On Wednesday in Kuwait, Spc. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard posed this zinger to the Secretary of Defense:

“Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?“

To which the ever reassuring Rumsfeld replied: “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have . . . . You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up.“

Today in India, the Secretary Don had this to say to reporters when he was asked about Spc. Wilson:

"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know, and that's a good thing.“

Translation: Somebody better silence that son of a bitch.

UPDATE: 9:34 PM: That damned liberal media.  There's one way to pierce the bubble.  Unfortunately, now the focus in the media will be on the ethics of reporters, rather than the plight of our soldiers.

Gerry Spence, the greatest living trial lawyer and champion of the underdog, has written an amusing, but quite convincing, first-person narrative about the 2004 election.  Keep in mind that Spence lives and practices law in Wyoming, a state redder than a Maraschino cherry, land of Matthew Shepard's murderers, where GOP politicians roam as freely as the buffalo, deer, and antelope.  The “voice” in his narrative is the type of person who has frequented Spence's juries for more than 50 years.  He knows folks like these well.  And I daresay he'd be the first to tell you that nobody can win over a person who carries these kinds of deep-rooted prejudice.

Democratic candidates for office take notice.  Forget about winning over these voters.  Do not compromise.  Appeal to the center and the left and take no prisoners.

Josh Marshall today hit it on the head and explained exactly why the Democratic position must be that Iraq was wrong, but that eliminating the radical Islamic terror threat is important, regardless of whether it is as big as popular opinion seems to think it. 

According to Josh, unlike the Cold War threat from the totalitarian Soviets:

Placing context or limits on the danger posed by Islamic terrorism is a hazardous business these days. But unlike communism in 1947, militant Islam simply does not pose an existential threat to our civilization. It just doesn’t. It puts us all physically at risk. And especially for those of us who live in DC, New York or other major urban areas, it could kill us tomorrow.

But aside from middle eastern immigrants in western countries, this ideology has close to no support anywhere outside the Muslim world. As an ideology it controls at best a few small states; and it has possible access to Pakistan's small nuclear arsenal. But where is the danger of the Islamist takeover of any of the world’s great powers? China? The US? Europe? India? Japan? Brazil? Will Germany or Canada becomes ‘finlandized’ by Islamist power? That doesn’t mean the danger doesn’t exist, only that it’s different. And those are fundamental differences we shouldn’t ignore.

These tensions explain exactly why we had problems in this electoral cycle on the Presidential level. 

Its one of the best posts of the year and worth at least one read.

I've never seen it put better.  I've been trying to put my finger on what has happened to me poltically over the last few years.  Finally, Kevin Drum hits the spot: The Radicalization of the Center-Left.  Yep, that's me!

Who is most responsible for the Iraq mess?  Karl Rove is.

For those who see the war as a singular mistake, the question of responsibility looms large.  Who or what was responsible?  What systemic or other failure allowed this blunder to go forward and redefine the meaning of military error?  How can future mistakes like the Iraq Invasion be prevented in future?

These questions will be of deep interest to future history professors.  More importantly, these questions are critically important to today's foreign-policy debates.

Karl Rove is the single biggest reason for our predicament in Mesopotamia today.  Let me explain how:

Rove's political strategy works by taking an emotional issue, taking a strong stand on it, and squeezing all straddle out of the issue.  The Administration's stand on the Iraq war was no different.  Its positions were staked out aggressively and all of the pulpit power of a wartime president was used to pressure the war's opponents, both principled and practical.

The result was predictable.  First, public opponents of the war found themselves isolated by the tough rhetoric of the President, whose advisers whipped up fear with statements such as Condi Rice's now infamous Meet the Press whopper:  "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."   Public opinion echoed the sentiments as this post from Shape of Days a mere week after Rice's comments shows:

There's no middle ground. There's no "maybe." We, the civilized peoples of the world, commit ourselves to the goal of wiping terrorism as a practice from the face of the earth in our generation. And you are either with us, or against us.

Real criticism was moved to the sidelines.  In the media, doubters were relegated to back pages, while those who held their nose and printed lies spread by operators like Ahmad Chalabi made the ledes.  No wonder the Iraq war had a healthy 72-25 advantage in a  3/22-23/03 Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll.  Rational discourse and expectations regarding the war became hard to come by. 

But the “You're with us or against us” political strategy had a even more corrosive effect on the internal debate about the war and the post-war planning within the Bush Administration.  James Fallows in his brilliant “Blind Into Baghdad” piece (sorry subscription only) in the Atlantic Monthly detailed how those who asserted that post-war planning should plan for every eventuality were dismissed as being against the war.  The result was that post-war planning was largely ignored.

Thus, although Rove's strategy of picking an emotional issue, the defense of the United States, taking a strong position on that issue, and squeezing out all of the middle ground available worked wonders for generating political support for the war, it destroyed the kind of robust debate needed to present serious questions about the war's utility and wiped out the planning for the peace.

The next question to be asked is what to do if it happens again?  With the White House rumbling about Syria and Iran, figuring out how to stop another train wreck becomes a priority.

The answer lies in old-fashioned, under-the-radar politics.  Although open dissent is important, our current position is difficult because of lack of leadership offices at the federal level.  Furthermore, anyone arguing against aggressive foreign policy moves being made against a foreign state risks political ruin because of appearing disloyal.

What is needed is a conduit to get to the Republican leaders in Washington.  The way to reach them is through their most powerful constituency, Corporate America.  There is no doubt that expanded war in the Middle East will hurt corporate bottom lines due to high oil prices, uncertainty, and the required runaway borrowing needed to finance more adventures.

The Democratic leadership must therefore approach the leaders of big American corporations and make a pitch for a more restrained foreign policy that is good for the economy.  These leaders have real pull with the Republicans and can move forward a rational foreign policy agenda at a time when no rational answers seem to be forthcoming from the majority party.

Will it work?  Only time will tell.

Meeting with some of America's finest, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld got a shock today when the soldiers began to talk back.  In a Q & A sesssion,  Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the  278th Regimental Combat Team, made up mostly of Army National Guard soldiers from Tennessee, asked:

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?"

The crowd's response?  2,300 U.S. servicemen and women let out a big Army cheer.

Why can't the press ask these kinds of questions?

Barack Obama, yesterday at the Gridiron Club in D.C.--commenting on how people in his father's native Kenya think that his election would mean the building of billions of dollars in new roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools in their country. (Chicago Tribune, registration required).

"So I've tried to explain how it works these days," he said. "First comes the invasion, and then billions in aid."

Mark Schmitt over at the Decembrist has a very good post today about how Democrats need to think about their duties as an opposition party.  Being an opposition party is not so much about opposing everything that comes down the pike, but taking apart Republican proposal, magnifying the most ridiculous elements of them and then constantly making the Republicans defend those proposals.  Obviously there is a lot of material out there right now and as Mark points out, just as Republicans mastered this technique during the Clinton administration and its fertile territory for Democrats if they decide to step up.  I mention this because after the last election it seems that many in leadership position in the Democratic party are more content thinking that they retain some vestige of being a majority party or still have some input in the legislative process and are not sure how to reframe upcoming debates in their favor.  This is like continually apologizing for nominating George McGovern in 1972, when the real damage to the country was done by Richard Nixon's second term.  Remember, just playing defense gets us nothing.  Make the Republicans defend their policy proposals, and a healthy dose of ridule or mockery goes a long way!

Kevin Drum takes this approach and suggests we need to make conservative bloggers defend, or own, the more ridiculous positions taken by very radical elements of the Republican coalition.  They have Whoopi Goldberg to ridicule, why shouldn't we have Pat Robertson?  Give it a read and for that matter, try it out yourself.  After all, being on offense never means you have to say your sorry!  Damn the torpedoes...let's head right for them!

From Today's White House Press Conference with General Scott “Little Mac“ McClellan:

Q Scott, a highly reliable source tells me that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is displeased that the fact that he's staying on was announced by a "senior administration official," and that he would like the President to announce it formally. Does the President plan to do so?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President is not making any change. The President asked Secretary Rumsfeld to continue to serve in the administration last week, during their regular weekly meeting. The President is pleased that Secretary Rumsfeld agreed to stay on in that position. Secretary Rumsfeld is someone who is providing very strong leadership during a time of war. We remain a nation at war, as Goyal brought up, and the President appreciates the fact that he's agreed to serve as a member of his team and looks forward to continuing to work with him to make the world a safer and better place.

Q Can you say the same thing about Treasury Secretary John Snow?

Q Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday that he wanted the President to submit a list of potential Supreme Court nominees to be considered when a vacancy occurs. This seems to suggest the Democrats feel they have a mandate to continue obstruction of judges, since they only lost four Senate seats instead of the nine that would constitute a filibuster-proof minority -- majority, I'm sorry. Is the President likely to pre-approve Court nominees with the minority Democrats in the Senate?

Yep.  Skipped right over the question about Snow.  They don't even try denials anymore.  They just hang you out to dry.

Some commentators and bloggers look at the numbers of American dead in Iraq, compare them to the numbers of dead in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War and try to make the case that the situation is not as bad as in those other conflicts.  According to these commentators, the “low number” of dead in Iraq relative to other wars is evidence that we are succeeding there. 

However, comparing the statistics from these wars paints a false picture of what is really going on in Iraq because our medical care is far more advanced.  According the U.S. Army Medical Command, the ratio of killed to wounded was one to three in World War II, and one to four in both Korea and Vietnam.  That means that the number of U.S. soldiers, airmen and Marines dead is lower per combat engagement than in other wars and that comparing the number of killed in action by war does not show what the true intensity of combat operations in Iraq really is.

A quick look at the numbers shows that the intensity of combat operations in Iraq is far greater than the number of dead might indicate.  As of this writing, the number of U.S. military personnel killed by enemy fire in Iraq is 1106.  The number of causalities from Operation Iraqi Freedom processed by Landstuhl Military Hospital in Germany by the end of November, 2004 was 17,868.  The number of troops listed as wounded-returned-to-duty (returned to action within 72 hours) at the end November, 2004 was 4503.  All told, this adds up to 22,371. 

If our troops had only the medical care of the World War II, G.I., there would be approximately 7,457 Americans killed in action to this point in the war.  If our medical care in Iraq was only as good as our medical care in Korea or Vietnam, 5593 U.S. troops would have been killed in Iraq today.

These back-of-the-napkin figures indicate that Operation Iraqi Freedom is not going well at all.  Were the numbers anywhere near what they were in Vietnam, Korea, or World War II, the political landscape in this country and in Iraq would be far different. 

Ted Kennedy was right.  Iraq is George W. Bush's Vietnam.  He just has better P.R. than LBJ.

Oh Lord, please explain to me why I can't get enough of Not Nick Nolte's Diary, formerly known as Nick Nolte's Diary.  Perhaps it has something to do with lines like this:

The moon lorded over the ocean like a obscenity.

Washington Times Headline Watch: Bush Seeks 'Full Disclosure At U.N.'  Darhling, have you tried the irony?  It's just delish!

We've seen several trends in the Bush Second Term Cabinet Sweepstakes.  One, well-discerned by Josh Marshall, Doonesbury and Andrew Sullivan is the centralization of power.  Dissenters like Colin Powell are out while Bush loyalists from the White House are in, as in Condi Rice at State, Alberto Gonzales at Justice, and Margaret Spellings at Education.

But a second, more alarming trend is becoming more evident.  Rewarding failure.  Today Bush nominated Bernard Kerik as the new Secretary of Homeland Security.  That's the same Bernard Kerik who oversaw the terrible first months of rebuilding internal security in Iraq and spent $1.2 Billion to train 35,000 Iraqi police whose record has been, well, you know how its been.  Now he's guarding us.

But that's not the worst of it, of course.  Today the White House let it be known that Donald Rumsfeld and his entire top policy team will be remaining at Defense.  Every idiot responsible for the Iraq mess got a promotion.  It just keeps getting worse.

The Yes Men strike again.  Activist Identity Thieves and Identity Correctors hit the BBC.  Posing as a spokesperson for Dow Chemical, one of the boys gets on BBC-TV and says that Dow was responsible for the Bhopahl disaster that killed 3,800 people in a chemical leak in India in 1984.  Its a Beautiful World.

 Hatemonger Fred Phelps is at it again.  The Mississippi native, Calvanist-Southern Baptist fire-and-brimstone preacher and disbarred lawyer has declared that retired NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw is going to hell.  Brokaw will join a distinguished group that includes, inter alia, George W. and Laura Bush, Billy Graham, Elizabeth Taylor, Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King, Bill Clinton, Barry Goldwater, John Kerry, Mr. Rogers, and all of our nation's service men and women who have died in Iraq.  Why is Tom Brokaw destined for eternal damnation?  According to Phelps, it's simple logic:

On Brokaw's watch, sodomites seized control of America . . . . As anchor and editor-in-chief, Brokaw decided what to broadcast and how to spin each item.  He promoted sodomy with each decision.  Then he eulogized WWII traitors who burped and farted in silly hats while dykes and fags hijacked the US military.

Geez.  Can you imagine what this guy will say when Dan Rather signs off next spring?

For those of you unfamiliar with Pastor Phelps, he is the man who wants to erect a monument in a park in Casper, Wyoming, to commemorate the murder of Matthew Shepard, who, according to Phelps, is in hell even as I write.  Phelps and his flock tastefully picketed Matthew Shepard's funeral.  In fact, the proud Bob Jones University alumnus claims that his Westboro Baptist Church has conducted over 22,000 such demonstrations since 1991.

Phelps calls his demonstrations “love crusades.”  Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, huh?

UPDATE:  For those of you who are curious, this is the somewhat nebulous story surrounding Phelps' disbarment, according to the Anti-Defamation League:

Trained as a lawyer, Fred Phelps was disbarred in 1979 by the Kansas Supreme Court, which asserted that he had "little regard for the ethics of his profession." The formal complaint against Phelps charged that he misrepresented the truth in a motion for a new trial in a case he had brought, and that he held the defendant in the case up to "unnecessary public ridicule for which there is no basis in fact." Following his disbarment from Kansas State courts, Phelps continued to practice law in Federal courts. In 1985, nine Federal court judges filed a disciplinary complaint charging him and six of his family members, all attorneys, with making false accusations against them. The Phelpses fought the complaint but lost. In 1989, Fred Phelps agreed to surrender his license to practice law in Federal court in exchange for the Federal judges allowing the other members of his family to continue practicing in Federal court.

In essence, Phelps was disbarred for slander, libel, harassment, and extortion.

To his credit, Phelps was awarded a special honor from the NAACP for his work in civil rights advocacy.  However, unbeknownst to the NAACP at the time, Phelps used the civil rights cases as a front for extortion.

There's much, much more to write about this charlatan.  Watch for a future post.

Today's Washington Times Headline: Bush Calls For Global Cooperation

Backstory: Gee I screwed up this Iraq thing.  What do I do? 

Hmmm, when it looked like I'd go to Vietnam, what did I do?  I called Daddy for help and somebody sent me to the Air National Guard.

Hmmm, when I screwed up Arbusto Energy, what did I do?  I called Daddy's friend  Philip Uzielli, who bought a 10% share of the company for $1,000,000 even though the entire company was worth only $400,000.

Hmmm, when I blew the successor company of Arbusto, Bush Energy up, I got two of Daddy's friends, William DeWitt Jr. and Mercer Reynolds III to merge their successful company Spectrum 7 with mine and make me CEO.

Hmmm, when, as CEO of Spectrum 7, I drove the company into the ground, what did I do?  I got Alan Quasha, owner of Harken Energy Corp. to trade his good shares of Harken for the nearly worthless shares of Spectrum 7.  I also got a good job on their board.

Hmmm, now that I've really screwed up this thing, maybe I can “call for world cooperation” and get the world to bail me out of this jam.  

Nope. This time you'll be cleaning up your own messes, Georgie boy.