Wednesday, July 25, 2007
An Encouraging Sign
A Manager for President? Instead of a Lawyer? Duh!
The Rookie is Right
Rules of Presidential Politics, Iran, and Bush
- No Democrat from outside the old Confederacy has won the White House since John F. Kennedy. . . .
- No Republican has won the White House since Eisenhower who wasn't from Texas or California. . . .
- No sitting senator has won the presidency since Kennedy. . . .
Here is what the Iranians are seeing: . . . Bush become increasingly weak. . . . Congress making sweeping declarations, but backing off from voting on them . . . . a Republican Party splitting in Congress. . . . a presidential election shaping up in unprecedented ways with inherently unexpected outcomes. . . .
This gives Bush his strange strength. . . . Given the strange dynamics, he is not your normal lame duck. Everyone else is tied in knots in terms of policy and in terms of the election. Bush alone has room to maneuver, and the Iranians are likely calculating that it would probably be safer to deal with this president now rather than expect the unexpected in 2008.
-- George Friedman, Stratfor: Geopolitical Intelligence Report, 7/24/07
To Be A Useful Politician
Adversaries on the Run
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
America's Unintended Secret Weapon
. . . The invasion [of Iraq] four years ago has led to the Sunnis and Shia turning against each other in direct conflict. Therefore, it could be argued that just as the United States won the Cold War by exploiting the Sino-Soviet split and allying with Mao Zedong, so too the path to defeating the jihadists is not a main attack, but a spoiling attack that turns Sunnis and Shia against each other. This was certainly not the intent of the Bush administration in planning the 2003 invasion; it has become, nevertheless, an unintended and significant outcome.
. . . Moreover, it is far from clear whether U.S. policymakers through history have been aware of this dimension in their operations. In considering Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and Iran, it is never clear that the Truman, Kennedy,Johnson/Nixon or Carter/Reagan administrations purposely set out to implement a spoiling attack.
. . . However, there is a deep structure in U.S. foreign policy that becomes visible. The incongruities of stalemate and defeat on the one side and growing U.S. power on the other must be reconciled. The liberal and conservative arguments explain things only partially. But the idea that the United States rarely fights to win can be explained. It is not because of a lack of moral fiber, as conservatives would argue; nor a random and needless belligerence, as liberals would argue. Rather, it is the application of the principle of spoiling operations -- using limited resources not in order to defeat the enemy but to disrupt and confuse enemy operations.
-- George Friedman, Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report, 3/20/07
Islam vs Democracy
Conspiratorial Hysteria
". . . What you are really doing with a global warming program is getting rid of low-cost energy." The consequences? Americans have been fretting about losing jobs to places such as China or India, which already offer cheaper energy. "You hike the cost of energy here further, and you create a mass exodus of business out of this country."
-- Robert E. Murray, quoted by Kimberley A Strassel, opinionjournal.com, 5/21/07
Americanism as a Religion
Friday, July 13, 2007
Someone is deluded and dishonorable, but it isn't Petraeus
A month ago, Petraeus was asked whether we could still win in Iraq. The general, who had recently attended two memorial services for soldiers lost under his command, replied that if he thought he could not succeed he would not be risking the life of a single soldier.
Just this week, Petraeus said that the one thing he needs more than anything else is time. To cut off Petraeus' plan just as it is beginning -- the last surge troops arrived only last month -- on the assumption that we cannot succeed is to declare Petraeus either deluded or dishonorable. Deluded in that, as the best-positioned American in Baghdad, he still believes we can succeed. Or dishonorable in pretending to believe in victory and sending soldiers to die in what he really knows is an already failed strategy.
That's the logic of the wobbly Republicans' position.
-- Charles Krauthammer, townhall.com, 7/13/07
How to fix illegal immigration
- Pursue enforcement first.
- Build the fence.
- Fully staff our border patrol.
- Fully staff Citizenship and Immigration Services.
- Establish an effective exit visa system.
- Eliminate the "jobs magnet" with heavy employer penalties.
- No more anchor babies.
- End sanctuary cities and drivers' licenses for illegal aliens.
- Permanently disallow citizenship for illegal aliens.
- End catch and release.
Wussie warfare
The Washington Times' Sharon Behn recently asked Command Sgt. Maj. Jeff Mellinger why the world's most powerful army hadn't yet accomplished this mission [i.e. to destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq]. He replied: "We could absolutely crush every one of them, but would you be happy with what is left?"
He's referring to the catastrophic destruction that is, and has always been,the price of total victory. It's something that never makes anyone "happy," but previous generations have found it necessary. Not ours. Postmodern man prefers a kind of limited warfare, fighting with one hand tied behind his back as a matter of choice -- a moral choice that lends even a superpower the humanizing aura of victim-hood. -- Diana West, townhall.com, 7/13/07
Thursday, July 12, 2007
A politically incorrect foundation
Robbery in progress
Historical license
Mormon canary
Politics by other means
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Harry's War Dumbed Down
Here is a poetic interpretation (suited to preschool mentality) of Senator Reid's defeatist stance on Iraq.
Dr. Seuss Revisited

Dr. Seuss was a popular purveyor of cartoon commentary during World War II. Much of his work is still spot on. Check it out.
.jpg)