Right Wing Nut House

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

“Abandon all hope, ye who enter here!”
(Inscription above the Gates of Hell from Dante’s Inferno)

Tonight, 16 million TV viewers will make themselves as comfortable as possible on the edge of their seats as Fox Network’s pulse-pounding actioneer 24 returns for another season. This means that an American entertainment icon will also make a return, sparking both intense loyalty and raging controversy.

Jack Bauer (played by Emmy Award winner Kiefer Sutherland), the fictional counter terrorism agent working for the fictional Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU). is perhaps the most recognizable character in American television today. Even people who have never seen the show have an opinion about him. Bauer’s well know predilection for torture, violence, rebellion against authority, and a rather novel approach to civil liberties, has sparked debate far beyond the confines of the show. Serious forums involving intellectuals and constitutional experts have convened to discuss the implications of what Bauer does in order to succeed and defeat the terrorists threatening America. Numerous articles in newsmagazines from Newsweek, to The New Republic have been written about Bauer discussing his impact on our culture and politics.

Bauer has transcended the entertainment world and become a political talisman; stroked by the right and bashed by the left, 24 has become the favorite guilty pleasure of the political class in America. Even many liberals confess their addiction to the show, despite Bauer’s enormously troubling use of torture and the cavalier way in which he disregards the constitutional niceties. And many conservatives, seeing Jack taking the fight directly to our enemies (along with maintaining a moral certitude that is both refreshing and emotionally satisfying), cheer Jack on as he battles evil.

Last year at this time on these pages, I called Bauer “The Perfect Post 9-11 Hero:”

Torn as America is between getting the job done at all costs while upholding American ideals, Jack simply can’t help himself. He necessarily sees the world in stark relief, a place populated by some really nasty thugs who don’t even blink at the idea of murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We recoil at some of Jack’s tactics. But we recognize that Jack is the guy doing what needs to be done to keep us safe. This makes Jack Bauer the perfect hero in a post 9/11 America. He doesn’t engage in any kind of self destructive hand wringing about not being able to do anything about the threat. His doubts — if he has any — have been left on the cutting room floor. He sacrifices his personal life for the greater good. In this respect, he is a true patriot.

And while Bauer still fills that bill, events transpired on the show last year that narrowed the focus of Jack’s universe and ultimately, made his quest to bring down the terrorists a personal matter.

The murder of ex-President Palmer, Tony Almeida, and Michelle Dressler along with the terrorist nerve gas attack on CTU headquarters turned Bauer into an avenging angel of death. Stopping the terrorists became a means to an end - finding and killing the murderer of his cherished friends. Every thread Bauer unravelled, every bad guy he killed brought him closer to the man who took so much from him. Christopher Henderson (played brilliantly by Peter Weller), a super patriot who wanted to use terrorist attacks as a smokescreen to secure oil rights in the Caucuses, met his end not in a violent shoot out but by cold blooded, deliberate execution. There was something shocking in the way Jack carried out the sentence of death:

JACK: You are responsible for the death of David Palmer, Tony Almeida, and Michelle Dessler. They were friends of mine.

HENDERSON: That’s the way it works.

The sound of the shot from Jack’s gun was jarring. The realization that Bauer was capable of such a cold blooded act - especially since Henderson would have had information valuable to the continuing hunt for suspects - was disconcerting because it took the character into uncharted waters. Bauer was human after all. And the sense of loss that drove him to what can only be described as murder had finally overwhelmed him.

This theme of loss has been a part of the show ever since the end of Season 1 when Baur’s wife was killed by a CTU mole. It seems that ever since that first awful day, Bauer has been descending slowly into hell; a place not of his own making but one that he chooses to inhabit in order to give his life meaning. Indeed, one of the most common questions asked about Bauer is does Jack have a death wish? Placing himself deliberately in harms way as often as he does, it may very well be that in some way, Bauer longs for the release that death can bring him. But what he really craves is to fill the emptiness in his heart, the hole in his soul. If death is the only means to that end, Bauer will gladly take it.

The death of his wife and estrangement from his daughter along with the death of almost all the people he ever cared about has exacted an emotional and psychological toll on the troubled hero that makes him an extremely vulnerable character one the audience wants to wrap their arms around and protect. This vulnerability was never more in evidence than in the conclusion of last year’s final episode when, having been kidnapped by the Chinese for a past transgression, he is lying beaten and bloodied in the hold of a cargo ship bound for Shanghai. Slowly, Bauer raises his head and says in a pained and pleading voice,

“Kill me….Please kill me…” .

This from a man who has faced death a thousand times, a thousand different ways. Does the prospect of spending the rest of his life in a Chinese prison make him think that death is preferable to an existence without friends, family, or purpose?

It is this kind of vulnerability that will drive the show this year. The Emmy Award winning production team of writers, producers, and special effects wizards were faced with the problem all long running TV dramas must come to grips with: How do you top what you’ve done previously?

Rather than go for bigger terrorist threats, larger explosions, and more expansive plot lines, the drama this year will be telescoped to an emotional level not experienced by fans of the series before. Released from the Chinese prison where he has been beaten and whipped into apparent submission, Bauer will spend the first 24 hours of his freedom trying to stop a year long spate of terrorist attacks that have the country in an uproar. A war in the White House is going on between civil liberties absolutists and security advocates. But the heart of the show will be the emotional turmoil and self doubt of Bauer himself. Jack’s personal demons are finally going to get a thorough airing this year and it should make for compelling, riveting television.

In order to defeat the terrorists, Bauer will once again have to descend to their designated circle of hell to confront them. From the terrorists inhabiting Dante’s Seventh Circle who commit “violence against their neighbors,” to the bureaucratic hypocrites, evil counselors, and falsifiers in the Eighth Circle, all the way down to the worst of the worst - the betrayers of their own country in the Ninth Circle where Dante saved his most gruesome descriptive of punishment - the tormented souls are condemned to gnaw on the heads of their neighbor for eternity.

But unlike Dante, Jack has no guarantee that he will escape. He has been living in his own personal hell for so long that it is an open question whether he can tell the difference between the light and the darkness. For him, there is only a grayish existence, both in and out of the world. His one connection to the sane, the rational - his girlfriend Audrey Raines - is tenuous at best. Audrey and Jack’s past is one of enormous pain and betrayal. There is much to overcome if those two are to find any kind of happiness.

But I doubt whether Bauer will be thinking much about happiness in the coming 24 hours. And that is the secret to success of the show. It is anti-formulaic. Just when you think you can’t be surprised any more, the writers drop a bomb so unexpected, you don’t know whether to clap your hands in glee or throw something at the TV screen. Unexpected deaths of series regulars is the signature of the show and there is no reason to expect that will change this season.

So sit tight, get set, and strap it down. We’re about ready to experience another thrill ride that will alternately have us gripping our chairs in white knuckled suspense and cheering Jack on with a gusto we usually reserve for our sports teams. Like the knights of old, he sallies forth to engage in single combat with the terrorists, defending the honor of the United States and protecting her through the sheer force of his iron will. There’s nothing like it on television. And there’s never been anything like it before.

UPDATE:

As I write this at 9:00 PM Sunday night, an ice storm is brewing in the Chicago area. Already there is a good 1/2 inch of ice coating the driveway.

There is also a half inch of ice coating the power lines. If they go, it will probably be a couple of days before I get power back.

No power would mean no internet for me. If this site isn’t updated by noon tomorrow, you’ll know that we’ve had a power outage.

Otherwise, my 24 post recapping the first two hours will be on the site by 10:30 AM at the latest. I work Sunday nights 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM and it will take a few hours to review the video and write the post.

If we have power, my Tuesday recap will appear at the usual time - around 7:00 AM central.

UPDATE: 1/15

Okay. I’ve had an intermittent internet connection this morning which will delay the posting of last night’s summary until perhaps 11:00 AM - 11:30 AM central.

I apologize for the delay and thank everyone for their patience.

The Associated Press is reporting that diplomats and intelligence agencies are at a loss to explain an apparent pause in Iran’s drive to enrich nuclear fuel:

Iran’s uranium enrichment program appears stalled despite tough talk from the Tehran leadership, leaving intelligence services guessing about why it has not made good on plans to press ahead with activities that the West fears could be used to make nuclear arms, diplomats said today.

Outside monitoring of Iran’s nuclear endeavors is restricted to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of declared sites, leaving significant blind spots for both the agency and intelligence agencies of member countries trying to come up with the full picture.

Still, Tehran’s reluctance to crank up activities at its declared enrichment site at Natanz when it seems to have the technical know-how is puzzling the diplomatic and intelligence communities. Some say it is potentially worrisome.

Diplomats accredited or otherwise linked to the Vienna-based IAEA, speaking on condition of anonymity in exchange for discussing restricted information on the Iranian program, said some intelligence services believed that the Natanz site was a front.

While the world’s attention is focused on Natanz, Iranian scientists and military personnel could be working on a secret enrichment program at one or more unknown sites that are much more advanced than what is going on at the declared site, they said.

I think the most likely reason for the apparent pause in the Iranian program is very simple; they are having problems overcoming the technological hurdles involved in making 3,000 centrifuges work the way they’re supposed to.

Having the technical “know how” and then actually carrying out the experiment are two totally different kettles of fish:

IAEA inspectors arrived at Natanz yesterday for a routine round of monitoring.

But one of the diplomats said they were unlikely to find anything but the status quo — two small pilot plants assembled in 164 centrifuge “cascades” but working only sporadically to produce small quantities of non-weapons-grade enriched uranium and other individual centrifuges undergoing mechanical testing. That essentially has been the situation at Natanz since late November, he said.

There have been no signs of any activity linked to Iranian plans to assemble 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz and move them into an underground facility as the start of an ambitious program foreseeing 50,000 centrifuges producing enriched material, said the diplomats.

We tend to forget that Iran is a third world country, one of the most insular nations on earth. Ever since we exposed the A.Q. Khan nuclear black market network 3 years ago, it is likely that the kind of technical expertise that could help the Iranians get over the hump and start those centrifuges whirring also dried up. Since intelligence agencies (along with the IAEA) keep a close watch on nuclear scientists from countries like Pakistan and North Korea, they would know if Iran was receiving the kind of technical assistance that would help keep their nuke program on track.

In short, the Iranians may have hit a technological road block - temporarily. Given time and money, they will almost certainly be able to work through their problems.

This, in fact, was foretold by nuclear experts a year ago:

So, the real question, however, is how quickly Iran could assemble and operate 1,500 centrifuges in a crash program to make enough HEU for one bomb (say 15-20 kg).

Albright and Hinderstein have created a notional timeline for such a program:

Assemble 1,300-1,600 centrifuges. Assuming Iran starts assembling centrifuges at a rate of 70-
100/month, Iran will have enough centrifuges in 6-9 months.

Combine centrifuges into cascades, install control equipment, building feed and withdrawal systems, and test the Fuel Enrichment Plant. 1 year

Enrich enough HEU for a nuclear weapon. 1 year

Weaponize the HEU. A “few” months.

Total time to the bomb—about three years.

And that was based on things going relatively smoothly. What could go wrong?

Iran might not be able to meet such a schedule for bringing a centrifuge plant into operation. The suspension of manufacturing and operating centrifuges could be reestablished, or Iran might have trouble making so many centrifuges. In addition, Iran does not appear to have accumulated enough experience to operate a cascade of centrifuges reliably. Iran had assembled 164 centrifuges into a cascade just before the suspension, but it did not acquire sufficient experience in operating the cascade to be certain it would perform adequately. Centrifuges can crash during operation, causing other centrifuges in the cascade to fail—in essence, destroying the entire cascade. Thus, Iran might need a year or more of additional experience in operating test cascades before building and operating a plant able to make HEU for nuclear weapons.

In the last year, Iran has operated those 164 centrifuges successfully and enriched an extremely small amount of uranium about 5%. In order to build a bomb, they would have to operate a cascade using 10 times the number of centrifuges, for at least 12 months of constant, flawless operation in order to enrich a much, much larger amount of uranium to 85-90%.

Does this mean they don’t have a “dual track” program - a civilian program that is being inspected by the IAEA (at present) and a secret military program that no one knows about?

The CIA considered such a possibility but could find no evidence to support it although there were troubling indications of military research and development of centrifuge technology. It would come as a huge surprise indeed if the Iranians were enriching uranium using sophisticated cascades and thousands of centrifuges in secret while appearing to make only marginal progress publicly.

Could the CIA be that wrong about the Iranian program? Considering their track record, the answer is yes. The Israelis believe the Iranians are less than 2 years from having a workable bomb, hence their own sabre rattling recently.

Anthony Cordesman may have divined the real reason for the slowdown in the Iranian nuclear program:

Anthony Cordesman, an Iran specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, suggested an additional possibility linked to theories that Tehran was forging ahead with its enrichment program at undisclosed locations: fear that any major progress at Natanz could provoke military action by Israel or the United States.

“It’s a known facility and more and more of the subject of discussion as a possible Israeli or U.S. target,” Mr. Cordesman said from Washington. “So, do you use this facility now or wait to see what threat you face?”

I think the left is right about this one. I think Bush fully intends to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities before he leaves office - especially if he thinks his successor won’t. Considering the possible problems that the Iranians are having with their program, this just doesn’t make any sense.

We have time - time to build the kind of international coalition that we failed to do on Iraq. The Europeans are already on board. Even Russia and China agree that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Bombing them at this point without applying progressively more painful sanctions is stupid. If necessary, we could blockade their ports or if worse came to worse, destroy their oil facilities. Yes, these are both acts of war - acts committed against a country that declared war on the United States 28 years ago. But even bombing their oil facilities would be far preferable to the kind of sustained, massive air attack that would be necessary to interrupt the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons.

I agree that a nuclear armed Iran is as bad as it gets for the peace and security of the world. But they’re not there yet and may be nowhere near the point where they are a threat.

Rex “The Wonder Dog” Grossman drops back against Tampa Bay last month.

It seems that everyone turned against the quarterback who came out of college so highly touted. Signed for an enormous amount of money, his first two season in the league were a disaster. Fans and sportswriters alike wanted his scalp. He was judged a bust, a has been before he had even gotten started.

Rex Grossman of the Chicago Bears? Nope. John Elway, Hall of Fame Quarterback from Denver:

For this man, the Denver Broncos gave up Chris Hinton, Mark Herrmann and a No. 1 draft choice?

For a man with a 47.5 completion percentage? For a man with twice as many interceptions (14) as touchdown passes (7)? For a man who was the lowest-rated quarterback in the American Football Conference?

For John Elway?

Where is the return on that investment?

It was called the Trade of the Century in May of 1983, when the Broncos obtained Elway from the Colts for Hinton, Herrmann and a first-round pick in the ‘84 draft. Bob Irsay’s pockets got picked, they said. The Broncos got Elway for far less than what other teams had offered the Colts before the ‘83 draft.

It still may be the Trade of the Century, but the emphasis may switch to the Colts. Hinton was an All-Pro guard in his rookie season in Baltimore. Elway was an all-low quarterback.

“I really don’t think it can get any worse than it was last year,” Elway said as Denver’s 1984 training camp opened.

It began in Minnesota in the last exhibition game of ‘83, his first as the Broncos’ starting quarterback. Elway was sacked five times and was 100 percent ineffective. Denver lost, 34-3.

It ended in Seattle in the AFC wild-card playoff game, Elway standing on the sideline in favor of Steve DeBerg. The long day’s journey into night closed with Elway silently leaving town just after Christmas, accompanied by none of the hubbub and clatter that marked his arrival.

(Sporting News: 9/10/84)

I have never seen such manufactured controversy and useless hand wringing over anything in my life. The idiocy surrounding all the criticism of Chicago quarterback Rex Grossman - a player who will be starting his 23rd game of professional football on Sunday against Seattle - is beyond the normal griping and complaining that fans are wont to do. The invective heaped upon Grossman is especially shocking because not only has the guy won 13 games his first full year as a starter but he has passed for more yardage and thrown more touchdowns than any Bears quarterback in a single season save one - Erik Kramer.

Very few NFL quarterbacks come out of college and dazzle right off the bat. Dan Marino was one. Joe Montana was another. But Brett Favre threw 24 interceptions his second year in the league (only 19 TD’s). And Peyton Manning may have had 55 TD passes his first two years in the league but he also had 43 interceptions.

And John Elway? After 26 games, Elway’s stats were very similar to Grossman’s (including a 76.8 passer rating his second year compared to Wonder Dog’s 73.9). Elway completed 57% of his passes for 2600 yards. He had 18 TD’s and 15 interceptions. Grossman completed 54.6% for 3100 yards with 23 TD’s and 20 interceptions.

He also showed flashes of brilliance, leading the league by racking up a QB rating of over 100 7 times.

And he showed flashes of awfulness by also leading the league in QB ratings under 40 (5).

While this would normally drive any football fan nutzo, what has my dander up is the jaw dropping stupidity of talk radio jocks (and pretend jocks) and many fans who actually think the kid is a bust after 22 games and should be benched or traded. The kid won 13 games, passed for 3,000 yards and fans want to trade him in for…what? A shot at drafting Brady Quinn or some other college phenom?

Or perhaps we trade for a better quarterback or sign one in the offseason via free agency? Who? Looks like Jake Plummer might be available, a guy who hasn’t won anywhere in his life. Or perhaps someone currently playing backup?

This is crazy!

And the Bear’s current backup, Brian Greise, has never won a playoff game. Greise will not, cannot take the Bears to the Super Bowl. But Wonder Dog can. Perhaps not this year. But if he can continue to stay healthy, Grossman will take his place among the NFL elite quarterbacks very soon. And if the Bears can maintain their high level of play on defense, there should be absolutely no reason why they can’t win a few Super Bowls in the next 5 years.

The mindless Rex-bashing is led by Ron Jurkovic, former player and current host of the most popular sports radio talk show on the air in Chicago:

“Rex cannot take this team to the Super Bowl, but most of the city knows his crappiness can stop them from going there,” said retired 10-year NFL veteran John Jurkovic, part of the “Mac, Jurko and Harry Show” on Chicago’s ESPN Radio 1000. “The defense will take them there, the special teams will take them there, but Rex just needs to go along for the ride and quit being a moron.”

Jurkovic is joined on the show by Dan McNeil who was fond of saying that Michael Jordan was finished as a basketball player the year he returned from his days playing baseball. Jordan went on to win the MVP of the league twice as well as 3 more world championships proving that McNeil knows about as much about sports as my pet cat Snowball.

And the fans who call in are even more ignorant - the big reason I stopped listening to sports talk radio years ago. Egged on my any number of hosts, the fans who call into these shows don’t know squat about the game and make fools of themselves railing against young Wonder Dog. After listening for about a half an hour in the car yesterday, I had to turn it off before I blew a gasket (not in the car, in my head).

With Grossman, the Bears will suffer through games where he will look like a junior college transfer from Iowa who just walked out of the cornfield. He will also have games where he dazzles. This is the price of youth. In a year or two, Grossman will be putting up all pro numbers and fans will forget they ever wanted to get rid of him. Or he will be gone and putting those numbers up somewhere else. And these very same fans who have directed the most vicious barbs at Grossman demanding his exit will then complain that the Bears should have hung onto the kid and waited until he matured.

Then again, if Wonder Dog doesn’t come through this Sunday, he may want to consider a disguise of some sort - at least until the season begins next year.

UPDATE

According to the Trib Sports Blog, there are still hundreds of tickets left for Sunday’s game.

There’s a good reason for that:

Maybe it’s the price. That aforementioned pair of tickets will run you $650 — before Ticketmaster adds their convenience fees, handling fees, processing fees… and whatever else they tack on these days. At least it’s late enough in the game that you can pick your tickets up at Will Call rather than get stuck for shipping fees.

“Other teams’ fans just aren’t willing to spend that kind of money for a playoff game,” StubHub spokesman Sean Pate told the Daily Herald. “Bears fans are more passionate. They’ll put college tuition on hold for a big game.”

I went to a Redskins-Bears playoff game at old RFK Stadium in DC back in 1984 and paid $500 for two tickets. But that was from a season ticket holder not a ticket broker. Bears won as Walter rushed for more than 100 yards and the defense stifled the Redskin offense.

If the Bears can get by Seattle, I don’t think they’ll have any problem at all getting rid of tickets - at any price. This town is ready for a Bears run to the Super Bowl. And a chance to go to the big game by winning next week will have this town in an uproar - absolutely mad with Bear fever.

Be still my beating heart…The Bears and Jack Bauer all in one day. Can I stand it?

The President weeps at yesterday’s Medal of Honor Ceremony for Corporal Jason Dunham.

I must start by stating the obvious. I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist, or liberal know it all who tries to play at psychoanalyzing political opponents by ascribing laughable motivations or evil intent to people whose only psychological malady is that they fail to see the brilliance and simple goodness of liberals and left wing dogma. Armchair Freuds and Jungs abound on the left and it can get rather tiresome being told that you suffer from some kind of mental disease simply because you disagree with someone politically.

But you don’t have to be a trained mental health professional to recognize the fact that the President of the United States is under a terrible burden and that at this moment in history, when all the ancient furies have been loosed to torment him, George W. Bush is feeling the loneliness of his office more keenly than at any time in his presidency.

You saw it in his posture and the way he delivered his televised speech on Wednesday night. His cadence was stiff and unnatural. Rather than flowing from one point to another, the speech seemed choppy and out of kilter. His peroration - usually a chance for any President to hit the ball out of the park - fell flat rather than soar and inspire.

We usually chalk this kind of performance up to the fact that Bush is a poor communicator. But, as Hindraker points out, these set piece Oval Office speeches have seen Bush excel in the past:

In the past, I’ve often said that President Bush has been more effective in televised speeches than he has been given credit for. Not tonight. I thought he came across as stiff, nervous, and anxious to get it over with. The importance of the issue seemed to overwhelm the President’s ability to communicate. I suspect that only a few listeners absorbed more than a general impression of what the new strategy is all about.

Hindraker isn’t the only one who noticed that Bush was way off his game that night. Howard Fineman of Newsweek, who has covered Bush since 1993, said basically the same thing:

George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup. I first interviewed the guy in 1987 and began covering his political rise in 1993, and I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared. Not surprising since what he was doing in the White House library was announcing the escalation of an unpopular war.

I’m not sure about the President looking “scared,” although I would agree he didn’t look very sure of himself. In short, his speech did not inspire confidence among his supporters and, judging by the reaction in Congress on both sides of the aisle, it appeared to embolden his political foes. The Democrats are seriously considering legislation that would deny the Commander in Chief funds that he feels is necessary to protect the country. You can argue that he is wrong, misguided, or even stupid. You can even argue (and lefties are, of course, doing so) that he is lying through his teeth and that Haliburton isn’t through squeezing all the money out of our Iraq adventure yet - hence the surge in troops.

But what you cannot argue is that Bush is Constitutionally empowered as a result of being elected by a free and fair vote of the people President and Commander in Chief to act as he sees fit to protect the troops under his command and the nation he is responsible for. The coming confrontation with Democrats over funding for the Iraq War will strain our Constitutional government to the limit as age old questions about Presidential prerogatives versus Congressional power of the purse clash and battle lines are drawn that could determine the future security of the country and the world.

Is it any wonder that the President looks a little haggard? Weighed down with the fact that his policies in Iraq are failing, his political position eroding, the enemies of America becoming more aggressive, and many of his old friends deserting him on Iraq, the crushing responsibilities of his office appear to be taking a toll. Contrast this picture below from 2000 with the one above taken yesterday:

Certainly 6 years as President would take a toll on any man - except perhaps Ronald Reagan whose innate optimism and sunny disposition overcame almost all the vagaries and pitfalls of the office that normally turn Presidents into old men before their time.

But what becomes immediately apparent in comparing the two photos is the striking collapse or, more accurately, deflation of the President’s face. The flesh hangs loosely now. He has become a little jowly. And the worry lines have become pronounced on his forehead. He looks tired and frankly, beaten down.

For those who wish nothing but ill for this man, I say shame on you for you know not what you do. George Bush, at the moment is it. History has tapped him on the shoulder and until January 20, 2009 at the stroke of noon, he is the only President we have. If you care one whit about this country, you would hope that whatever happens, the President is able to bear the enormous burden that we have placed upon his shoulders. We may disagree with him on any number of issues. We may believe him to have blundered horribly in Iraq and the Middle East. But to gloat about the pain he is suffering and the loneliness he is experiencing or worse, hope that it all becomes too much for him demonstrates a monumental lack of empathy for a fellow human being and a breathtaking disregard for the well being of the country.

Presidents deal with the enormous burden the office places on them in different ways but they all have felt it at one time or another. Harry Truman used to relate an anecdote from his first official cabinet meeting following FDR’s funeral. The discussion went around the table about war policy toward Japan and then, a silence settled over the room. With a start, Truman realized that all eyes were on him as the cabinet was waiting expectantly for a decision. He said at that moment, he first felt the horrible loneliness of the office and wished devoutly he was back in Missouri.

Lincoln probably suffered from clinical depression for most of his adult life which made his time in the White House during the Civil War a living hell. The country agonized along with him and when he died, it was not uncommon to hear eulogies that compared his suffering and death with that of Jesus. The analogy was taken a step further as many also compared him to the redeemer - a man who died for the sin of slavery and hence, redeemed the country in the eyes of God.

In an article a few weeks ago, Tony Blankley summed up Bush’s slide following the elections in November:

The American presidency has been called “A Glorious Burden” by the Smithsonian Museum, and the loneliest job in the world by historians. As we approach Christmas 2006 Anno Domini, President Bush is surely fully seized of the loneliness and burden of his office.

For rarely has a president stood more alone at a moment of high crisis than does our president now as he makes his crucial policy decisions on the Iraq War. His political opponents stand triumphant, yet barren of useful guidance. Many — if not most — of his fellow party men and women in Washington are rapidly joining his opponents in a desperate effort to save their political skins in 2008. Commentators who urged the president on in 2002-03, having fallen out of love with their ideas, are quick to quibble with and defame the president.

Blankley is surely being disingenuous when he writes that opponents of the war are “barren of useful guidance.” Surrender and retreat is a perfectly viable option to push if you believe the war is already lost and nothing is to be gained by leaving our soldiers in Iraq one moment longer.

Bush does not believe we’ve already lost but it is an open question as to what kind of “victory” he envisions his augmented force can bring him. If he can accomplish what he outlined in his speech on Wednesday night - a large reduction in sectarian violence and the establishment of some kind of viable Iraqi state, then he will have at least avoided catastrophe. The problem is that both those goals cannot be achieved solely by the American military but are heavily dependent on the political actions of the Iraqi government. And given their track record, it is very difficult to be optimistic about a positive outcome.

George Bush is not a stupid man nor is he oblivious to what is going on around him - despite the ignorant commentary from the left about the mental acuity of their political opponents that has dogged Bush and every Republican President since Eisenhower. And watching that ceremony yesterday in which the Medal of Honor was awarded to Corporal Jason Dunham for the heroic act of falling on a live grenade to save two of his comrades, I was struck, as I often am with Bush, about how deeply he empathizes with those who have lost loved ones in the war. The dozens of private sessions he has held with widows, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers of the dead - out of sight of the cameras - are rarely reported on and even more rarely is he given credit for them. By all reports from family members, they are extremely wrenching emotionally as some parents yell at him and berate him for killing their child while others stand aloof, too upset with Bush to even acknowledge his presence.

I don’t care what you think of the man, but going through with those sessions knowing that some of the survivors are likely to accuse you of what amounts to murder takes guts. And, of course, there are many who report that the President’s words and actions comforted them during these private meetings.

The point is simple; whether because of his deep religious beliefs or simply the way he is, Bush’s enormous stores of empathy denote a man who is more likely to become emotionally crippled when the whole ball of wax begins to collapse. I don’t think Bush’s public tears are necessarily indicative of anything except perhaps exhaustion. But we have two long, hard years to go before the President leaves office. And judging by the way he looked during his speech Wednesday night and the way he looked yesterday at the medal ceremony, I am worried that events may simply overwhelm the President if a crisis occurs.

I feel for the man. I disagree with him but he is still my President, the elected leader of the United States. I sincerely hope that his faith in the Almighty and the love of his family can sustain him during the coming months.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is yours truly for “Religion and Politics: Intolerance Is Growing.” There was a tie for second with Andrew Olmsted’s “You Keep Using That Word…” and American Future’s “The Mysterious Mr. Ritter” sharing runners up honors.

Finishing on top in the non Council category was “The Blogosphere at War” from The Belmont Club.

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers vote, go here and follow instructions.

In a move that is sure to cause a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth around the world - illegal though it was but OH MY GOD SO SATISFYING! - American forces raided the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq just hours after the President’s speech:

U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq late Wednesday night and detained several people, Iran’s main news agency reported today, prompting protests from Tehran just hours after President Bush pledged to crack down on the Islamic Republic’s role in Iraqi violence.

Iran released news of the raid through its Islamic Republic News Agency in a dispatch that was broadly critical of Bush’s plan to deploy about 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

The IRNA report said that U.S. forces entered the Iranian consulate in Irbil, in Iraq’s Kurdish-dominated north, and seized computers, documents and other items. The report said five staff members were taken into custody.

Yes, I realize it is childish and churlish of me to feel this way about giving the Iranians a little payback for 1979. But there are times when indulging your natural inclinations is so right, so proper, that suppressing the higher brain functions that tell you to behave like an adult is the thing to do.

Besides, aren’t you dying to find out what’s on those computer hard drives and what was in those filing cabinets they carted away?

Although U.S. officials have not confirmed that an Iranian diplomatic building was involved in today’s raid, a man who lives next to the consulate, Sardar Hassan Mohammed, 34, said he saw what he believed to be U.S. forces surrounding the building with their vehicles before entering it. Mohammed said at least five people were taken.

An official with the Kurdish Democratic Party, who declined to give his name, said the U.S. troops confiscated belongings inside the consulate in addition to arresting people inside.

Without addressing the recent incident, top U.S. officials in Washington were pointed in remarks today about how they intend to follow up on Bush’s pledge to curb Syrian and Iranian influence in Iraq.

There are times when revelling in historical irony and glorying in a cold dish of revenge can’t be helped. The nature of the 1979 humiliation perpetrated by the Iranians was so profoundly disturbing to those of us who lived through it that this clearly illegal violation of the “sacred soil” of Iran just doesn’t matter very much - even in an intellectual context. We know it is wrong and yet the satisfaction is so complete that world opinion, international law, even the consequences of the raid to our diplomats just don’t balance the ledger against it.

And those consequences will be real. It is almost a certainty that the world just got a little more dangerous for our diplomats all over the world - which should sober all of us up right quick. And, of course, the precedent shattering nature of the raid could place our embassies and consulates in similar danger.

But please note the rather low key response (so far) from the Iranians. They can hardly make a big stink about this violation after what they pulled in 1979. And irony of ironies, we are using the exact same excuse in raiding their embassy 27 years later - that it contained a “nest of spies:”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the United States is systematically trying to identify networks of people who bring weapons and explosives into the country — a central allegation against Iran — and will move to shut them down.

Improvised explosives have been a key source of U.S. casualties and deaths since the war began.

“We will do what is necessary for force protection,” Rice said at a press conference. “Networks are identified. They are identified from intelligence and they are acted upon . . . whatever the nationality.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Gen. Peter Pace, referring to the earlier arrest of Iranians, said that Tehran’s involvement in Iraq “is destructive. . . . They are complicit . . . and we will do what is necessary.”

The Iranians won’t have to make a big to do about this clear violation of international norms - their allies on the left in this country will be more than happy to oblige, I’m sure. Perhaps if Jimmy Carter were to come out and dance a little jig…

Not likely.

UPDATE

Richard Fernandez and I are on exactly the same wavelength: “A Downpayment on 1979.”

Jules Crittenden says that this indicates that the gloves are off:

The Washington Post reports U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate in Iraq and seized a number of Iranians suspected of aiding the insurgency. No doubt the Iranians will squawk about the violation of diplomatic immunity, incursion on sovereign Iranian territory, international law, blah blah blah. I encourage them then to raid our embassy and consulates in Iran. …oh yeah, we don’t have any. Remember why? This is an early indicator that the gloves are in fact off, which is the key component to success in this change of strategy.

Greg Tinti from Political Pit Bull has the predictable reaction from Lambchop:

The dumbest reaction I’ve seen to this on the left is from Glenn Greenwald, whom without apparently understanding the irony of his question, asks, “Isn’t it a definitive act of war for one country to storm the consulate of another, threaten to kill them if they do not surrender, and then detain six consulate officers?”

I don’t know about you, but it seems that Greenwald’s rather quick to side with Iran on this one. It is indisputable that Iran has been actively involved in supporting the insurgency in Iraq–especially by providing insurgents with IEDs and weaponry that have contributed directly to US casualties. Don’t those actions by Iran count as a definitive act of war? Doesn’t the US have a right to fight back against Iranian interference? In Greenwald’s mind apparently, the answer to those questions seems to be no.

Will Bunch also smells a war brewing with Iran.

As I’ve said many times, there is a huge downside to military action against Iran. Any possible benefits would be far outweighed by the almost certain attacks against our troops in Iraq as well as probable action taken against tankers in the Straits of Hormuz - a choke point for 20% of the west’s oil. We wouldn’t be able to get all the anti-ship missiles Iran posesses nor would we be able to destroy the Islamic Republic’s ability to create absolute havoc in Iraq; with attacks on our troops using their intermediate range missiles and the probable rising of the Shias who would take great offense at our hitting their co-religionists.

But interdiction and an intelligent use of our military to stifle the flow of supplies to the insurgents (who would never take any help from those dirty Shias in Iran now, would they?) while not violating Iranian air space or raiding their territory (beyond a consulate or two) may be almost as effective as a bombing campaign and have the extra added attraction of putting the onus of attack on the Iranians if they chose to make an issue of their meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Under enormous pressure from the netnuts and other liberal activists, it appears that the Democratic leadership is caving in and is going to try and cut off funding for more troops in Iraq:

Senior House Democrats said yesterday that they will attempt to derail funding for President Bush’s proposal to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, setting up what could become the most significant confrontation between the White House and Congress over military policy since the Vietnam War.

Senate Democrats at the same time will seek bipartisan support for a nonbinding resolution opposing the president’s plan, possibly as early as next week, in what some party officials see as the first step in a strategy aimed at isolating Bush politically and forcing the beginning of a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from the conflict.

The bold plans reflect the Democrats’ belief that the public has abandoned Bush on the war and that the American people will have little patience for an escalation of the U.S. military presence in Iraq. But the moves carry clear risks for a party that suffered politically for pushing to end an unpopular war in Vietnam three decades ago, and Democratic leaders hope to avoid a similar fate over the conflict in Iraq.

The trick for the Dems is to walk the fine line between dissing the Commander in Chief and hurting the troops. For the former, I don’t think the American people could care one way or another. But the quickest way for the Democrats to lose their majority would be the appearance that they were abandoning the troops in the field.

Indeed, it is going to be very hard to separate defunding the “surge” and cutting funds to the troops already there:

House Democratic leaders have said they will not use the power of the purse in any way that would harm troops in the field, a position that had run afoul of the party’s liberal activists. Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said that pledge is being calibrated to apply only to troops in the field now.

Tauscher said Democratic policy must “satisfy the American people that we’re putting a speed bump in front of the president that will actually hold,” adding: “The White House is used to doing business on their own, but they’re realizing things have changed. This is vastly different.”

House Democrats also expect to introduce soon a resolution of disapproval for Bush’s new policy but have moved farther than Senate Democrats toward an outright funding confrontation with the White House.

That “speed bump” also has perils for the majority. Suppose Bush surprises us and actually convinces a sizable portion of the American people that his surge is necessary? The obstructionist party during wartime - even during an unpopular war - never fares very well. Don’t believe me? Let’s email the Whig party and ask them what they think. After opposing the Mexican War, the election of 1848 was the beginning of the end for them.

By far the biggest risk the Democrats take in blocking the surge is in promoting the perception that they don’t want to “win” the war. Even though a majority of Americans believe we are losing in Iraq that doesn’t mean that a majority accepts their view that we’ve already lost. So if the Democrats can fool the people into thinking that they still support the concept of “winning,” and can portray their obstruction of the surge as part of a strategy that will lead to “victory,” (or at least avoid “defeat”), there should be plenty of support for blocking the President’s plan to send more troops to Iraq - at least in the House.

I don’t think the Senate will go along with any attempt to deny funds for a surge - at least at this point. It’s hard to say what another week of pressure from the Kossacks and other netnuts will do to that prediction. If, as this article points out, the Dem strategy is to isolate Bush by going on record opposing the surge while working to deny funds for the move at the same time, it is possible that support for Bush will collapse in both the House and the Senate and even the GOP will begin scrambling for an out on Iraq.

It will be very difficult to keep Bush from sending those extra men. And any effort to deny him those troops by the Democrats is fraught with danger. But support for the war is at such a low ebb and support for Bush even lower, the Dems just might be tempted to flex some muscle and start running the war their own way.

Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston (of Hot Air) have made it to Baghdad and are currently embedded with a unit that appears to be at the center of the action:

My Hot Air colleague Bryan Preston and I have been in Iraq, embedded with an incredibly dedicated Army unit in Baghdad tasked with training Iraqi security forces (both Shia and Sunni) conducting counterinsurgency operations, and carrying out civil affairs work. Yes, there is danger and chaos and unspeakable bloodshed in parts of Baghdad. Sectarian violence–compounded by everyday street crime and tribal conflict–is rampant. Corruption, incompetence, and apathy infect the Iraqi government. You’ve gotten endless news coverage of all that. But there are also pockets of success and signs of hope amid utter despair. I’ll give you more details of our embed unit after we get home. We have much to report and will be publishing a multi-part video and audio series, blog posts, and op-eds on security conditions, media malpractice, and the big picture on the war next week. Having met, watched, and interviewed a broad cross-section of our troops during our brief but fruitful travels, my faith in the U.S. military has never been stronger– but I will not sugarcoat my skepticism and doubts about decisions being made in Washington.

First of all, I speak for (almost) everybody both left and right when I wish them good luck and pray that they stay safe.

I say “almost” everyone because if the past is any guide, there will be sneering contempt from some lefty blogs - criticism that drips with racism, sexism, and a a jaw dropping kind of obscene hate. I plan on posting the reaction from the left to Malkin’s trip to Iraq because these people must be exposed as the ignorant racists they truly are. Ignoring their hypocrisy only makes them believe they are clever rather than pond scum.

Criticism of Malkin and Preston is not the issue. It is perfectly acceptable to criticize what they write and their impressions of what is going on Iraq. But the rancid way in which some lefty bloggers will personalize their criticism will not be tolerated by me or, I imagine, a host of others.

Feel free to leave links from lefty blogs in the comments who you feel step over the line. As news spreads of the Malkin/Preston embed, I should have plenty to write about this afternoon.

It’s been a few hours since the President’s speech - just long enough for some of the media and smart bloggers I respect on both the left and the right to weigh in with their reactions.

To say that this is just more of the same, a hyped up “stay the course” plan with nothing new in it is one of those ideas that is accurate but incomplete. And the differences between what we’ve done before and what is proposed now are quite telling indeed.

Bush appears to me to be prepared for failure in Iraq. What he has done in promulgating this plan is to place the onus for success or catastrophe on the shaky shoulders of the Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He has, in effect, granted Maliki’s wish that Iraqi troops in Baghdad will be under his control:

The plan sketched out by Mr. Bush went at least part way to meeting these Shiite concerns by ceding greater operational authority over the war in Baghdad to the government. The plan envisages an Iraqi commander with overall control of the new security crackdown in Baghdad, and Iraqi officers working under him who would be in charge of military operations in nine newly demarcated districts in the capital.

The commanders would report to a new office of commander in chief directly under the authority of Mr. Maliki. The arrangement appeared to have the advantage, for Mr. Maliki, of giving him a means to circumvent the Ministry of Defense, which operates under close American supervision. “The U.S. agrees that the government must take command,” Mr. Abadi said.

And at the same time Maliki is being given command of his own troops, he has thrown down the gauntlet to his biggest political supporter Muqtada al-Sadr:

Iraq’s prime minister has told Shiite militiamen to surrender their weapons or face an all-out assault, part of a commitment U.S. President George W. Bush outlined to bring violence under control with a more aggressive Iraqi Army and 21,500 additional American troops.

Senior Iraqi officials said Wednesday that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, under pressure from the U.S., has agreed to crack down on the fighters even though they are loyal to his most powerful political ally, the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Previously, al-Maliki had resisted the move…

Before Bush spoke, a senior Shiite legislator and close al-Maliki adviser said the prime minister had warned that no militias would be spared in the crackdown.

“The government has told the Sadrists: ‘If we want to build a state we have no other choice but to attack armed groups,’” said the legislator, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the prime minister.

And the President made it clear that he would brook no more smoke and mirrors from Maliki who has made a habit these last months of promising tough action against the militias and then either not doing anything or worse, complaining publicly and bitterly when American forces have confronted the Sadrists:

Bush warned that the U.S. expected al-Maliki to keep those promises.

“America’s commitment is not open-ended,” Bush said. “If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.”

The Iraqi government welcomed the new strategy and promised it was committed to succeeding in quelling the violence.

“The failure in Iraq will not only affect this country only, but the rest of the region and the world, including the United States,” said Sadiq al-Rikabi, an adviser to al-Maliki.

“The current situation is not acceptable — not only for the American people but also for the Iraqis and their government. As Iraqis and as an elected government we welcome the American commitment for success,” he added. “The Iraqi government also is committed to succeed.”

The question that has been uppermost in my mind is why should we expect Maliki to act any differently now? Time and time again he has promised action on a host of political reforms, anti-corruption schemes, reconciliation with the Sunnis, and even confrontation with al-Sadr. Not once has he or his government followed through with anything approaching the vigor necessary to improve the security situation in Iraq.

Just last month, a pitiful effort to begin the healing process took place in the Green Zone. Like a party given by the most unpopular kid at school, the invitations went out, the table was set, the band was hired - but in the end, nobody showed up:

None of the extremist Shiite or Sunni factions responsible for most of the violence attended the closed-door meeting, and the government leaders who delivered speeches offered no major new concessions likely to lure insurgents back into the political mainstream.

Only a handful of the 20 or so former Baathists and ousted generals expected to attend showed up, and none of the exiled Baathists thought to hold sway over some insurgent groups attended, even though the government offered to pay their way and provide security.

Ultimately, the violence will stop and peace will reign when one of two things happens: Either the 4 million Sunnis left in Iraq will be murdered or flee for their lives leaving Iraq free of them or, the Shia majority will grant protections for minorities, participate in power a sharing arrangement, and make a supreme effort at reconciliation for all Iraqis.

We can send 10 times 20,000 troops to Iraq and not change the basic political calculus that is driving the insurgency; Shia hegemony. The Sunnis fear Shia retribution (for good reason) and are fighting to re-establish their dominance. Since they are outnumbered 4 to 1, this is extremely unlikely. But given that they feel the alternative is death anyway, many thousands are willing to take up arms and fight their tormentors.

And, in fact, the Sunnis have every reason to fear the Shias:

The Shiite leaders’ frustrations have grown in recent months as American commanders have retained their tight grip in Baghdad. While the Americans have argued for a strategy that places equal emphasis on going after Shiite and Sunni extremists, the Shiite leaders have insisted that the killing is rooted in the Sunni attempt to regain power through violence and that Shiite militias and revenge killings are an inevitable response.

American officials have warned that with lessening American oversight, Shiite leaders might shift to a sectarian strategy that punished Sunni insurgents but spared Shiite militias. The execution 11 days ago of Saddam Hussein, carried out in haste by the Maliki government over American urgings that it be delayed until the legal paperwork was completed, only reinforced such fears.

How can we expect Maliki to buck the entire Shia establishment on the militia question - especially since he has proven in the past to be a spineless jellyfish when it comes to going after al-Sadr? In fact, is he serious when he says that he wants the Sadrists to lay down their arms or is this just more pablum to placate the Americans?

The arrangements appeared to suggest that Mr. Maliki would have the power to halt any push into Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold that American commanders have been saying for months will have to be swept of extremist militia elements if there is to be any lasting turn toward stability in Baghdad. But along with more authority for Mr. Maliki, the American plan appeared to have countervailing safeguards to prevent sectarian agendas from gaining the upper hand. Bush administration officials said that Americans would be present in the commander in chief’s office and that an American Army battalion — 400 to 600 soldiers — would be stationed in each of the nine Baghdad military districts.

What all this boils down to - the benchmarks, the increase in troops, the granting of more autonomy to the Iraqi government to control their military, and the battle against the sectarian killers - is that Bush and America have now placed the power to make or break our effort in Iraq into the hands of a man who has not performed in the past and who has not proved himself strong enough, smart enough, or politically savvy enough to tackle the problems in Iraqi society head on and with the energy to do what is necessary for his government to succeed. He has limped along these last months, rousing himself only to criticize our troops when we violate al-Sadr’s turf or when an incident involving civilians caught in the crossfire makes headlines.

He has promised much and delivered squat. Should we then continue to work behind the scenes to bring another coalition to power - one that is broader based and includes far more secular elements than the current government not to mention freezing al-Sadr out of the ministries?

I think it is inevitable that we will do so. Once it becomes clear over the next 60 days or so that Maliki is not getting the job done and pressure begins to mount once again for withdrawal, look for this last arrow in Bush’s quiver to be loosed and a new Prime Minister come to power.

What difference it will make is arguable. But anyone will probably be an improvement over the weakling who currently occupies the Prime Minister’s office.

He said all the right things. He said them in the right way. He said them with conviction. He was humble where he should have been. He was firm where he should have been. He was vague where he should have been (Iran). He was specific where he should have been (Anbar).

I largely agreed with the President’s assessment - as far is it went. Why he kept mentioning “sectarian elements” rather than militias and not mention al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army by name is a minor point but telling. What it says to me is that despite al-Maliki’s assurances, we’re still not sure what the consequences will be when we start going after Mookie’s Army. If the Mahdi Militia comes out swinging, the Iraqi army will have its hands full with no guarantee that they will actually fight them. In fact, this entire plan is dependent on an Iraqi army that has yet to prove it can do anything much at all. Deploying 18 brigades to Baghdad when the largest combat action that the Iraqi army has been involved in has been company sized engagements will test the new army to the limit.

Still, there’s no time like the present for the Iraqis to get their feet wet. Now all we have to do is hope that they’ll show up in Baghdad as ordered. Last summer when Maliki tried to deploy troops to Baghdad, many of the units mutinied and refused to serve. Let’s hope they have that little problem ironed out as well.

I would have hoped that we somehow could have engineered al-Maliki’s downfall and replaced him and his government with a much broader coalition of Sunnis, Kurds, and secular Shias. But the Grand Ayatollah Sistani nixed that idea because he feared the Shias would lose power in any arrangement that didn’t include the flaming Shia nationalist al-Sadr. This was unfortunate since the fear of absolute Shia dominance is one of the things driving the insurgency. Sharing oil revenues, which the President mentioned in his speech, is only part what has to be a sustained and serious effort by the Iraqi government to assure all factions that the Shias will not ride roughshod over everyone else. The sharing of revenues is a start. We await other moves by Maliki that will prove his statesmanship with other factions in Iraq.

So we refine our strategy in Iraq. Now what? Fewer people will die, hopefully. But the President barely touched on the consequences of this sectarian violence; the depopulation of Sunnis from the capitol as well as the mass exodus of Sunnis from the country. There are 1 million in Syria, 700,000 in Jordan, nearly 100,000 in Egypt, about 40,000 in Lebanon, and about 20,000 in Turkey. Another 50,000 have fled the Middle East all together and ended up in Europe and the US.

And since Sunnis generally made up the most skilled and most educated part of the workforce, this is a brain drain of immense proportions. What is driving these people away is the fact that, despite what the President said about Shias wanting to live in peace with the Sunnis, the fact is there is a sizable minority of Shias who don’t believe that, who either want to kill Sunnis or have them gone from Iraq.

This is the biggest challenge facing the Iraqi government and it won’t be solved by sending troops to Baghdad or even taking the guns out of the hands of the militias. This is a sickness in the Iraqi soul and only some kind of national reconciliation a la South Africa could make a start toward healing these wounds. America can’t do anything to help here either except perhaps create an atmosphere where such a process would be possible.

What Bush is proposing could lead to a limited success in Iraq; saving the Sunnis from annihilation and giving the streets back to the Iraqi government. Beyond that, any democracy that emerges from our involvement there will also be up to the Iraqi people. We’ve done just about all we can do in that regard as well.

I believe the President should get a bump in support from this. And support for the war may increase a couple of points as well. But the days of moving the American people en masse towards a belief in victory are long gone, crashed on the shoals of unfulfilled promises and the disheartening realities of the violence in Iraq. But if what the President proposes is the very best we can hope for - and I believe that it is - then perhaps it will eventually be seen by both the Iraqi and American people as having been worth the effort.