Pro: Major Michael McBride calling for perseverance, spirit and lethality.
Con: Herschel Smith wonders aloud if the Iraqi army is up to the challenge.
Meanwhile, on a side-note, this Richard Engle report from Iraq answers critics with statements straight from soldiers on the ground. "We support the troops," is an insult to these brave men.
My own opinion on the troop surge has been made in previous posts. But to summarize on behalf of the lazy and uninspired (I am their Patron Saint, by the way), I question Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq because regardless of the military wisdom of such a move, he is sending them into battle lacking almost any political support whatsoever. The policy is not supported by our allies (such as they are), the Maliki government, most Iraqis, our enemies in the region, Congress (including members of the President's own party), the media, and perhaps most importantly, the American people. In my opinion, a complete dearth of political support likely dooms even the most well-thought out military strategy.
But Donald Stoker, a professor of strategy and policy for the U.S. Naval War College’s Monterey Program writes in Foreign Policy magazine that there may be more cause for optimism. Stoker takes a historical look at the performance of insurgencies and finds that they are generally prone to failure:
Myths about invincible guerrillas and insurgents are a direct result of America’s collective misunderstanding of its defeat in South Vietnam. This loss is generally credited to the brilliance and military virtues of the pajama-clad Vietcong. The Vietnamese may have been tough and persistent, but they were not brilliant. Rather, they were lucky—they faced an opponent with leaders unwilling to learn from their failures: the United States. When the Vietcong went toe-to-toe with U.S. forces in the 1968 Tet Offensive, they were decimated. When South Vietnam finally fell in 1975, it did so not to the Vietcong, but to regular units of the invading North Vietnamese Army. The Vietcong insurgency contributed greatly to the erosion of the American public’s will to fight, but so did the way that President Lyndon Johnson and the American military waged the war. It was North Vietnam’s will and American failure, not skillful use of an insurgency, that were the keys to Hanoi’s victory. Similar misunderstandings persist over the Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan, the other supposed example of guerrilla invincibility. But it was not the mujahidin’s strength that forced the Soviets to leave; it was the Soviet Union’s own economic and political weakness at home. In fact, the regime the Soviets established in Afghanistan was so formidable that it managed to survive for three years after the Red Army left. Of course, history is not without genuine insurgent successes. Fidel Castro’s victory in Cuba is probably the best known, and there was the IRA’s partial triumph in 1922, as well as Algeria’s defeat of the French between 1954 and 1962. But the list of failed insurgencies is longer: Malayan Communists, Greek Communists, Filipino Huks, Nicaraguan Contras, Communists in El Salvador, Che Guevara in Bolivia, the Boers in South Africa (twice), Savimbi in Angola, and Sindero Luminoso in Peru, to name just a few. If the current U.S. administration maintains its will, establishes security in Baghdad, and succeeds in building a functioning government and army, there is no reason that the Iraqi insurgency cannot be similarly destroyed, or at least reduced to the level of terrorist thugs. Insurgencies generally fail if all they are able to do is fight an irregular war. Successful practitioners of the guerrilla art from Nathanael Greene in the American Revolution to Mao Zedong in the Chinese Civil War have insisted upon having a regular army for which their guerrilla forces served mainly as an adjunct. Insurgencies also have inherent weaknesses and disadvantages vis-à-vis an established state. They lack governmental authority, established training areas, and secure supply lines. The danger is that insurgents can create these things, if given the time to do so. And, once they have them, they are well on their way to establishing themselves as a functioning and powerful alternative to the government. If they reach this point, they can very well succeed.
Stoker's thesis and case studies are interesting and important reminders about the inherent flaws of insurgencies. In Iraq, the absence of a coherent and meaningful alternative political agenda should be a significant barrier to success for the insurgents in a long-term war of attrition. However, the American people and key influencers do not have the stomach to engage in such an ugly, drawn-out affair. As a consequence, the ledger becomes more balanced in favor of the insurgents. They are emboldened to believe that with enough time, they will prevail. Their mantra parallels that of the Vietnamese, who once remarked, "In a little while the Americans will be gone, but we will still be here." Time, as it turns out is a crucial ingredient. And with so many missteps to-date, there is precious little of it remaining, as Stoker admits:
That’s welcome news, because one thing is certain: time is running out. Combating an insurgency typically requires 8 to 11 years. But the administration has done such a poor job of managing U.S. public opinion, to say nothing of the war itself, that it has exhausted many of its reservoirs of support. One tragedy of the Iraq war may be that the administration’s new strategy came too late to avert a rare, decisive insurgent victory.
After 254 days, Barbaro has finally been put out of his misery. And in my opinion, it was about time.
The horse gripped the national imagination when he rocketed to a stunning multi-furlong victory in the 2006 Kentucky Derby. His margin of victory was the largest at that race in 60 years and a buzz started about a potential Triple Crown run. Barely a week and 200 yards later, the dream died when Barbaro shattered several bones in his right hind leg at the outset of the Preakness Derby. The video of the poor animal desperately trying to keep its balance while not using the damaged leg was heartbreaking and those who weren't previously engaged in the Barbaro story now found themselves deeply enmeshed. Throughout his recovery, there has been a fascinating outpouring of support from the public toward Barbaro and the bonds that have developed between even non-racing fans and the horse have taken on a unique life of their own.
For the last eight months, Barbaro has undergone multiple surgeries and endured a variety of complications and infections. His owners, trainers and doctors did everything possible to save the horse and maintain a semblance of quality of life. Despite some criticism, they maintained that their objectives were purely out of love for the horse and not driven by economics. And while I have no specific evidence to dispute those claims, I can't help but think that this poor animal should have been euthanized long ago. It seemed clear to me (as a non-veternarian) throughout the saga, that this story would ultimately have an unhappy ending and that the journey would be a painful one.
Were the Jacksons acting out of love for the horse or were they secretly thinking about stud fees? Were the doctors realistic or did they get caught up in the tidal wave of public interest in an attempt to draw attention to their work? We may never know the answer to these questions, but in the end, Barbaro's fate was probably sealed that day in Baltimore and his eight months of pain, agony, surgery, complications, slings, etc seem to me to be cruel and unecessary.
And wait for this kind of insight on this weekend's clash in Najaf from the Post and NY Times:
Early reports indicated there were both Sunni terrorists and Shia cultist involved in the fighting. "Governor Asaad Abu Gilel as saying that the militants, who included foreign fighters, had arrived in the city disguised as pilgrims in recent days and based themselves in the orchards, which he said had been bought three or four months ago by supporters of Saddam Hussain."
An American military intelligence informed us the early indications are that the Omar Brigade, al-Qaeda in Iraq's unit designated to slaughter Shia, was involved in the fighting. Al-Qaeda in Iraq would have a vested interest in causing mass casualties of Shia during the pilgrimage to Karbala for the festival of Ashura. Over 11,000 Iraqi Army and police have been deployed to Karbala to provide security for the event.
...
Based on the reporting and information from multiple media, U.S.and Iraqi sources, the likelihood is the enemy composition consisted of a mix of the Shia Army of Heaven cult and al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters from the Omar Brigade. Cooperation between Shia and Sunni insurgent groups is not a new development in Iraq, as Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and al_Qaeda cooperated during the Fallujah/Najaf uprisings in the spring and summer of 2004. Shia Iran has been supplying the Sunni insurgency, al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sunnah with weapons and bomb making materials, and is currently sheltering senior al-Qaeda leaders within its borders.
This kind of activity is precisely why the surge could work.
Courtesy of TPMCafe: Al Franken is leaving Air America to explore a run for Senate in Minnesota against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. Franken is set to announce his departure on his show later today; he's due to leave Air America on February 14. Coleman was narrowly elected in 2002, following the death of Paul Wellstone, with whom Franken was a personal friend.
It didn't work.
Will the 60's ever end?:
I was surprised to find that the crowd was comprised predominantly of middle-aged '60s throwbacks looking to recapture the glory days of the jarring folk music, campus occupations, and general social chaos that accompanied the Vietnam War. When the Raging Grannies showed up, it was hard to distinguish them from the rest of the crowd.
What a disappointment. Nothing against the old folks, but they simply can’t match the energy of a young crowd of college kids unencumbered by work responsibilities or age-related health problems. The whole rally was flat, dispirited, and even boring. I felt especially sorry for the speakers: it’s hard to rile up a crowd when so many attendees are afraid to stray too far from the porta-potties.
The languid mood was reflected in the pedestrian anti-war slogans. Speakers led the crowd in bland, rhythmless chants like “Troops! Home! Now!” and “Pull! Out! Now!,” thus showing an awkward reluctance to invoke words with more than one syllable. They couldn’t even muster the energy to launch into a refrain of the ‘ole “Hey, hey. Ho ho . . .” chant, a nice rhythmic incantation that is usually a staple of antiwar demonstrations.
Dominated by the '60s generation as it was, it was unsurprising to see a galaxy of signs and booths invoking the sacred cure-all of nearly every 1960s radical -- socialism. “Bush is the symptom, Capitalism is the disease, Socialism is the cure” blared one giant banner. “Defeat US Imperialism. Socialist revolution is the only solution” intoned a pennant by the League for the Revolutionary Party. “Defend China, North Korea, and Vietnam Against Imperialism and Capitalist Counter-Revolution!” was the motto of the Sparticist League. That last slogan I found to be one of the most offensive statements of the day -- right up there with one speaker’s invocation of Maureen Dowd as an authoritative social analyst.
It is sad that in thirty years, the U.S. Left hasn’t come up with a better idea than socialism.
Things started to look up over the weekend in the Senate with this revelation from Republican Minority leader McConnell:
Senator Mitch McConnell's appearance on Face the Nation signaled clear victory for the victory Republicans. No resolution --not Biden's, Warner's or McCain's-- will advance without 60 votes for cloture. The Minority Leader also reminded the audience that General Petraeus made it clear he'd prefer no resolution. And after some nice words about Senator Warner. McConnell also announced he'd be voting against Warner's resolution.
The Pledge is nearing 30,000 signatures, and poll questions have been added on whether Senator Warner should step aside in '08 and on presidential preference among Pledge takers. The key for victory Republicans is to communicate with the Senate that they expect Republicans to support the troops, General Petraeus and victory, and that such support cannot be demonstrated by posturing through hair-splitting resolutions.
So happy days, no?
Well...no. Now the House, for the last two years the last bastion of conservatism in DC shows signs of following in the Senate Republicans footsteps. That is to say, they're contemplating resolutions of their own. At their peril, we might add:
...I strongly disagree with his "benchmarks" proposal, and I think that, like many senators, the House Republican leadership is seriously underestimating the anger in the party at the tactics they are employing on the war. They need to be defending the war, and the troops and General Petraeus, not searching for political cover.
Bill Kristol said it clearly yesterday: Congress has a role to play and the proper way to exercise it is via legislation. If they truly disagree with the President's plan, they have a responsibility to act, not posture in response.
Kate O'Bierne said it last week: Their convictions hold that he has endorsed a wholly unjustified escalation and will be leading troops on a futile mission. They want a role in the conduct of the war and with the need to win Senate confirmation of Gen. Petraeus the Constitution has given them one, but they have taken a pass.
I don't know how to say it any more strongly than this morning; this display of grandstanding, preening and politicking is simply disgusting, and transparently so.
I'm not ready to toss them all overboard because, well, it's all we got and the closest thing to conservative Government that we're going to have anytime soon. At the same time though, if I wanted Democratic policy in place, I'd vote for Democrats.
Show me something guys...stand up and fight or watch the rest of us sit down and sit out '08.
Of course he didn't get it. From yesterday's FNS panel discussion:
JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: Well, but you know, at the same time, doesn't the Congress have an obligation in a democracy to participate and to allow the will of the people in terms of midterm elections and the like to be reflected in terms of national policy?
KRISTOL: Yes. That's what legislation is for.
LIASSON: Cut off funding.
KRISTOL: Cut off funding. Pass laws.
WILLIAMS: The question here, then, is one that's political, and I think that's what we saw with General Petraeus this week, is that they feel look, this man's going out to fight a war and it would be anything but supportive to start nitpicking at him when you really want to take -- fire at the president.
HUME: What do you call a resolution?
WILLIAMS: No, we're talking about the president. We're talking about the president. They're willing to have a resolution...
HUME: Oh, I see. So Petraeus can have the troops, in their view -- it's OK for Petraeus to have the troops but not for the president?
WILLIAMS: No, it's OK to support Petraeus and to say very clearly that -- and this is a political calculation, Brit. I don't argue with that. It's a political calculation on the part of Democrats to say we want to be very clear with the American people, we're supporting the troops. But at the same time, they're opposed to this policy, and that's what they're saying.
In Juan's head it of course makes perfect sense to decry the mission while unanimously confirming--81 to 0--the man who helped design the strategy and who is charged with implementing it. Somehow the absurdity of it all is lost on the man.
Brit was right; it's Congress at it's least inspiring. If the Senate truly thinks the surge is as bad an idea as they continue saying it is, they have a responsibility to act in a meaningful way to stop it. To do anything else is to give their tacit approval to the man and the mission both and that is something they can't--or at least should never be allowed to--run away from later as many have done with their original votes on authorizing the President to act against Iraq.
It's political grandstanding in it's most pure form and it's disgusting.
Slick Six stands looking out over nearby Surf beach on the southern end of Vandenberg AFB in California. 21 years ago today, the Challenger explosion derailed NASA's planned expansion of the shuttle program to include West Coast launches, the first slated for 1988 from that very pad.
In nearby Lompoc construction was halted on new hotel rooms and other amenities that would have served the increased traffic expected to accompany the now-lost mission. The town struggled, but survived this blow to it's economy.
Over time, Slick Six has become the new home of the Delta IV rocket at Vandenberg. It stands now--long since renewed with purpose but also as a silent reminder. It reminds of the seven who perished that day and of the difficult days endured by NASA in the ensuing months.
I see it nearly everyday, driving Highway 1 to and from work, traveling between home and the base. It stands there large, with a constant watch over the Pacific with it's westward gaze. I can't help but wonder something else though nearly every time I see it.
"What if...?," it asks in a hushed tone. What if there had been no disaster? What if the launches had come as promised? What would it have meant for this city? What would it have meant for the space program?
16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."
--Genesis 9:16
The coverage continues at JustOneMinute. This one looks like fun:
I understand that it may suit Mr. Lewis' story line, but I don't understand how one mention of less than 30 seconds with no apparent follow-up can be construed as "intensely interested in Ms. Wilson".
Of course, Mr. Lewis is a sly fox - what he wrote was "intensely interested in Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV", which literalists and Times editors can defend as correct - Libby and Cheney had an intense interest in Mr. Wilson and no discernible interest in his wife, at least per the account of Ms. Martin.
This is deceptive reporting, whether by incompetence or design.
It's almost ridiculous how easily out-of-their-depth even the most well-intentioned reporters can get on some subjects. In this case, even more so. You need a program to keep everybody straight...
Slapping down the Senate:
The Senate has unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to take command of U.S. forces in Iraq to implement the new mission in Baghdad with the help of additional forces. Rather than back a non-binding resolution of disaproval, why didn't the gutsy Senators, like Chuck Hagel, who are riding the surf of public opinion opposed to the troop surge and taking on a president with approval ratings at the freezing level vote aginst General Petraeus' confirmation? Their convictions hold that he has endorsed a wholly unjustified escalation and will be leading troops on a futile mission. They want a role in the conduct of the war and with the need to win Senate confirmation of Gen. Petraeus the Constitution has given them one, but they have taken a pass. Because Gen. Petraeus is an experienced, credentialed, credible advocate of the new strategy, Senators have no interest in tangling with him. When you're playing at being a military strategist you sure don't want to go up against the real thing, so better to have an unpopular commander-in-chief be the face of the new mission rather than the veteran general who will be in command.
Leave it to the professional writers to say it better than most of us. Regardless of who says it though, the absurdity of this position is just...well...absurd.
Republicans in the Senate are running scared, fast and hard in some cases away from Iraq. This, from the other day is especially galling.
Senator Warner to General Petraeus:
We're not a division here today of patriots who support the troops and those who are making statements and working on resolutions that could be translated as aiding and abetting the enemy. We're trying to exercise the fundamental responsibilities of our democracy and how this nation has two co-equal branches of the government, each bearing its own responsibilities.
I hope that this colloquy has not entrapped you into some responses that you might later regret. I wonder if you would just give me the assurance that you'll go back and examine the transcript as to what you replied with respect to certain of these questions and review it, because we want you to succeed.
. . . I'm very proud of this committee and I don't want an impression, certainly among the armed forces, that we're not all steadfast behind them.
"Leave the politics to us," indeed. Then, Sir, don't play politics with the soldiers. For whatever reason you've glommed onto the equivalent of the Democratic mantra of the last 2 years..."We support the troops!," only now you, like them, have turned on the mission.
The same day you want it made clear how much you support them, you sponsor a resolution which announces opposition to the plan--the commanding General of which--you unanimously confirmed on the same day as well. When that General was asked his opinion of the proposed resolutions floating around the Senate chambers in terms of their effects on morale in the combat zone, he gave you a direct answer. Too bad if you didn't like it.
Yes, we definitely ought to leave the politics to you. Because that, it seems, is all the 'upper' house is capable of.
You disagree with the mission, but you'll unanimously confirm the man who helped put the plan together and implement it while at the same time pompously pronouncing your support for the troops even while ignoring that same man's testimony as to your resolutions effects on said troops.
Politics, indeed.
It's the Rules of Engagement, stupid! It has been for a while now and will be for quite a while longer:
The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.
For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.
After an early-morning appointment yesterday, I indulged with a quick stop at Starbucks on my way out of town. Once upon a time, Starbucks was a daily destination...a morning experience not to be missed.
Yesterday, it was like stepping into the movies. Sally was standing at the counter as I came in and I knew I was in for it before I moved into line behind her.
"...Yes, a pomegranate juice. I'd like a coffee...which is better?...okay, the Gold Coast...a Venti Gold Coast but I want it with a shot of espresso. Which would you recommend...?" On and on for four orders.
I lost my patience, backed out of line and wandered the store pretending to look at merchandise. Two more customers stepped in front of me and still she ordered.
By the time she was done, I was ten minutes later than I otherwise would have been but finally relieved. Though not quite satisfied.
Prosecution witnesses have had some trouble keeping things straight in the first couple of days at the Libby trial. Several have in fact changed their stories to one degree or another:
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald didn't buy Libby's defense, ultimately deciding to indict Libby in November 2005. But now, at the long-awaited trial, some of Fitzgerald's witnesses are having memory problems of their own. Under cross examination by Libby's lawyers, two of Fitzgerald's first witnesses had to concede that they could not remember aspects, sometimes important aspects, of their roles in the Plame matter and that they gave conflicting accounts of events during interviews with the FBI, during appearances before Fitzgerald's grand jury, and at the trial itself.
Meanwhile, you've got testimony that fairly substantially rebukes the popularized memes of Administration pressuring the CIA in the run-up to Iraq and corroborating the SIC report where it determined that Joe Wilson got his job courtesy of Valerie:
"I mentioned it only in passing," Grenier testified. "I believe I said something to the effect that Ambassador Wilson's wife works there, and that is where the idea [for his taking the trip] came from."
"Why was it you felt that that was a piece of information that should be passed on to Mr. Libby?" asked Zeidenberg.
"The reason I said it was that I wanted to be as forthcoming as I possibly could," Grenier answered. "And to me it was an explanation as to why we had found this Ambassador Wilson and sent him off to Africa--I thought that was germane to the story."
"How was it in your mind germane to the story?"
"Because not only was she working in the Counterproliferation Division, she was working in the specific unit that had decided to sent Ambassador Wilson," Grenier answered. "There was some question of why-- and the reason of why was because his wife worked there."
From Byron's post: Beyond that, there are a lot of things said at the trial that don't get much coverage but which shed light on some major issues involving the Bush administration and the war. One such moment came with the testimony from CIA briefer Craig Schmall. Schmall recounted a time in which Libby mentioned being contacted by a reporter who said that he, the reporter, had a source in the CIA saying intelligence analysts were complaining of being pressured to come up with damning information in the run-up to the Iraq war. "[Libby] was annoyed that somebody at the Agency was talking to a reporter about this briefing," Schmall said. Schmall checked on it, and found nothing. "I talked to the manager who was present at the briefing," Schmall said. "I asked them if they felt pressured or bullied, and she said absolutely not, that they were actually happy to have the opportunity to talk to Vice President Cheney and Mr. Libby about their topics."
The Sim strategy made public:
I have a friend who, in a phone conversation last weekend, said the unsayable. Come to think of it, this friend makes a specialty of saying the unsayable. That is one reason he is invaluable.
He said, “The Democrats have to win in 2008 — I mean, the whole enchilada: House, Senate, and presidency.” You ought to know that my friend is a staunch conservative Republican. “Why?” I said. “Why do they have to win?” He answered, “Because that’s the only way they will be fully onboard the War on Terror. They won’t fully support it otherwise, because they will always be trying to trip up the Republicans. If you want the Democrats onboard the War on Terror, they have to be in charge. Period.”
Sim simply stated that putting Democrats back at the table of power would require them to act more responsibly. So far at least, not so much.
This from Jay's friend however is almost too fatalistic for my tastes. It's like a joke we used to tell when I was in college. I've long since forgotten all but the punch line and it describes nicely the rotten choice argued for here:
You want death, or death by Bungie?
Mohammed of Iraq the Model files an early report on the officially unofficial early stages of Operation Baghdad:
Apache attack helicopters are constantly hovering over Baghdad now. Tracking them from my home in this city I can often estimate where the action is taking place.
...
Today in Baghdad, American troops not only man checkpoints on main streets, but are also running daily patrols through the inner streets in residential blocs. Typically a patrolling unit will choose a number of homes to meet their occupants. It’s more like getting familiar with the locals than searching; the commander of the patrol talks to the head of the household and meets the members of the family. If one of them happens to know English the commander usually ask the translator to stay outside; most Iraqis prefer not to speak before other Iraqis when it comes to security concerns.
During such meetings the American officer introduces himself to the locals and explains to them the nature of his unit’s mission in the neighborhood. This is always followed questions on whether there were terrorists around and on the type of security issues in the area. The meetings sometimes end with taking a photograph with the head of the household; to memorialize the occasion and possibly for the unit’s records.
In our area the sounds of gunfire have hardly stopped the past few days. This morning I heard some explosions nearby, but I couldn’t figure out what was going on. The explosions intensify from time to time depending on the intensity and proximity of clashes. In general, the news reports we get in the city, and the information we hear from friends and relatives, indicate that most of the fighting is going on in Sleikh, Qaqhera, Azamaiya, al-Fadhl and Haifa street.
...
Although the major Baghdad plan isn’t officially launched yet, every day we see several joint operations against targets in and around the city. Still, according to the latest leaked reports, it seems as if the major implementations of the plan are going to wait until the beginning of next month,.
The government here says they are waiting for the buildup of participating troops to be completed, but I think it’s more likely that they are waiting for the Ashura ceremonies to end to allow pilgrims to travel between Baghdad and the shrines safely.
The waiting is proving to be more of a burden on the people of Baghdad than the operation itself would be. Patience is fading under the pressure of the increasing numbers of suicide attacks and the civilian deaths they cause. Baghdadis are desperately waiting for the operation to begin because they hope it can reduce the occurrence of these deadly attacks that distribute death equally among civilians.
However, and despite the spike in suicide bombings there’s a good sign. The numbers of unknown bodies that carry signs of torture have decreased significantly over the last two weeks, an official in the health ministry told al-Sabah:
[The source told al-Sabah that the number of unknown bodies that are collected by the security forces and brought to the morgue has drastically decreased…the number of bodies in the refrigerators is only 35 now and was as low as 11 on one day. Through daily presence near the morgue Al-Sabah noticed a significant decrease in the number of people searching for missing relarives]
Hadn't caught that report on CNN lately, how 'bout you?
Daniel Drezner wonders aloud about Newt Gingrich-as-potential-Presidential-candidate:
For the next nine months Gingrich intends to promote sweeping solutions to difficult issues of the day - particularly health care and national security - and then, like Lincoln in 1860, see if the call comes.
While such other GOP candidates as Senator John McCain, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani are hiring consultants and building donor networks, Gingrich has formed a tax-exempt advocacy group to raise money and promote his policies. He will wait until September - the eve of primary season - to announce whether he has the support to make it official.
Gingrich intrigues me -- he's far more complex and interesting a thinker than the nineties stereotype of him suggested. And if Hillary Clinton can remake herself as someone who's learned from past mistakes, I see no reason why Gingrich can't as well.
However, I can't shake the feeling that because I'm so interested in a Gingrich, he's doomed to fail. Can someone who scores well in the blogger wonk demographic really develop mainstream appeal?
Intriguing indeed. At the risk of inviting oodles of hate-mail and right-wingnut diatribes (yeah right, that would mean people are reading), I've loved Newt since the Contract. It was brilliant then, it's still brilliant. He's brilliant.
I would take him in a heartbeat over the likes of Romney, Guiliani and of course McCain. But then again, I'd vote for either and both of my dogs before I voted for McCain...
A number of Senate Republicans have turned to jello on Iraq. They should know better.
From the Democrats, I understand it. It's what they do. But these folks should know better.
Though to his credit, Chuck did get off the nicest riff of the day:
"You want a safe job - go sell shoes!" Hagel told his colleagues.
His exhortation to colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, is a breath of fresh air to some extent in that it's going to pin people down and make them accountable for their positions on Iraq. That is something that Congress--both houses for the most part--have escaped for most of the last 3 years.
What Chuck misses though is that this vote, as Hugh puts it so eloquently, dooms any and all of the Republican members foolish enough to sign on...to the point that it may in fact doom them to a semi-permanent minority status for the forseeable future.
Conservatives don't vote Republicans to the Senate so they can talk, act and ultimately vote like Democrats.
Who Links Here
