Right Wing Nut House

JOE LIEBERMAN BEING GRILLED BY (L-R) ATRIOS, HAMSHER, AND MATT STOLLER (DUAL PURPOSE HOOD). NOT SEEN: JOHN KERRY.
*******************************************************

NO ONE EXPECTS THE “LIEBERMAN INQUISITION!”

Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.
(TBogg: A Really Stupid Blogger)

It’s been a couple of weeks since Little Neddy Lamont beat Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, thus causing every netnut this side of the planet Mongol to go into contortions of orgasmic pleasure not seen since the last AVN Awards Show. Since then, the world has moved on to other, more important things like war, peace, and answering the Ultimate Question of the Universe: Does one tell the truth when one imbibes a wee bit too much of the crature?

For a while there, I thought that Mel was going to take the place of Joe Lieberman in the netnut’s dock. The moralizing morans who were shamelessly cheering on Hizbullah during the war and who wouldn’t mind seeing the Israelis pushed into the sea by those long suffering, gentle souls in Hamas must have realized the laughable disingenuous of their criticism of Gibson and moved almost immediately back to savaging Joe. Good thing too. They only have about 9 weeks left to gloat because come election day, Lieberman will almost certainly make Little Neddy wish he hadn’t squandered his trust fund so recklessly in a quixotic campaign to appear as a reasonable candidate rather than the liberal fruit basket he actually is.

In this respect, John Kerry was quite helpful. He reminded voters of two things with his appearance yesterday on This Week; 1) why they voted for George Bush; and 2) the utter cluelessness of the Senator from Massachusetts:

Kerry accused the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate of “adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney,” on the issue of Iraq.

“Joe Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut,” Kerry added, insisting Lieberman’s stance on Iraq, “shows you just why he got in trouble with the Democrats there.”

Kerry called Lieberman’s independent bid a “huge mistake” and applauded businessman-turned-politician Lamont as “courageous” for challenging Lieberman on the war.

Ed Morrissey took Mr. Kerry to the woodshed and applied the necessary instruction:

Democrats seem intent on painting Joe Lieberman as a pariah these days. The ever-ridiculous Kerry has to push it even farther with a ludicrous comparison to conservative Dick Cheney. I doubt that Cheney ever garnered a 75 rating with NARAL (identical to Chris Dodd), nor did the VP’s legislative voting record land him square in the middle of the Democratic caucus, as does Lieberman’s.

Voters in Connecticut, who may have a better idea of the mainstream in the Nutmeg State than Kerry, obviously consider Lieberman a part of it. Rasmussen’s first post-primary poll in Connecticut put Lieberman ahead of Ned Lamont by five points on August 9th. A week later, Quinnipiac’s poll puts Lieberman ahead of Lamont by 11 points, and Lieberman has 53% of all likely voters — in a three-way race.

This, of course, begs the question; is Lieberman’s apostasy on the Iraq War egregious enough to cause the amateur Torquemadas on the left to boil him in a vat of of Targ dung and rip out his toenails?

Of course not. The answer is that Joe has not shown the proper amount of contrition about his vote to go to war. He hasn’t appeared in the appropriate forum wearing sackcloth and ashes begging forgiveness from the new overseers of the Democratic party.

Since Joe has not personally apologized to the internet rabble who believe they played a major role in catapulting an empty suit to the nomination for Senator from Connecticut, he must suffer the consequences of being called all sorts of names by brainless lefty twits and photoshopped into unrecognizability by humorless harridans and harpies.

Most other Democratic Senators have already made amends and promised not to sin again. The “If I only knew then what I know now…” speech has crossed the lips of more than one of these groveling pigdogs, showing how well a Democratic controlled Senate would stand up to Ahmadinejad and his minions in Hizbullah. Perhaps they could borrow some kneepads from Clinton-era interns.

What makes the inquisition even more bizarre is that with the best chance their party has had in a decade to take control of Congress, the loons are continuing their wall to wall Lieberman bashing - as if this one race would seal their victory against Evil George and the Rethuglicans. The fact that Lieberman is almost certainly going to win running as an independent doesn’t seem to enter their pointy heads. Nor does the fact that even if Lamont wins, their victory would do absolutely nothing to advance the cause of a Democratic takeover of Congress.

Josh Marshall attempted to inject a little sanity into this approach and had his ear bitten off by rabid dogs:

Look, one of the Dems’ problems in recent years is an inability to walk and chew gum at the same time. Rove Republicans throw everything but the kitchen sink into various electoral strategies. They don’t worry if the strategies are inconsistent or even diametrically opposed. Some will work; some won’t. But you don’t know what will stick until you throw it against the wall. Meanwhile, Dems engage in agonizing strategy debates, looking for that one electoral silver bullet.

So I am all for multi-tasking: pay passing attention to the Connecticut race, while focusing with laser intensity on the races that will actually determine control of the Senate (as TPM Reader BM suggests below). Rove may be goading Democrats into fighting like hell amongst themselves in Connecticut, but that doesn’t mean we have to take the bait.

Says Baying Hound Atrios:

I’d like more of that advice going to, say, the people who gave money so that Hillary Clinton could have $22 million cash-on-hand. Does Bill Nelson need $12 million to run against Katie Harris? On the House side, does Marty Meehan, who won with 67% of the vote last time, really need to have 5 million bucks in the bank?

There is always an incredible misallocation of resources in elections and that’s the money which flows to incumbents. Sure, they’re not all safe and it’s understandable that they need somewhat of a defensive warchest just in case, but if you want to criticize where donors are directing their money (and attention) start there.

In other words, “we’re having too much fun to stop now!”

The laser-like intensity with which the netnuts have focused on the Lieberman race will probably not come back to haunt them in November. Despite what Don Lambro’s dreamy post in today’s Washington Times says about the polls being wrong, unless some unbelievable piece of good news regarding Iraq (unlikely) or Osama (possible but perhaps even less likely) or if George Bush initiates first contact with an alien civilization (more likely than the other two options), the Republicans are doomed.

So in the midst of their party’s triumph, all of us on the right will still be able to point our fingers and laugh at their stupidity in pushing Little Neddy’s candidacy right to the edge of the cliff and then watch as it tumbles over the ledge.

And Joe Lieberman will be able to laugh all the way back to the Senate floor, secure in the knowledge that those who wished to burn him at the stake for being a rational human being will be the ones wailing and gnashing their teeth in the agony of defeat.

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Today, we’ll examine our options in Iraq based on my post from yesterday “Iraq: Quit or Commit.” There are many, many conservatives re-examining the Iraq war now and what we should be doing. Most have come to the conclusion that I have; if we’re not going to do what it takes to win, then we should leave. I’ll also look at the left’s use of fear to win votes even as they accuse Republicans of the same thing.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

I’ve been putting off writing this post for a couple of months. Not out of any fear of blogospheric consequences although it would pain me if my honest opinion drove people away from this site. But I realize many readers who have been following my evolving position on the War in Iraq know how pessimistic I have become over the last six months about the chances of that bloody land achieving anything like a stable, democratic government. For them, it may come as no surprise that I have reached a point where I believe we must make a decision as a nation about whether we want to continue our involvement - which would mean an increase in resources and a direct confrontation with Iran and Syria over their massive support for the terrorists and insurgents - or whether we should pack up and go home. In other words, escalate or leave.

Why now? And why bother writing about it?

Simply put, the reason I have come to this conclusion now is that the enemies of Iraqi democracy have established a clear upper hand in the country and it is uncertain at best whether the situation can be retrieved at this point.

And the reason to write about it is equally simple; to join a growing chorus of conservatives who are becoming very critical of our involvement and try and break through the spin and myopia of the Administration which is making the situation worse by pretending that things are getting better or are not as bad as we think they are.

The ultimate question to be asked is do we make one, final, massive attempt to alter the deteriorating situation by committing more resources to the war while at the same time giving ultimatums to both Syria and Iran to halt their clandestine and outrageously illegal assistance to the terrorists who are murdering thousands of civilians every month.

The risks involved in the latter should be self-evident; a general Middle East war that could drag the world into both economic chaos and a massive regional conflict with uncertain consequences for our friends and allies. And, of course, the risk in committing more resources is that we increase the number of American targets for the terrorists and insurgents as well as face the possibility that all our efforts will be for naught anyway.

The evidence that has been piling up the last three years against this Administration’s management of the war can no longer be dismissed as the rantings of dissatisfied bureaucrats or the partisan attacks of critics. Fiasco by Thomas Ricks, a respected military correspondent for the Washington Post, is an absolutely devastating account of the war and how the civilians (and some Generals) in the Pentagon not only made massive and continued mistakes in Iraq but also when confronted with the facts on the ground that refuted their rosy forecasts of progress, refused to change direction. This not only cost American lives but also helped the insurgency grow.

But perhaps the most damning record of stupidity and spin comes via the book Cobra II by Michael R. Gordon and General (Ret.) Bernard E. Trainor. Much of the book is a heartbreaking recitation of erroneous assumptions, overly optimistic assessments, and finally, a risible refusal to admit mistakes and change course.

Lest one think that these books are the products of left wing loons or authors suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, the one common thread running through both volumes is the massive amount of research and unprecedented access to documents that went into writing them. To deny the reality of all that these authors have uncovered is too much of a stretch, even for a Bush partisan like myself. Facts are facts and if the Administration had confronted many of the problems - insurgency, militias, disenchanted populace, the extent of foreign assistance to the insurgents, and sectarian factionalism to name a few - it may be that a different outcome to the war could have been salvaged.

For as it stands now, we are at a psychological tipping point in Iraq where drastic measures are needed in order to turn the situation around and give the weak Iraqi government a chance to gain control. There are many hands raised against this government and as of right now, they are losing any semblance of legitimacy due to their powerlessness in the face of the massive violence that has been unleashed.

Here’s a short list, by no means comprehensive, of what is happening in Iraq as you read this:

* An Sunni insurgency that despite offers of amnesty and clemency continues apace and if anything, is growing stronger and bolder. Certainly a large part of the insurgents strategy now is to ratchet up the violence in the lead up to the American elections in hopes that the Democrats can gain control of Congress and force the President to withdraw. And in perhaps the most disheartening news imaginable, as we have transferred troops from insurgent strongholds in the central provinces to Baghdad in order to quell the violence there, the insurgents have moved back into areas vacated by departing American troops and have re-established themselves in towns already “swept and cleared” by our men.

* The Iraqi army is not making the kind of progress that would allow us to draw down our forces anytime soon. With the exception of a dozen brigades (around 7500 men), the Iraqis are poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly led, and are riddled with corruption and infiltrated by militias whose loyalty to the government is at best questionable.

* The end result of the Israeli-Hizbullah war has emboldened both Iran and the militias who are apparently doing Tehran’s bidding by stoking the fires of sectarian conflict. The Shia militia death squads are taking a fearful toll of Sunnis and are even starting to fight amongst themselves. There is ample anecdotal evidence of the Iraqi army turning the other way while the slaughter goes on which calls into question whether the violence can be stopped by American forces alone.

* In the south, Shia on Shia violence is also starting to escalate as militias battle for supremacy in towns and villages that were formerly peaceful. More Iranian meddling here as one of the prime movers behind the violence are the Badr Brigades who, like Hizbullah, were trained in Iran.

* In the north, a confrontation with NATO member Turkey has been avoided for the present as the terrorist arm of the Kurdish independence movement, the PKK, continues it cross-border terrorist activities against Turkish targets. The Turks had threatened to invade Iraq and handle the PKK problem with or without our blessing which has necessitated sending precious assets to the border region in order to deal with the Kurds.

* Also in the north, sporadic fighting is occurring between Kurds and Shias over oil rights. Despite clearly belonging to the Kurds, northern oil centers are under pressure from Shias as they seek to move the Kurds out.

* While weakened, al-Qaeda in Iraq has not gone away and is killing dozens daily with sophisticated car bombs and some suicide bombers. Coordination between the Sunni militias who make up the insurgency and the terrorists in AQI has improved in recent months thanks to the elimination of al-Zarqawi who was generally hated by all Iraqis. So for every step forward, it appears at times that we lose a step in the process.

* There are now more than 250,000 Iraqi refugees (mostly Sunnis) - people driven out of their homes in mixed Shia-Sunni areas by force. The dwindling number who stay in these areas are subject to harassment and ostracism.

* Criminal gangs who kidnap up to 70 Iraqis a week for ransom. They use the money to fund their extortion and shakedown rackets as well as buy guns to sell to insurgents.

* 3400 dead civilians in July alone. Thousands more injured. And no sign of any let up in August.

The government’s plan to combat this escalating violence which was implemented in June has failed miserably. They deployed 60,000 Iraqi troops and policemen in Baghdad in order to stem the violence. All told, the violence worsened. This is the direct result of the machinations of the Iranian backed cleric Muqtada al-Sadr whose Mehdi militia at the moment is engaged in a low level insurgency against Americans.

It is al-Sadr’s thugs who are carrying out the brutal public execution of hundreds of Sunnis with impunity. Only recently has the government given the go ahead to try and take the Mehdi militia down, something long past due. Since the police and army are simply too untrustworthy for this task, it has fallen to Americans with some assistance from the Iraqi army to try and defang the Shia militia. We are suffering increasing casualties as we move through Sadr City and systematically go door to door looking for weapons and members of the death squads. It is uncertain how this campaign will turn out.

But this campaign may be undermined by the government of Prime Minister al-Maliki. The medicine is harsh and some innocents are being killed. Maliki has already severely criticized the operation and it is unclear at this point whether we have scaled back our operations in response. If so, it makes the job of disarming the Mehdis that much more difficult.

But even disarming the militias, while minimizing the violence, won’t help deal with the insurgency. This is a political problem for the Iraqis themselves and one that, so far, they have failed to address in any comprehensive way. Clearly some kind of amnesty program and national reconciliation will be needed. But this will never happen until Shias stop killing Sunnis. Most of the insurgency is made up of Sunni militias whose tribal and clan loyalties require them to protect their own and not depend on the central government to do so. They will never disarm until they can be assured that their participation in the political process will not leave their people open to slaughter.

Given all of these complex and heartbreaking problems, what has our government been telling us about the state of affairs in Iraq?

Here’s Rumsfeld earlier this month:

Q: Is the country closer to a civil war?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I don’t know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is — there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there’s very little violence or numbers of incidents. So it’s a — it’s a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I’m not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.

The “14 other provinces” may not have the violence that Baghdad has but Rumsfeld never mentions the lawlessness that necessitates a constant military presence in the streets. Not does he mention that 75% of the Iraqi people live in the three most violent provinces.

Similar sentiments have been echoed by the President, albeit with a little less nonchalance. What this adds up to is an Administration unwilling or unable to face up to its past blunders and apply the necessary lessons in order to try and win through to victory.

For if there is a victory to be had in Iraq - and one can just barely make one out in the distance amidst the blood and ruin - it will take courage on the part of the President to confront these problems and do what is necessary in order to reverse course. And this will entail both risks and probably a larger casualty count among Americans fighting there.

Yes we need more troops - a lot more at least temporarily. Order must be brought to Baghdad and its environs and to do that we would need, according to General Trainor, is perhaps as many as 50,000 more Americans to both police the area and ferret out insurgents and the death squads.

For that to happen, the President would have to admit he and Donald Rumsfeld have been wrong all along and that in order to achieve stability, the additional troops must be sent. It is of the utmost distress to me that this President has failed to take responsibility for past mistakes and admitted to error in prosecuting the war. The grudging admissions of mistakes just isn’t getting it done. If he is serious about winning in Iraq (and he has called Iraq the “frontline” in the war on terror”) then he is going to have to go before the American people and explain why additional troops are necessary.

Yes I can understand why he has not admitted past mistakes and errors. The political climate wouldn’t give him “credit” for doing so. The situation in Iraq has gone far beyond the politics of the moment and now engages the future security of the United States. If he can’t be a man and take the inevitable finger pointing and name calling, then all hope is lost and we should start bringing the troops home now. The whispers in Washington that the President wishes to simply “hang on” in Iraq and leave the denouement to his successor is possibly the most immoral, cynical thing I’ve ever heard - which leads me to believe that it is not true. But it is equally immoral to simply apply more of the same prescriptions to a war that is now clearly out of control. Drastic changes are necessary. And if the President is not willing to apply them whether out of fear of the political consequences to his presidency or the Republican party, then he doesn’t deserve to sit in the big chair.

In war, rhetoric must match reality or you lose credibility. By constantly reminding us that Iraq is at the forefront of our anti-terror strategy - and then not doing the things necessary to win through to victory - the President takes the risk that our deterrent will lose its edge. And this is no more true than in the actions of Iran and Syria.

Both nations have judged that we will do nothing to stop them from continuing their support for the terrorists and the insurgency. We interdict what supplies and men that we can but it isn’t enough. And Iran and Syria have apparently decided that since there is no downside to their support for our enemies in Iraq, that they can bleed us white while engineering a humiliating defeat for American prestige in the process.

Jawboning hasn’t worked. Clearly some kind of diplomatic demarche is in order. Whether it involves sitting down in formal talks and making clear that our apathy toward their support for terrorists is at an end or we actually threaten force against assets that are supporting the insurgents, peace will not come to Iraq until those two nations stop their meddling. And why we have done so little in the past three years to stop them is, to my mind, one of the biggest mysteries of the war.

Restoring hope to the Iraqi people by radically diminishing the violence will help retrieve a situation that is getting worse by the week. It will take courage, initiative, boldness, and a more humble approach to the problems caused by our presence there. But there really isn’t any viable alternative. If we leave, Iraq will become what we all fear; a haven for radical Shia fundamentalism and terror. And the humanitarian disaster of Sunnis being slaughtered and driven out of the country will be a reality that will echo as painfully as the plight of the Vietnamese boat people a generation ago.

But if we are not willing to do what is necessary to win, then the only sane, moral course of action is to bring the troops home as fast as humanly possible. Such a humiliation should not result in a single additional death or injury to the men and women who have performed so bravely and selflessly in the face of blunder after blunder by their superiors.

To those of you who have taken the trouble to read this piece in its entirety, I thank you.

UPDATE 8/22

The Commissar weighs in with a comprehensive critique of Iraq of his own. He prescriptions are similar and he mentions something that I didn’t make clear.

I still support the policy that led us to invade in the first place. How is that possible given the failures to date? (Yes Dave, our policy will be a success when we are able to draw down the bulk of our troops and we are farther from that today than we were at the beginning of the year).

Those who see the war on terror as a police action fail, in my opinion, to take into account the rogue states that support and facilitate terrorism. Try as you might, you cannot seperate Saddam from Palestinian bombers (who he gave $25,000 to the family of the suicide bombers) or from radical fundamentalists who all evidence points to him getting closer to. It is also clear to any objective observer given the revelations contained in the Saddam papers, that the dictator and al-Qaeda were in close contact and were on the verge of consumating a strategic partnership in order to attack American targets.

This does not mean we attack willy nilly countries like Iran, Syria, Yemen, or Saudi Arabia. It does mean that we need a military as a credible threat and, in extreme cases, to effect regime change. There is a large military component to the War on Terror and I agree with the Commissar that Iraq was a logical target. The fact that the post war environment was botched unconscionably doesn’t obviate that point.

In a perfect world, all that would be needed to understand the law would be a heap of common sense and a love of liberty. Indeed, in the early days of the Republic, “the law” was largely considered self evident and that the nuances of a particular statute were interpreted not by highly trained legal minds but rather by judges appointed or elected based on their reputations for fairness and their ability to apply country wisdom to a legal problem.

This was an age when the courts were considered great entertainment, when judges and juries were routinely swayed not by careful legal reasoning but by the powerful oratory and histrionics of up and coming lawyers. Most of our great statesmen in the early decades of our history were lawyers who made their reputations in this manner. When one of these legal superstars was involved in a case, it would draw people from miles around to watch and listen as the barrister would hold forth, delighting the crowd with humor or moving it to tears with pathos.

But for the law to be a civilizing influence, it was perhaps inevitable that these simple, frontier practices would eventually give way to a legal complexity so discombobulating that ordinary people like you and me would be forced to place our trust in writing and interpreting the law into the hands of educated, trained legal high priests whose common sense and wisdom were less important attributes than their ability to obfuscate and confuse the nuances of the law, all the better to bend it to their will.

In short, somewhere along the path to legal enlightenment, cleverness and chicanery replaced intelligence and common sense as prerequisites to being a good lawyer.

I may get an argument from some of my readers who practice law regarding that last statement but I think my point is valid; understanding of the law is now beyond even those who might be considered reasonably intelligent and perceptive. Without the technical expertise in the law vouchsafed those who train for a career as a lawyer, the rest of us are at sea when it comes to the great legal issues of the day.

I say this only in defense of what follows. In a case that involves the very essence of our constitutional system of government, only a relative handful of the 300 million citizens of this country have the specialized knowledge to examine and debate the issues raised in Judge Taylor’s decision on the legality and constitutionality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program.

This won’t stop the rest of us from forming an opinion on the matter. But that opinion will be based largely on what other, more informed sources have instructed us to think. And in the court of public opinion, like the lawyers of our early history, emotionalism and sensationalism seem to sway our opinion more than common sense and reason.

I say this realizing that I am as susceptible to this kind of argumentation as the next fellow. But in recognizing my limitations, I feel confident that I can nevertheless offer up some observations on Judge Taylor’s opinion that are as valid as anyone elses - lawyers included.

I have had reservations about the legality and efficacy of this program from the beginning. I still do. Leaning once again on authority, there are many people whose opinion I value that have said this program is unconstitutional just as there are those I consider equally knowledgeable believing the program both legal and constitutional.

But then there are those - Eugene Volokh and Orrin Kerr to name two - who aren’t sure. The reason sounds plausible; not all of the details (technical or otherwise) about how the program actually works have been made public. The Washington Post brought this out in their editorial yesterday:

The NSA’s program, about which many facts are still undisclosed, exists at the nexus of inherent presidential powers, laws purporting to constrict those powers, the constitutional right of the people to be free from unreasonable surveillance, and a broad congressional authorization to use force against al-Qaeda. That authorization, the administration argues, permits the wiretapping notwithstanding existing federal surveillance law; inherent presidential powers, it suggests, allow it to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance on its own authority. You don’t have to accept either contention to acknowledge that these are complicated, difficult issues. Judge Taylor devotes a scant few pages to dismissing them, without even discussing key precedents.

Readers of this site know that I have taken a rather jaundiced view of the Bush Administration’s stretching of the constitution using the “inherent powers” argument on secret programs of which we know little or next to nothing. It makes me uncomfortable even though I realize the necessity for the secrecy that must be maintained if these surveillance programs are to be effective. I was especially confused by the tortured reasoning used by the Attorney General in citing the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda as a justification for what any objective observer would have to conclude is a broad based and troubling expansion of federal surveillance practices. It didn’t ring true then and it doesn’t now.

Having said that, I find it equally mystifying that so many on the left - including the probable next Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers - have already charged, tried, and convicted the President for engaging in surveillance practices whose exact outlines we can only guess at and with absolutely no evidence that the program has been used injudiciously. From what we know about oversight, it has not only been reviewed periodically by the Justice Department (causing alterations in the program to satisfy some of the attorneys there) but the NSA has apparently put strict procedures in place that are designed to prevent the kind of abuse so worrisome to all of us.

Is it enough? Who knows. Certainly not Lamchop and his hysterically unbalanced, unyielding, absolutist opposition to anything this President has done to decrease the likelihood of another 9/11. This goes for the rest of the cockamamie left whose hatred for Bush, the Republicans, and conservatives along with a lusting for power that would be unseemly in another, less forgiving age has poisoned their reason and clouded their judgement to the point that they question the very basis for the increased surveillance; that we are at war with fanatical jihadists.

In this context, it is easy for them to dismiss anything and everything the government does to protect us. Indeed, in their feverish desire to kill the Bush presidency, they have undermined the war effort, giving tremendous aid and comfort to people who want to kill us all. Whether this is deliberate or not is beside the point. It is the logical outgrowth of their hatred.

Does this mean the legality and constitutionality of these programs shouldn’t be questioned? Of course not. All Americans should welcome a discussion between opposing viewpoints on these critical issues. But having a civil, reasoned debate about the lines that must be drawn between expansive civil liberties and terrorist surveillance as the Washington Post is calling for is falling upon deaf ears on the left. Instead, hysteria, paranoia, and a shameless emotional exhibitionism rules the day.

I have said repeatedly that in order to win the War on Terror, we must find a way to engage the left in a dialogue that will bring both sides closer together so that some kind of unity of purpose can be achieved. Simply put, we will lose this war if we remain divided as we are. And as I’ve speculated recently, perhaps it will take a liberal President to make that happen. The pain and angst demonstrated by the Democratic left in being out of power is so profound as to border on psychosis. Hence, they will only listen to one of their own when he/she is sitting in the big chair and faces the awesome responsibilities of the office as well as the frightening truth about the nature of our enemies.

Perhaps then we won’t be seeing the “War on Terror” in quotation marks quite as often and the constant questioning of motives when some horrific plot is uncovered as it was last week in Great Britain. The breathtakingly stupid response of many on the left in this country to that near miss (they found “martyr videos” from some of the suspects which would indicate what a very near thing this plot was to unfolding) shows a continuing lack of seriousness on the part of liberals toward our safety and a sublime ignorance of the nature of our enemies.

Judge Taylor’s decision on the legality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program read more like a press release from a candidate for public office than a legal opinion. This seems to be an almost universal take on Taylor’s writings. Even Lambchop agrees:

Yes, sure, it is true that the judicial opinion issued yesterday is very weak, in places borderline incoherent, in its reasoning with regard to some issues. Anyone can see that. Most everyone who commented on it, including me, pointed that out. But that does not undermine in any way the fact that this President has been systematically breaking the law for no reason other than he thinks that he can, and that judge’s rejection of that belief is quite eloquent and powerful. Most importantly of all, it is indisputably correct.

How we get from “incoherent” to “eloquent” in the space of two sentences only someone with the brains of a sock puppet can say. But it isn’t just the weak arguments and torturous language that jump out at one when reading the decision. It is the same familiar language used by leftist netnuts to describe the Bush Presidency that makes Taylor’s reasoning - or lack thereof - so eerie. It actually made me giggle a little when I realized that the pejoratives she hurled against the President had actually appeared on Lamchop’s website on numerous occasions. Chiding the President for acting like a “king,” is straight from Lamchop’s (and most of the left’s) list of Bush bashing ad hominems.

Is Taylor’s decision, despite its problems, the right one? It doesn’t appear to me that she knows any more about the way that the NSA program works than I do. Perhaps she was privy to information not available to the general public. If so, she doesn’t make that clear. And if she has no more knowledge of how the program works than the rest of us, how can her decision have any merit? It is one thing for sock puppets and other bloggers to state flatly that the program is illegal and unconstitutional. They are, after all, internet pundits and their opinions do not have the force of law. But when a federal judge, armed with exactly the same information that I or Lambchop has, writes an opinion that is in its surety a very serious indictment of lawbreaking by a sitting President, one can legitimately question other motivations that moved Taylor to come down on the side of the issue that she did.

In short, the revelations about Taylor’s past made by many righty bloggers are perfectly legitimate points of discussion considering all the factors at work in her issuing this opinion. And in that respect, Judge Taylor appears small minded, partisan, and eager for publicity - all points that call into question her ultimate judgement and the impartiality of her thinking that led to the decision in the first place.

No, I’m not a lawyer. But I’m not brain dead either. Nor am I insensible to the role that politics plays in our judiciary. But all things considered, Judge Taylor’s headline grabbing decision on the legality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program is not helpful to the kind of ongoing debate we must have on the nature and extent of civil liberties in war time. Bush may not be king. But he is Commander in Chief. And in that role, the President must be given expanded powers when America’s citizens are at risk. Does this mean that the NSA program is legitimate and legal?

I just don’t know. I guess it depends ultimately on whether or not you trust the President not to abuse the enormous power he has, even without this particular program. I wish it weren’t so. I wish everything could be revealed, all decisions about how to best to protect ourselves made in the light of day, all logic and reasoning used to encroach upon our civil liberties made public. But by the ultimate necessity of winning the war, such will not be the case.

The rationalists in this country recognize this. The hysterics do not. And therein may lie the difference between victory and death.

UPDATE

Hugh Hewitt:

Not a single Democrat of any stature or visibility has stepped forward to criticize much less reject the opinion from Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declaring NSA surveillance of our enemies contacting their operatives inside our country to be unconstitutional. Their collective silence has grown more and more revealing as the chorus of legal commentary mocking the absurd opinion has grown throughout the day.

The Democrats cannot be seen to say anything against the opinion because of Kosputin and his minions. The party of Lamont is unhinged, and Judge Taylor’s opinion is now a new icon of the movement.

In fact, the Dems have been mostly silent on this program since it was revealed by the NY Times last December. Given the fact that the President, under the requirement of law, notified the intelligence committees of Congress of this program and that even Dems on those committees have mostly kept their mouths shut, one wonders that if those who know more about this program than Judge Taylor or Lambchop aren’t saying it’s illegal and unconstitutional, how we do we square this with Taylor’s decision?

Strange indeed.

In the first post war maneuvering by the March 14th Forces, both Druse leader Walid Jumblatt and Future Party leader Saad Hariri lambasted Syria for her inaction during the recently concluded conflict between Israel and Hizbullah and for remarks made by Syrian President Bashar Assad that threatened those who criticized Hizbullah for starting the war.

Hariri was blunt:

Saad al-Hariri, the head of the al-Mustaqbal or Future, bloc and son of the slain former prime minister, Rafiq al-Hariri, said on Thursday that Bashar al-Assad had disdained Arab kindness towards Syria and his speech on Tuesday was like a “heavy strike” against Lebanon.

Al-Hariri was responding to a speech on Tuesday by al-Assad in which he accused Lebanon’s anti-Syrian groups of allying themselves with Israel, which bombarded Lebanon for 34 days.

Al-Assad had also accused the anti-Syrian bloc of wanting to sow discord in Lebanon by demanding that Hezbollah, the Syrian-backed Shia resistance group, disarm.

“Lebanon’s wound [inflicted by Israel] is deep and painful, but today it has faced a deeper one from a friend [Syria],” he said.

Hariri also had praise for the Lebanese people and the “resistance” (Hizbullah) and harsh words for Israel.

“The history of Israel is full of massacres, but our history is marked by its steadiness,” he said.

He applauded the resistance and the Lebanese people, saying that they were “much stronger than the Israeli aggression”.

“The Israeli aggression may be able to destroy Lebanon [physically] but it cannot touch the Lebanese unity, which is what will help to rebuild the country.”

Jumblatt, who has referred to the Syrian President in the past as a “clown,” mocked Assad’s inaction against the IDF by saying that the Syrian regime was “a lion in Lebanon but a bunny rabbit in Golan”. He also had some blunt words for Hizbullah:

Jumblatt hailed the unprecedented army deployment in southern Lebanon, but warned that “dangers could be looming … and Lebanon will remain a battleground” for regional conflicts unless Hezbollah is integrated into the regular army and respects the 1949 armistice agreement with Israel.

“Why can’t instead the army be responsible for holding the balance of power? Why can’t the rockets be under the command of the army?” he said.

He said the army’s deployment south of the Litani river was in line with an “ambiguous and unclear” formula because the military does not have the mandate to disarm Hezbollah fighters there.

Both men expressed outrage at the beginning of the conflict with Hizbullah’s unilateral decision to go to war with Israel. Since then, most of the democrats have kept quiet while Nasrallah took to the airwaves, giving several speeches and appearing to be in charge of the Lebanese government. His dominance over Siniora was made very plain as Nasrallah was clear about his veto power over any cease fire agreement.

During the conflict, both Hariri and Jumblatt concentrated on criticizing Israel and the United States. Hariri went abroad, visiting Arab countries to drum up diplomatic support as well as to ask for rebuilding funds. Both men saw that keeping a low profile during the conflict was their only political option.

But now that the war is over, they and other Lebanese democrats find themselves in something of a quandary. With Nasrallah ascendant and Hizbullah seen by many non-Shia Lebanese as fighters for Lebanese sovereignty, overt criticism of the terrorists for not disarming is both bad politics and could be dangerous to their health. Hence, their dual attacks on Hizbullah’s patron, Assad’s Syria.

Assad considers himself the “protector” of Lebanon although the Lebanese themselves have quite a different feeling about Syria altogether. Most Lebanese believe that if Assad had opened another front in the war by making a stab at the Golan Heights (Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1973), Israel would have been forced to confront Assad and eased up on the air campaign against Lebanon.

But what has Hariri and Jumblatt livid is that Assad’s “victory” speech last Tuesday included veiled threats of retaliation against the March 14th forces:

Assad also said that Israel’s supporters in Lebanon - an allusion to the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority in Beirut - also bears responsibility, accusing them of wanting to sow discord in Lebanon by demanding that Hizbullah be disarmed.

Lebanese Forces MP Antoine Zahra rejected the accusation, saying the March 14 Forces had “nothing to do with this war; on the contrary, we strongly condemned the Israeli aggression.” In an interview with the Central News Agency, Zahra said he didn’t see “any signs of Hizbullah’s victory,” adding that “through the Israeli offensive, Assad fulfilled Syrian interests, as Syria has always benefited from Lebanon’s losses.”

Couple Assad’s words with Nasrallah’s threats to “judge” those who criticized Hizbullah at the outset of the war and it’s no wonder that the March 14th democrats are walking on egg shells when they talk about Hizbullah.

Jumblatt pegged the reason for the conflict as an attempt by Assad to distract attention:

Jumblatt said the Iranians were trying to improve their negotiating position over their nuclear program “on the rubble of the (Lebanese) people.” Assad, he said, wanted “to avoid accountability through an international tribunal” in the Hariri assassination.

“This is the objective convergence between (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad and Bashar Assad,” he said.

An ongoing U.N. investigation has implicated high-level Syrian officials and Lebanese allies in the murder of former PM Rafik Hariri, a charge Damascus denies.

The Brammertz Investigation just received a one year extension to continue to arduous task of identify exactly who it was in the Syrian government that wanted the elder Hariri killed.

Brammertz’s predecessor, Detleve Mehlis implicated top Syrian officials in the assassination including Assef Shawkat, Syrian President Bashar Assad’s brother-in-law and head of Syrian intelligence; Bahjat Suleiman, a high ranking Syrian intelligence officer; and Ghazi Kenaan, the former Syrian Interior Minister and commander of Syria’s intelligence apparatus in Lebanon between 1982 and 2002.

The problem has been that the United Nations has been reluctant to proceed with any prosecutions against these top officials until the Lebanese themselves can decide on a forum. And once again, Hizbullah as at the bottom of a seeming intractable problem.

Most Lebanese support the idea of trying defendants in the Hariri assassination in an international forum independent of the Lebanese justice system. Hizbullah wants a special tribunal of Lebanese judges only. The reasons are probably due to the fact that Assad believes he may be able to control a trial made up of some of his stooges rather than take a chance with an international forum where the outcome would be uncertain. But until the Lebanese decide how they want to proceed and until the UN is finished with its investigations (which have been expanded to include the killing of 21 anti-Syrian politicians and journalists), no action satisfactory to the Lebanese democrats will take place.

If Jumblatt, Hariri, and the rest of the March 14th forces are to survive this period in Lebanese politics, they must be very careful in not being too declaratory in their opposition to Hizbullah. It could be that once the people realize what Hizbullah’s war has cost them that they will turn away from the terrorists. Until then, the democrats will seek to support Prime Minister Siniora’s government as much as possible and bide their time until things turn in their favor.

Judging by what Hizbullah is doing with rebuilding as well as the terrorist’s new found respect in the Arab world, they may have a long wait.

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Today we’ll look at that horrible decision regarding the NSA terrorist intercept program. We’ve got blog react as well as some interesting editorials. We’ll also examine Lebanon’s ongoing dilemma with Hizbullah.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

I never liked Starbucks that much.

As a coffee lover and something of an aficionado of the bean, I confess to being extraordinarily snooty about my drink of choice. And since I imbibe approximately 18-24 cups of the nectar every day, my snootiness knows no bounds.

Give me the sweet, even delight of real Kona (excellent at midday) from Kona Premium or the dark, rich, winey pop of true Columbian (late afternoon or dinner) from 8 O’Clock.

Arabians vary enormously but I actually like the smoky, slightly bitter bouquet found in Ethiopian (anytime coffee). And for breakfast, a blended coffee is usually the best. I have been drinking Stewarts coffee for more than 30 years. A Chicago company, for many years they only sold their coffee retail at the great Chicago grocer Jewel Food Stores. To this day, much of their trade is with finer restaurants.

I can drink coffee when it’s 100 degrees out. I can drink coffee 10 minutes before I go to bed. I can drink coffee anytime, anywhere, for any reason. What I can’t do is drink coffee with anything in it. Absolute, total, stone cold black coffee for me or nothing. And it must be hot. Lukewarm coffee is for women, children, and Frenchmen.

But oh, how I love the taste. Good coffee does more than wake the mind and soothe the soul. Think of the social history of coffee and you have the history of civilization. From the Arabs (who insist on boiling the drink) to the Europeans (who abuse the bean shamefully) to America (where it achieved its egalitarian social status), coffee has told the story of civilized man.

Until Starbucks opened. Starbucks is the anti-coffee. It’s obsessive and relentless image making, trying to vulgarize the bean by branding it like some woe begotten Hereford calf, is one of the minor annoyances impressed upon America by socially conscious corporate Gen-Xers in the early 21st century. Like Ikea, it is not so much what it sells as much as how it makes you feel using the product.

If this be the future of capitalism, gag me.

The Starbucks House bean is better than some, not as good as many, and vastly inferior to the best. It’s quality is uneven with some beans I’ve used tasting as if it had been left in the sun for a year while others leaving the impression that the fella in charge of roasting the bean had a rough night before coming into work and fell asleep at the switch.

But it is a serviceable brew and does nicely in a pinch. “Any coffee is better than no coffee at all” is my motto, having been forced by economic circumstances when I was younger to do with brands like Folgers and Maxwell House - convinced that much of what was contained in those cans was swept from the floor of the coffee warehouse.

Which brings me (after our fun little digression) to this story about what else you can get at Starbucks:

Current and former employees of the gourmet coffee chain filed a federal complaint yesterday claiming their corporate bosses have refused to heed repeated warnings about inadequate training and chronic infestations of roaches, rats and other vermin in New York stores.

But the company strongly denied the allegations, noting the complaints were coordinated by a handful of activists who are trying to unionize the chain’s normally merry band of baristas.

[snip]

“I constantly have to deal with mice, cockroaches and fruit flies all over the place,” said Tomer Malchi, 24, who works at the Union Square store. “The root of the problem is that we’re never staffed properly to clean the place right and we never have the right equipment to clean the stores.”

Starbucks, which has refused to recognize the union, brushed off the allegations as “the latest tactic in an aggressive campaign against Starbucks and our partners that is designed to damage the credibility and good name of the company” by a “very small number” of current and former employees.

In defense of the employees, I know how extraordinarily difficult it is to keep a place that sells and stores food clean. In defense of the company, I can tell you that the there is plenty of time and people to clean up when the day is done. Smart managers direct their employees to clean constantly, each shift being responsible for certain “hard” cleaning tasks like the dispensers or condiment trays while everyone pitches in with cleaning the surfaces on a constant basis. Floors and prep surfaces are where the bugs live and prosper and these should be done at least twice a day.

But when you’re paid barely above minimum wage and don’t necessarily want to make wearing that silly uniform your life’s legacy, lots of things slip through the cracks. And if the company doesn’t have an exterminator coming in on a monthly (or even weekly basis) then they deserve every bad word of publicity they get out of this.

I don’t know, though. Perhaps it will enhance the image of the company with the “organics” crowd. Can’t get much more natural than rat hair in your Caramel Macchiato .

This is a HUGE SURPRISE! The already shaky underpinnings of the Bush dictatorship received a crippling blow that may help collapse the entire, rotten edifice:

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

(Bias? What media Bias? “…[S]ecretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries” conjures up the men in the black van hunched over their magic decoder machine listening in while Auntie Midge talks to her sister in Budapest. If the judge based her decision on what was known about the program, this description of it is so far off from the truth of the matter as to not even be in the same galaxy.)

I can barely type this through my tears of joy. Lambchop and all the civil libertarian absolutists who have battled to save the soul of America lo these many years by trying to make the world safe for journalists, academics, lawyers, and their terrorist contacts overseas are to receive all the plaudits of a grateful nation.

Do you think a parade for these heroes is enough? Perhaps a laurel wreath of triumph and gratitude to be placed upon their fetid brow? How about (eliminationist rhetoric warning) a rope around their necks?

After all, what do you think the penalty was during World War II if a journalist, or scholar, or lawyer was found to be in contact with a member of the Nazi party in Germany? I can guarantee that the FBI took a very dim view of such contacts. I guess they figured if you couldn’t do your job unless you were talking to the enemy, that kinda made you, ya know, like, the enemy too.

But then, World War II was a real war, not this trumped up, ginned up political sideshow hatched by Evil Karl and Shrub in order to make their buddies in the military industrial complex rich and instill terror in the hearts of Americans so that they would vote for Republicans rather than Democrats in elections. This, after all, is no fair at all. Since Democrats could give a sh*t about national security, elections should avoid this issue at all costs. Better to have elections hinge on Democratic issues of taxing the rich (anyone who makes over $25,000 a year), enslaving the poor, handcuffing businesses, and playing pattycakes with the thugs in Hamas, Hizbullah, and any other dirty necked galoot (especially that radioactive elf in Tehran) who can prove that Shrub is at fault for all the troubles in the world.

There was one bright spot in the judge’s ruling. That other top secret program that liberals say was an impeachable offense and was proof of the President’s march to dictatorship that uses data mining techniques to develop information on terrorist networks was declared “constitutional” after all.

Maybe we could get that gizmo they used in Men in Black and flash the entire world, replacing the memory of people having information on that program with a recipe for my Aunt Donna’s corned beef and cabbage.

Oh, that’s right. No such gizmo exists. I guess we’ll just have to ask for an apology from the press and a great big “never mind” for revealing it in the first place. I await the day that happens with as much anticipation as I await the day that Ned Lamont takes his rightful seat on one of the most influential bodies in the world - the Connecticut Port-o-Potty Authority.

And no, we’re not going to ask liberals to apologize. After all, they were looking out for all of our interests. Even the interests of the terrorists who, after all, are almost human too. Better that 100,000 Americans die than one terrorist suspect in this country have a conversation monitored with his Aunt Beddie Boo in Damascus. (I sympathize. I had an Aunt Beddie Boo in Damascus m’self once).

Leave it to Goldstein to crystallize thinking and reveal the truth of the matter:

Even still, it’s amazing that we’ve reached the nuance point where only by revealing secrets can we show the the secrets in question should not be revealed, lest they damage programs meant to protect us from attacks, which only work while details of how they work remain secret.

But it’s the thought that counts.

And what I’m thinking at this moment (Warning: more eliminationist rhetoric) about the civil liberties absolutists who revealed both these programs would get me 20 years to life in the real world.

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Today, we’ll examine the Democratic party and where they stand on the eve of perhaps taking over the Congress. We’ll also look at Hizbullah’s relationship with the Lebanese cabinet as well as taking a glance at Israel’s situation.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

In the midst of a war where the forces of civilization have just suffered their first major defeat, it is quite natural to start pointing fingers and assigning blame. In Israel, they are already sharpening the long knives as MK’s are making room on their lodge poles for the scalps of several politicians and generals who, according to most observers, allowed Hizbullah this rather impressive strategic victory.

While the United States was not engaged militarily in this debacle, we nevertheless failed utterly in the only place where we really could have done some good for Israel; at the United Nations. The passage of Resolution 1701, mandating a cease fire in Lebanon, is already turning into our very own diplomatic nightmare. And the blame for this must rest squarely on the shoulders of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

Perhaps anticipating the heavy criticism that will be coming her way once it is apparent that Hizbullah will not cooperate in implementing the cease fire accord and that Israel will be constrained from taking any action to make them, Rice penned a dishonest Op-Ed in today’s Washington Post where she not only tries to spin her way out of trouble but also misstates several key parts of the cease fire agreement and downplays or glosses over others that she knows will never be implemented. And if she actually believes some of the tripe she has written, perhaps that is reason enough, along with the fact that she may have lost the confidence of the President, for her to resign.

Rice lists 3 components of the cease fire that she claims will be decisive in altering the “status quo” on the Lebanese-Israeli Border:

First, it puts in place a full cessation of hostilities. We also insisted on the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah must immediately cease its attacks on Israel, and Israel must halt its offensive military operations in Lebanon, while reserving the right of any sovereign state to defend itself. This agreement went into effect on Monday, after the Israeli and Lebanese cabinets agreed to its conditions.

The United States may have “insisted on the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers” but we didn’t get it. That is an issue to be determined later and will almost certainly involve a prisoner exchange, not “unconditional release.” of the IDF men. In fact, we insisted on many things in this resolution including an international force not part of UNIFIL operating under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which would have allowed this independent force to shoot if Hizbullah would not comply with the terms of the cease fire. What we got was a tepid augmentation of the UNIFIL force operating under Chapter 6 strictures which are much more defensive and will prevent the UN from enforcing the will of the Security Council with regards to Hizbullah’s weapons.

Here’s the second component of the cease fire agreement that the Secretary assures us will alter the status quo on the border:

Second, this resolution will help the democratic government of Lebanon expand its sovereign authority. The international community is imposing an embargo on all weapons heading into Lebanon without the government’s consent. We are also enhancing UNIFIL, the current U.N. force in Lebanon. The new UNIFIL will have a robust mandate, better equipment and as many as 15,000 soldiers — a sevenfold increase from its current strength. Together with this new international force, the Lebanese Armed Forces will deploy to the south of the country to protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area. As this deployment occurs, Israel will withdraw behind the “Blue Line” and a permanent cease-fire will take hold.

Either the Secretary has blinders on or she is being deliberately disingenuous and perhaps dishonest.

How will this resolution expand the authority of the Lebanese government? The resolution says much. It’s high minded words are soothing to the ear. But we are not dealing with people who plan on relinquishing their hard won gains at the conference table that they won on the battlefield.

Hizbullah and their leader Hassan Nasrallah are in the ascendancy in Lebanon. During the conflict, Nasrallah exercised veto power over what cease fire terms were acceptable to Lebanon. The sad fact is that Prime Minister Siniora is not in charge at the moment in Lebanon. With Hizbullah balking at disarming as well as moving their forces from the southern part of the country, Siniora doesn’t dare call a cabinet meeting to discuss the matter lest the Hizbullah ministers walk out and his government fall - a blow that could open the door to any number of nightmare scenarios. Siniora is trapped and no United Nations resolution is going to help him “expand the authority” of the Lebanese government until Hizbullah is disarmed.

And what about that little detail, Madame Secretary? In her Op-Ed, Rice is all over the map regarding the disarmament of Hizbullah. In the segment quoted above, she seems to be saying that the Lebanese army will deploy with the augmented UNIFIL force to “protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area.” So will Hizbullah be armed or disarmed? Here, she seems to be saying that UNIFIL will disarm the terrorists:

Finally, this resolution clearly lays out the political principles to secure a lasting peace: no foreign forces, no weapons and no authority in Lebanon other than that of the sovereign Lebanese government.

Clearly the two goals are incompatible, although she may be talking about a “lasting peace” in the context of further negotiations over other issues such as prisoner exchanges and the Shebaa Farms matter. However, surely she knows Israel’s ironclad position on Hizbullah disarmament; that the IDF will not leave southern Lebanon until the terrorists lay down their weapons. How can she reconcile her rosy resolution scenario with the completely useless Lebanese army being deployed alongside a UN force that has failed for 28 years to fulfill its mandate?

Just today, Secretary Rice said that UNIFIL would not be disarming Hizbullah, that this was a job for the Lebanese government:

“I don’t think there is an expectation that this (U.N.) force is going to physically disarm Hezbollah,” Rice said. “I think it’s a little bit of a misreading about how you disarm a militia. You have to have a plan, first of all, for the disarmament of the militia, and then the hope is that some people lay down their arms voluntarily.”

If Hezbollah resists international demands to disarm, Rice said, “one would have to assume that there will be others who are willing to call Hezbollah what we are willing to call it, which is a terrorist organization.”

If people are not going to call Hizbullah a terrorist organization after the thugs launched almost 4,000 rockets and missiles into Israeli towns and cities in order to kill as many civilians as possible then nothing on earth they do will change the laggard’s minds.

It is this kind of disconnect from reality that makes me question the Secretary’s fitness to remain in office. For there is much more in the Washington Post Op-Ed that calls into question Ms. Rice’s grasp of the situation as well as her honesty.

Her belief that the Lebanese army will be effective in doing anything at all is belied by this assessment from Janes:

Yet as things stand the Lebanese Army, which has operated primarily as an internal security force since the 1975-90 civil war, is incapable of undertaking any peacekeeping mission unless Hizbullah is completely disarmed.

It has been starved of funds for years because of Lebanon’s economic woes, it is poorly equipped and does not have the combat experience or motivation of Hizbullah’s battle-hardened Shi’ite fighters.

More troublesome is the composition of the army’s 11 mechanised brigades and half-dozen special forces formations along sectarian lines between Christians and Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims.

The Lebanese army has been a barracks army for 20 years. Calling them an “army” doesn’t make them so. And if this is the bunch that is being counted on to help disarm Hizbullah - something that Nasrallah has insisted isn’t going to happen voluntarily - then the world and Resolution 1701 are in deep trouble.

And what of this mythical arms embargo? As I write this, Iran and Syria are busy resupplying their client in Lebanon with no thought of complying with the resolution’s mandate that only the government of Lebanon be the recipient of any arms transactions. Why should Iran and Syria comply? Who is going to stop them?

Perhaps the augmented UNIFIL force will be able to help - if they ever get there:

A United Nations international force is expected to land in Lebanon within two weeks, but analysts said yesterday that U.N. troops will be unable to disarm Hezbollah against its will.

“We would like to see 3,000 to 3,500 troops within 10 days to two weeks,” Hedi Annabi, assistant secretary-general for U.N. peacekeeping operations, told reporters in New York.

“That would be ideal to help consolidate the cessation of hostilities and start the process of withdrawal and deployment of the Lebanese forces,” Mr. Annabi said.

[snip]

Mr. Annan has been working the phones since Saturday to get world leaders to commit to creating a robust international force, but there have been no formal commitments, Mr. Dujarric said.

C. David Welch, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said the U.S. would send a senior interagency team to the United Nations today and tomorrow to help shape the enhanced UNIFIL force.

The United Nations, he said, “is on a fast track to try and supplement and enhance” the force in Lebanon. “They are meeting every day in preparation for that.”

The current UNIFIL force has troops from China, France, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Ukraine. Mr. Welch said other countries, including Turkey, might participate in the enhanced force.

There is no doubt that Secretary Rice is sincere in her belief that she got the best possible deal for the United States and Israel at the UN. And despite her obvious spinning and outright dishonesty in putting the best face on the outcome, the fact is that Resolution 1701 - recognizing as it does a terrorist group as a legitimate combatant in a war with Israel - is an unmitigated disaster for the United States and almost as big a blow to the cause of freedom and democracy as Israel’s disaster on the battlefield.

Pretty strong stuff, I know. But if one were to examine the world prior to the Israeli-Islamist War and the world afterwards, several hugely significant differences have emerged that have further endangered Israel, complicated our efforts to deny Iran the nuclear weapons it wants so badly, pushed our allies in the Middle East closer to the Iranians, and perhaps fatally weakened the Lebanese government.

In Rice’s defense, it is not entirely her fault. Some of the blame must accrue to the President for not infusing a sense of urgency on Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert in the early days of the war against Hizbullah. Bush refused to call Olmert for the first few weeks of the military campaign - a campaign that unfolded with painful slowness and puzzling hesitancy on the part of the IDF. While Bush’s reticence with Olmert was rightfully interpreted as signalling a “green light” for Israel to carry out a wide ranging war against Hizbullah, once it became clear that Olmert wasn’t moving with boldness and speed, perhaps a call from the President would have alerted Olmert to the fact that his “green light” could turn amber or even red in the very near future unless he got a move on.

Finally, it is very possible that Rice has lost the confidence of the President. This piece that appeared in Insight Magazine is extraordinary for the candor of the Secretary’s people in describing how the President allowed Rice to be undermined by the Cheney faction in the White House during the war:

The disagreement between Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice is over the ramifications of U.S. support for Israel’s continued offensive against Lebanon. The sources said Mr. Bush believes that Israel’s failure to defeat Hezbollah would encourage Iranian adventurism in neighboring Iraq. Ms. Rice has argued that the United States would be isolated both in the Middle East and Europe at a time when the administration seeks to build a consensus against Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Instead, Ms. Rice believes the United States should engage Iran and Syria to pressure Hezbollah to end the war with Israel. Ms. Rice has argued that such an effort would result in a U.S. dialogue with Damascus and Tehran on Middle East stability.

[snip]

The sources said Mr. Bush’s position has been supported by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and to a lesser extent National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. They have urged the president to hold off international pressure and give Israel more time to cause strategic damage to Hezbollah as well as Iranian and Syrian interests in Lebanon.

Secretary Rice bears most of the responsibility for agreeing to a UN cease fire resolution with little prospect that it will do anything that it says it will. All it has done is prevented Israel from continuing an offensive that was just starting to make rapid progress in inflicting the kind of damage on Hizbullah that would have made Nasrallah’s claims of “victory” ring hollow. For this reason, her continued usefulness to the President should be called into question.

UPDATE: MORE “FIG LEAF DIPLOMACY”

Via the Washington Times, AP is reporting that the Lebanese cabinet has reached an agreement with Hizbullah to deploy the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon as long as Hizbullah keeps its weapons out of sight:

The government ordered the army, which has been assembling north of the river, to “insure respect” for the Blue Line, the U.N.-demarcated border between Lebanon and Israel, and “apply the existing laws with regard to any weapons outside the authority of the Lebanese state.”

That provision does not require Hezbollah to give up its arms, but rather directs them to keep them off the streets. “There will be no authority or weapons other than those of the state,” said Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said.

Hezbollah’s top official in south Lebanon said the group welcomed the Lebanese army’s deployment even as he hinted that the Shiite guerrillas would not disarm in the region or withdraw but rather melt into the local population and hide their weapons.

“Just like in the past, Hezbollah had no visible military presence and there will not be any visible presence now,” Sheik Nabil Kaouk told reporters Wednesday in the southern port city of Tyre.

I would wager that the UN will stipulate that Lebanon is in compliance with Resolution 1701 despite this cynical and transparent attempt by Hizbullah to circumvent its mandate and then dare the Israelis to break the cease fire.

This is no surprise. It was predicted by most opponents of the Resolution before it was even voted on. We should be ashamed of ourselves for signing on to this treacherous bit of UN lunacy. Before the truly evil thugs of the world, the United Nations is worse than useless; it becomes complicit with the evil in order to satisfy its own narrow minded and cynical membership who crave the appellation “peacemaker” when in fact they become little better than gravediggers.

This next round is on the UN.

UPDATE II

Bryan at Hot Air links a rather over done piece from the New York Post equating the cease fire with Munich but he’s nevertheless spot on with this assessment:

The Syrians and Iranians think they have hit upon a strategy to destroy Israel: Attack it with standoff weapons like Katyushas, goading it into fighting a ground war that frightens the world into halting Israel’s defensive actions. The end game is that Israel can’t defend its borders, it becomes demoralized and then the Arabs and Iranians move in for the kill. In response to the standoff attacks, Israel has the choice of non-response, weak response or brutal response–there’s no way to uproot an entrenched army of any size without using some very nasty tactics and weapons. I’m not talking nukes or anything like that–just weapons that make for bad TV. Which gets us back to underestimating the weakness of the left.

And you shouldn’t underestimate the ambitions of tyrants. You’d think we would have learned that lesson by now.

Indeed.