Category: Uncategorized

Condoleeza Rice said: “The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America’s response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient.”

Let’s see. We’re still not at war with the terrorists – not having declared war against them – and we’re not even pretending to be at war with the non-terrorist wing of the global jihad that also considers itself at war with us. And if you’re going to argue that the Constitution doesn’t really matter and it’s just a dead document that can be ignored at will, well, I’d consider that a sad and shocking position for any Republican to take. But if that’s where the Republican Party truly stands now, I’d very much like to see it in writing.

LookB4ULeap writes: “There can be little doubt there was sufficient cause for the American military to invade Iraq, unfound WMDs and United Nations’ resolutions notwithstanding.”

Cute but unqualified. Most of the free world rejected Bush’s “war” but according to you: “there is little doubt” that it was justified. Additionally, the “American military” was not the entity who decided to invade Iraq. It was Bush and his whacked out war cabinet with their bogus rationale. If you do a close review you will find that most of the U.S. military leaders were either against the invasion or advised that a larger force was needed. Those who advised against the invasion or criticized the planning were either derided or dismissed. You, Farah and Bush are much alike; deluded ideologues who think that they are right and everyone else is wrong… Keep dreaming and try to get your facts straight. Reality has a nasty way of catching up with people like you.

This is absurd. The Iraqi war is a multinational effort; Germany, France and Russia are hardly the entire free world. I never said that the American military decided anything, in this country, the American military is not allowed to decide anything but is wholly subject to the political leadership. More importantly, I have repeatedly stated that the Iraqi Occupation is a mistake and that Iraq should have been at most a peripheral target.

But it’s most amusing to be lectured on reality by anyone who thinks that Bush and I are much alike.

Pursuant to today’s column, here’s a few more thoughts contrasting Clausewitz’s dictums and how the War on Terror and Afghanistan and Iraq and the Iranian puppet militia is being waged by the Bush administration.

“It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means”

The deeper concern here is that the president is applying this entirely too literally.

“Given the same amount of intelligence, timidity will do a thousand times more damage than audacity”

The execution of the invasion of Iraq was audacious, the invasion itself was not. Invading Saudi Arabia and Iran, that would have been audacious.

“Never forget that no military leader has ever become great without audacity. If the leader is filled with high ambition and if he pursues his aims with audacity and strength of will, he will reach them in spite of all obstacles.”

Do we even know what the president’s aims are? He isn’t telling us. And if he’s filled with seriously high ambitions and is pursuing them in secret, we’re in for some serious trouble.

“The majority of people are timid by nature, and that is why they constantly exaggerate danger. All influences on the military leader, therefore, combine to give him a false impression of his opponent’s strength, and from this arises a new source of indecision.”

The direct danger from al-Qaida to the USA is somewhat exaggerated, even as the long-term threat from the global jihad is underplayed. Al-Qaida is only a small operative arm of the jihad. But his point is broadly salient even outside of military matters; one has only to watch the local news to recognize the truth.

“We must, therefore, be confident that the general measures we have adopted will produce the results we expect.

This one is clearly shot to Hell. For all that the administration insists that things are going to plan, it is highly dubious that the increase in violence a full year after the cessation of hostilities

“After we have thought out everything carefully in advance and have sought and found without prejudice the most plausible plan, we must not be ready to abandon it at the slightest provocation. Should this certainty be lacking, we must tell ourselves that nothing is accomplished in warfare without daring; that the nature of war certainly does not let us see at all times where we are going; that what is probable will always be probable though at the moment it may not seem so; and finally, that we cannot be readily ruined by a single error, if we have made reasonable preparations.”

I don’t think that things have been planned without prejudice, considering the general bias towards an Iraqi attack, but the administration does seem flexible enough to abandon plans if necessary. That being said, the single error of not targeting the central enemy would seem to be potentially fatal.

“The first and most important rule to observe…is to use our entire forces with the utmost energy. The second rule is to concentrate our power as much as possible against that section where the chief blows are to be delivered and to incur disadvantages elsewhere, so that our chances of success may increase at the decisive point. The third rule is never to waste time. Unless important advantages are to be gained from hesitation, it is necessary to set to work at once. By this speed a hundred enemy measures are nipped in the bud, and public opinion is won most rapidly. Finally, the fourth rule is to follow up our successes with the utmost energy. Only pursuit of the beaten enemy gives the fruits of victory.”

Let’s see…. one, no. Two, pretty much. Three, no. Going to the UN and coalition-building is a massive waste. Four, no. Instead of moving on to Iran when we had momentum, we sat and handed over the initiative.

“The best form of defense is attack.”

This has been done reasonably well.

“The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed.”

One wishes the president, the great defender of “the religion of peace”, would keep this in mind.

“The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking.”

This is possibly the most worrisome. The administration has clearly decided on an amorphous war without tangible goals against a nameless enemy. Shades of 1984 indeed.

“no one starts a war-or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so-without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”

I’m not sure that one can’t make a stronger case for bin Laden’s rationale than the president’s. Granted, bin Laden’s goals are so high as to appear insane, but at least he’s identified his enemy and made his case. The president hasn’t.

“Pursue one great decisive aim with force and determination.”

Still wondering what that is supposed to be. Unfortunately, so are our soldiers. What, precisely, is the one great decisive aim?

“If the enemy is to be coerced, you must put him in a situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make. The hardships of the situation must not be merely transient – at least not in appearance. Otherwise, the enemy would not give in, but would wait for things to improve.”

Not even close. This is particularly dangerous against an enemy with a proven long-term outlook.

Robert Novak reports: President Bush will go to Pittsburgh April 19 on a rescue mission attempting to save four-term Sen. Arlen Specter, who faces an increasingly serious conservative challenge from Rep. Pat Toomey in the April 27 Pennsylvania Republican primary.

So, George Delano is now out actively campaigning against eminently electable conservative Republicans. I’m sure this will be defended as a necessary act of incumbent protection, but it should demonstrate rather clearly the man’s principles, or rather, lack of them.*

Granted, John Francois wouldn’t be content with only campaigning against Toomey, he’d also want to campaign against the Highlander – who once recommended turning to Scottish law to discipline Bill Clinton – but that’s hardly a point of massive ideological superiority now, is it.

A pox on both their houses!

* To be fair, he never claimed to be an actual conservative, only a compassionate one. And we all know what it means when you insert an adjective in front of the noun.

The Sports Guy rants: Those “Whatever happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” ads, maybe the biggest head-scratcher in advertising history. Why would anyone ever inflict that much needless tension on their demographic? Were they appealing to adulterers? Druggies? Strip joint stalkers? Snuff film producers? Were we supposed to think to ourselves, “You know, I wasn’t gonna go, but I didn’t realize I could do morally destructive things with no repercussions — book me a plane ticket!” And don’t get me started on the ramifications of these ads with wives and girlfriends across the country, many of whom were already insane to begin with. For instance, right as I was leaving for my latest trip — staying at the Hard Rock this time, on the way to the airport, plane ticket in my hands — the Sports Gal smiled and told me, “And don’t think I don’t know that the Paradise (a strip club) is right across the street from the Hard Rock.”

She slipped that sucker in like a Tommy Hearns right cross. And while I was hemming and hawing, she followed with this uppercut: “Hey, whatever happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, right?”

Great ad campaign. Thanks, guys.

I’m often told that my perspective on the world is disturbingly dark. People who have met me often find it hard to balance this implacably negative vision with my generally cheerful and happy state of mind. The answer is simple: I believe that we live in a fallen world ruled by a supernatural serial killer. The world is evil and Man is evil, therefore the incidence of evil neither surprises nor disturbs me overmuch. It is simply to be expected.

But on the first Easter, the iron grasp of evil was broken by what CS Lewis calls the Divine Invasion. Through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, we have the power to resist evil’s ability to affect our lives, and more importantly, we hold the hope that one day the usurper will be banished and his reign brought to a close. The world may be evil, but it has no hold on my Lord, nor, through him, on me.

James Pinkerton writes: If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, “Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific,” and that he had done nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your perception of FDR as a wise war leader? Roosevelt received no such memo, of course, but President George W. Bush got a blunt warning five weeks before 9/11 and he did little or nothing. He even presided over a stand- down in preparations, concentrating on other concerns.

As tomorrow’s column will demonstrate, I have some serious doubts about the president’s abilities as a Commander-in-Chief. While some commentators ignorant of military history think that the conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq prove his greatness – Peggy Noonan springs to mind – those of us who have at least made a hobby of the art of war tend to be significantly more dubious. One has only to recall how many times those lands have changed hands to be skeptical of the likelihood, let alone the probability, of a successful long-term occupation in the German mode. Germany, one might do well to remember, was considered one of the most culturally advanced societies in the world prior to World War II, and Japan the world’s most homogenous, while neither Iraq nor Afghanistan would tend to be described in either of those terms.

I don’t question that America must face up to the need to declare war against the global jihad, but given that George Bush has not: a) properly identified the enemy, b) united the nation against it or c) focused on the targets required for victory, I think that it is starting to look increasingly likely that he will come to be viewed as an ineffectual, if not incompetent, wartime president.

This is not necesarily the case, mind you, as my information is insufficient to make any such determination in a definitive manner. But given that the current martial effort appears to be ignoring a number of basic strictums of military theory, I am less than entirely optimistic about the results.

The only good thing I see here is that it would seem almost oxymoronic to allow 9/11 to take place in order to mount an incompetently managed war. The government lied to the American people about Waco, TWA 800 and OK City, and I have no doubt they are lying, somehow, about 9/11. But while I firmly believe that FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor in order to force the nation into WWII, the seeming incompetence of the Bush administration would appear to argue its innocence in that regard. Hopefully, the truth will eventually find its way out.

UPDATE – It wasn’t just Tom Clancy either. From the Washington Post: “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people . . . would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,” Rice said Thursday. But a 1999 report prepared for the National Intelligence Council, an affiliate of the CIA, warned that terrorists associated with bin Laden might hijack an airplane and crash it into the Pentagon, White House or CIA headquarters. The report recounts well-known case studies of similar plots, including a 1995 plan by al Qaeda operatives to hijack and crash a dozen U.S. airliners in the South Pacific and pilot a light aircraft into Langley.

Condi is pretty good, but she’s as full of it as the rest of them. Color me skeptical.

DU writes: The people who are ruled by emotion rather than intellect, who compare the reality of the present with some kind of utopian vision of perfection, will always have a reason why whatever has been done is not enough.

That’s surely true. But it is utterly absurd to argue that a great deal has been accomplished, when the majority of the Republican effort has actually gone towards making things worse. In other words, the Toad Swallowers are not even bothering to pretend anymore. And where is the emotional argument? The only Republican defense is entirely based on fear – vote Republican or the evil scary Democrats will get you! Boo!

I expect that you’ll come around eventually, DU. I’ve seen far too many people who have argued exactly the same points that you have do so to believe that you won’t. What is amusing is that I heard them pre-2000 from a number of new ex-Republicans. My argument is not the least bit based on emotion. In fact, I daresay that it is ruthlessly cold logic, fully accepting that things will almost surely get worse before they get better. As hard as it is for me to believe this, it will obviously take at least four more years of Republican rule for most conservatives to start realizing that they have been fooled again.

I’ve already stated what it would take to bring me back to the Republican Party, so here’s my question to DU and other staunch party loyalists. What will it take for you to abandon the party? A law requiring human sacrifice and 100 percent taxation would presumably do it for almost everyone, while it’s clear that a massive increase in federal spending and complete disrespect for the Constitution won’t. What, specifically, are you waiting for?

This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m just curious.

The Evangelical Outpost tells of his latest duty. War is Hell, and not only for those getting shot at.

Alex wrote: Crappy power Republicans do not represent the wishes of the majority of the party in the Majority Party

I agree. What I don’t understand is that given this, why do you think that enlarging this already ineffectual conservative majority will help you take the party away from the strong government Republicans who have controlled it since its birth? I’ve already seen good conservatives spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do precisely what you’re advocating, only to eventually quit the party in disgust, their lesson learned the hard way.

You will never be allowed to seize the reins of power. Do you truly believe that it is happenstance that the same sort of quasi-moderate Republicans keep getting nominated, regardless of whether they are electable or not? Do you think it is an accident that the party is always trying to unseat one of its most popular members, Ron Paul? The notion of “fixing” the Republican Party is like trying to take over a Fortune 500 company to bring your product to market instead of starting a new business. It may look easier, but the reality is harder because you have an active opposition.

Only those who think outside the box ever have the ability to create significant change. The two-party system exists for a reason and only way to break out of the long-term bipartisan direction is to build a third party. And a third party will never grow unless those who are sympathetic to its goals are willing to give up their addiction to the status quo. That’s my take on it. Perot and the Reform party were not a genuine movement as they had no ideology, however, they did show that their is real discontent. Just imagine if Perot had not been a goofy-looking loon, but a principled and properly polished candidate committed to liberty.