hussein's links to terrorists, especially to Al Qaeda, have been downplayed every bit as much as Iraq's chemical weapons capability. Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard has been on the case with a new book, The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America. The title sums up the thesis pretty well, and at National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy (not the Brat Pack actor, but, as his bio line at NRO states, "a former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others") writes a brief summation of the case.

One wonders why these things are not being said by the administration, but instead by others. That the administration isn't harping on this is proof to those who don't believe that Hussein and terrorists were linked in the first place. But, as Instapundit notes when linking the book, "IT'S AN ARTICLE OF FAITH among many war critics that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda." Indeed, an article of faith, as in don't bother me with the facts. If the administration were promoting these items, they'd be saying that it was all lies anyway, and that Hayes is just an administration stooge, parroting the party line.

But the critics are going to criticize regardless. I would like to see the adminstration weighing in on this. Vice President Cheney has spoken approvingly before of Hayes' work in The Weekly Standard, so they obviously know of it.

Again, it could be that the reason for the silence is that we are recovering actionable intellifence on AQ in Iraq - GEN Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that on a visit to the region last year, that we were recovering intelligence in Iraq that we were making use of in Afghanistan. But I still think the administration should bring what we have out in the open. Not doing so leaves them open to the charges that they lied, and that the basis for the war was false. And that doesn't help anything.

Not chemical weapons, conventional wisdom.

Remember when the June 30 transition to Iraqi sovereignty was arbitrary and false, and driven by domestic political considerations? That was a long time ago. Now it is a rush job by the President to abandon Iraq entirely. At least that's what "they" want you to think. According to analysis in the Washington Post (link via The Daily Pundit):

With the introduction of both a new Iraqi government and a new U.N. draft resolution, the Bush administration senses the beginning of the end to its controversial and costly intervention in Iraq. But the relief visible at the White House yesterday may be short-lived, for the United States still faces serious obstacles.

Good news is that not everyone has short memories - Rich Galen this morning:

• The Iraqis - in Iraq - took control of the process of selecting who would be their political leaders and now have settled on a President and a Prime Minister to lead their country until the adoption of a permanent constitution not later than January 2005.




• This, if you listen to our friends on the Left, is a DEFEAT FOR BUSH!

Don't believe the spin. What's going on right now in Iraq is not an unraveling, but the opposite - the plan (you know, the one that doesn't exist) coming together.

I am already hearing spin that there is a Bush flip-flop on Iraq, and it is based on a report of a recent proposed UN Security Council Resolution. Drudge gives it the headline XX OUT BY 2006 XX. The actual story is somewhat less than that.

The new draft states that the interim government will be "fully sovereign" and reaffirms the right of the Iraqi people to determine their political future freely, control their natural resources and coordinate international assistance.

While the draft notes "that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at the request of the incoming interim government," it doesn't specifically give the new leaders the right to ask the force to leave.

Instead, it anticipates that the incoming government will make a formal request "to retain the presence of the multinational force" and leaves room for the date of that letter to be included in the resolution.

The new interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, said Tuesday the multinational force will be asked to stay on and promised that Iraq's security forces will be a "pivotal partner" with U.S. and other coalition troops in the fight to restore security to Iraq.

The new draft does put an expiration date on the mandate for the multinational force — the installation of a constitutionally elected government, which isn't expected until December 2005 or January 2006.

People are saying "the President said we'll be there til the job is done, and now there is a January 2006 deadline." But that isn't the case at all. We are asking for a UNSC resolution that is mandatory - including the creation of a multinational force under UN auspices. And that mandate will last until January 2006 - with the election of the new Iraqi government under its new constitution. That doesn't affect the presence or non-presence of US troops there. We aren't there under UN mandate now, in the first place. Like we aren't in Serbia, and Germany, and Japan, and Italy. We have troops there because we have agreements with the host nations - a Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, which is like a contract between the countries about the rules of the American presence in the country. We will probably have US troops stationed in Iraq for the next 50 years, just like the post-WWII conditions. Some period as an occupying power, then later as a guest of the host nation. And that is not reliant on a UN resolution, mandatory or otherwise. If anyone thinks the President is about to rollover on Iraq, read his press availability in the Rose Garden today.

Many challenges remain. Today's violence underscores that freedom in Iraq is opposed by violent men who seek the failure not only of this interim government, but of all progress toward liberty. We will stand with the Iraqi people in defeating the enemies of freedom and those who oppose democracy in Iraq. The killers know that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. The return of tyranny to Iraq would embolden the terrorists, leading to more bombings, more beheadings and more murders of the innocent around the world.

The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. A free Iraq will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the civilized world and for the security of America. The will of Iraqis and our coalition is firm. We will not be deterred by violence and terror. We will stand together and ensure that the future of Iraq is a future of freedom.

Besides, I expect that we'll be moving a lot of troops out of Iraq well before January 2006 anyway. Moving them, umm, someplace to the west.

John Kerry wakes up to threat:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nuclear terrorism is the gravest threat the United States faces, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Tuesday as he offered a plan to secure atomic arsenals and materials around the world.

"The enemy is different and we must think and act anew," Kerry said in excerpts of remarks prepared for delivery in West Palm Beach, Florida. "We have to do everything we can to stop a nuclear weapon from ever reaching our shore and that mission begins far away."

Wait - I thought all that mushroom cloud stuff was fearmongering, and doom and gloom to garner votes. I wonder if catching and detaining someone who wants to use nuclear materials to attack the US is "new" enough for him.

In case you haven't read the latest Mark Steyn, do it:

There is something not just ridiculous but unbecoming about a hyperpower 300 million strong whose elites -- from the deranged former vice president down -- want the outcome of a war, and the fate of a nation, to hinge on one freaky jailhouse; elites who are willing to pay any price, bear any burden, as long as it's pain-free, squeaky clean and over in a week. The sheer silliness dishonors the memory of all those we're supposed to be remembering this Memorial Day.

A powerful reminder indeed.

First, a little history of Memorial Day.

Second, I think the Gettysburg Address sums up the meaning of Memorial Day better than anything else.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal"

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground -- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth.