Maybe things would have been different in '04 if the Dems had nominated this Kerrey instead of that bozo gasbag from Massachusetts. Bob Kerrey is an authentic war hero, and the kind of Democrat that doesn't seem to be around much anymore--someone who's rational about national security.

In related news, Bush wins. Again.

This story demonstrates just how crucial winning in Iraq really is. I wonder if the chorus of Bush critics, whose continual refrain is "incompetence", understands just how poisonous to success their continual undermining of the war effort really is.

If you needed more, this story should help even the slow-witted understand that the key to defeating Al Qaeda is to prevail in Iraq. It should also make it abundantly clear that we are in a very tough fight against a very tough, resourceful enemy.

This should have been an easy fight, and we are not winning it. Folks can go on about Bush incompetence all they want, but I think what it shows is that our enemies have gone all in on Iraq. They now believe that it's only a short matter of time before they drive us out, and then we'll see what a gusher of revenue Iraq will produce for Al Qaeda and Iran.

The irony is that our military is doing their job just fine. If the American people were to demonstrate their resolve to stay until the job was done, it'd be over a whole lot sooner. (Translation: If Al Qaeda and Iran knew the American people stood behind our troops, they'd know they have no chance. Their tactics were never designed to defeat the American military, they're designed for the TV screens at home to break the will of the people.)

It's a lot like dealing with tantrums. Once you demonstrate that the tantrums will not produce the desired outcome, the tantrums stop.

Al Gore finally says something I agree with. He laments the departure of reason from the political landscape. Now, I'm not so sure politics was ever the polite tea party he pines for, but I agree that since oh, about 2001 or so, the hysteria level seems to have gone way up.

The first place I noticed it was Bush v. Gore. I remember a campaign that was pretty bland, with both candidates competing over their prescription drug plans. Then came Florida, hanging chads, and finally the Supreme Court putting an end to Gore's increasingly bizarre recount schemes. Somewhere in that process, the left went batshit. 9/11 silenced a lot of that, but despite the fact that we remain at war, today we're dealing with an increasingly vocal, increasingly irrational opposition.

By the way, sports fans, for those keeping score at home, under any of the recount schemes he asked for, Gore lost. Counting. Reason.

But I digress. If Al Gore wants to inject reason back into politics, I say let's have at it.

But first, I'd like to deconstruct what I suspect is the real agenda here. I think Gore is making a rather transparent play for the educated moderate--the kind of voter who knows just enough to be dangerous. These are the kind of guys that say things like, "The Christian Right scares the hell out of me". Or, those who might be impressed by Gore's Oscar winning "documentary" without really having the brainpower to think critically about it.

"Reason" is the stalking horse here because I think Gore believes that, thanks to his books and movie, he owns that particular piece of our brains that light up when someone utters the word "reason". Al's the answer man, the inventor of the internet, the guy America, hell, the guy the whole world turns to for the answers to the big questions.

Al already knows the answers, so if we're going to be reasonable, we're going to have to do what Al says.

I don't know whether Al really believes the tripe he's selling, or if he's just counting on the fact that most Americans aren't all that knowledgeable about science and are inclined to lap up whatever NBC News or Time magazine says on the matter.

Surprisingly, a lot of people still pay attention to those sources, and in fact, may well consider themselves informed after consuming one of these news products.

Anyway, reason. Let's bring it back.

How 'bout we start with this?

Show me the scientific proof that so-called "greenhouse gases" actually trap heat.

Bernard Lewis has a take on the war on terror that lines up pretty well with mine. Makes me feel pretty good, as I think most people recognize Lewis as the pre-eminent scholar on the Mideast.

It's interesting to recall that bin Laden collaborated with the Americans against the Soviets. Yet there are those who maintain that he never would have cooperated with Saddam, a fellow Sunni muslim.

He's an Advocate for the Poor

Can you say "hypocrisy"?

This guy is a real piece of work. If you really care about lifting people out of poverty, the message is family, education, work.

I love it when liberals call themselves "progressives". Just what form of progress are they for? They're against reforming education--no vouchers, gotta repeal NCLB; they're against reforming Social Security and Medicare even though those programs are going right over a cliff. Certainly we mustn't change our national security policy. 9/11 was just a blip!

Today's Democrats have no philosophical underpinnings, save to advocate tirelessly on behalf of their paymasters--public sector, labor and teacher's unions, and of course, in the particular case of John Edwards, trial lawyers. I guess we could add to that predatory lending hedge funds, and of course George Soros.

Tenet-onitis


Fascinating disconnect between Russert and Tenet on MTP this morning.

There is still a huge failure of comprehension going on about the whole issue of the intelligence about Iraq.

First and foremost, perhaps Tenet's book will put to rest for good the notion that there were no ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. At least in the opinion of the CIA, there was frequent contact and interaction by al Qaeda and Iraq in the decade leading up to 9/11, and thereafter.

Tenet's distinction is "command, control and direction". And so the CIA can observe a long history of contacts and conclude that they did not add up to an operational role for Iraq in 9/11. Fine.

Perhaps what people don't get is that an operational role for Iraq in 9/11 was never a necessary precondition for war. In an era of WMD, post 9/11, the possibility that Saddam could get WMD to al Qaeda, or some other terrorist group, was a sufficient cause to take him out, particularly when taken in the context of our long and very troubled history with him.

And by the way, given the rather sorry record of the CIA in just about every instance in which we trusted them to figure something out, perhaps a bit of Feithian skepticism was warranted.

It is not inaccurate to say that we have no proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11, but he could have been. He certainly seemed interested in taking credit for it among his own people, even to the point of commissioning huge murals commemorating the event.

Russert seems intent on accusing either Tenet or the administration of knowingly overstating the case for war. Here we can see Russert's Democrat South Buffalo Irish Catholic White Guilt roots at work. See, we're a big powerul, white (mostly) superpower who went to war against a little, weak, brown nation. One of the key tenets (sorry, couldn't resist) of the DSBICWG code is that we're always for the "little Guy" The Catholic thing comes from the Catholic code of just war, which states that "imminent danger" is a necessary precondition for war. Gosh, no good Catholic (can you say "John Kerry"?) would ever knowingly vote for a preemptive war. With all proper deference to past popes, there's a new definition of "imminent". I don't think they foresaw the confluence of terrorists and WMD.

Of course, the Democrat thing comes from the obvious political advantage of smearing the opposition. You can almost hear them pant with lust at the thought of the long-term implications of hanging an "unjust, failed war" on a Republican. You destroy the one remaining political advantage of Republicans, namely that they are perceived as stronger on security issues.

Finally, your classic South Buffalo debating technique is of the "When did you stop beating your wife" variety. Assume the premise. So, today's discussion was in the nature of a post-mortem. It's already a "failed policy".

Nonsense. War is a messy business. Anyone can blow themself up in a crowded marketplace. That tactic will only succeed if we agree to allow it to.

There's a big danger in all of this, namely that you so damage the institution of the Presidency that you tie the hands of the next president, who very probably will face similar decisions to the ones Bush faced. The fact is, given the nature of our enemy, it is very unlikely that we will ever have perfectly clear cut, Pearl Harbor-like clarity about when and where to use force.

There's a biblical story in the Old Testament wherein David, future king of Israel, is opposing King Saul. David's men come to him with the news that they have located Saul, and have the opportunity to kill him in his sleep.

David demurs. Wisely, he reasons that if he lets this go forward, when he becomes king he'll never get a good nights' sleep himself.

Rather than tearing ourselves to pieces over the past, rather than looking for someone to blame for a policy that could still succeed, we should be filled with gratitude for the successes we've had--no further attacks since 9/11, a spectacular economic recovery, tremendous losses inflicted on Al Qaeda, planes flying in the sky for God's sake!--and for the bravery and heroism of those who risk it all, every day, to keep us safe and free.

What to make of this? Poor old hapless George Tenet taking a swing at the guy who gave him the Medal of Freedom and landing a haymaker on all those who continue to insist that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Tenet reveals that there was an abundance of evidence connnecting the two--and that was only what we knew about. Given the paucity of agents in the field, one would have to wonder about how much we were missing.

It does appear that he political handwriting is on the wall for this war, or more correctly this chapter in the war on terror. It's just heartbreaking to see that 100 brave Americans gave their lives in April, betrayed by the likes of Harry Reid giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

With the Democrats now fully invested in defeat, it has become their political imperative to impede any potential for progress. The one thing that could derail the Dems' hopes for '08 would be victory in Iraq.

So now, in adition to worrying about Sunni insurgents, Al Qaeda and Iran, our troops have to contend with a Congress that will be doing its level best to prevent their success.

They'll give us all sorts of specious reasons for their intransigence, but the bottom line is that defeat for America is good for the Dems.