Principle above Party

I've been meaning to write a few lines about the rapidly expanding war in Afghanistan and the strong presence the United States is still maintaining in Iraq, but President Obama's (supposed) Health Insurance Reform has captivated our attention as a society and my attention personally.

The other day, during my two hour morning monitoring of Morning Edition on National Public Radio, I was astounded to hear that President Obama expected US Troops to be involved in Afghanistan for at least ten more years. Troop strength has already doubled from President Bush's inadequate allocation and may increase again this fall.

What struck me most was the complete lack of protest or concern on the part of most Americans to our continued adventures in Nation Building.

I paused for a moment to consider what would have happened if a newly elected President McCain had maintained over 100,000 troops in Iraq for the next five years and then announced that as many as 100,000 troops might be needed for as long as ten years in Afghanistan.

Had my imaginary President McCain merely echoed Obama's exact strategy, there would literally be rioting in the streets.

And this is why I so strongly hate the current climate of loyalty to political parties (Republican or Democrat) instead of principle. If 150,000 plus American troops adventuring over in the middle east was wrong a short seven (7) months ago, shouldn't it still be wrong today?

I'm confident that, had we elected John McCain, our involvement in the middle east would be rapidly winding down. Not because McCain wanted smaller involvement, but because he would be battling Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid tooth and nail for every dollar. McCain would be forced by Congress and the American people to speed up his exit and cut his forces and costs. Hell, we might actually be talking about deficit spending!

But the Democrats in Congress support their President, right or wrong. The very few of them with an ounce of integrity are holding their noses and focusing on the Health Care battle and pretending Iraq doesn't exist.

What caused me to remember this issue from a week or so ago was Cindy Sheehan, a woman with immense principle. A woman that should be representing Nancy Pelosi's district in the House instead of the opportunistic and totally unprincipled Pelosi.

Cindy is a woman who puts principle way above party labels. This week she is taking her August vigil from President Bush's summer home in Crawford, Texas to President Obama's summer vacation spot at Martha's Vineyard.

"We as a movement need to continue calling for an immediate end to the occupations [in Iraq and Afghanistan] even when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office," Sheehan said in a statement. "There is still no Noble Cause no matter how we examine the policies."

She will fight the battle alone. She will have only a handful of followers. There will be no television interviews. And no one, not even Chris Matthews, will wonder why the President doesn't have the courage to walk down the road and meet with her, even though he strongly urged then President Bush to hold such a meeting.

And this is exactly why I put PRINCIPLE above PARTY. President Obama and most of the Democrats have betrayed most of the most cherished liberal principles. Calling protesters a "mob." Dismissing the genuine concerns of American Citizens. Harry Reid and many Democrats refuse to even hold town meetings, calling American Citizens who actually care "evil doers." Hell, Reid even sounds like President Bush. "Evil Doers" indeed.

Democrats do not somehow magically deserve my support because they have a "D" behind their title. They have to earn my respect through honor, honesty and integrity.

Victory in Iraq

Today is perhaps the most important day in modern Iraqi history. The regional elections, being held completely under the control and supervision of the Iraqi government, military and police without even a hint of American military involvement, represents a huge victory for the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people and the American led coalition that shepherded in the peace and security that allows Iraq to be only the second true democracy in the middle east.

And yes, President Bush also deserves a great deal of credit for the current stability and peace in Iraq. It is his victory, too. His vision and strength (perhaps that was stubbornness) to go against public opinion and the entire Democrat Party (and quite a few Republicans) has paid huge dividends. The surge worked.

Frankly, his masterful management of the debate over funding with Congress may well be his greatest accomplishment as President. After Democrats gained control of Congress it was assumed that funding for Iraq would be cut off. Bush fought against Speaker Pelosi tooth and nail and ended up winning every single battle. The surge was approved and full funding continued until the very last day of his Presidency.

That the President won these funding battles even with a dismal public approval rating shows he was a damned sight better at management and political wrangling than his critics ever imagined.

Coincidentally it also proves just how totally incompetent Nancy Pelosi is at her job. But I digress.

The real victory belongs to the Iraqi people. President Bush is now part of America's past. The future belongs to President Obama. And President Obama's decisions will also affect the future of Iraq. Let's hope he isn't too stubborn himself and allows Iraq to have the support it deserves to become a beacon of hope and freedom for the entire region.

They Told Me If.......

They told me if I voted for John McCain I would get a bi-partisan moderate President who would often reach across the aisle and would appoint a broad range of people from across the political spectrum to his cabinet.

They told me that if i voted for John McCain I would get a pragmatic, logical and intelligent President who would NOT be captive to dogma or partisanship in making decisions BEST for the American people.

The told me if I voted for John McCain I would get a President who followed an intelligent and protective approach to our withdrawal from Iraq, a man who would listen to our military in the field and would not just quickly and dangerously withdraw troops regardless of the outcome.

So I voted for John McCain....

And I got exactly the type of President I hoped to have!

Good Work President-Elect Obama! I couldn't possibly be more pleased!

The Future For Iraq by Senator John McCain

Below is the editorial essay submitted to The New York Times by Senator John McCain in response to a similar editorial submitted and printed one week earlier by Senator Barack Obama. The Times has rejected Senator McCain's editorial. We are most pleased to publish it here, exactly as written by Senator McCain.

The Future For Iraq Senator John McCain In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains. Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted. Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism. The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance. To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future. Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops. No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013. But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama. Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.” The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely. I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

A Tale of Three Presidents

I'm pleased and frankly a little bit surprised to let you know that President Bush (our current President) has accepted and is now following The Wizard's very sage advice. I wrote this open letter to President Bush last week: President Bush: Accept the Victory You've Earned and Deserve

I urged President Bush to accept Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki's plan for a phased withdrawal (or timetable, if you prefer). Now, I have to admit that it's unlikely President Bush ever read my blog, but yesterday he did agree to a Time Horizon on Troop Cuts. The Associated Press Reports:

President Bush and Iraq's prime minister have agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more U.S. troops home from the war, a dramatic shift from the administration's once-ironclad unwillingness to talk about any kind of deadline or timetable.

What is especially interesting is tonight's latest little wrinkle in the negotiations. It appears to many people that al-Maliki has signaled his endorsement of our future President Barack Obama's 16 month timetable for troop withdrawal (and likely favors Obama himself in the upcoming election). Although the Iraqi government quickly denied the rumours, that is possibly only a move to save face and preserve relations with the Bush administration.

As you all know I favored the surge from it's earliest proposal by Senator John McCain. I was extremely pleased when President Bush followed that advice.

It is ironic that the success about to be enjoyed by American President Bush, Iraqi President al-Maliki and future President Obama is all due to John McCain's military strategy, the one man who will never occupy the office of President.

President Bush: Accept the Victory You've Earned and Deserve

Dear President Bush,

A rare and extraordinary moment in history is before us today. And it is a real tribute to your unwavering vision for the future of the nation and the people of Iraq and the stability of the middle east.

Rightly or wrongly, you led America and a small coalition into a preemptive war with Saddam Hussein and the nation of Iraq. And, even when faced with sagging public opinion at home and abroad, you ignored the critics and the polls and stayed the course to bring stability and plant the seeds of democracy in this once enslaved land.

As Congress demanded withdrawal, you successfully forced a major surge in troops and fought off every attempt to end the war and subsequent occupation. Hell, you won every single funding battle.

You took the hard road and made certain beyond all doubt that there were no weapons of mass destruction in the hands of this potentially powerful nation. More importantly, you deposed the despotic and unstable leader and his sadistic sons and returned this land to it's varied and noble peoples.

Today, the leader that has been duly elected by all the of Iraq people has reported to you, in both words and deeds, that Iraq has grown and is now ready to chart it's own course and resume its rightful place in among the world's sovereign nations.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in ruins and Iraq's own military has now assumed the lead role in routing the remaining forces. In Basra, in Sadr City, and in Mosul, Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki has shown that he has both the will and the means to control his country.

Now is the time for you to accept the victory you have long sought. Now is the time for you to accept Nouri al-Maliki's most generous offer for a strategically negotiated timetable for withdrawal of combat troops.

There is no doubt that your acceptance of a timetable for withdrawal drawn up by the Iraqi's in consultation with our military leaders on the ground will literally turn around your entire Presidency. Your approval ratings will jump twenty points overnight.

You're not bowing to some politically mandated withdrawal plan coming from no-nothing Washington politicians. You've won that battle for the last four difficult years. No, you would be leaving on your terms. Settling the war BEFORE you leave office. What a victory!

Sure, there is a side benefit that this will benefit Senator McCain in his quest for the Presidency. Yes, as one of the original architects of the surge, McCain will share in your victory. And yes, it will effectively remove a political weapon from Barack Obama's arsenal.

And, frankly, if you fail to grasp the olive branch of victory today, you will effectively hand it to the future Persident Obama, who will not repeat your mistake. Trust me on this one, President Obama will negotiate a timetable for withdrawal. Why let Obama steal your moment in the spotlight?

The only way to prove you were right all along is to accept al-Maliki's pathway to independence. It will totally disarm your critics who claimed this was all about oil. Or power. Or greed.

Negotiate today and you can depart on your terms, at a pace dictated by the real events on the ground.

But, no matter what, negotiate today. Accept victory when it is handed to you by the Iraqi's themselves.

Timetable? We Should NEVER Leave Iraq

Aided by blind hatred and near sickening political demagoguery by those who simply despise George Bush, America stands on the verge of making one of the worst foreign policy decisions in all of history.

And George Bush and his aides are so wounded, not to mention virtually incompetent in all matters political, they are doing nearly nothing to prevent the coming disaster.

This textbook failure will make Viet Nam look positively heroic.

Put simply, America stands poised to snatch defeat (and so much worse) from the jaws of victory. Bush and the military leaders in Iraq have virtually won the peace. We've gone from Invasion, to War, and then on to Occupation. FInally we are on the verge of peace.

I believe the occupation is now at an end and we are ready to enter into a period of mutual support, cooperation and even friendship.

And the Iraqi Government clearly believes the same thing. We should see troop withdrawals begin this fall.

If intelligent forces were guiding the foreign policy of our country, instead of electioneering and demagoguery and the flames of personal hatred, we would be entering into a long term agreement of mutual support and protection between our countries. The agreement would absolutely mirror our agreements with Japan, Germany and dozens of other countries.

Instead, Bush is unable to negotiate such a treaty. Not because the Iraqis are unwilling, they are actually begging for such an agreement, but because Bush is terrified by our Congress and the mood of the electorate.

He cannot bring a treaty before a Congress that most certainly will fail to ratify it.

No the mood in this election year is retreat, submit, withdraw and abandon. There are no facts on the ground that will ever placate a Congress effectively controlled by Moveon.org.

Bush is so inarticulate and so inept he cannot speak to the American people and convince them to do the right and intelligent thing. He lacks the powers of persuasion of his predecessors and the current Democrat Presidential candidate.

Instead Bush has "promised not to tie the hands of his successor." No treaty, no agreement, no nothing.

And Obama will most certainly leave a very fragile Iraq to fall under the control of a religious dictatorship that will become the greatest enemy ever faced by any power on earth.

And it's so damned unnecessary. The war is won. The occupation is over. All we need to do is support the people of Iraq, exactly as we have supported the people of Germany, Japan and South Korea. Trade, financial aid, rebuilding, mutual aid. Iraq is ready to govern. If we don't abandon them.

Please read the entire Wall Street Journal article from Friday, How Prime Minister Maliki Pacified Iraq.

America is very close to succeeding in Iraq. The "near-strategic defeat" of al Qaeda in Iraq described by CIA Director Michael Hayden last month in the Washington Post has been followed by the victory of the Iraqi government's security forces over illegal Shiite militias, including Iranian-backed Special Groups. The enemies of Iraq and America now cling desperately to their last bastions, while the political process builds momentum.

These tremendous gains remain fragile and could be lost to skillful enemy action, or errors in Baghdad or Washington. But where the U.S. was unequivocally losing in Iraq at the end of 2006, we are just as unequivocally winning today.

And while you're in a reading mood, please read the news report from this morning, Iran police start wider crackdown on un-Islamic dress. Is this really the future we want to grant to the women of Iraq?

One World

Please just consider this singular reality as you weigh decisions that you must indeed make about the future of Iraq and the Middle East.

We're in a really tough situation in Iraq. But not nearly as tough as situation the Iraqi's are in themselves. Tragically the United States controls the future of the Iraqi's. They will have to live under the results of the decisions we make in the 2008 elections.

Here, without any further editorial comment are the words of Saudi cleric, Muhammad al-Munajid, aired on Al-Majd TV, March 30, 2008.



Here is a transcript the most important words of Muhammad al-Munajid:

"The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate."

"That’s it. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief."

"They say: Let’s have freedom of thought in Islam..."

"They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth."

"Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate – go ahead. Fancy Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem."

"That’s what freedom of belief is all about."

"They want freedom of everything."

"What they want is very dangerous."

Staying to Help in Iraq

I have the greatest admiration for Bono and Bob Geldof and Mia Farrow and Angelina Jolie and others who are able to transcend politics and move past the demagoguery and actually work constructively to improve the lives of oppressed people around the world.

There are all too many politicians in Washington and sideline commentators around the world for whom victory only means dealing a political defeat to their opposition.

So when Bob Geldof praises George Bush's humanitarian activities in Africa and condemns the media for failing to give President Bush the credit he so richly deserves, I want to cheer. Not because I'm a Bush cheerleader, but because Bob Geldof actually places the welfare of the poor in Africa ABOVE politics!! Geldof has consistently looked for answers and help for Africans, not headlines or political points.

By the way, Geldof's article in this week's TIME MAGAZINE is a must read for everyone: Geldof and Bush: Diary From the Road. But, as usual, I've wondered off track....

Today I want to once again give praise and credit to Angelina Jolie, one of the brightest, most articulate and passionate people working today to help the poor, the oppressed and the forgotten. Jolie's work in Iraq this past week (and the past several years) is magnificent.

In a Washington Post Op-Ed letter today, Jolie recounts the situation in Iraq and her recent visits with both the refugees in Iraq and with U.S. Army General David Petraeus, United Nation's High Commissioner António Guterres, and Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Jolie is a woman on a mission and she is succeeding.

Certainly Jolie is no fan of George Bush. She is deeply affected by the suffering of (by Jolie's estimates) over 4.5 million Iraqi refugees. She wants to help these people to return home safely and to rebuild their lives.

More than that, she wants and expects the United States and the United Nations to step up to the plate and provide financial and humanitarian assistance in this effort.

Jolie doesn't endorse the surge, she doesn't endorse the war. Jolie doesn't play politics. But she does recognize both the real situation on the ground and the need for the United States to play a significant role in rebuilding the lives of the people.

I think it's really significant that instead of sitting safely at home and running "General Betray Us" ads in the New York Times, Jolie goes and meets Petraeus and gets the support she needs to increase the humanitarian aid.

I hope you'll read Jolie's entire article: Staying to Help in Iraq

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder? What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy. As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible. It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

The Dream Election 2008

Yet another primary and yet another chance for the Wizard to opine......

We are very, very close to the Wizard's "Dream Election" of Democrat Barack Obama facing Republican John McCain. This is the very best possible matchup for the American people. McCain and Obama are the best of their respective parties and either would make an excellent President.

Even more important these are two men of extraordinary integrity and honor. We can actually respect them both for exactly the same reason - Their positions on the war in Iraq. You see, even though they are polar opposites, both have held their positions even when faced with overwhelming public opposition! These men don't sway with every breeze in the polls. They actually believe what they say. That is refreshing in itself!

And this election is best for the American public because the choice couldn't possibly be more clear. In McCain we have a supporter of the continued occupation and (potential) liberation of the people of Iraq versus Barack Obama, a champion for withdrawal of the troops from Iraq.

In their speeches tonight, both men fully embraced their positions on Iraq. Neither man will back down.

The voters in American will finally be allowed to choose. No fence sitting. The course of action, the future path of American foreign policy, will be clear once the dust settles in November. If the people really want to leave Iraq (and possibly Afghanistan), the road map home will be drawn in the quiet privacy of the voting booth.

If, on the other hand, the American public agrees with John McCain and believes that America must take the War on Terror into the Middle East, that renewed surge must find its roots in the polling places of America.

These are tough choices. These are real leaders.

Party Like It's 2008

Reuters gets my vote for the best news story starting off 2008:

On New Year's Eve Ridaa al-Azzawi squeezed into his pointy snakeskin boots, his tight black sweater and his snazzy corduroy flared jeans, hustled down to a Baghdad hotel ballroom and partied for peace. 2008 arrived in a less-violent Baghdad, and residents said it was the first real party they had seen in years. At the stroke of midnight, exuberant locals fired into the air with automatic rifles, sending red tracer fire streaking over the city, as fireworks lit up the sky. "The security has changed and it took us by surprise. We're very happy. Especially us young people," said al-Azzawi, a 22-year-old student taking a break from dancing to a traditional Iraqi band in the ballroom of the Palestine Hotel. "I haven't seen a happy place like this in so long. I wanted to see if I could maybe meet a few girls!" he said. "I only hope the Iraqi people can enjoy more happy times like this." Salah al-Lami, 27, the singer who performed at the Palestine ballroom and then for another New Year's Eve crowd at the Sheraton Hotel across the street, said it was the first time he had sung before a live audience in four years. "This will be the year that we take our freedom!" he told Reuters after singing through a boisterous set in front of a packed dancefloor. "When I went up on the stage and started singing I felt like I was performing for my family." Belly dancers also took the stage, and revelers showered a female singer with dinar notes, the Iraqi audience's ultimate sign of approval.

My warmest wishes to everyone throughout the world for peace, security, freedom and happiness in 2008. May it be our best year ever!

Could Andrew McCarthy and Juan Cole BOTH Be Right?

The very tragic loss of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan this week has exposed the horrible inflammation hiding just below the superficial skin of the "civilized" Middle East.

I think most Americans had a fairy tale view of Pakistan.

I believe most Americans felt that Pakistan was, for the most part, a civil society hampered by an over zealous military that all too often took control by ousting democratically elected leaders.

In our mind former General, now President, Musharraf was holding back Democracy (with a big "D") is a vain attempt to hold on to power.

And, in our mind, Benazir Bhutto was the beacon of "Democracy," about to bring back light to a darkened society.

As it turns out we Americans have watched too many movies like Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia. Pakistan is no middle earth and Bhutto was no hobbit.

Our view, as Americans, is shaped all too often by the pathetic portraits painted in water colors by the national news networks. Sixty second sound bites on FOX, CNN and the nightly news actually do have a fairy tale quality to them.. No in depth reporting. No one actually scratching the surface looking at the infection.

And how did MSNBC, FOX and others react to Bhutto's death? They paraded endless sixty second interviews with political hacks about which candidate for US President benefited the most from Bhutto's assassination.

Pathetic.

And so I point you all to two diverse corners of the blogosphere for some real in depth discussion of the real implications of Benazir Bhutto's life and death on Pakistan and the middle east. The two views I propose you read and take to heart appear at first to be diametrically opposed. But are they really?

First I strongly recommend you read Andrew C. McCarthy's article Benazir Bhutto: Killed by the real Pakistan in National Review Online.

A recent CNN poll showed that 46 percent of Pakistanis approve of Osama bin Laden. Aspirants to the American presidency should hope to score so highly in the United States. In Pakistan, though, the al-Qaeda emir easily beat out that country’s current president, Pervez Musharraf, who polled at 38 percent. President George Bush, the face of a campaign to bring democracy — or, at least, some form of sharia-lite that might pass for democracy — to the Islamic world, registered nine percent. Nine! The real Pakistan is a breeding ground of Islamic holy war where, for about half the population, the only thing more intolerable than Western democracy is the prospect of a faux democracy led by a woman — indeed, a product of feudal Pakistani privilege and secular Western breeding whose father, President Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto, had been branded as an enemy of Islam by influential Muslim clerics in the early 1970s.

Although he certainly doesn't mention McCarthy by name, I believe Juan Cole's blog entry of Friday, December 28, 2007 written one day after McCarthy's article, was a direct response and a full frontal assault on McCarthy's analysis.

I am appalled by the rightwing US pundits who are taking advantage of Bhutto's assassination to blame "the people of Pakistan" for "extremism." Benazir's party would have won at least a plurality in parliament. The PPP is a moderate, middle class party, and it has done well in unrigged elections during the past 20 years. She was killed by an extremist of some sort. The Muslim fundamentalist parties usually only get 3 percent of the vote in national elections, and they got 11.3 percent of the popular vote in 2002 only because Musharraf interfered with the PPP and Muslim League campaigns.

Cole is a widely respected expert on the middle east. And, initially in his article, Cole comes off as a wise and reasonable statesman compared to McCarthy's wild eyed fanaticism.

The trouble is that once you get past these opening salvos the articles almost say exactly the same things. Pakistan is a deeply troubled country being run amok by radical Islam. It turns out that Cole and McCarthy disagree mostly about the percentages, not the outcome.

In effect Cole is saying that a majority of moderate Pakistanis are being run roughshod by a minority bent on civil war. And Cole believes civil war is only a heartbeat away.

The seriousness of the situation in the streets of some of Pakistan's important towns and cities doesn't seem to me to be being reported in the US press and media. In contrast, Pakistani newspapers are giving chilling details of large urban centers turned into ghost towns on Friday morning, with no transport available, hundreds of thousands of persons stranded far from home, shops closed, and banks, gas stations, police stations and automobiles torched. Folks, I've seen civil wars and riots first hand, and revolutions from not too far away, and this situation looks pretty bad to me.

Meanwhile McCarthy writes an essay that I swear I've read nearly word for word in dozens of Juan Cole's own columns (I'm not implying plagiarism at all, just a strange convergence of ideas):

For the United States, the question is whether we learn nothing from repeated, inescapable lessons that placing democratization at the top of our foreign policy priorities is high-order folly. The transformation from Islamic society to true democracy is a long-term project. It would take decades if it can happen at all. Meanwhile, our obsessive insistence on popular referenda is naturally strengthening — and legitimizing — the people who are popular: the jihadists. Popular elections have not reformed Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon. Neither will they reform a place where Osama bin Laden wins popular opinion polls and where the would-be reformers are bombed and shot at until they die.

I'm used to McCarthy proposing Bush-lite Democracy and Cole saying it' can't be done. But in this case I really believe they are both saying the same thing, even while taking veiled potshots at each other.

Pakistan is not ready or willing or able to embrace Democracy today. This Islamic minority (or majority) are not ready for changes that give power to the people. Changes that would trade sharia law for Amnesty International,

This is a clash of cultures, a clash between the past and the future. Pakistan is simply another Afghanistan or another Iraq. It is one more battlefield in the was between Islamic radicals like al-qaeda and the Taliban and moderates who merely yearn for peace and stability.

Yes, it does sound a lot like The Lord of the Rings and the war for middle earth. But don't expect good to triumph over evil. And don't expect an ending in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Or even three installments.

We Should Leave Iraq........ Never!

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was just plain stupid. It was unnecessary, poorly planned and badly executed. If George Bush wasn't a fool, he certainly made foolish decisions. As for Rumsfeld, he was criminally incompetent.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool. But ninety percent of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. And nearly every Democrat either strongly and passionately supported the war or were too cowardly to actively oppose it. We should and must deeply respect those who opposed the invasion before it began, but we should also forgive those who mistakenly supported the invasion.

But what about today? The world and the Middle East are vastly different today that they were six years ago. And our ill begotten invasion and occupation of Iraq are part of the reason for the different dynamics at play.

But we cannot undo the last six years. This isn't golf and we don't get a mulligan. Instead we must play the ball where it lays. And it lays in the slowly healing Iraq.

New leadership in the military and in the Department of Defense have reprogrammed our approach to Iraq. Finally a solution to the failed state is building, as it must, from the ground up. A very, very gradual pull down of troops has begun. But the foundation is fragile.

And the enemies of America are genuinely terrifying. If the political forces fighting so very, very hard to engineer a forced pull out of American troops from Iraq would look dispassionately at the enemy they would see an organization so vile, so evil, so ruthless that their daily operating tactics violate not just the Geneva Convention, but every value and moral ever cherished by every single human society throughout history.

George Bush has never even imagined the types of sadistic and evil torture practiced every minute of day by these ...... people ........ [What can we call them??? There simply isn't a word in any language for this level of evil.] Targeting children. Killing teachers. Brainwashing followers into suicide murder. Thousands (yes, you read that number right) of torture chambers where generally innocent people are slowly starved, cut, bled and beaten to death, often for no purpose what-so-ever.

Televised beheadings? At least they have a purpose, They are designed to incite fear.

But the real issue is Iran. While Bush screwed up with invading Iraq and providing textbook lessons in how not to occupy a country, Iran has emerged as the leader in the Middle East. And now even conservative estimates give Iran nuclear weapons in just one year.

And there are, in fact, no solutions to Iran, no options, even in Bush's far reaching playbook. Posturing and bluffing are the best the west can do and, frankly, Iran knows the drill.

So we face a nuclear Iran. Period. There are no options. Bush will not bomb. Bush cannot invade. Israel will not be our proxy. Period.

Given these facts, and they are facts, the only logical, intelligent course is to stay and rebuild Iraq from the ground up. A strong, democratic, Iraq is the only solution, even if it take years. The United States must maintain significant forces in Iraq until that job is done.

Misreading the Mandate

For at least the last four years I hoped that President Bush would remove Karl Rove from his position in the White House. I believed Rove was not part of any solution and was the focus of the problem with the Bush Presidency and the acrimonious relationship between Congress and the Executive Branch.

I was thrilled to see Rove finally go.

But today I must strongly recommend that all my fellow Democrats and especially the Member and Leaders of Congress carefully study and read Karl Rove's Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, "A Failure to Lead."

Never in my long life have I seen Congress so thoroughly misread their election victory and the mandate they received from a public anxious for change in Washington. And I believe the real problem in Congress today rests with Nancy Pelosi and especially the politically deaf Harry Reid, the most embarrassing Senate Majority Leader in history.

Just reading Rove's essay is bitter medicine for any Democrat. "A tough pill to swallow" is an understatement!

But Democrats had better do more than just read. They must understand that Rove is spot on correct, not necessarily in his specific programs (which, of course, lean way too far right), but in his evaluation of the performance of the Congress, its ethics, its discipline and its results.

Key (and edited) Rove comments follow:

This week is the one-year anniversary of Democrats winning Congress. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably aren't in a celebrating mood. The goodwill they enjoyed after their victory is gone. And Congress's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in history. The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in. Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a "relatively small" difference. Beholden to MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups, Democratic leaders have ignored the progress made in Iraq by the surge, diminished the efforts of our military, and wasted precious time with failed attempts to force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They continue to try to implement this course, which would lead to chaos in the region, the creation of a possible terror state with the third largest oil reserves in the world, and a major propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden as well as for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. After promising on the campaign trail to "support our troops," Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. For 19 Senate Democrats, this was simply a bridge too far, so they voted against their own leadership's proposal. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members. Now the party's leaders are stalling an emergency supplemental bill with funding for body armor, bullets and mine-resistant vehicles. Democrats promised "civility and bipartisanship." Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses..... They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical. The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform..... Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences. Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They've squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power... ...the public doesn't like what it sees. The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.

There is a valuable lesson to be learned right here in my home state of Mississippi and our neighboring state of Louisiana. Republican Haley Barbour easily won re-election last week during a year when virtually every incumbent has been tossed out. Why? Because he got results!

Barbour managed both the relief and reconstruction after Katrina with efficiency, candor, honesty and speed. He compromised with our Democrat controlled House and our Democrat Attorney General to get the right relief and right support in the right places. He got results, not gridlock.

Compare Mississippi's amazing recovery with the disaster that still blocks virtually all the millions of federal dollars from reaching anyone in Louisiana and you see why you have a new REPUBLICAN replace the incumbent Democrat in the governor's seat without even a runoff.

You know what America really wants? A partnership between the parties for results and not more political grandstanding.

Faced With Victory, Dems Rally for Defeat

Senator Joe Lieberman today delivered a brilliant analysis of the last 50 years of American Foreign Policy. Looking back to the legacy of President Truman and President Kennedy he tracked the shifting positions of both the Republican and Democrat Parties based, not on what was genuinely best for the United States, but instead based on political advantage and petty partisan politics.

It was a stunning indictment of both politial parties.

He discussed at length the brave few Senators and Congresspersons who consistently put National Security and moral principles above the limited horizon of the next electoral cycle. Lieberman's very short list includes both Democrats and Republicans. These real patriots provide real profiles in courage.

Lieberman's speech was given at the Center for Politics and Foreign Relations/Financial Times breakfast at The Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. Titled “The Politics of National Security,” the complete text can be found here.

As you no doubt have already guessed Lieberman saved his most savage indictments for the current Democrat Party Leadership who will spend the entire rest of 2007 working to pull our troops out of Iraq in the face of overwhelming military and social and political success.

As Iraq moves toward stability and safety, the Democrats move will hand victory to Islamic Terrorists and will take away freedom, safety, hope and democracy from the Iraqi citizens.

"Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush."

"Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran."

"Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there."

Making Sense Out of Politics

I'd like to make some sense out of today's S-CHIP vote in the House of Representatives. I'm convinced there are dozens upon dozens of varying agendas going on there, not any of them actually aimed at helping children or improving medical care.

In reality today ended with a meaningless stand-off between Democrats who "think they have a winning issue" and Republicans who "think they have a winning issue." How uncool is that?

The financial division between Republicans and Democrats is really rather small. And the current S-CHIP program is generally regarded as good, although it is unevenly implemented and virtually ignored by almost 1/3rd of the families who could enroll their children.

Nobody brings this fact up because neither Congress nor the President can actually make people become good and caring parents. Still I would have loved to hear Congressman Pete Stark rail about that instead of making bizarre, stupid, insensitive, meaningless and inflammatory statements about President Bush about the increasingly successful military occupation of Iraq.

Which is something else I don't understand. The near brilliant surge strategy of General Petraeus is really working. By virtually any objective or subjective measure, the situation in Iraq is improving. Why doesn't everybody admit that and then continue the real debate about the wisdom of a continued occupation and viable exit strategies.

Why do most Democrats have to mimic Harry Reid and state "I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything," when it so very clear that Reid is simply wrong?

Reid's idiotic approach allows Republicans to state with obvious accuracy that the Democrats are "invested in defeat."

Why can't my fellow Democrats say, "Wow! The military is doing a great job. And General Petraeus is a genius. Can we go home now?"

I can't even follow Reid's logic of implying that we're losing and our enemies are kicking our butts, so we should give up. That argument not only flies in the face of the current events, it turns the public so strongly against Congress that Bush ends up look better than the Congress.

But let's return to our discussion of Darfur. Oh, you didn't even know we were talking about Darfur, you thought we were talking about S-CHIP. But we really weren't. You see Congress doesn't actually give a rat's ass about S-CHIP. If they did they would compromise with President Bush who has already signalled he will compromise generously.

Nope Congress really doesn't care about S-CHIP, no matter how big the crocodile tears shed by Pete Stark. Nope. Congress members just want a "winning issue." That's also why Congress refuses to solve the Social Security Disaster, which is now only about 5 years away.

And it's why this article today is about Darfur. You see Darfur is only about death, war, murder, rape, starvation, suffering, slavery, corruption and oil. Not a single "winning issue" the entire deck of cards.

So Darfur is up to you, the readers of this blog. Congress isn't ever going to actually pass the The Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (SADA). Not a "winning issue." Don't even hold your breath waiting for hearing.

But you ultimately have a lot of power. Tell your mutual funds to divest PetroChina, a Chinese oil company whose parent company, CNPC, fills the coffers of the Sudanese government and helping fund the its actions in Darfur. CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE.

If you'll put enough pressure on Wall Street and on Congress saving lives might actually become a "winning issue."