Frist?

The next 60 days are going to be brutal.

Lugar is wrong as usual. He didn't take into account the execution of Saddam by the Iraqi people. The people power led execution of Saddam showed to the terrorists that the Iraqi people won't stand for turning back the clock to the old days of tyranny. Right now the terrorists are living the last days of their lives and they know it.

A short temporary 18-24 month surge of troops will easily defeat them. Just as Gerald made the tough but right decision of pardoning Nixon, so Bush will also make the tough but right of surging the troops in Iraq. History has shown Ford's decision was right just as it will show Bush's decision is right. Lugar will be shown to be on the wrong side of history by refusing to back the Iraqi people's desire for democracy.

Al

If they were all like Dick Lugar, we'd all be a lot better off. He's smart, thoughtful, has a proven record of bipartisan accomplishment, is widely respected here and abroad, keeps the partisanship to a minimum. Which, of course, is why he stood absolutely zero chance when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination a few years back.

It seems that the Bush Administration is currently paralyzed with regard to Iraq. The days keep flying by, things keep getting worse, more and more observers dismiss the status quo or a surge as having any chance.

I still think the same thing I thought a couple of years ago. It takes a lot of guts to withdraw without accomplishing what you had hoped to accomplish. Bush is not up to it. It will have to be either the next President, or the legislative branch slowly cutting off support, financial and otherwise.

oh Al...
the schtick. it's really so tiresome.

Sadaam is dead and we have turned the corner, everything is just peachy in Iraq. Just like

Mission Accomplished
Statue coming down
Capture of Sadaam
Elections 1 and 2
Sharia constitution ratified
Sadaam found guitly
______________ fill in the blank

Peachy I tell you. Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes!

OK I'll go ahead and get it out of the way. "But he's the DECIDER"

Ah, Kevin.

Listen closely to what Lugar is saying. He is not saying we should not surge. He is saying that if Bush does surge, the Democratic congress will become vindictive, and slam Bush with subpeonas and gum up the works of government, bringing us all to a standstill at such a crucail time. A very selfish, foolhardy ploy by Democrats, showing their true allegiances. Lugar is merely warning us what is looming.

I tremble for my country.

two more corners...

anthrax ATTACKS

ossama somebody

eggy,

Kevin is still working on last week's Will Shortz crossword -

Reading comprehensive is not a required subject over at Schaife, eh?

Nor is comprehension -

With so many Pub Senators coming up for re-election in 08 and Shrub being a very lame duck, the marching orders from 1600 are starting to fall on very deaf ears.

Global Citizen:"The next 60 days are going to be brutal."

What is special about the next 60 days? I'm dreading the next 751 days or whatever the count is until Jan 2008.

Interesting how one's point of view filters how one interprets Lugar's comment.

A non-Republican, who approves of Lugar's apparent willingness"to break with the Bush White House on foreign policy and national security issues" regards the comment as positive...Congress is going to insist on oversight. A Republican, otoh, regards it as a prediction of how corrupt and irresponsibile the Democratic led Congress will be.

What is special about the next 60 days?

I will take great pleasure in watching the realization settle over the president that he no longer enjoys a rubber-stamp lemming congress.

For fun (?) I here repost in my own words a little piece of wonderment about "Al" and "The Real Al" etc. from a different thread in which I responded to a question about my own habit of varying my posting handle a bit:

...Of course, the really interesting question is: who is/are behind the endlessly fascinating and repulsive permutations of "Al" and his variants? "Al" has become larger than life - he/she/it/they is a mythical being now that goes beyond what we would expect a normal human being or group of human beings to put in for effort. Looking at an "Al" post now reminds me of the feeling I get looking at a picture of a gigantic crop circle formation - it looks man-made, but who would go to all that trouble, and for what? Is "Al" the voice of space aliens?

Please also note the interesting permutations of the meaning of "al" in Hebrew, from http://rashiyomi.com/h9n23.htm:

The Hebrew AL Has 6 meanings

RULE:

Most people think that the Hebrew word AL means ON.
In reality the Hebrew word AL has 6 meanings. They are...

AL can mean Verse Sample Text with this meaning

ON Gn03-14 Crawl ON your belly

WITH Ex12-09e Eat it WITH Matzoh & Marror

IN Ex29-03 Place the Matzoh IN the basket

TO 1S01-10 Channah prayed TO God

NEAR Gn18-08 Abraham stood NEAR his guests

AFTER Lv03-05a Offer the Peace offering AFTER the Daily*1

...

What does it all mean?
?!

I'm sorry, but I must have been sleeping during the time Lugar refers to when Bush took Congress very seriously. I far as I remember, Congress has never demanded to be taken seriously during Bush's reign, and he's taken full advantage of that spinelessness.

Actually, you need to watch CSPAN a bit more KCinDC.

Many, many times, I have watched Dems in congress try to debate Iraq - while being admonished by the Repugs that - WE WON'T DEBATE IRAQ!

FACTS matter.
Lugar is right.
Time for Congress to do it's job
- for the PEOPLE - NOT - the current FASCISTS
ruining our Country and World for their own private profit and power.
---------------
In a communist country, you have to trust the government.
In a democracy, you get to check.

Parting thought: Excellent point Aeon. We get accused of communist leanings, but they employ the tactics. Methinks the lady doeth protest too much.

the Democratic congress will become vindictive, and slam Bush with subpeonas and gum up the works of government, bringing us all to a standstill at such a crucail time.

As if Bush's "stay the course" hasn't been an exercise in "standstill" policy?

Please.

America voted for Change on Nov 7.

Best change I can think of is Bush impeached.

I don't understand why the War Party is so unwilling to ask for what it would take to win the war they started.

They never ask for a "permanent surge" of 300,000 more troops into Iraq, national mobilization, a draft, seizure of factories to make war materiel, and raising taxes to pay for it all.

Instead, they offer these pussified half-measures. Another 20,000 troops will not be enough to win, and maybe some of them know it. But that's all they're asking for. It's like they don't want to win, or like Bush, they just want to kick the can down the road for a few more months or years before we are forced to withdraw in defeat. I don't get it.

Neal B:

I've never understood the fascination about Al. Sometime early last year, he admitted that he's a Texas university bureaucrat. What more needs to be said?

Al's Mommy is a pretty consistently funny (and obvious) parody. But Al doesn't give off parody vibes -- except the sardonic variety as an unintentional self-parody. His style isn't intrinsically humorous, like some other notorious parodists wbo've graced this blog from time to time. The shtick with the RSS feed, responding at the top of every thread, strikes me as the behavior of a quintessential dutiful bureaucrat, and not at all of spontaneous whimsy.

That Al's talking points are nearly always laughably brain-dead assertions only goes to show you the state of political discourse in bastions of hardcore red-state thought. Frankly, it'd be arguing with the terms of the universe to expect anything more from the 33% of Bush loyalist backwash ...

Bob

It strikes me as the behavior of a creepy stalker.

Heh - and to add to the perplexity, someone in these pages claimed some months ago that "the real Al" had died of cancer, and that someone/s was carrying on in his honor, or whatever - ?! (Hey, is "Al" the "Uncle Al" of Usenet and Mensa fame, picking on liberals and careless science cranks like Archie Poo alike, all while promoting his own weird chiral gravity theory?) The legend and the mystery live on ...

grytpype:

That too, I suppose :) But seriously ... nahh. You'd expect a stalker to fixate on certain individuals, and Al never specifically addresses posts or gets into back-and-forths with us about anything. It's like Al's doing his duty, posting up the Holy GOP Wisdom on a godforsaken liberal blog, and then goes back to, you know, scanning student application packets for signs of dangerously leftist political thought :)

As for your point about the war: I think it's all that Bush could possibly get at this point. The time to go in on a genuine war footing is long since passed; 300k troops might've made a difference at the beginning to seal the borders and guard the infrastructure and munitions dumps, but that kind of surge would take at least a year even assuming we had the wherewithal to pull it off. It's logistically out of the question.

Why is he doing it at all? My read is that it's another petulant smackdown of his old man -- the proxy for which is the ISG. Bush rejected its two main pillars: unconditional negotiations with Iran and Syria, and withdrawal/pullback benchmarks to signal to the Maliki government that they couldn't rely on the US military as a praetorian guard forever.

His daddy's men rode in to have an intervention -- and there's Bush in the kitchen with an isoceles knife and a whiskey bottle, strenuously denying he's got a problem ...

Bob

It makes me feel as optimistic as I did following the mid-term elections to hear yet another Republican speak out.
Finally listening to their gut rather than talking the party line.
The right wing leadership in the administration feels there are endless enemies yet to go, with their incompetently waged wars. The adults need to step in.
People are realizing that the cabal- in -charge over-used the military, it has been way too costly, and billions of our assets have disappeared, free of accountability-----that word is not in the war-mongerers' vocabulary.
Time has a way of enhancing reality-based thinking, with this war lasting longer than our participation in WWII.

Spin is not working anymore. All the rhetorics of Oceania will not cleanse the blood from the hands of these little men.

Orwell has to be turning over in his grave with this double-speaking administration. Maybe they used Orwell's classic as their playbook for the past 6 years. Sure seems like it.

NeilB:

Hey, my favorite USENET net.kook has always been Doctress Neutopia :)

Bob

Am I alone in this? I don't now and didn't then think that Ford did the right thing in pardoning Nixon. Nixon should have faced a court of law like any other citizen instead of Ford the underlying corruption of the American Political System and the duality of Justice for the privileged and the ordinary citizen. Ford did a great disservice to the American nation. His legacy will always be that encapsulated corruption into politics rather than cleansing it.

I'm with you, murmeister. Ford should have been impeached for pardoning Nixon. Nixon should have died in prison. Had the Dems taken down these two slimeballs, we might not be stuck with the shit that inhabits the White House right now.

murmeister:

I dunno; as much as I thoroughly despise Nixon, I have mixed feelings about the pardon. Resigning in disgrace colors everything about Nixon's legacy and is an immense, unrecoverable blow. The crimes, such as they were, were exceedingly petty in the larger picture; Watergate as a constitutional issue is nothing close to Iran/Contra or the current crop of constitution shredders, IMHO ... That Nixon was forced to resign at all was one of my proudest moments as an American.

The more scathing irony of Ford's legacy is that, in an effort to make a clean sweep of Nixon's cabinet, this famously moderate Republican (with a very outspoken socially liberal wife) brought in Rumsfeld and Cheney ....

Bob

murmeister -
If the American Legal System would allow for true justice, we would develop the technology to ressurect Ford's corpse, so we could execute him for crimes against humanity - given the grave consequences we've all suffered as a result of Nixon's pardoning.

Remember - Haid, Rummy, Cheney, Rove, et al, were all tied up in the Nixon administration. Same smarmy motherfuckers who are robbing and killing Americans today.

Those who protested the Vietnam War were very upset about the Nixon pardon. There was an air of complicity and betrayal that lasted a long while. I think people are sentimental now with Mr. Ford's death, forgiving and forgetting. It was similar when Mr. Reagan died, and to an extent with Mr. Nixon. It seems to be the American way of eulogy to seemingly canonize our presidents. I think historians have a way of unfolding yet more corruption as more and more people from the era write books, memoirs, and generally speak out. President Ford's pardon will always be questioned.

Whoever programs the trolls needs to change the algorithm to grab the name of the author instead of having Kevin's name hard coded for Political Animal. It gives comfort to the hordes of software engineers poised on our borders.

Please, troll competently. America's future depends on it.

Extradite Rumsfeld:

I dunno; we just witnessed the execution of Saddam -- and all that amounted to was a signal to the world that Iraq can use the full force (such that it is) of its ineffectual government to prosecute sectarian grudges. Ford grew to be Jimmy Carter's buddy, and nothing about the guy reeks of malignant evil. You can argue against the pardon certainly -- obviously, it made a hash of his election chances -- but I honestly don't believe it was ill-motivated out of a desire to perpetuate evil. Ford's just not a take-no-prisoners type ...

Al "I'm in charge here" Haig is to be treasured for the comedic value he added to the aftermath of John Hinckley's botched assassination attempt of Reagan. He was a pompous buffoon ("I am the vicar of foreign policy") to be sure -- but compared to Rummy and Cheney he appears positively benign.

As for Karl Rove -- wasn't he more a Nixon campaign groupie (a Donald Segretti acolyte)? I'm not aware he had any role in Ford's hapless '76 campaign ...

Bob

consider wisely:

Those are all fair points. Absolutely the pardon should contine to be questioned by historians and not merely taken as evidence of personal charity on Ford's part. It set a very important precedent.

Bob

Sorry, Aeon. I was talking mainly about the Republicans in Congress, since they've usually been the ones in charge. In the old days, members of Congress cared about congressional privileges and responsibilities even when someone from their own party was in the White House.

KCinDC:

I don't think it's quite accurate to say that the GOP -- driven by the Bush White House -- "doesn't care" about Congress. I think they care very deeply about it, but what they've done in the majority is to stifle meaningful dissent, sometimes in the pettiest of ways. This was less true of the GOP-controlled Senate -- but Frist *did* threaten to "nuke" the fillibuster, something I'm sure the newly minority GOP Senators are extremely thankful that it never came to pass.

And now, with both chambers out of power, you'll hear them bellyaching and playing the victim about being railroaded by the majority at *least* as loudly as you ever heard the Democrats ...

Bob

A short temporary 18-24 month surge of troops will easily defeat them.

Just curious, Al. How many times do you have to be proven wrong before you will just stfu? (rhetorical question, we all are far too entertained by your sillyness)

Defeat who,exactly? What specifically would be the conditions that you would measure such a defeat? If those conditions are met would you support a complete withdrawl from Iraq (including no permanent bases, dissolution of the "green zone" etc.?

Finally, (and feel free to email me the answer to this one as I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself any further than you already do here), do you actually believe the crap that you spew here daily or is it all just ruby slippers for ya? Are you paid to post this sillyness or are you really just that boneheaded?

Just askin'.

Congress should give Bush whatever he asks for in Iraq, but with the taxes to pay for it securely attached.

"No appropriations without taxes." Not exactly Revolutionary War material, but if the Democrats want to separate Bush from his constituency among the have's and have-more's, that's the way to do it. If the oil companies and the plutocracy have to actually pay for Bush's Adventure in Iraq, it will come to a close pretty darn quickly.

Simp:

I'd be content if Al could just un-tautologically define who "them" are ...

Bob

Defeat who,exactly?

The bad guys of course. Gesh, you know nutin about fighting a war!

Bruce Wilder:

"But if we raise taxes, this will only slow down the economy, so we'll wind up collecting *less* tax revenue than we would at the current low rate ... " or something equally convoluted.

Bob

Bruce Wilden -

Please! Oh, please propose tax increases! I'm going to take your post and print it out and show it to my family. "Look at what the libs in Congress have in store for you!"

You'll lose in a landslide in '08! Dems want to raise your taxes! Dems want to raise your taxes!

Ooo, baby, you babies make it sooo easy!

(Hey, is "Al" the "Uncle Al" of Usenet and Mensa fame, picking on liberals and careless science cranks like Archie Poo alike, all while promoting his own weird chiral gravity theory?) The legend and the mystery live on ...
Posted by: NeilB.

dear god, uncle al. fucking nutcase that he was, he at least showed shreds of intelligence. i haven't seen much in the various al-iens.

are there other refugees from rec.org.mensa here?

your pal,
blake

I remember when Al Haig jumped in front of the camera, kind of wild-eyed, claiming to be in charge. He even knocked into the guy previously speaking. It was laughable and scary at the same time.
I can't picture laughing in the future about anything the current misadministration has done.

Al: A short temporary 18-24 month surge of troops will easily defeat them.

Easily, no. Possible, yes. Likely, no.

In case you hadn't noticed, the need and rational for this "surge" is the failure of Iraqi security forces to effectively conduct counterinsurgency, stability and peacekeeping operations. The strategy was that the US could train and equip the ISF to take over stability and peacekeeping operations (so as not to dull the "sharp edge" of our military). That strategy failed for several reasons, including that protection of the Iraqi population--stability and peacekeeping--was not (and never has been) a priority for US forces; and that in the process an insurgency took root.

That means US forces will be required to engage in sustained and effective counterinsurgency, stability and peacekeeping operations. Unfortunately, our forces aren't built or trained for that; they're built and trained for a "war of battles". The disparity is evident daily. We hear pronouncements of how many bad guys we killed and of how we never lose in a stand-up fight--and how we could kill the rest of them if we only had more troops. How about pronouncements of how much more of the population actively supports coallition operations today than yesterday? That support is what it will take to win the peace; that takes a lot more to accomplish than simply an increase in troop levels, killing more bad guys and blowing shit up.

eggy-bertus:

The old time religion has lost much of its magic. Bush has already created a *de-facto* tax increase on future gnerations who will be saddled with paying down the ginormous and ginormously expanding federal debt. Global Citizen helpfully (and accurately) calls it a birth tax.

Oh, and did I ever tell you that my youngest sister had a kitten when she was a kid she named Egbert?

He was brain damaged; he used to walk into walls.

Bob

egbert has never heard of PAYGO. No surprise there. Borrow and spend Repubs.

Hi, has407! Long time. Good to read you.

has407:

Well, precisely. The US military isn't trained to do precisely what's necessary to win a long-term fight against a tenacious insurgency with deep roots in the population that we're allegedly there to protect. Our mission is precisely to fight and win battles and, as you eloquently put it, blow shit up. We excel at that.

What we're not trained to do is to be police officers on steroids for a country wbose language only a handful of specially trained intelligence officers speak. That's why we need so desperately for the ISF to "stand up." The fact that Bush/McCain are calling for more troops is nothing more than a signal, if tacit, admission of our strategy's abject failure.

Because the thing of it is, the ISF simply don't have a loyalty to the idea of Iraq. They take the training we give them and then fight alongside their sectarian militia of choice. It's not that these guys are all incompetent or cowardly soldiers; it's that we try to instill an idea of nationhood, they go "yeah yeah, we're all Iraqis, anything you say," take their paychecks and then go disappear for weeks or months with no punishment for going AWOL. Part of this is the fact that unemployment is so high that these guys take jobs in the ISF to support their families without having any real interest in it as a calling.

And this is simply baked in the cake. There's nothing that more US troops can do to change this situation. And this is why it was such a boneheaded, tragic mistake to have Saddam's execution not signed off by representatives of the three major groups, and that every single soul present at the gallows save Saddam were Shi'ites ...

Not only did this piss off the Kurds, but it dealt a great wound to the notion of international justice. Another possible conviction for genocide sbort-circuited ...

If Iraqis themselves can't sustain the idea of a nation, then there is absolutely nothing more US military muscle can do to change the situation.

Bob

Lugar is right, it's a new game.
My hope is maybe now Congress will follow the will of the PEOPLE rather than the rants/cash of the 20%.
And can someone please tell me how, as Cheney claims, our "war time pResident" fired "the greatest Secretary of Defense" during the last days of the terrorists???
Things are indeed ugly . . .

"You saying this could get ugly." Lugar replied, "Yes, it could."

When it gets ugly and it will--predicting that the stubborn little Idiot will escalate the war, flip off Congress and the American public--I hope as the subpoenas fly, one of the Dems has the wit and presence of mind to offhandedly remark, "Well, Bush can go Cheney himself."

It's not going to "get" ugly. It already *was* ugly -- it's just the stakes weren't that high to publicize it, so the ugliness of the GOP's systematic disenfranchisement of the minority especially in the House became fodder for specialized MSM think pieces and kvetching on the blogs. But everybody who's *politically aware* knew the kind of disgusting hardball that Tom Delay and his evil little helpers in the leadership played.

The only difference now is that with the Dems in the majority, the MSM has an incentive to play up all the drama as a power struggle between the White House and Congress.

And this is going to make the Dems look mean-spirited in the eyes of casual observers (and those terminally ill-informed "undecideds") in a way that the GOP escaped. Odds are, however, that blow-for-blow by comparison the Dems are going to be the epitome of class and good sportsmanship.

Another tremendous and grotesque irony of American politics.

Bob

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, in a natinally-televised interview this weekend, labeled the "surge" position, the McCain Doctrine.

He is correct to do so.

And individual posters here and elsewhere might pay more attention to it and less to juvenile flame wars that accomplish absoutely nothing.

Edwards is running for 2008. So is McCain. Bush is not. Bush's War is yesterday. Now it's the Bush-McCain War and escalation and prolongation of the war is the McCain Doctrine.

Got it?

The McCain Doctrine.

I get it.

Oh, and don't forget folks:

Sunday, December 31, 2006 --

3,000 AMERICAN TROOPS DEAD IN IRAQ.

Instead, they offer these pussified half-measures. ... It's like they don't want to win, or like Bush, they just want to kick the can down the road for a few more months or years before we are forced to withdraw in defeat.

The truth is that no one thinks that, from a national perspective, the war in Iraq is that important. I think that it is important to Bush personally that he not go down in history as they guy who "lost Iraq," but few people think that the war in Iraq is so crucial and important to require some kind of national mobilization that the US engaged in during WWII, the Korea War, or, to a lesser degree, the Vietnam War.

On the Al issue: Over on MattY's blog, the poster named "Al" claims that he is the "original Al" and that the "Al" here on Washingtonmonthly is just the continuation of the parody-Al that used to taunt the "original Al" until the "original Al" gave up here and stopped posting, but the "parody Al" lives on, supposedly.

The death of the 3,000th U.S. soldier in Iraq indeed is a sobering moment.

Wonder how many on Times Square will mark it.

McCain Doctrine - we are on it, and beating that drum steadily here in the blue part of Missouri where a couple of months ago we buried five service personnel in one month.

Meanwhile, my neighbors in Nebraska are saying Hagel is not only out of the presidential race for 2008, he is nnot running for reelection to the Senate either.

Apollo 13 -- Hi! I've been in read-only mode, and although I haven't participated much of late, the comments here always help give me a boost. Happy New Year!

Bob -- Agree, although this seems a not-so-tacit--admission of failure... reading Fred Kagan's material (AEI, principal proponent), it's apparent that this is essentially a do-over, including changing the training regime--more partnering of US/ISF forces instead of relying primarily on embedded trainers. However, I don't see that as sufficient to instill a sense of nation in the ISF, and as you say, without that, we might as well pack up and go home.

Robert Dare:

Sure. But since Bush is embracing it now, the question becomes what happens in a year and a half to the McCain Doctrine if it demonstrates itself (as it will in all likelihood) to be yet another miserable failure?

Part of me wants the Democrats to grow a tremendous spine and use all the tools at their disposal to deny Bush the opportunity to surge. That would be the morally and strategically correct thing to do IMHO. But another part of me wants to see this pipe dream delegitimated in the worst way, so McCain can't stand up there and say "well if the Congress had assented to what I wanted to do, things in Iraq might be different." That's the beginning of another Vietnam-esque Dolschtosslegende -- and it is so pernicious an untestable counterfactual that I *almost* think it would be worth it to do the surge, just to lay that potential myth on the graveyard where it rightfully belongs ...

Besides, if Bush surges and it prangs, then the Democrats can come out much more united and strong for withdrawal, with every conceivable military option (save, of course, the sane ones recommended by the ISG that Bush wouldn't touch with a ten-foot memory of his daddy's tarnished legacy) tried and failed ...

Bob

Time to try to reverse the damage this administration has done, the sky really is falling, with mounting losses. It is time to map an exit from Iraq and stop fueling an image of America as having macho face-offs and a stomp 'em and rule 'em foreign policy. We know the burden of this war has fallen on a group of volunteers sent back to the carnage and time again.
It is too bad the administration's war mongerers think so little of diplomacy. They want war, all war, all the time.
Democrats will be exercising their oversight functions, Senator Leahy has already been pressing for documents and memoranda and it will be much harder for the administration to resist requests. Onward with subpoenas to compel them.

The one you are missing was set in motion by Johnah Goldbergs hero Pinochet. Chilean agents orchestrated the Washington, DC car-bomb murder of Orlando Letelier and one of his collegues.

Hey CWA - I tried to send you a link last night and it bounced back. If you send me an email to this address I'll try again.

Lugar has been critical of Bush Iraq policy from the start. I heard Lugar give a speech in Feb of 2003 when he complained about Bush not briefing the Senate about the cost of the war or what was the post war plan. Lugar consistently complained that the Senate was being cut out of the loop.

However, like all GOP chairmen, Lugar was limited in what he could do. Last time he bucked the party, they gave his Foreign Relations chair to Jesse Helms. The GOP Leadership holds the Chairmen to the Party line. Lugar has always had to fight against his party to fund the Nunn-Lugar program for securing WMD in the FSU, a highly successful program that was always opposed by the wingnuts. What could do more for our securing than making sure that nukes are securely guarded and not on the open market?

BTW- Lugar won election unopposed this year, so he is not up for another 6 years.

has407:

Except in a way, what Kagan's advocating is the worst of all possible worlds. To further "partner" with the ISF, to mix batteries so it's Iraqis fighting alongside of Americans rather than with a handful of embedded advisors, only makes the ISF look that much more like a tool of the hated occupier. Since America didn't invade Iraq at the behest of any indigenous Iraqis (leaving aside, of course, the filthy rich expats), there's no way that the Iraqis read America's presence as a positive thing -- save in very narrow, contingent, sectarian terms. The Sunnis want us to protect them from the growing power of the Shi'ites and the Shi'ites want us to banish Sunni revanchism.

So what happens when we finally leave (or at least leave in significant numbers)? Do the Iraqi people stop viewing the ISF as a tool of a foreign occupier? Will it be seen as a force for Iraqi unity -- or just, in the best case, as the strongest oppressor on the block?

The only possible chance for the former to happen is to compel Sunnis and Kurds to intermix in all ISF units as befits their proportion in the population.

Anybody have the tiniest clue on how to accomplish that?

Bob

Of course, Lugar will never get that call. The petulant frat boy that loves playing president would never be able to stand the scrutiny that would be given to any (cough) plan that he would submit to the Foreign Relations Committee. If he can't take the random criticism that comes with unscreened audiences and "free speech zones" located well away from his appearances, he certainly cannot take questions and comments that do directly to the foundation of his strategery.

Many months ago I wrote to my Senator (Warner) and asked him to take Lugar and Shelby in to see if they could talk sense to Junior; like was done with Nixon. All I got was a form letter about how he supports the troops.

I’m sure Tony Snow’s spin on this new morbid milestone will be, �Its only a number�.

Bob -- Kagan's proposal does include a "Phase I", which as far as I can tell, dispenses with the ISF (at least for anything critical; the full report won't be issued until Jan 5 '07; their interim presentation is available here). However, that is by inference, as "Phase II" includes "Training of the Iraqi police" and "Training of Iraqi Army forces".

So in a do-over, it appears to look something like.... (1) conduct counterinsurgency operations using (primarily?) US forces and establish stability and peackeeping operations using (primarily?) US forces; (2) train and integrate the ISF with US forces; (3) turn over operations to the ISF.

The obvious question, as you suggest (and which Lugar hints at), is: What will make this any different than the last umpteen months? IF there was sufficient force and time given to stablization, AND IF that won the support of the majority of the Iraqi populace, AND IF sufficient time was given to carefully integrate the ISF and inculcate a sense of nation, THEN it might work.

However, Kagan's proposal suggests that turnover to the ISF would start to occur in early 2008 (and incidentally that US cadualties would increase through mid-late 2007). I doubt that's near enough time, even if the Americam public has the patience, and even if everything else went perfectly.

Bush likes to ignore Congress, and Congress likes to abdicate their authority to Bush so that they do not have to endure the inconvenience of having to be held accountable for what happens to the country.

Democrats and Republicans alike bitch and moan about how Bush "lied" to them about the Iraq War, but anyone who had access to a library and some common sense would have been able to realize that invading Iraq was a bad idea. It is true that Bush often ignores Congress; it is true that Congress, including most Democrats, allow Bush to ignore them. If they actually challenged Bush, they would have to be held accountable for their positions. And that's the last thing the likes of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry would want.

Back in 2003 the administration could have gone to the United Nations for peace keeping and security in Iraq, had Mr. Bush swallowed his Texas sized pride. Back then the strains were showing, with about half of the army in Iraq, Afganistan, Kosovo and Korea. Even then soldiers who had been told they were coming home had their stays extended.
I saw something this week--a political cartoon with Bush the chimp saying "After 9/11, I didn't want to see another 3000 innocent Americans die on US soil."
Then he says "Iraqi soil is fine."
The new twin towers--those killed on nine-one-one and those killed in Iraq.

What does it all mean?
?!
Posted by: NeilB. on December 31, 2006 at 2:38 PM |

Just that the use of prepositions in Indo-European is as idiomatic as it is in Semitic. If you're interested in serious linguistic theology, try Sanskrit.

Bob wrote: Part of me wants the Democrats to grow a tremendous spine and use all the tools at their disposal to deny Bush the opportunity to surge. That would be the morally and strategically correct thing to do IMHO. But another part of me wants to see this pipe dream delegitimated in the worst way, so McCain can't stand up there and say "well if the Congress had assented to what I wanted to do, things in Iraq might be different."

Global posted about this idea (either here, or on her own great site) and I agree with her thought. While politically it may be tempting to let them proceed with the Bush/McCain escalation and watch it fail, that failure, morally, becomes despicable as thousands (or tens of thousands) will pay the ultimate price for the political victory.

There must be some way to demonstrate the folly of this entire proposal without the needless destruction of more lives (American or Iraqi).

> "Phase II" includes "Training of the Iraqi police" and "Training of Iraqi Army forces".

Ah yes... 'Vietnamization'... I remember now. That worked out really well.

Oops wait, I mean to say Iraqi-ization. It doesn't have the same roll off the tongue though.

Anybody have the tiniest clue on how to accomplish that?

Bob, my thinking is that we don't have a clue as to how to accomplish that... or anything else in Iraq. We do not have credibility with any group of Iraqis and even if we did, every strategy would just be a wild-ass guess.

Do you really trust your judgement with regard to effecting any particular outcome in Iraq? I don't trust mine. Even the Iraqis probably have no idea what's going to happen if we stay, if we leave, or anything in between.

That's one reason I think it's ridiculous to remain as the strongest military power who is going to be blamed for every outcome, for every disaster, every death and injury.

Let's quit playing God and get out.

Thanks for the hat-tip Bigcat. I've been screaming about it here, on my site, at The Left Coaster - everywhere I go I leave a trail of angry pixels. Here's an excerpt from my post:

When they talk about a surge, they are talking about escalation. Call it what it is. It's a troop buildup and the result will be an escalation of hostilities. The result will be ramped up death and destruction. The result will be bloody fucking chaos and we can not stand by and let this happen.

I am hearing people on the left say that we should let them have their "surge" and when it fails the Republicans will be done for decades.

What utterly crass and craven perfidy.

No one, and I do mean no one, who has ever put on the uniform or loved someone who did can stomach the thought that anyone would view the life of a single troop as expendable in the interest of some future election.

When I hear people on the left spout such nonsense, I die a little inside. They are no better than the "repukliscum" they scorn.

Human life is not cheap, and we can't cure "dead" you know.

constantine, i was just strolling through the comments, but i can't help but not, as someone who engaged in many a debate with the real Al, that the guy who posts over at matthew's place IS the original, real Al who prompted a large number of fake Als to respond.

The real Al is actually a lawyer, a father of a young child, a serious and knowledgable sports fan, and a conservative lout who, nonetheless, isn't completely off the deep end....

I agree about the surge, GC. Is it not ironic that many people tried to tell Bush for a long time that there were not enough troops to even have a chance to succeed?

Now, after all this time, he wants a pathetically piddlin increase that will mean nothing except a few more targets and a little more incentive for the American haters over there.

Here is the contact information for the incoming chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. Senator Levin can be reached by clicking here, and Congressman Skelton can be reached by clicking here.

If you look at the left margin of my site I have links posted to every single House and Senate committee.

Please! Oh, please propose tax increases! I'm going to take your post and print it out and show it to my family egbert humpabush at 4:57 PM

Lugar's voting record doesn't seem all that independent to me.

Robert Dare: I agree that McCain's assent is dangerous and we should remain alert. He has been part of the intentional misrepresentation of this war.
It's all the president's men. McCain is one of them. Propaganda can't hide the facts. He stands for deepening the occupation regieme in Iraq.
McCain masquerades as a moderate. He probably buys into the dream that a democratic Iraq can be an outcome. He has clearly been a part of the bush doctrine in Iraq.
As a POW, you'd think he'd have argued with the president to televise flag draped coffins.
He is part of the can't do government--while people died in New Orleans, McCain was sharing cake with Bush in a photo-op in Arizona. Wrong priorities. McCain was part of the lifestyles of the rich and heartless that day.
And McCain was up front and personal at the over-the-top 2005 inaugural festivities that cost $ 40 million, not including security costs. Jimmy Carter had pretzels, cheese and crackers and peanuts at his inaugural ball.

Red has a wonderful article on the real state of affairs on the home front. Bigcat says it : her site is only short of visitors : content is ready.
GC is bluegalinaredstate.blogspot.com

howard:

I don't remember the original Al, but the Al who's been here like clockwork for a little over a year that I've seen seems to be consistent (though there are a few obvious fake Al's thrown in the mix, of course). This Al has claimed to be a Texas university bureaucrat and most often dutifully posts links to wingnut twaddle it's difficult to believe any lefty parodist would stomach to read, let alone google just for the sake of backstopping the boilerplate. This is why I'm fairly convinced that we do have a "real" Al on board here -- even if he's not the "original Al."

It's entirely possible, after all, for two antediluvian conservatives to share the same common first name ...

Globe:

Well, I'm not one to toss around terms like "repukeliscum," as you know. And I am most assuredly morally and strategically opposed to a surge, as I mentioned. I'm really not attempting to be Machiavellian here and game this out politically, for politics' sake, only. I do, however, have a very serious concern which is well-grounded in history.

After WW1, the punitive terms of Versailles gave rise to the original "stab in the back legend," which Hitler skillfully exploited. After Chaing Kai Shek lost to Mao, the right became obsessed with "who lost China," and that concern both hounded Truman and helped give rise to the career of Joe McCarthy. Later, those concerns became paramount in the escalation of and agonizing inability of Johnson to come to terms with the Vietnam war. After Nixon bowed to the inevitable, a fresh Dolschtosslegende was born about how the politicians and Walter Cronkite tied the troops' hands behind their backs. And so the Gulf War was supposed to exorcise the "Vietnam syndrome." On to the current fiasco -- which is the Vietnam syndrome's revenge on steroids.

All of these things: the terms of Versallies, the failure of Chaing, the cost in blood and treasure of Vietnam to little strategic gain -- are followed by what-if alternative scenarios. "If only the ... " These are counterfactuals, and thus entirely invalid except as idle speculation. History is not made by what-if's. But the problem is, they create an extremely compelling narrative in the public mind.

If the Democrats block the surge (as they well ought to) and, through whatever measures, force Bush's hand to begin withdrawal, nobody expects a miraculous outcome. Things in Iraq will doubtless continue to get worse. All I'm saying is that in a year and a half, this will allow McCain to make a case that if the cut-and-run Congress had only followed his wise advice, the outcome might have been different. And as totally unprovable as that is -- it's something a large chunk of the public is going to buy into: McCain would have brought us victory.

Yes, it's total unprovable bullshit. All Dolschtosslegendes are total unprovable bullshit based on wounded pride and wishful thinking.

But it's something that we as Democrats are going to have to contend with -- and contend with vigorously -- if we manage to do the right thing. It will assuredly make the '08 election harder than it would've been otherwise, and probably require a candidate with strong military credentials to counter it.

All I'm saying is that we need to be prepared for it, and not get sucked into the trap of dismissing it out-of-hand because it's just, you know, unprovable bullshit.

Politics subsists on memes which successfully propogate, whether true or not.

Let's not make Kerry's mistake with the Swift Boaters.

Bob

Global Citizen--powerful and passionate year-end post. It is strong and resonating and awesome.

Bob: All I'm saying is that in a year and a half, this will allow McCain to make a case that if the cut-and-run Congress had only followed his wise advice, the outcome might have been different.

This defensive mindset is wrong. The American public has obviously lost trust in the administration's ability to successfully prosecute the war in Iraq, and the ties to the GWT have grown palpably thin (as the 2006 midterms show).

It is appropriate to hammer the questions home: Why do the proponents think a "surge"--or any new strategy--will succeed? Regardless of the huh-rah, fear, and jingoism, I think the American public wants specifics: what is expected to accomplished; how it is to be accomplished; when it is to be accomplished; and why it will result in a different outcome?

Stripped to their essence, all of the proposals (at least that I have read) are less convincing as a "Strategy for Success", and more fear-mongering about "Why We Cannot Afford to Fail"; that action, regardless of chance for succcess, is better than the current trajectory, which guarantees failure.

If so, then let the proponents make the case to the American public of what is at stake, and the sacrifices necessary. They haven't made that case yet, either in deed or word, and I don't think they can make the case--or at least make it in a way that the American public will buy... Certainly not this made-up on-the-cheap bullshit that passes for war, but war backed by the full power, will, commitment and sacifice of the country.

That means the whole country--not just those in our volunteer armed services.

rmck1, i suppose, for the sake of clarity, i should call him the "original" Al; the Al that posts here now is real enough, although i can't decide if he's a parody or telling us what actually passes through his mind.

egbert, on the other hand, is a true fuckwit....

has407:

Well, I certainly don't disagree with you in substance. A surge is nothing more than the final Hail Mary pass that the military can try to throw. It positively reeks of desperation, borne of the fearmongering scenarios regarding "what may happen if we fail."

And for these reasons, I question whether or not the proposal is sincere and not meant as a political head fake. Does Bush genuinely believe the military has the wherewithal to pull it off in the immediate term? Does the top brass? Does McCain? Surely they know how strongly most if not all of the Democrats (and more than a couple Republicans) are going to object to this -- and in the House, up to and including grabbing the purse strings.

But it's extremely easy to spin dire scenarios about what may happen if we "lose Iraq." And there's a heart-wrenching Gresham's Law aspect regarding all the soldiers we've already lost. You know, I just read the NYT cover story on the 3000 dead, and you think about these kids and what they believed they were doing over there ... you hear comments from parents of recently-dead soldiers who are incredulous at the idea of pulling out of Iraq; it's tantamount to telling them that their child died in vain ...

I don't know how to answer this. Of course I disagree with it both politically and philosophically -- but emotionally, it's an extremely powerful argument, especially coupled with all the aforementioned geostrategic fearmongering. Not a correct argument -- but a politically salient one, for reasons of pride (false and otherwise) and the need to justify such sacrifice.

I guess I plead guilty to having something of a defensive mindset about this. I recall what happened to John Kerry when he felt he could "rise above" the Swift Boaters and they pummeled him at what was supposed to be his strong point. Or maybe it's better to call it knowing how to play a good defense rather than being defensive. We war opponents have nothing to be defensive about -- you are absolutely correct that the ball's in the court of the McCainiacs to justify in *positive terms* what exactly a surge would accomplish, and I hope like hell the Democrats hash this out vigorously and get a cogent answer.

But we also need to have a response ready if Bush and/or McCain don't get all they requested from the military and McCain tries to paint this as the fault of Congress for being "weak kneed" -- because otherwise we we could've prevailed.

That's really the only thing I'm trying to say here.

And on this less-than-joyous note -- a Happy New Year to all on Political Animal. May this year bring more blessings to our battered national spirit than the six previous ones.

Bob

I think Bob has a point. Perhaps if we had been more mindfull of the "stab in the back" meme after Vietnam, it would have been harder for Bush to put through this invasion. I cannot count the number of "centrists" who explained very seriously that they just couldn't bear to be on the same side as the DFHs (as Atrios calls them).

I want out of Iraq yesterday. But I also want to accomplish it in a way that makes the next invasion of a "crappy third world country" harder to push through.

Bob: That's really the only thing I'm trying to say here.

Got it, and though I agree with your sentiment in general, there's a time to stick to principles, just as McCain et. al. feel it is theirs; maybe we'll pay the price in the short term, but it's the long term that matters... I won't say more, as I've inbibed too much and am much too angry... So Happy New Year! May 2007 bring more joy to everyone!

has407: If so, then let the proponents make the case to the American public of what is at stake, and the sacrifices necessary. They haven't made that case yet, either in deed or word, and I don't think they can make the case--or at least make it in a way that the American public will buy...

While I've previously said I don't support a Bush/McCain escalation, I think Bob is quite correct regarding the Versailles/Chinese/Vietnamese angle on this. The case may be won with the American public now. However, years from now the public mindset may be quite different and the refusal to allow an escalation could be used against Dems.

That's why I earlier said this: There must be some way to demonstrate the folly of this entire proposal without the needless destruction of more lives (American or Iraqi). I just don't have any good answers to that puzzler.

It's not necessarily the "surge" in Iraq that bothers me.

It's the "surge" into Iran that the neo-con nuts have long planned as part of their extreme makeover of the Middle East that has me wondering about the sanity of Bush and all the trolls.

Iraq is a disaster (except to the war profiteers who've been making out like bandits).

Attacking Iran would be a mega-disaster (except once again for the war profiteers, like Dick Cheney and his sick ilk).

One of the only ways to possibly thwart this BushCo preemptive "surge" into Iran would be for Democrats to reaffirm the U.S. Congress' constitutional authority over war declarations and the waging of war in the name of all American citizens.

This should be the first order of business later this week when Congress reconvenes. Democrats must pass a law (not just a resolution) telling Bush and Cheney that they better seek Congressional approval before starting any more wars with any other countries, or impeachment hearings will begin immediately after the first bombs drop on Iran.

No waffling. No flip-flopping. An ultimatum must be given BushCo by the incoming Democratic Party-controlled Congress that either BushCo starts honoring and obeying the U.S. Constitution, or the culprits in the White House will be removed from office. Simple. Straightforward. And specific.

Plus, some provision must be present in this law that even if there is a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident out in the Persian Gulf off the Iranian coast, BushCo still has to get authorization from the U.S. Congress before any bombs are dropped.

No more Wild West outlaw antics by Bush and Cheney. The Democratic Party posse is about to ride into town, and lasso these varmints...I hope.

The only plan I can formulate involves stealing my neighbors DeLorean (he would never sell it), getting has407 to develop the flux capacitor, and we steal some plutonium or harness a lightning strike...

Globe:

Ha! (hic) That made me laugh (why the fook does "gh" have an "f" sound?)

Happy phucking partially correctely spelled New fucking (champaigne-druken) Year!

Shit -- I typo all over the place, but when I *want* to misspell words for *effect*, I'm like fucking Webster's. What the fuck's up with *that*?

And I *am* pretty drunken on champaigne ...

Bob

EmmaAnne:

DFH?

Dumb fucking humanist?

Bob

Happy New Year, Bob.

2006 is not a year I'm sad to see go.

See you in the daylight. I have to call my sister in eight minutes to wish her "Happy Birthday" at the moment of her birth. That's the tradition in our family.

Oracle, Who's going to sign that law the Dems come up with into effect? Pelosi? Reid? Last time I looked, any new law needed a presidential signiture. And the new Congress doesn't have a veto proof majority to override the assured veto. Where does that leave you?

Globe:

Happy New Year to you, the Major, your kvell-worthy children and the rest of your meshuganah fambily (even -- especially -- the Israelis).

Bob

meatss:

You know, I'm drunk off my ass right now and I can still fucking *spell* words in the English language.

"Signiture"? You ought to be *ashamed*, my man ...

Bob

has407:

I absolutely agree with you that it's the long term and not the short term that matters.

And that's why I'm a Howard Dean man now and forever.

DON'T FUCK WITH THE LITTLE DOCTOR FROM VERMONT !

And on that note -- goodnight and HAPPY FUCKING NEW YEAR TO ALL !!!

Bob

bigcat -- Agree; there must be a way, although I don't see it, other than the obvious, which warns of political suicicde (hmmm... is that so bad?); I won't go any farther today, as--to quote Bob--I'm drunk off my ass right now. The only thing that comes to mind is "May the Right Prevail!" (which somehow seems wrong). Beyond that I have little to offer, other than Happy New Year! And I hope I have more constructive suggestions tomorrow.

has407 - I sent you an email to make you chuckle before bed.

And Good Night and Good Year to you Bob!

You'll either be deeply disturbed, or comforted, by the creativity of mind displayed by those in charge of the Nuclear Arsenal...

Global Citizen - Thanks... look forward to it... my machine's cranking... damn thing is on it's last legs (laptop fan going out of all things) and the replacement won't arrive for another week. And me, the uber-geek, stuck without a replacement (shame on me). In case I don't get back until then... Happy New Years to Yours and Major Tom!

Happy New Year to you too. And I hope you don't wake up hangin'.

I look forward to just what you have to say about what I emailed you. It's a story I widh I could disseminate more widely, but you'll see why i can't.

btw - I have a backup machine, but the last time this one went down, it died the next day.

Now it happily humming away in the next room running models in Linux...

Okay, that wasn't speed-typing and I haven't had a drink in years...

I guess I'm tired.

Goodnight everyone. See you in the daylight.

Oh, yeah - Happy New Year to one and all!

Oh yeah, I remember Richard Lugar. He impressed me back in the 80's.

It's a shame he wasn't around in 2001-6. If he'd been chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he could have helped us avoid the mess we're in.

Oh, wait....

Isn't it interesting how he seems to have re-discovered his testicles now that the Dems have the majority?

grytpype wrote:

Instead, they offer these pussified half-measures. Another 20,000 troops will not be enough to win, and maybe some of them know it. But that's all they're asking for. It's like they don't want to win, or like Bush, they just want to kick the can down the road for a few more months or years before we are forced to withdraw in defeat. I don't get it.

I think Josh Marshall has a good handle on it:

No actual policy or strategic imperative is driving the move to escalate the conflict in Iraq. The real causes are political and psychological.

To put it simply, the presidential is neither psychologically nor politically capable of leaving Iraq. The 2006 election made it clear the current course can't be sustained politically. Even his own party won't back it. That leaves escalation as the only alternative. All that's left is a rationale for doing so. And that's what the president is now working on.

josh...And that's what the president is now working on.

that and beating his old time on the moutain bike..

gwb '07: pedal faster

Lugar is not holding his breath waiting for a call. Lugar is creating his own political space by conveying to the administration what it needs to do if it does not want hearings and investigations. This way, when the inevitable hearings happen, Lugar will remind the administration that they were warned this would happen and Lugar will be free to participate and work with Biden.

Lugar's hold on Foreign Relations is tenuous because he is out of step with the GOP Conservative leadership. For instance, Lugar always has to fight the conservatives in his own party to try to fund his vaunted Nunn-Lugar FSU nuke elimination program.

The Dems should offer Lugar to fully fund Nunn-Lugar in exchange for going along with Iraq hearings. That would be a win-win for us.

But Al doesn't give off parody vibes -- except the sardonic variety as an unintentional self-parody.

Sir, what do you call a creature incapable of learning from his past mistakes?

Ah, well. Happy new year, filthy liberals. May 2007 free you from class envy, give you respect for your betters, inspire your submission to the invisible hand, create a fledgling desire for employment and force you to take a few hot baths. With soap. Stolen from two-bit chain hotels, if you must.

Norman Rogers:

For a number of reasons I've elucidated in this thread, the Al who posts at the top of threads and doesn't engage us in debate does not give off parody vibes.

YMMV, I suppose.

And Happy New Year to you and yours, old bean.

Bob

Moderator!

I have been spoofed at precisely 11:43 this AM, Eastern time, and I will NOT tolerate it!

When Mr. Drum returns, he shall be hearing from a lawyer hired by me to ensure that my work on the Internet is unfettered by liberals and the like.

Mr. RmCk1, I don't know who you are, sir, but it sounds like you just carried on a debate with a parody over what constitutes a parody after demonstrating that you do not know what a parody is. What a sad way to begin the new year. Your ideology is collapsing into irrelevance, your blind support of the likes of Howard Dean make you a laughable target of bullying from even the weakest of the weak and your command of the obvious resembles that of a ship's captain sinking his own boat on a sand bar at high noon.

Moderator! I demand you moderate this spoof post off into the oblivion it so richly deserves!

Oh, moderator, cancel that!

Ignore an old man's petulant rumblings, will you? I'm not myself today, due to a gargantuan January 1 headache attributable not to demon rum, but to a slight overestimation of my facility with a limbo pole. Your Uncle Norman's new year's date was a charming, charming young lady, worth every cent I paid for her, which is considerably more than a couple dozen of your readers could come up with if they pooled their miserable resources by canceling their Mother Jones subscriptions, selling their Diet Mountain Dew cans at the Libbie Recycling Center, selling sperm to undiscriminating Heather's mommy wannabes and what have you.

And you wonder why your new year's noisemakers give off the flat toot of abject failure!

MODERATOR!!!

I have been spoofed again! This must stop! This agression WILL NOT STAND!!!

4:39PM, oh, if I find the liberal who is spoofing me, there will be lawsuits filed and many a litigator will burn the midnight oil on the case that I bring against you all!

It grieves me, moderator, to have to report that I am being parodied by some person who--yes, it's too shaming--claims to be the real me while caterwauling like a 16-year-old girl. No one could possibly fall for the 5:40 express out of Track Big Zero, Grand Liberal Whiner Central. My contributions are wholly unique and I dare, yes, dare any of you to craft a convincing facsimile.

Ignore this poor deranged individual, if you please, and let's get on with the business of the new year: determining how to maximize profit opportunities created by Mr. Bush's far-seeing surge. There's plenty of return for those not afraid of the hard work of moving around a few investments, but it requires diligence and stick-to-it-ness in quantities not usually found in the American Dumbocrat.

Moderator!!!

Why hast thou forsaken me?

You waste your time, lefty wretch. No one would ever believe that the drama queen posting at 8:07 is Norman Rogers, savvy businessman, hit with the ladies and humble servant of the Libertarian Party.

Moderation, you have failed to stop that which humiliates me.

My mouthpiece will be getting a nice retainer in the morning, and then the suing will begin, and oh won't we be soiling ourselves when the first subpoena is hurled through your ma-ma's front window...

9:44? You guessed it, boys and girls. Fake.

I have my suspicions about who's doing this, but prefer to keep my cards close to the vest until my good friend verifies them.

I'm off to bed now--last night was lovely and luscious but long--so any posts signed "Norman Rogers" after this will be ersatz.

Indiana isn't really a reliably red state. It almost always votes Rep for president, but we had 16 years of Dem governors until this last election, the General Assembly is completely divided-- the majority changes every election-- and we just had 3 Dems beat Rep incumbents in the Nov 6 congressional election.

In truth, Lugar has a totally safe Senate seat (as does Evan Bayh, the other senator), and one of the enduring mysteries is why he bothered to carry Bush's dirty water as long as he did. It wasn't so that he'd get re-elected-- his seat is one of the safest in the country. He just didn't have the moral courage to be candid and buck his own party. And if he wouldn't do it... I don't see any Republicans with real consciences, because it would not have hurt him politically. (It's not because he's Rep that he gets re-elected... we just like boring senators, witness the Dem Evan Bayh. :)

Moderator, thou hast failed me...