The latest embarrassment for Congress and the Republican party was revealed today when it was reported that Idaho Sen. Larry Craig had recently pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct for tapping the foot of a police sergeant in an adjacent stall of a men's room at the airport in Minneapolis.
According to court papers that made the news, the sergeant recognized the foot tapping as a common solicitation for lewd behavior. Craig's office responded that the police interpretation was in error and the guilty plea was a mistake.
Now, talk show hosts and pundits across the board are calling for Craig's resignation, which we should hear about -- yea or nay -- in a day or two.
I'm not so sure about the resignation idea, myself. The fact is that he has shamed his wife, children, state and the institution of the Senate and caused further damage to his party. If he thinks that's worthy of resigning, then so be it. His decision, not ours.
My own opinion is that once someone has paid their debt to society, then he has a right to make his living. Same with NFL quarterback Michael Vick, who pleaded guilty today to animal cruelty charges. A lot of people don't think he should be allowed to play pro football anymore. I think Vick has a right to earn his livelihood the way he sees fit. On the flip side, of course, the NFL has a perfect right to not want to associate with his kind. But to ban him is going a little far. But that's just an aside.
As for Larry Craig, a Senator since 1991, we have a much stronger antidote: the ballot box. Craig is up for re-election next year and, should he dare run, he should be defeated. In the primary.
There's a heck of a lot in the Senate that needs to be cleaned up. The lesson of the 2006 election results has been that we've turned power over from the party of corruption to the party of dangerous stupidity. Some improvement. And it won't be much of a choice in 2008 if, in the primaries, we don't deem to get rid of the bad apples currently in office in the Senate. Remember what a bunch of fools these people appeared to be in recent debates or statements regarding Iraq, terrorism and illegal immigration.
In no particular order -- and without respect to when they're up for re-election -- the ones who really need to go are Republicans Pete Domenici of New Mexico, John McCain of Arizona, Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, Ted Stevens of Alaska, George Voinovich of Ohio, and John Warner of Virginia; and Democrats Joe Biden of Delaware, Barbara Boxer of California, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Pat Leahy of Vermont, and Harry Reid of Nevada.
That's six Republicans and seven Democrats (in total, 13 percent of the chamber) who need to be sent packing just because they're idiots. That's completely away from where you and I might land on others simply based on ideology.
But we have to get them out, along with their House cohorts, in the primary season, or the choice we have in 2008 will be no choice at all.
---
Was that Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust" that we could hear playing in the offices of Democrats today?
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, he of the hear no evil, see no evil and remember no evil congressional testimony, announced that he will resign effective next month -- those advance dates always given usually have as much to do with accrued vacation/sick day time as it does with smoothing the transition.
Why is it, after so many examples, that people in high government office believe they can get away with obfuscating issues when the opposition smells scandal?
All Gonzales had to do in response to the wiretaps story is continue to insist that he had a different interpretation than liberal congressmen and let them stew. And all he had to do with the firing of the U.S. attorneys was say that the president had a right to hire and fire whoever he wants in that job for any reason. Instead, he had nothing to do with it. Yeah, sure.
President Bush's legacy will be unfinished when he leaves the White House in 2009. If Iraq ends well, he could end up being highly thought of by history. But a sad tale is that of the four friends who he brought with him from Texas, only one -- adviser Karen Hughes -- left in good standing. Harriett Miers left after that silly appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, for which she was completely unqualified.
Karl Rove left, like Gonzales, as a continuing target of liberals. As noted in a previous post, he was a master at winning elections, but turned out to be a poor policy adviser.
You expect more from your close friends. It used to be said everyone who touched Bill Clinton ended up tainted. The same now goes for George Bush.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Iraq All Over the News
It's been all about Iraq, this week anyway.
We started the week with the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division describing their experiences in Sadr City and their resulting negative viewpoints regarding the future of our efforts in Iraq, went on the President Bush going to the Veterans of Foreign Wars to make what seems to be his annual case for the military operation, continued with Democratic senators Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton calling for the removal of Iraq Prime Minister al-Maliki, added very odd plans by presidential hopeful Barack Obama and GOP Sen. John Warner to draw down our troop levels, and finished the week with a downer of a National Intelligence Estimate on the political prospects of the Iraqi government.
Some of these developments have already been discussed here.
But let's take on some of the more recent ones. Concerning the removal of al-Maliki, the National Intelligence Estimate certainly makes the case. There is probably no one serious in America who wants him to stay in office, having either helped or been unable to stop the infiltration of the government and security forces by Shiite extremists backed by Iran.
However, President Bush in his VFW speech had it right. The United States military deposed Saddam Hussein to establish democracy in a difficult part of the world, and we can't suddenly undo our work by strong-arming al-Maliki out of there. It's not for Carl Levin or Hillary Clinton, or George Bush, for that matter, to decide. It's for the Iraqis. Our efforts, and our comments from our political leaders, should be designed to nudge the current government in the right direction and help develop credible alternatives the next time Iraqis go to the polls.
On the troop drawdowns: Obama suggested that pulling a brigade or regiment or two out of Iraq each month might be an acceptable rate. Warner advised President Bush to announce by Sept. 15 a token withdrawal of U.S. troops by Christmas.
The Obama plan would certainly end the surge, but would have an inverse impact to what he wants to accomplish, which is a soft landing for our exit that would avoid a Vietnamesque bloodbath. Not only will the bad guys be emboldened by our withdrawal, but the troops who remain while the rest ship out will have a corresponding decrease in ability to protect innocent Iraqis. And the fewer units in the field, the less capability they will have to adequately defend themselves. You just know that al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mahdi Army would both love to administer a coup de grace on our soldiers.
Remember the civilian contractors in Fallujah? You ain't seen nothing yet. Take those four unfortunate victims and multiply by a hundred. Or a thousand.
Warner, meanwhile, says we really only need to bring home 5,000 troops. Okay. For what purpose? To make him feel better? To improve GOP election prospects? To prop up public support for the president or his Iraq strategy? Huh?
Pure symbolism was supposed to have died at the end of the Clinton administration. Let's not bring it back.
If the GOP leader of the Senate Armed Services Committee can't come up with a substantive proposal, then it becomes clear why Congress is supported by only one in five voters. We here at home certainly deserve better.
---
Do you think the Republican National Committee will make considerable use of Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire comments on a future terrorism attack helping GOP election prospects?
First, it shows that there's some default condition that makes Republicans better at dealing with terrorism. That's true only by historical accident in that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch right as the final touches were being put on an anti-terror strategy that started being formed under Clinton. And while it's a fact that Republicans are stronger by a wide margin on national defense, it's not necessarily so in the limited area of terrorism, where Democrats have yet to prove themselves under the current national anti-terror policy.
Second, and perhaps more damaging, is the concept that if we are hit hard next summer or early fall, that Democrats main concern will be the loss of their election hopes. That's the sort of thinking that voters have rejected numerous times over the years and could end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We started the week with the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division describing their experiences in Sadr City and their resulting negative viewpoints regarding the future of our efforts in Iraq, went on the President Bush going to the Veterans of Foreign Wars to make what seems to be his annual case for the military operation, continued with Democratic senators Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton calling for the removal of Iraq Prime Minister al-Maliki, added very odd plans by presidential hopeful Barack Obama and GOP Sen. John Warner to draw down our troop levels, and finished the week with a downer of a National Intelligence Estimate on the political prospects of the Iraqi government.
Some of these developments have already been discussed here.
But let's take on some of the more recent ones. Concerning the removal of al-Maliki, the National Intelligence Estimate certainly makes the case. There is probably no one serious in America who wants him to stay in office, having either helped or been unable to stop the infiltration of the government and security forces by Shiite extremists backed by Iran.
However, President Bush in his VFW speech had it right. The United States military deposed Saddam Hussein to establish democracy in a difficult part of the world, and we can't suddenly undo our work by strong-arming al-Maliki out of there. It's not for Carl Levin or Hillary Clinton, or George Bush, for that matter, to decide. It's for the Iraqis. Our efforts, and our comments from our political leaders, should be designed to nudge the current government in the right direction and help develop credible alternatives the next time Iraqis go to the polls.
On the troop drawdowns: Obama suggested that pulling a brigade or regiment or two out of Iraq each month might be an acceptable rate. Warner advised President Bush to announce by Sept. 15 a token withdrawal of U.S. troops by Christmas.
The Obama plan would certainly end the surge, but would have an inverse impact to what he wants to accomplish, which is a soft landing for our exit that would avoid a Vietnamesque bloodbath. Not only will the bad guys be emboldened by our withdrawal, but the troops who remain while the rest ship out will have a corresponding decrease in ability to protect innocent Iraqis. And the fewer units in the field, the less capability they will have to adequately defend themselves. You just know that al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mahdi Army would both love to administer a coup de grace on our soldiers.
Remember the civilian contractors in Fallujah? You ain't seen nothing yet. Take those four unfortunate victims and multiply by a hundred. Or a thousand.
Warner, meanwhile, says we really only need to bring home 5,000 troops. Okay. For what purpose? To make him feel better? To improve GOP election prospects? To prop up public support for the president or his Iraq strategy? Huh?
Pure symbolism was supposed to have died at the end of the Clinton administration. Let's not bring it back.
If the GOP leader of the Senate Armed Services Committee can't come up with a substantive proposal, then it becomes clear why Congress is supported by only one in five voters. We here at home certainly deserve better.
---
Do you think the Republican National Committee will make considerable use of Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire comments on a future terrorism attack helping GOP election prospects?
First, it shows that there's some default condition that makes Republicans better at dealing with terrorism. That's true only by historical accident in that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch right as the final touches were being put on an anti-terror strategy that started being formed under Clinton. And while it's a fact that Republicans are stronger by a wide margin on national defense, it's not necessarily so in the limited area of terrorism, where Democrats have yet to prove themselves under the current national anti-terror policy.
Second, and perhaps more damaging, is the concept that if we are hit hard next summer or early fall, that Democrats main concern will be the loss of their election hopes. That's the sort of thinking that voters have rejected numerous times over the years and could end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Bush Speech on Iraq Answers War Critics
Republicans generally have two major complaints about Iraq, and both were highlighted when President Bush addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
1. The president rarely goes out of his way to justify U.S. military action, why we went into Iraq, why we're still there, and why we need to stay in the foreseeable future.
2. When there is good news from Iraq, the national news media buries it.
Bush's speech to the VFW was one of those addresses he gives about once each year in Iraq, in which he makes a cogent argument for what he's doing. The problem for the GOP is that he then goes into a hole in the White House and, while Democrats, anti-war activists and pundits are ripping Iraq strategy, Bush is never there to fire back.
Bush gave historical parallels between Iraq and World War II Japan, and Iraq and Vietnam. Good points were made in each, but his comments could probably draw argument from historians. The president also announced that an average of more than 1,500 insurgents have been killed or captured per month since January, answering those who were looking for numbers to ascribe to surge success. He went on to say he still has faith in Prime Minister al-Maliki -- though this is from a guy who also has faith in Russia's Putin.
Support for the military operation in Iraq has suffered over the years because things haven't always gone so well and because Bush has not stayed actively engaged in the debate. If Bush goes back into his shell after delivering one of the better speeches of his presidency, fellow Republicans will have a perfect right to sigh in disappointment.
Meanwhile, as I searched this evening for a link to news coverage of the speech, I had a hard time finding anything. I did find an article that highlighted Bush's pledge of support to al-Maliki, and another on terrorist casualties. But those I had to dig for.
The headlines on the front page of Yahoo! didn't have it, though the support for al-Maliki story appeared later in the evening. That armored vehicles were slow in reaching the troops was listed higher, as was Hurricane Deane's progress report. Among other news sites, ABC News was similar. Fox News ran it as a sub-headline under a story about Hillary Clinton calling for al-Maliki's ouster. CNN doesn't even list it, instead running a story that U.S. officials are rethinking democracy plans in Iraq.
Next election year is going to be a big challenge for Republicans to get their message out to the regular voters.
1. The president rarely goes out of his way to justify U.S. military action, why we went into Iraq, why we're still there, and why we need to stay in the foreseeable future.
2. When there is good news from Iraq, the national news media buries it.
Bush's speech to the VFW was one of those addresses he gives about once each year in Iraq, in which he makes a cogent argument for what he's doing. The problem for the GOP is that he then goes into a hole in the White House and, while Democrats, anti-war activists and pundits are ripping Iraq strategy, Bush is never there to fire back.
Bush gave historical parallels between Iraq and World War II Japan, and Iraq and Vietnam. Good points were made in each, but his comments could probably draw argument from historians. The president also announced that an average of more than 1,500 insurgents have been killed or captured per month since January, answering those who were looking for numbers to ascribe to surge success. He went on to say he still has faith in Prime Minister al-Maliki -- though this is from a guy who also has faith in Russia's Putin.
Support for the military operation in Iraq has suffered over the years because things haven't always gone so well and because Bush has not stayed actively engaged in the debate. If Bush goes back into his shell after delivering one of the better speeches of his presidency, fellow Republicans will have a perfect right to sigh in disappointment.
Meanwhile, as I searched this evening for a link to news coverage of the speech, I had a hard time finding anything. I did find an article that highlighted Bush's pledge of support to al-Maliki, and another on terrorist casualties. But those I had to dig for.
The headlines on the front page of Yahoo! didn't have it, though the support for al-Maliki story appeared later in the evening. That armored vehicles were slow in reaching the troops was listed higher, as was Hurricane Deane's progress report. Among other news sites, ABC News was similar. Fox News ran it as a sub-headline under a story about Hillary Clinton calling for al-Maliki's ouster. CNN doesn't even list it, instead running a story that U.S. officials are rethinking democracy plans in Iraq.
Next election year is going to be a big challenge for Republicans to get their message out to the regular voters.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Immigration Love and Hate; Prius Test Drive
Two developments this week on the immigration front have been in the news: the fawning over the "Rosa Parks of the Immigration Movement" and comments that have probably doomed what slim chance Newt Gingrich had at the presidency.
In the first item, 32-year-old Elvira Arrellano is being hailed as a martyr by immigrant rights activists after she was deported this week to Mexico. Arrellano came to the United States illegally years ago and had a son who automatically was a U.S. citizen. She was ordered deported, but instead of following court orders, she holed up in a church in Chicago for months. She managed last week to slip out of the church and went to Los Angeles, where she was picked up by federal authorities and sent to Tijuana.
She's being held up as a model in a troubling aspect of immigration enforcement, which is the breakup of families as an illegal member gets deported while others, often children, stay here without parental support. I believe I dealt with this on a previous post, but let me restate. Minors have very limited rights, and if their parents are deported, they should have to go, too, unless there's agreement for them to stay in the care of an aunt or uncle.
Elvira Arrellano is probably not a bad person, but she was here illegally and did not take the necessary steps to legalize her status here. Having a son could have prompted her into action that would have made things better for both of them. That she didn't is her fault, not that of our immigration policy.
Meanwhile, Gingrich would have you believe that "young Americans in cities are being massacred" by the likes of Elvira Arrellano. He was referring to the terrifying execution-style slayings of four college-bound black teenagers in Newark, N.J. The prime suspect in the case is an illegal immigrant.
Well, that's one case. I can give you another, the 2003 slaying of an Oceanside, Calif., police officer by an four-time ex-convict gang member who was an illegal immigrant. Uh, yeah. Well, there's two. You reading this on your computer might think of one more.
Being close to the criminal justice system in a hotbed area for illegal immigrants, I can safely report that murder is nowhere even close to being a major issue in the debate over illegal immigration. It happens, sure, but no more so than in any other segment of the population. Maybe less. Don't get me wrong, there are criminal problems, particularly drunk driving and child abuse -- both physical and sexual.
But there aren't millions of illegal Mexicans up here going around killing Americans. If Gingrich decides to run for the presidency, his comments on this subject are going to be used against him like a sledgehammer. It's too bad, because he's normally a pretty astute observer of the American society.
---
If you ever wanted to know what driving the Toyota Prius, the popular hybrid sedan, is like, I can give you a mixed bag of comments -- from someone who is not a car guy nor a radical environmentalist. Just a regular guy who types onto a computer for a living.
My own vehicle, a popular Japanese sedan, was being serviced, so the dealer gave me a courtesy car. The Prius was all that was readily available, so I took it.
Just by sitting down, you can tell there is more different about this car than just the battery. First, to turn it on, you push a power button. There is no ignition switch. The only key you have are the equivalent of the remote locking and unlocking computer chip you get on most new cars these days. You stick that thing in a slot and push the power button.
Once you've done so, the car powers up so quietly, you don't even realize it's on. The "gear shift" is just a little flipper handle that you push into "reverse" or "drive" and it immediately returns to its original position.
Actually driving the car isn't bad. The overall feel is that of a small car in terms of seat comfort, handling and road noise. Acceleration is good, but the rub is that when your foot is pressing the gas pedal, the gas engine is being used. When your foot is off the gas, the battery is in use. I noted a lack of smoothness in the engine when driving at freeway speeds. The climate controls and radio are all accessed from a touch-screen computer on the dashboard, and are fairly easy to use.
Just using the car for a day, I didn't check trunk space and didn't take time to learn the cruise control or climate/radio buttons on the steering wheel, but I'm sure they're convenient for someone.
The computer display showed me getting about 38 mpg on the freeway when the gas tank was nearly full, and 41 mpg with the gas tank half-full. I drove about 130 miles, mostly on the freeway.
My current sedan is more than 10 years old now, and I'm planning on a replacement within the next year. I've previously considered the Prius as a possibility, though a pricey one. Now that I've driven it, my thought is that if it was about $5,000 cheaper than the $22,000 estimated sticker price, I might consider buying one. But just replacing my sedan with the same model is less expensive, and the car gets a solid 30 mpg highway, is far more comfortable and has great backseat room and trunk room. As long as my only gain from a Prius is a few extra mpg, and I lose a lot in other areas, then it's certainly not worth the extra few thousand bucks.
In the first item, 32-year-old Elvira Arrellano is being hailed as a martyr by immigrant rights activists after she was deported this week to Mexico. Arrellano came to the United States illegally years ago and had a son who automatically was a U.S. citizen. She was ordered deported, but instead of following court orders, she holed up in a church in Chicago for months. She managed last week to slip out of the church and went to Los Angeles, where she was picked up by federal authorities and sent to Tijuana.
She's being held up as a model in a troubling aspect of immigration enforcement, which is the breakup of families as an illegal member gets deported while others, often children, stay here without parental support. I believe I dealt with this on a previous post, but let me restate. Minors have very limited rights, and if their parents are deported, they should have to go, too, unless there's agreement for them to stay in the care of an aunt or uncle.
Elvira Arrellano is probably not a bad person, but she was here illegally and did not take the necessary steps to legalize her status here. Having a son could have prompted her into action that would have made things better for both of them. That she didn't is her fault, not that of our immigration policy.
Meanwhile, Gingrich would have you believe that "young Americans in cities are being massacred" by the likes of Elvira Arrellano. He was referring to the terrifying execution-style slayings of four college-bound black teenagers in Newark, N.J. The prime suspect in the case is an illegal immigrant.
Well, that's one case. I can give you another, the 2003 slaying of an Oceanside, Calif., police officer by an four-time ex-convict gang member who was an illegal immigrant. Uh, yeah. Well, there's two. You reading this on your computer might think of one more.
Being close to the criminal justice system in a hotbed area for illegal immigrants, I can safely report that murder is nowhere even close to being a major issue in the debate over illegal immigration. It happens, sure, but no more so than in any other segment of the population. Maybe less. Don't get me wrong, there are criminal problems, particularly drunk driving and child abuse -- both physical and sexual.
But there aren't millions of illegal Mexicans up here going around killing Americans. If Gingrich decides to run for the presidency, his comments on this subject are going to be used against him like a sledgehammer. It's too bad, because he's normally a pretty astute observer of the American society.
---
If you ever wanted to know what driving the Toyota Prius, the popular hybrid sedan, is like, I can give you a mixed bag of comments -- from someone who is not a car guy nor a radical environmentalist. Just a regular guy who types onto a computer for a living.
My own vehicle, a popular Japanese sedan, was being serviced, so the dealer gave me a courtesy car. The Prius was all that was readily available, so I took it.
Just by sitting down, you can tell there is more different about this car than just the battery. First, to turn it on, you push a power button. There is no ignition switch. The only key you have are the equivalent of the remote locking and unlocking computer chip you get on most new cars these days. You stick that thing in a slot and push the power button.
Once you've done so, the car powers up so quietly, you don't even realize it's on. The "gear shift" is just a little flipper handle that you push into "reverse" or "drive" and it immediately returns to its original position.
Actually driving the car isn't bad. The overall feel is that of a small car in terms of seat comfort, handling and road noise. Acceleration is good, but the rub is that when your foot is pressing the gas pedal, the gas engine is being used. When your foot is off the gas, the battery is in use. I noted a lack of smoothness in the engine when driving at freeway speeds. The climate controls and radio are all accessed from a touch-screen computer on the dashboard, and are fairly easy to use.
Just using the car for a day, I didn't check trunk space and didn't take time to learn the cruise control or climate/radio buttons on the steering wheel, but I'm sure they're convenient for someone.
The computer display showed me getting about 38 mpg on the freeway when the gas tank was nearly full, and 41 mpg with the gas tank half-full. I drove about 130 miles, mostly on the freeway.
My current sedan is more than 10 years old now, and I'm planning on a replacement within the next year. I've previously considered the Prius as a possibility, though a pricey one. Now that I've driven it, my thought is that if it was about $5,000 cheaper than the $22,000 estimated sticker price, I might consider buying one. But just replacing my sedan with the same model is less expensive, and the car gets a solid 30 mpg highway, is far more comfortable and has great backseat room and trunk room. As long as my only gain from a Prius is a few extra mpg, and I lose a lot in other areas, then it's certainly not worth the extra few thousand bucks.
Reality Check in Iraq
Reading the New York Times article by seven non-commissioned officers in the 82nd Airborne earlier this week returned me to the late-1980s when I was a small-town radio talk show host.
It was early June, and I booked an old gentleman who had been in the Marine Corps, stationed on Midway when the famous battle for that small but strategic dot in the Pacific Ocean took place. With D-Day always getting the World War II glory around that time of year, I looked forward to shedding some light on the tide-changing aircraft carrier battle half a world away, and two years earlier.
So my guest comes into the studio, all ready to talk. I start the show, ask him some questions, and ... he knows nothing. Not a darn thing. They were told to expect an attack. They got attacked from the air. There was a bunch of damage. Nothing else happened. Let's just say that an interview I hoped would cover an entire hour was cut drastically short.
Well, anyone who knows anything about World War II history is aware that a heck of a lot else did happen, close to where that Marine was. My guest found out later, pretty much the same way we learned about it, by reading newspaper articles and books, and watching movies. There was no first-hand knowledge.
I've heard similar stories, about how troops knew all about what was going on with their unit, and very little about what was taking place around them.
Which brings me to the article in the New York Times. The experience of these writers has been in the Baghdad section of Sadr City, a teeming Shiite slum ruled by the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. This place has been, along with al-Anbar province, the toughest of nuts to crack for the U.S. military. So for them to have a negative view of conditions in Iraq, and a negative view of Iraq officials, is no surprise at all. But they have no sense whatsoever of the progress of the surge in Anbar and elsewhere, where some progress has been made. They probably don't understand the significance of the looming disaster in the southern port city of Basra, where the British are about to be run out of town.
The article is, however, very enlightening about the situation right where those soldiers are, and our military and political leaders should take note of what has been written. We're going to have to take out al-Sadr before this is over, and cut off his Iranian support. Given severe logistical constraints, such a thing is going to be extremely difficult.
The New York Times, as the media leaders of the anti-war left, presented the article to discredit the surge in the days ahead of a report by Gen. David Petraeus on the strategy's progress. It should discredit nothing. The comments of the writers should, however, be taken into consideration before any major moves are made right there in Sadr City.
It was early June, and I booked an old gentleman who had been in the Marine Corps, stationed on Midway when the famous battle for that small but strategic dot in the Pacific Ocean took place. With D-Day always getting the World War II glory around that time of year, I looked forward to shedding some light on the tide-changing aircraft carrier battle half a world away, and two years earlier.
So my guest comes into the studio, all ready to talk. I start the show, ask him some questions, and ... he knows nothing. Not a darn thing. They were told to expect an attack. They got attacked from the air. There was a bunch of damage. Nothing else happened. Let's just say that an interview I hoped would cover an entire hour was cut drastically short.
Well, anyone who knows anything about World War II history is aware that a heck of a lot else did happen, close to where that Marine was. My guest found out later, pretty much the same way we learned about it, by reading newspaper articles and books, and watching movies. There was no first-hand knowledge.
I've heard similar stories, about how troops knew all about what was going on with their unit, and very little about what was taking place around them.
Which brings me to the article in the New York Times. The experience of these writers has been in the Baghdad section of Sadr City, a teeming Shiite slum ruled by the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. This place has been, along with al-Anbar province, the toughest of nuts to crack for the U.S. military. So for them to have a negative view of conditions in Iraq, and a negative view of Iraq officials, is no surprise at all. But they have no sense whatsoever of the progress of the surge in Anbar and elsewhere, where some progress has been made. They probably don't understand the significance of the looming disaster in the southern port city of Basra, where the British are about to be run out of town.
The article is, however, very enlightening about the situation right where those soldiers are, and our military and political leaders should take note of what has been written. We're going to have to take out al-Sadr before this is over, and cut off his Iranian support. Given severe logistical constraints, such a thing is going to be extremely difficult.
The New York Times, as the media leaders of the anti-war left, presented the article to discredit the surge in the days ahead of a report by Gen. David Petraeus on the strategy's progress. It should discredit nothing. The comments of the writers should, however, be taken into consideration before any major moves are made right there in Sadr City.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Rove Led a Good Pitch, No Hit White House
With presidential adviser and chief lightning rod Karl Rove announcing that he's leaving the White House, the days ahead will be full of stories on his legacy, both positive and (mostly) negative.
My view is both. The Bush administration under Rove's direction was like a baseball team with great pitching and no hitting, fantastic in one area and very poor in another. That's how I saw things with Rove.
No question that Rove might be the greatest campaign strategist of this era, earning President Bush two terms in office in bitterly fought election campaigns, and a GOP congressional rout of off-year historic proportions in 2002. His only failure was the November 2006 congressional elections in which no amount of "strategery" was going to save Republicans.
But he left a lot to be desired as a policy strategist, an arena in which he did not serve the president well at all.
Remember that the Bush administration got off to a rocky start in 2001, with one liberal Republican senator switching to independent status to give Democrats a majority in the Senate. The White House was flailing until Sept. 11 came about and gave Bush a reason for existence.
The list of failures since, however, is long. The choice of Harriett Miers as a Supreme Court justice was a disaster, as was immigration reform. The effort to reform Medicare, which should have had very strong support from voters, failed because of a party line split over Health Savings Accounts, which, while an admirable idea, could have been dealt with later. Now Medicare is spiraling out of control and nothing has been done to prevent it from going into the red in 2019.
Don't think that Rove hasn't been deeply involved in other problems faced by this White House. I don't buy into the "Bush lied" theory of our getting involved in Iraq, but I do think the president failed to communicate our true reasons for sending our young men into harms way.
Rove didn't give away the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, but he mentioned her in follow up conversations with reporters. The Democrats, fuming over past electoral defeats at his hands, thus made him the target of an investigation that really should have gone nowhere.
And he has not been able to help the president climb out from under the firings of the eight US attorneys, another political football that the Democrats have been able to make hay of despite the fact that nothing illegal occurred. It was Rove's job to make sure that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his staff didn't look like a bunch of buffoons. He failed.
Yes, quite a few paragraphs listing his failings. But he's an unquestioned expert on getting his employers elected. Some people are already saying that he'll sign on to a GOP presidential campaign. Could happen. My bet is that since he's such a target, he'll only do so on a discreet basis.
My view is both. The Bush administration under Rove's direction was like a baseball team with great pitching and no hitting, fantastic in one area and very poor in another. That's how I saw things with Rove.
No question that Rove might be the greatest campaign strategist of this era, earning President Bush two terms in office in bitterly fought election campaigns, and a GOP congressional rout of off-year historic proportions in 2002. His only failure was the November 2006 congressional elections in which no amount of "strategery" was going to save Republicans.
But he left a lot to be desired as a policy strategist, an arena in which he did not serve the president well at all.
Remember that the Bush administration got off to a rocky start in 2001, with one liberal Republican senator switching to independent status to give Democrats a majority in the Senate. The White House was flailing until Sept. 11 came about and gave Bush a reason for existence.
The list of failures since, however, is long. The choice of Harriett Miers as a Supreme Court justice was a disaster, as was immigration reform. The effort to reform Medicare, which should have had very strong support from voters, failed because of a party line split over Health Savings Accounts, which, while an admirable idea, could have been dealt with later. Now Medicare is spiraling out of control and nothing has been done to prevent it from going into the red in 2019.
Don't think that Rove hasn't been deeply involved in other problems faced by this White House. I don't buy into the "Bush lied" theory of our getting involved in Iraq, but I do think the president failed to communicate our true reasons for sending our young men into harms way.
Rove didn't give away the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, but he mentioned her in follow up conversations with reporters. The Democrats, fuming over past electoral defeats at his hands, thus made him the target of an investigation that really should have gone nowhere.
And he has not been able to help the president climb out from under the firings of the eight US attorneys, another political football that the Democrats have been able to make hay of despite the fact that nothing illegal occurred. It was Rove's job to make sure that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his staff didn't look like a bunch of buffoons. He failed.
Yes, quite a few paragraphs listing his failings. But he's an unquestioned expert on getting his employers elected. Some people are already saying that he'll sign on to a GOP presidential campaign. Could happen. My bet is that since he's such a target, he'll only do so on a discreet basis.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Does Iowa Matter? Other Notes
One of the interesting facets of the too-early presidential campaign is that the importance of the early Iowa and New Hampshire primaries is about to be tested, particularly on the GOP side.
As something of a disclaimer, let me say that I keep on eye on the compendium of polls on the Web site realclearpolitics.com. I believe they provided an accurate picture of what was coming before the 2004 and 2006 elections. They take a variety of results from the major polls and put them together for an average result.
What the RCP average shows with the Republican field is that Rudy Giuliani leads nationally by more than 10 percent (as of this writing) but Mitt Romney has 9-plus point leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. That's an oddly split result.
Going back to 2004, everyone on the Democratic side was talking up Howard Dean leading up to Iowa and John Kerry was an also-ran. Kerry won Iowa, took New Hampshire, and was suddenly annointed as "the man who could beat Bush."
With that as a historical lesson, what happens when Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire? Does he become "the man who could beat Hillary?"
---
Just how much progress the U.S. military has made in Iraq as part of the surge is open to interpretation, but what there has been has come without help from the Iraqi government. The parliament has just fled Baghdad for a month long vacation, without ever approving anything. There's also been Sunni pullouts from the cabinet.
Meanwhile, our troops are killing bad guys, handing out toys to children (they go bonkers over puppets, for some reason), and building schools, but their own government does nothing to assist.
Among the biggest things we can do in the coming months is to make sure that the regular Iraqis on the street know how much they're being let down, so other people can get voted into office. And, strategically, we have to adjust our goals to not include a strong national government, because we're not going to get one.
---
Geez, what to do about the stock market?
There's two answers. First, the one you hear a lot from the wise financial advisors: stay put, you can watch what happens on a day-to-day basis but acting hastily on the market's ups and downs can really mess up your portfolio.
Second, if you have the resources, this is the time to buy in. Buy low, sell high -- or buy low and hold. The fact is the economy right now is pretty strong, and we can eat the losses from these sub-prime mortgages. So while the stock market might take some temporary hits, it will go up in the long term.
That's why the smart investors buy good companies and don't look back.
As something of a disclaimer, let me say that I keep on eye on the compendium of polls on the Web site realclearpolitics.com. I believe they provided an accurate picture of what was coming before the 2004 and 2006 elections. They take a variety of results from the major polls and put them together for an average result.
What the RCP average shows with the Republican field is that Rudy Giuliani leads nationally by more than 10 percent (as of this writing) but Mitt Romney has 9-plus point leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. That's an oddly split result.
Going back to 2004, everyone on the Democratic side was talking up Howard Dean leading up to Iowa and John Kerry was an also-ran. Kerry won Iowa, took New Hampshire, and was suddenly annointed as "the man who could beat Bush."
With that as a historical lesson, what happens when Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire? Does he become "the man who could beat Hillary?"
---
Just how much progress the U.S. military has made in Iraq as part of the surge is open to interpretation, but what there has been has come without help from the Iraqi government. The parliament has just fled Baghdad for a month long vacation, without ever approving anything. There's also been Sunni pullouts from the cabinet.
Meanwhile, our troops are killing bad guys, handing out toys to children (they go bonkers over puppets, for some reason), and building schools, but their own government does nothing to assist.
Among the biggest things we can do in the coming months is to make sure that the regular Iraqis on the street know how much they're being let down, so other people can get voted into office. And, strategically, we have to adjust our goals to not include a strong national government, because we're not going to get one.
---
Geez, what to do about the stock market?
There's two answers. First, the one you hear a lot from the wise financial advisors: stay put, you can watch what happens on a day-to-day basis but acting hastily on the market's ups and downs can really mess up your portfolio.
Second, if you have the resources, this is the time to buy in. Buy low, sell high -- or buy low and hold. The fact is the economy right now is pretty strong, and we can eat the losses from these sub-prime mortgages. So while the stock market might take some temporary hits, it will go up in the long term.
That's why the smart investors buy good companies and don't look back.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Barry Bonds and the Cheating Elite
Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants becoming baseball's all-time home run hitter this week brought a number of interesting reactions from fellow players, which illustrated a wide chasm in opinion between the athletes and most fans.
Bonds, of course, has been dogged for several years now by allegations that he has abused steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs. While he's never publicly tested positive for banned substances, the incredible increase in his physical size and strength in the late-1990s cannot be easily explained away. Plus, early in his career, his annual home run totals were in the 20s and 30s, which later evolved into consistent 40-plus homer seasons. The difference in his season-by-season home run statistics is not as dramatic as some would have you believe, but the increase coming in what would be the twilight of most careers is unusual.
Opposing players appeared to be matter-of-fact about Bonds when quoted after the record-breaking home run, or openly supportive. Arizona 2B Orlando Hudson applauded when he saw a highlight on the Chase Field video screen, Ryan Garko of the Indians said it was "sick" (good), and White Sox catcher A.J. Pierzynski said he was happy Bonds broke the record. Nary a negative comment could be heard.
Contrast that with the reaction of fans and the media. The people who watched Hudson's game in Phoenix booed, as did those in Denver. In San Diego, when Bonds tied the record last Saturday, there was much polite applause and a significant smattering of boos. The media has skewered Bonds for years, and a reporter actually asked him after he took a telephone call from President Bush whether Bush mentioned the federal investigation into a Bay Area lab (BALCO) that allegedly produced the performance enhancing substances.
No question, the players were being on their best behavior on a night that a cherished record was broken. Just about everything about the moment has been handled in a classy manner.
But there's a big difference in the way the players feel and the way the rest of us think. The players are all applauding a record. The rest of us are suspicious about the player who broke it.
Much of this is inside baseball, literally. Performance enhancing drugs has impacted other sports, most notably football, track and field, and bicycle racing. In those three other sports, however, so many of the participants do it that the competitive nature of the game is not altered to a significant degree. Baseball, however, is a much different game than it was in the 1970s and early-1980s, when pitching and speed were the key. The long ball has been king ever since, and in a lot of ways, the quality of the game has suffered. While it's not as bad as it was a few years ago, baseball fans have suffered through a lot of oafs who could hit the ball into the seats but couldn't make an accurate throw to the cutoff man or lay down a bunt.
Baseball players and management slough off the cheating allegations, but they're really symptomatic of a large problem facing society today, the willingness of many to cheat to get ahead. In a sense, baseball is no better than Enron or the GOP congress of that was tossed out in 2006. The ends justify the means. How we get ahead is not as important as how high we go. Meanwhile, civilization loses its sense of humanity and values.
What's crazy is we had no idea that anything was wrong with Enron until the scandal broke with sudden ferocity. The congressional scandals slowly unfolded and we only recently learned the true nature of Randy "Duke" Cunningham's corruption.
Baseball? We KNOW there's a problem. We've KNOWN of the problem for several years now. We all have our favorite suspects. Yet, we fans only express our disgust by booing Barry and grunting with co-workers at the water cooler. That's why baseball has moved at a glacial pace to fix the scandal within its game, and why the players and we the people have such divergent opinions on a cherished record that may, or may not, be tainted.
Bonds, of course, has been dogged for several years now by allegations that he has abused steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs. While he's never publicly tested positive for banned substances, the incredible increase in his physical size and strength in the late-1990s cannot be easily explained away. Plus, early in his career, his annual home run totals were in the 20s and 30s, which later evolved into consistent 40-plus homer seasons. The difference in his season-by-season home run statistics is not as dramatic as some would have you believe, but the increase coming in what would be the twilight of most careers is unusual.
Opposing players appeared to be matter-of-fact about Bonds when quoted after the record-breaking home run, or openly supportive. Arizona 2B Orlando Hudson applauded when he saw a highlight on the Chase Field video screen, Ryan Garko of the Indians said it was "sick" (good), and White Sox catcher A.J. Pierzynski said he was happy Bonds broke the record. Nary a negative comment could be heard.
Contrast that with the reaction of fans and the media. The people who watched Hudson's game in Phoenix booed, as did those in Denver. In San Diego, when Bonds tied the record last Saturday, there was much polite applause and a significant smattering of boos. The media has skewered Bonds for years, and a reporter actually asked him after he took a telephone call from President Bush whether Bush mentioned the federal investigation into a Bay Area lab (BALCO) that allegedly produced the performance enhancing substances.
No question, the players were being on their best behavior on a night that a cherished record was broken. Just about everything about the moment has been handled in a classy manner.
But there's a big difference in the way the players feel and the way the rest of us think. The players are all applauding a record. The rest of us are suspicious about the player who broke it.
Much of this is inside baseball, literally. Performance enhancing drugs has impacted other sports, most notably football, track and field, and bicycle racing. In those three other sports, however, so many of the participants do it that the competitive nature of the game is not altered to a significant degree. Baseball, however, is a much different game than it was in the 1970s and early-1980s, when pitching and speed were the key. The long ball has been king ever since, and in a lot of ways, the quality of the game has suffered. While it's not as bad as it was a few years ago, baseball fans have suffered through a lot of oafs who could hit the ball into the seats but couldn't make an accurate throw to the cutoff man or lay down a bunt.
Baseball players and management slough off the cheating allegations, but they're really symptomatic of a large problem facing society today, the willingness of many to cheat to get ahead. In a sense, baseball is no better than Enron or the GOP congress of that was tossed out in 2006. The ends justify the means. How we get ahead is not as important as how high we go. Meanwhile, civilization loses its sense of humanity and values.
What's crazy is we had no idea that anything was wrong with Enron until the scandal broke with sudden ferocity. The congressional scandals slowly unfolded and we only recently learned the true nature of Randy "Duke" Cunningham's corruption.
Baseball? We KNOW there's a problem. We've KNOWN of the problem for several years now. We all have our favorite suspects. Yet, we fans only express our disgust by booing Barry and grunting with co-workers at the water cooler. That's why baseball has moved at a glacial pace to fix the scandal within its game, and why the players and we the people have such divergent opinions on a cherished record that may, or may not, be tainted.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Minneapolis Bridge, Other Notes
Lord knows, the collapse of the 35W bridge in Minneapolis is a tragedy, and I pray that the death toll remains nearly as low as the current official total of four. However, the incident could prove to be a blessing in disguise for the rest of us.
First, all reports are of a relatively smooth and heroic response by emergency crews in the Twin Cities, along with assistance from other agencies. The hard education that we've received from 9/11 and Katrina might have paid off with the work that was done in Minnesota. And it will focus first responders around the nation -- and the world -- on what incidents they might face themselves.
Second, there are tens of thousands of bridges in the style of this one, and thousands more that reportedly have some structural deficiencies. Now you have every transportation agency in the country going out to check its spans. We've known for years about crumbling infrastructure, and this might finally get some government officials off their duffs and do something about it. And, smart engineers will learn what went wrong, and apply the lessons to other aging structures of this type.
Things happen, and it's sad when people die, but there's a chance their deaths will not be in vain.
---
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is right. If Pakistan does not address it's lawless northern provinces, we'll have to take things into our own hands. But it's another sign of his inexperience -- he's still only been in the Senate for one term -- that he actually said that. There are some things you just don't say publicly.
Same goes for his willingness to meet with the leaders of belligerent nations like North Korea, Iran and Venezuela without preconditions. A situation might arise to where he needs to meet with one of them in his first year, but as a good quarterback knows, you don't telegraph your passes.
---
There's a lot of discussion among pundits about how much should be discussed about Hillary Clinton's cleavage and Jeri Thompson being a trophy wife.
As a guy, my initial reaction is I don't really want to think of Hillary's cleavage, less be confronted with images of same. Yet, history tells is that nothing takes place with a Clinton by accident, so you have to wonder why she'd be allowing such exposure. Maybe it leads to a Janet Jackson-style wardrobe malfunction in the general election season? Just kidding. Still, I don't see how the focus on her womanhood improves her standing among voters.
Concerning the much younger and very attractive wife of maybe one day GOP candidate Fred Thompson, okay, we know now that she's been a high-powered D.C. operative for years and isn't just another pretty face.
But seriously, you look at what the Clintons went through with Hillary spending eight years as First Lady under a microscope and you wonder, what's the problem with putting the spotlight on other potential first ladies. Hillary, of course, welcomed the exposure because of her future political goals and deserved examination because she was far more politically involved than most presidential wives.
Laura Bush hasn't been followed quite so closely because she stays in the background. However, there's no way that Jeri Thompson suddenly turns into a non-entity if her husband wins the presidency. She'll be just as active as Hillary was. And that's fine. But because of that, she's deserving of considerable scrutiny.
The larger issue facing the Thompsons is whether the boat has left the pier. His poll numbers are falling as he remains on the sideline. Expect a yea or nay from him by mid-August, before all his support is frittered away.
First, all reports are of a relatively smooth and heroic response by emergency crews in the Twin Cities, along with assistance from other agencies. The hard education that we've received from 9/11 and Katrina might have paid off with the work that was done in Minnesota. And it will focus first responders around the nation -- and the world -- on what incidents they might face themselves.
Second, there are tens of thousands of bridges in the style of this one, and thousands more that reportedly have some structural deficiencies. Now you have every transportation agency in the country going out to check its spans. We've known for years about crumbling infrastructure, and this might finally get some government officials off their duffs and do something about it. And, smart engineers will learn what went wrong, and apply the lessons to other aging structures of this type.
Things happen, and it's sad when people die, but there's a chance their deaths will not be in vain.
---
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is right. If Pakistan does not address it's lawless northern provinces, we'll have to take things into our own hands. But it's another sign of his inexperience -- he's still only been in the Senate for one term -- that he actually said that. There are some things you just don't say publicly.
Same goes for his willingness to meet with the leaders of belligerent nations like North Korea, Iran and Venezuela without preconditions. A situation might arise to where he needs to meet with one of them in his first year, but as a good quarterback knows, you don't telegraph your passes.
---
There's a lot of discussion among pundits about how much should be discussed about Hillary Clinton's cleavage and Jeri Thompson being a trophy wife.
As a guy, my initial reaction is I don't really want to think of Hillary's cleavage, less be confronted with images of same. Yet, history tells is that nothing takes place with a Clinton by accident, so you have to wonder why she'd be allowing such exposure. Maybe it leads to a Janet Jackson-style wardrobe malfunction in the general election season? Just kidding. Still, I don't see how the focus on her womanhood improves her standing among voters.
Concerning the much younger and very attractive wife of maybe one day GOP candidate Fred Thompson, okay, we know now that she's been a high-powered D.C. operative for years and isn't just another pretty face.
But seriously, you look at what the Clintons went through with Hillary spending eight years as First Lady under a microscope and you wonder, what's the problem with putting the spotlight on other potential first ladies. Hillary, of course, welcomed the exposure because of her future political goals and deserved examination because she was far more politically involved than most presidential wives.
Laura Bush hasn't been followed quite so closely because she stays in the background. However, there's no way that Jeri Thompson suddenly turns into a non-entity if her husband wins the presidency. She'll be just as active as Hillary was. And that's fine. But because of that, she's deserving of considerable scrutiny.
The larger issue facing the Thompsons is whether the boat has left the pier. His poll numbers are falling as he remains on the sideline. Expect a yea or nay from him by mid-August, before all his support is frittered away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)