I’ve been following politics for going on 40 years and during that time, I have witnessed the high, the low, the principled and unprincipled, the sheer human drama of democracy’s workings on display in all of its glory and shame.

But what has made politics a lifelong fascination for me have been the men and women who perform its rituals, parading across the great national stage in Washington – some making their mark, others going through the motions hoping not to get anyone angry at them lest the voters toss them into the street come election time. There have been smooth operators like Mike Mansfield and George Mitchell – gentlemen of the Senate whose courtliness and sense of fairness reflected a simpler, less partisan culture on Capitol Hill.

There have been entertainers, clowns, statesmen, stirring orators and mumbling hacks. There have been brilliant legislators and sickening poseurs. Their have been true patriots and those who would use patriotism for political gain.

And then there are today’s Democrats.

I don’t quite know how to classify this gaggle of cynical, posturing, cowardly bunch of partisan witch hunters, devious machinators, vengeful charlatans, and craven caterers to their unhinged, out of control base. A biologist would probably settle on a taxonomy relating them to the Hydra – the nine headed poisonous serpent of Greek mythology whose very breath could kill a man at twenty paces.

Today’s Democrats are not a political party. They are an amalgam of grasping, conniving, pusillanimous misanthropes, kept together by threats and outright bribery using taxpayer monies. That and their unreasoning, viral hatred of the President of the United States seems to be what animates the overwhelming majority of their members. And they are being alternately cheered on and menaced by their rabid dog base of netnuts, socialists, greens, one worlders, and anti-military kooks who see political advantage in siding with our enemies in Iraq.

That last may be a little strong but it is hard to define their opposition to the war as anything else. They can’t claim to be standing on principle – not after those votes yesterday in the Senate and two days ago in the House where members were literally bribed with pork to support the leadership’s position on withdrawal from Iraq. They can’t claim to be supporting the troops – not after being told in no uncertain terms that their bill was subject to a veto by the President while the Secretary of Defense informed them that without the emergency appropriation, our boys will be left high and dry in Iraq and Afghanistan by April 15.

And the certainly can’t claim to be promoting peace in Iraq – not when anyone with half a brain knows the consequences of our withdrawal before the Iraqi government and security forces are prepared to defend the streets against the brutal thugs and terrorists who bedevil the country today. The only “peace” achieved at that point will be the peace of the grave – both for Iraq and the small chance that democracy can still be achieved in that bloody, tragic country.

So if not for principle, or the troops, or for whatever “peace” means, we are left with the only rational reason for passing these bills – a desire to have the United States of America defeated on the field of battle.

We “need to be taught a lesson in humility” or we have to lose in order to show the American people what an incompetent boob is the President of the United States. Or, we must fail because success will only embolden the “neocons” in their mad desire to take over the world by military force.

And to those who say we are already “defeated” or that victory and defeat have no meaning in our present circumstances, you might want to answer the question of why the Democrats are so desperate to avoid the stigma of an Iraqi defeat that they openly talk of wishing to place the blame for our failure on the shoulders of George Bush? They have no illusions whatsoever about the blame game. They are playing it to the hilt. And they wish to cement that defeat by pulling out, guaranteeing that they will have a ready made issue to run on in 2008.

This from the left wing MyDD:

[Hillary] Clinton’s desire to remain in Iraq will continue the war in Iraq – the Iraqi people want the US out, and if it does not leave, many of them will keep fighting (wouldn’t you, if the situation was reversed?) She is for the war in Iraq – she voted for it, she has always refused to say she was wrong for doing so, and she would keep US troops in Iraq if elected. Her use of al-Qa’eda to justify keeping troops in Iraq is nothing more than a cynical play on the American public’s paranoia about al-Qa’eda, not a sincere strategy to defeat al-Qa’eda (or if it is, she’s beyond stupid, something I don’t believe.)

Hillary’s a pro-war candidate. And if Democrats nominate her, they will be nominating a pro-war candidate. And then the war will be a fully American war, not just a Republican one.

What can you say about such jaw dropping cynicism? Thomas Sowell tries gamely to define it:

If the war in Iraq is such an unnecessary and futile expenditure of blood and treasure as Pelosi et al. have been saying, why not put an end to it?

But to do that would mean taking responsibility for the consequences—and those consequences would be disastrous and lasting. They would probably still be lasting when the 2008 elections come around.

The Democrats cannot risk that. They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible.

There is no sign that they want to change that politically winning strategy now. Their non-binding resolutions against the war are a perfect expression of that strategy.

These resolutions put them on record as being against the war without taking the responsibility for ending it.

Indeed, that is the nub of the matter. They wish defeat in Iraq without making it appear that their actions in Congress had anything to do with it. This political sleight of hand would be entertaining if not for the stakes involved.

If the Democrats were to stand on principle, they would embrace measures to defund the troops, to “stop the slaughter” as they are so fond of opining everywhere someone sticks a microphone in their face. But then their strategy for losing would be too transparent and the American people would rightly punish them in 2008. Better to use stealth and sneak around in dark corners offering goodies to wavering members than stand up and be counted when destiny and history tap you on the shoulder.

The Republicans are in disarray. The White House has mounting problems defending itself against ravenous Congressional Committees who will investigate not only what needs to be investigated but also conduct detours into partisan witch hunts that serve no purpose except to skewer their political opponents. And the American people, fed a daily diet of incomplete, non-contextualized news from Iraq from a biased media are sick to death of it all and wish there was some way to gain a victory while bringing our troops home as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and the money is running out. Perhaps the Democrats can drop their posing and posturing long enough to pass a bill the President can sign.

There’s some wishful thinking for you.

The Senate today rejected an amendment that would have stripped all mention of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in the emergency funding bill.

The 50-48 vote defeating an amendment by Thad Cochrane of Mississippi was notable if only because it shows how confused the situation in the Senate is. The measure would require our troops start leaving in 120 days but not lay down a specific timetable for the withdrawal, using March 31, 2008 as a non binding date for our bug out to be complete.

The vote came after the White House reiterated President Bush’s threat to veto any bill that sets deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

In intensive floor debate before the vote, supporters of the amendment argued that including a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq—even though it is put forth in the Senate bill as a nonbinding “goal”—would hand victory to America’s enemies, while opponents of it said it was time to stop giving President Bush a “blank check” to continue a failed war policy.

Also, the benchmarks that would measure progress by the Iraqi government are also non binding which raises the question of why the hell add them in the first place.

The bill is at odds with the House version that sets actual binding dates for our withdrawal tied to specific benchmarks. But chances are, a House-Senate conference will come up with language that makes either the start or ending of our withdrawal a requirement for the funds to be disbursed with the benchmarks either gone or non binding.

Senator McCain cut short some campaign appearances to show up in the floor of the Senate and give a pretty stirring speech:

In debate on the Senate floor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued strongly against setting a timetable for troop withdrawal, saying a new strategy to secure Baghdad through a “surge” of U.S. combat troops is “succeeding.” He told the Senate, “What we must not do is to give up just at the moment we’re starting to turn things around in Iraq.”

Setting a timetable “risks a catastrophe for American national security interests,” said McCain, who canceled a series of fundraisers in Florida for his presidential campaign to return to Washington for today’s expected close vote.

“This legislation is a plan for failure,” McCain said of the underlying bill. “It demonstrates to the [Iraqi] government that they cannot rely on us. It tells the terrorists that they, not we, will prevail.”

A certain Bush veto will dump the problem right back into the laps of Reid and Pelosi at which point they will have a serious decision to make. Even though the American people support their idea of a timetable for withdrawal, the troops in the field only have enough funding through April 15th. After that, things start to get dicey for the troops and pressure will mount on the Democrats to give in to Bush in order to fund the troops. Do they dare play chicken with the Commander in Chief by refusing to pass a bill he can sign?

A better question might be can Bush work with Congressional Democrats to come up with language that both sides can agree on? Is he even willing to do so?

My guess is no, we won’t see the White House compromising one inch on a binding date for starting or ending the withdrawal. And since this is the Ur issue for most Congressional Democrats, there is a very real chance that April 15th will come and go without an emergency spending bill. Both sides will then concentrate on trying to shift blame for abandoning the troops on to the other – a most unedifying spectacle to be sure not to mention an extraordinarily dangerous game considering the consequences to the troops.

The only way this can be avoided is if Bush gets to work on some of the Blue Dog Democrats, reaching out to them to address some of their concerns. Ronald Reagan was able to do this on a regular basis with the “Boll Weevils” of his time and got much of what he wanted in the way of tax and budget cuts. But Bush has demonstrated a singular inability in the past to reach across the aisle and bring along wavering Democratic moderates on any issue. But with the stakes so high, he really ought to try.

Of course, Reid and Pelosi would crack the whip if they sensed any weakening of resolve on the part of a couple of Blue Dogs. And if there was any weakening of the language regarding the timetable, chances are Pelosi would also lose the support of some of the far left who voted for the measure the first time around even though they believed it didn’t go far enough.

At this point, it is difficult to see how to resolve the differences of the two sides. In the end, the necessity of funding the troops may make all of the political maneuvering moot and the President may get most of what he wants without the binding timetables but with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. That’s the best the Democrats could hope for at this point.

Questions have arisen about Vice President Daniel’s authority to use a nuclear weapon as well as how that weapon was being deployed before being stopped by the President’s re-emergence as Commander in Chief.

As for the first question, as long as Wayne Palmer was unconscious, Daniels had the necessary authority to order the strike. As I discussed here, the 26th Amendment to the Constitution gives the Vice President full executive authority in such cases. It was never a question of whether or not Daniels could actually order the use of a nuclear weapon but rather was it the right thing to do. Given the changing rationale used by the Veep – first, as a demonstration of American power; then as a warning to Fayed’s government to help find the loose nukes; and finally as proof that no one can harm American citizens without being hit themselves – it is amazing that the military seemed to acquiesce so meekly in the face of this madness.

The second question is of interest only as it relates to the accuracy with which the show portrays what might happen in real life. I can assure you that having the President simply give an order to an Admiral to launch a missile from a submerged submarine using a cell phone would probably not be the way the United States would go about using a nuclear weapon.

First, the President would have to give the correct codes that would “trigger” or activate the weapons. These codes (called “Gold Codes) change every day and it is the President’s responsibility to have them on his person at all times. Jimmy Carter used to keep them in his pocket (which led to an embarrassing moment when the coat containing our strike codes was sent to the cleaners). And Ronald Reagan reportedly kept the card containing the codes in his wallet.

The way the President would give the codes to the appropriate commands is secret but it is believed that the nuclear “football” – a suitcase containing confirmation codes as well as various scenarios for Armageddon – is outfitted with a secure satellite phone just for this purpose. The football is never more than a dozen steps from the President whether he is awake or asleep (although there have been incidents where the aide carrying the briefcase was left behind or not in position).

In the case of a single nuke being launched from a submerged submarine, the problems in communicating are increased dramatically. Regular radio transmission are out since radio waves cannot penetrate salt water thus making them useless for a submerged sub. Instead, the Navy has developed what they call an ELF transmission system. This is a technological marvel that sends extremely low frequency transmissions via satellite that can penetrate to a depth of about 20 meters. A submerged sub at a lower depth can deploy a buoy to catch any transmissions.

The biggest problem with ELF is that it is very slow – only a few characters a minute can be sent. This means that the go codes would take at least several minutes to be received by the sub making what was portrayed last night seem rather silly.

Not bringing the “football” into the plot is strange since in Season 4, the show spent several episodes in a search for the nuclear satchel following a crash involving Air Force One. It might have heightened the tension of the scene considerably if they could have shown how the football was actually used. But what we got instead was the Admiral using a cell phone to casually call the sub commander and tell him to go ahead and start World War III. One would hope that the batteries to that cell phone are charged on a regular basis. I suppose they could use one of CTU’s famous phones that never need charging and have all sorts of neat bells and whistles on them.

But that might be unrealistic – two different government agencies sharing technology? Never happen.

SUMMARY

We find Jack at the site telling the EMU’s to keep the drone pilot alive so that they can talk to him. Jack should know better. After all, everyone knows that when Jack Bauer takes a terrorist down, they stay down. Sure enough, the drone pilot succumbs and the guys at CTU are left with culling the pilot’s work station for clues about Gredenko’s whereabouts and the location of the loose nukes.

Bill calls Jack and tells him that even though the nuke on the drone did not explode, there are now “serious policy consequences” regarding the radioactive leak from the damaged bomb. Daniels is going to retaliate against Fayed’s country with a demonstration nuke.

To show how off base so many on the left are about the show, one of the top liberal bloggers, Kevin Drum who writes for the Washington Monthly blog asked the question yesterday “IS 24 LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE?....” His conclusion should not surprise you:

So what’s up? The hyperkinetic world of 24, where good and evil clash, torture is a necessary tool, and terrorist threats are everywhere, is indeed a paean to modern Bushian conservatism. But when the action switches to the Oval Office, hawks are almost universally portrayed as either ideologues who panic at the first sign of trouble or else scheming superpatriots who are desperate to push the United States into unjustified wars as a way of advancing their own mercenary agendas. If Joel Surnow’s name weren’t attached to the series, you might guess that it had been produced by Michael Moore.

So is 24 liberal or conservative? Schizophrenic, I’d say.

That kind of shallow and superficial analysis was proved laughably wrong last night as Jack responds to the news that the Veep is going to launch a nuclear weapon:

JACK: What is he trying to do, launch World War III? That will be seen as an act of aggression against the entire Middle East.

Some “paean to modern Bushian conservatism!” But keep trying Kevin. Eventually, you’ll realize that 24 is just a television show and not some metaphor proving your own moral superiority over conservatives.

Gredenko is trying unsuccessfully to reach his now deceased drone pilot to find out what happened to the nuke that was supposed to detonate over San Francisco. When he confronts Fayed with the bad news, the terrorist lashes back, accusing the Russian of incompetence. But Gredenko assures him that he can deliver the remaining two nukes to Fayed’s targets if he’s given another chance and the terrorist relents.

The Russian calls a Mark Hauser asking him for updated security protocols for an unspecified target. Hauser agrees but says it will take time to download the new codes from his office. Hauser is taking care of his retarded/disturbed brother Brady who apparently is some kind of computer savant. He directs Brady to access his office computer to download some files.

I’ve heard of savants who suffer from Autism but not mental retardation. Perhaps there’s another condition where savantism is prevalent but in this case, it appears that the writers simply made something up for an interesting plot twist.

They’d never do anything like that now, would they?

Back at CTU, Milo pines for Nadia, watching her in the holding room on his monitor while two nuclear weapons are still loose and about ready to be launched. Doesn’t he have anything better to do? Bill even saunters over and doesn’t say something like “Get back to work, clown!” Instead, he gives Milo the good news that Nadia will not be transferred to just any old jail cell. Instead, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other terrorists at Gitmo, Nadia will be given the status of “enemy combatant.”

Before Milo and Bill get into a discussion about waterboarding, Chloe interrupts to tell Bill that they got a hit from monitoring the watch list of Gredenko contacts. It’s the Russian’s call to Hauser and CTU gets an address where he can be found.

Meanwhile, one of the agents breaking down the drone pilot’s work station found a remote access module that proves the terrorist geeks hacked into Nadia’s system, proving her innocence. It also proves that whoever designed the security for this top secret, highly sophisticated, ultra geeky computer system should be fired and strung up by their big toes. Like people getting hacked who visit porn sites, Nadia evidently had her computer penetrated when monitoring extremist Jihadi websites.

Are their geeks better than our geeks? Looks to me like we have a “Geek Gap” developing and that this is something that should be addressed immediately.

Anyway, Agent Johnson gives the module to Little Ricky who is on the hook for making the politically incorrect decision to suspect an Arab of collaborating with Fayed. Will our Ricky bury the evidence and let Nadia rot in Gitmo? Stay tuned.

Jack alerts a TAC team to get ready for action and they take off for Hauser’s place. Little Ricky declines to go and one wonders exactly what he’s going to do with the module.

Back at the White House hospital, Karen meets with Sandra Palmer and lays out her case for waking the President from his induced coma. Reluctant at first, Sandra finally sees the wisdom of Karen’s words and agrees to order the doctor to attempt to wake her brother.

In the conference room, the Veep is informed that they can hit Fayed’s country using a sub launched missile within the hour. As Tom starts to go over expected casualty figures, Daniels gets a message and excuses himself. He is informed of Karen’s plan to wake the president and spoil all of his fun. The Veep gets the doctor on the phone and reads him the riot act. The doctor calmly informs him that it’s not the Vice President’s decision to make, that it’s up to Sandra Palmer and that if he objects, he should take it up with her.

But Daniels does leave the doctor with this sneering threat:

DANIELS: If the President dies or suffers any permanent debilitating injuries, I will nail your ass to the wall. Do you understand?

DOCTOR: (Gulping) Perfectly sir.

Jack and the TAC team arrive at Hauser’s house and the raid goes smoothly enough, although Mark Hauser is hit in the shoulder, severing an artery. His brother Brady goes into hysterics and Jack calms the savant down, learning that it is Brady who is setting up a proxy server to hide the security files download.

Threatening to sic the FBI on his helpless brother, Hauser tells Jack everything. He even suggests that his brother could be enlisted to help nab Gredenko since the Russian knows him. And here’s where Jack hatches his plan making another innocent civilian into “The CTU Special Guest Agent For The Week.”

Of course, Jack fails to mention the fate of many other civilian “Special Guest Agents” through the years. A cursory check of some of the local cemeteries would have told Hauser all he needed to know about that.

Jack takes Brady to see his brother who is bleeding out on a stretcher. “It’s worse than it looks,” says Mark – a sure sign he’s toast. But he tells his brother to do everything Jack says. He then makes a call to Gredenko telling him that his brother will make the handoff of the data. Gredenko suggests a meeting across the street from the Hauser house in a parking lot.

Back at CTU, slimy Agent Johnson who pretended to be watching Little Ricky’s rear end by giving him the module now does a complete 180 and tells Milo that Little Ricky has in his possession evidence that would clear Milo’s fantasy lover Nadia. Having primed his human bomb, Johnson watches with satisfaction as Milo catches sight of Little Ricky and makes a beeline straight for him.

Doyle is talking with Bill when Milo lunges at him, telling Bill after they’re separated that Little Ricky has proof of his dearest Nadia’s innocence on him right now and that he’s covering it up to protect himself. An astonished Buchanan asks Ricky if this is so. But before Ricky can answer Morris hustles over telling Bill that Doyle was not covering anything up, that he was confirming the authenticity of the module before giving it to Bill.

Milo is embarrassed and apologizes to Little Ricky. Strangely, Doyle leaps out of character and pats Milo on the back telling him to forget about it.

Something doesn’t quite ring true there. Methinks Little Ricky will exact revenge on Milo at some future date.

Buchanan makes his way to the holding cell to tell Nadia the good news. She is singularly unimpressed, having decided that since all her friends deserted her, she will punish them by pouting like a 12 year old. Bill appeals to her, asking Nadia to stay on and help find the nukes rather than resign in a huff and sue the hell out of the government. She says simply “I’ll stay” and that’s that.

Milo is setting up her station when Chloe comes over and practices some of her new found interpersonal relationship skills on Milo by observing that it will be hard on everyone to deal with Nadia after suspecting her but especially awkward for Milo. When he asks why Chloe blurts out that it was not a secret Milo has the hots for Nadia. A withering look from Milo sends Chloe scurrying back to her work station.

Sure enough, there is much awkwardness between Milo and Nadia when he tries to apologize for doubting her loyalty to the United States. She’s having none of it, even telling him that the CTU office was no place to start a relationship. For some reason, this makes Milo’s passion overflow and he grabs Nadia roughly by the back of the neck, gazes into her eyes, and then lays a big wet one on her lips.

It is unclear whether Nadia likes Milo or the rough sex. We’ll have to keep an eye on that in the coming weeks.

At the White House hospital, the President is showing signs of brain swelling. But Sandra is adamant about waking him up in time to stop Daniels from launching the nuke. Just then, the President’s heart stops and the crash cart is summoned. Looks like Daniels is going to sweep the table – get his nuke launch plus a move into the executive mansion.

Back at the Hauser residence, Jack is being very gentle with Brady, telling him what to do and sticking an “earwig” into his ear so that he can communicate with the lad.

I think Jack missed his calling. Perhaps he should have gone into Special Ed rather than terrorist hunting. He seems to have the knack, don’t you think?

At any rate, Brady moves into position in the parking lot as Gredenko pulls up. Jack has ordered one unit of the TAC team to take out Gredenko using a trank dart but as Gredenko exits the car to talk to Brady, the shooter finds he doesn’t have a clear shot. Brady is in the way. Jack hears Gredenko tell one of his thugs in Russian to shoot the kid but TAC still doesn’t have a clean shot. That’s when Jack tells Brady to be prepared to hit the ground when he tells him to.

After downloading the information on his palm pilot, Gredenko gives the order to kill Brady. Frantically, Jack tells the kid to get down and just in the nick of time, Brady moves, allowing the TAC shooter to hit Gredenko with the dart while the two thugs are dispatched with alacrity by other TAC teamers. Jack adds to the mayhem by clocking a terrorist emerging from the car with a shot from about 50 feet while on the run.

As Brady is sent off to the hospital to see his brother, Jack enters the Hauser residence and confronts Grednenko. It is clear the Russian knows Jack by reputation but appears unconcerned at the prospect of being tortured. Instead, he knows he has an Ace in the hole because he may be the only one that can help find the nukes and Fayed. He asks for amnesty and a promise that he won’t be sent back to Russia. CTU must decide what to do quickly because Fayed is waiting for the Russian’s call.

Back at the White House, things are coming to a head. Tom tells the Veep about the capture of Gredenko and that maybe they won’t need to launch the nuke to scare Fayed’s country into helping them find the other bombs if Gredenko can find them first. But the Vice President once again changes his rationale for using the nuke:

DANIELS: We can consider this strike as retaliation for American lives already lost. A reminder to the world that there are consequences to attacking our country.

Tom, who appeared resigned to the use of the nuke earlier, now looks shocked. But his protests do no good as Daniels orders the admiral to launch the nuke. But a perplexed admiral turns back to the Veep and says that the sub was ordered to stand down. Ordered by who, wonders the Veep. By the President of the United States says the admiral just as the phone in the conference room rings.

It’s Palmer, of course, hale and hearty (mostly) despite being in a drug induced coma. Would that I were to look so well when I get up in the morning. The President orders Daniels not to go shooting off any more nukes – or take any other military action for that matter.

This doesn’t deter our Veep. He summons the Attorney General and will attempt to invoke the Presidential disability clause of the 26th amendment in a brazen coup attempt. He must get a majority of the cabinet to sign off on such a move so my prediction is that over the next couple of weeks, Tom and Karen will unite in trying to convince cabinet members to stay with Palmer as President.

And Palmer may play right into their hands when Jack presents Gredenko’s amnesty terms for approval. Watch as Daniels tries to show that the President agreeing to such a deal is more proof of his unfitness for office.

BODY COUNT

Almost forgot this week’s butcher bill.

The Drone Pilot, drilled by Jack last week, goes to his final reward.

Two thugs are offed by TAC team members.

Jack gets another one on the run at 50 feet.

JACK: 15

SHOW: 390

FRENCH GUARD:
You don’t frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!

FRENCH GUARD:
I don’t wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
(Either from Monty Python and the Holy Grail or excerpts from Sean Penn’s anti-war letter to President Bush)

Some people are blessed with the ability to wield words as an elegant weapon, skewering their target with the precision of a brain surgeon and the pizazz of a circus performer.

Then, there’s Sean Penn:

We cower as you point your finger telling us to support our troops. Will you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your soiled and blood-soaked underwear, continue that noise and shut up because we will be “snowed” no more.

Penn, who scratched out a letter to President Bush and read it at an anti-war rally in Oakland over the weekend, broke every rule governing good writing in his desire to insult the President. Perhaps “desire” isn’t the right word. When someone becomes as unhinged and incoherent as Mr. Penn, something stronger might be in order. How about “crazed obsession?”

“Let’s make this crystal clear: We do support our troops, but not the exploitation of them and their families,” he said. “The money that’s spent on this war would be better spent on building levees in New Orleans and health care in Africa and care for our veterans. Iraq is not our toilet. It’s a country of human beings whose lives that were once oppressed by Saddam are now in Dante’s Inferno.”

I can actually think of a dozen or so equally worthy government projects (and even worthier non government projects) to give the money we are currently spending in Iraq. (Why we would be fully funding health care in Africa might be a question the overwhelming majority of American taxpayers would almost certainly want answered.)

But stopping a war because it’s costing too much money? There may be many reasons to end a war but, save the kind of total war fought by the Europeans and Americans in the last century where bankruptcy stared France and Great Britain in the face, the 5% of our total budget dedicated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is hardly a good reason to throw in the towel. Wars should be ended because they are won, or lost, or the people lose heart to carry on – in other words, based on the reality of what is happening on the ground not on where else the money could be spent.

Perhaps Penn should be talking to Congress. I have actually half-heartedly advocated raising taxes to pay for the war as a small way to involve all Americans in the fight. This is, I believe, one the greatest failings of the Bush Administration; allowing the war burden to fall largely on the military and their families. Would people have continued to support the war despite the blunders over the last four years if they felt they had a real stake in the outcome, not banking on some nebulous rhetoric about “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here?”

It doesn’t matter at this point. Timetable or not, the surge will allow us to start drawing down troops perhaps as soon as the end of this year. And if the surge doesn’t work in tamping down the violence in Baghdad, it will be because the Iraqi government has failed to follow up our military’s success with political measures that will start rebuilding Iraqi society. At that point, even President Bush has said he will throw in the towel and leave the Iraqis to their own devices.

Penn called Bush “Our country and our Constitution’s most devastating enemy.” He was cheered wildly when he said those words. What does it say about the left who see an American President as a “devastating enemy,” (sic), worse than those who as they were applauding that thought were gleefully planning to kill as many of their fellow citizens as possible?

I fart in their general direction.

The Bradford Pear Tree. We have one in our yard that looks just like this today.

A Prayer in Spring

Robert Frost (1915)

Oh, give us pleasure in the flowers to-day;
And give us not to think so far away
As the uncertain harvest; keep us here
All simply in the springing of the year.

For this is love and nothing else is love,
The which it is reserved for God above
To sanctify to what far ends He will,
But which it only needs that we fulfil.

If you came looking for something to read about politics, perhaps this afternoon. For the moment, the temperature is soaring into the upper 70’s today, the sun is out, the air is unbelievably fresh and vital – almost drug-like in its effect on my body and soul.

Winter’s death grip on our hearts is lessening. Not quite letting go, mind you. This, after all, is the Midwest. And we here in the heartland know that before the old bugger lies down and sleeps for a while, Old Man Winter has a few blasts left in him. What we’ve been experiencing yesterday and today are Sister Springtime’s annual attempt to seduce the dirty old guy , distracting him long enough so that a few breath’s from her sweet scented lungs escape the Ogre’s clutches and waft gently across the landscape transforming man, beast, and bud.

You don’t breathe any more deeply all year than on that first day when the sun actually warms your face and the fresh smell of renewal is on the wind. A hint of Jasmine. A suggestion of sweet honeysuckle. Everything is brighter. Colors are cartoonish, so garish they are. Reds are redder. Greens are impossible, it being so long since you’ve seen the color out of doors. Even the earth colors brown and sienna become more stark thus offering a contrast to the rest. After months of depressing cold and darkness, the world in front of you explodes in light and warmth.

But it’s what happens inside of you that makes spring so very special. The older I get, the more this change of season is meaningful for me. The longer I live, the more I hate the winter – and look forward to this first day of joy and rebirth. During the winter, I have a tendency to face my own mortality – an Irish fatalism handed down by my ancestors. All is forgotten come spring.

Come spring, the world fills up with joyous sounds and sights. A ball hitting a bat. A dog barking madly as he races around the park. Fish leaping out of the water. And the birds. Oh how my mother loved the birds in springtime, singing their songs of love, building their nests hoping to mate. Remembering is also part of the seasonal change, calling forth the spirits of the past to unite with anticipation of the future until the seamless whole of your life now and beyond tomorrow fills you up with feeling and a great gratitude to be alive.

Politics? It can wait. For now, breathe. And simply be.

It’s almost as inevitable as the daffodils blooming.

Every spring for the past three years, we’ve heard reports that the US intends to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites. While this has proved to be an incorrect prediction in the past, there are some signs that within a month, the United States could initiate hostilities against Iran, thus setting off a chain reaction of events – the outcome of which would be uncertain.

There have been numerous reports since January of this year that point to an April kickoff for such an attack. And in the last 48 hours, two separate foreign news services have pegged April 6 as the date for the attack. And then there was this curious story in the Turkish Daily News talking about using Bulgarian and Romanian air bases where increased activity has been spotted recently:

The United States “could be using its two air force bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania’s Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April,” the Bulgarian news agency Novinite claimed. Commenting on the report, The Sunday Herald wrote that the U.S. build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz “appears to indicate that U.S. President Bush has run out of patience with Tehran’s nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the U.N. Security Council’s resolution.”

“Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of the America’s Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defense bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush’s global war on terror,” wrote the Scottish paper…

The Bulgarian agency named Colonel Sam Gardiner, “a U.S. secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria,” as the source its story.

Before the end of March, 3,000 U.S. military personnel are scheduled to arrive “on a rotating basis” at the United States’ Bulgarian bases. Under the U.S.-Bulgarian military cooperation accord, signed in April, 2006, an airbase at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting range at Novo Selo were leased to the U.S. Army.

The Sunday Herald noted that last week, the Romanian daily Evenimentual Zilei revealed the U.S. Air Force is to stage several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraft at the Kogalniceanu Base. According to the story, Admiral Gheorghe Marin, Romania’s chief of staff, confirmed “up to 2,000 American military personnel will be temporarily stationed in Romania.”

At the very least, all of this activity points to getting our ducks in a row militarily so that a decision can be made one way or the other to attack Iran and be followed immediately by military action.

Would Bush attack Iran without Congressional approval? He’s be writing his own articles of impeachment if he did. And given the dwindling support for the President among Republicans on the Hill, it could very well lead to his removal from office.

Ahmadinejad’s most recent outrage – the taking of 15 British sailors hostage – along with our apparent refusal to give him a visa to come to the US and speak before the UN about the planned sanctions against Iran, (It’s possible we issued the visa but Ahmadinejad decided not to come due to the hostage incident which would gain him no friends anyway on the Security Council.) could be significant. Did the Iranians take pre emptive action, believing an attack is imminent and would they use the Brits as human shields for their nuke sites?

Wild speculation to be sure. As is this entire article. But when enough people are whispering that something is about to happen, you can either ignore it as gossip or take it as a sign that things are going on behind the scenes that we, the public, may not be privy to.

UPDATE

Here’s a little levity regarding the prediction of an imminent attack:

Q. Why is the United States being forced into Daylight Savings Time three weeks early?

A. Back in 2005, Bush was planning an attack on Iran for April 2007 and some policy wonk pointed out that the attack would be taking place during the Daylight Savings Time change. It would be crazy to be changing clocks during a shooting war so, Bush’s wonks created a bogus piece of legislation called the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a cover for early Daylight Savings Time. Now Bush can have his surprise attack on Iran without the fekkups that would be created by time changes right in the middle of an attack.

What do you expect from the English language Pravda forum?

Word that the Attorney General of the United States has been fibbing about his involvement in the firing of the 8 US Attorneys has, for some reason, shocked absolutely no one.

Maybe we should take that as a sign that this incompetent boob should have been fired a week ago:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales met with senior aides on Nov. 27 to review a plan to fire a group of U.S. attorneys, according to documents released last night, a disclosure that contradicts Gonzales’s previous statement that he was not involved in “any discussions” about the dismissals.

Justice Department officials also announced last night that the department’s inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility have launched a joint investigation into the firings, including an examination of whether any of the removals were improper and whether any Justice officials misled Congress about them.

The hour-long November meeting in the attorney general’s conference room included Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and four other senior Justice officials, including the Gonzales aide who coordinated the firings, then-Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson, records show.

Ed Morrissey points us to this blurb by Jonah Goldberg at the Corner that pretty much sums up the situation:

Okay, he may simply have been deeply, deeply, confused, out of touch and unprepared to give a press conference which was supposed to put an end to the “scandal” and instead poured gasoline on it at a time when his boss, the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, had vastly more important things to deal with. Maybe, just maybe, a good “CEO” would have asked his staff, “Hey, before I unequivocally tell the world I was out of the loop, let’s double check and make sure I wasn’t in the loop. Okay?”

I will brook no excuses by commenters that Gonzalez “misspoke,” or “forgot,” or “got a note from his mother” that gave him permission to lie, or other excuses from the ever dwindling number of Bush diehards who visit this site . He is the frickin’ Attorney General of the United States fer crissakes! If there is anybody in government who needs to tell the truth, it is the guy responsible for enforcing the laws of land.

When I wrote last week that this was a non scandal, I was absolutely correct. The problem was that I didn’t bank on the Attorney General turning this into a full fledged Washington feeding frenzy by thinking he could get away with telling the press, the American people, and Congress one thing while knowing full well the truth lay exactly in the opposite direction.

Now firing the bastard won’t do anything to slake the thirst of the scandal mongers for blood. All it will do is make Bush look even weaker when he has to throw his AG to the dogs after promising to stand by him. And with a couple of Congressional Committees using electron microscopes to go over the documentation here, you can be sure they’ll find something else newsworthy every single day that will embarrass the Administration and make them look even worse – if that’s possible.

Word that the IG will be looking into this is actually the best news to come out of the entire affair. I’m sure he’ll raise questions about the propriety of the firings but I sincerely doubt he’ll find anything actionable. That won’t stop Congressional Democrats from going after Miers and Rove -a constitutional battle royale that’s shaping up to be the political entertainment of the spring.

I’m 100% with Patterico here:

These attorneys’ attitudes towards their clients can be summed up as follows: I’d like to defend you, but you’re making it very difficult for me.

But they’re making it really, really hard for me to do so.

Damn near impossible now. This news today has even had them surrendering the high ground on the issue of executive privilege. Not that Rove or Miers has much to worry about. The netnuts are in their anti-Rovian dream state again, believing like Dorothy that if they click their heels together three times wearing the magic shoes and wish hard enough, Evil Karl will exit the White House in chains. This, too, will make for some great springtime entertainment. Nothing like watching the left have their heads explode when once again, Evil Karl escapes their clutches.

It appears that a last minute plea by Speaker Pelosi to the Out of Iraq Caucus, made up of the most deranged of the deranged left, has carried the day – clearing the way for a war funding bill that will do for al-Qaeda what they could never do for themselves in a million years; get American combat forces out of Iraq:

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

A Senate committee also passed a spending bill yesterday setting a goal of bringing troops home within a year. The developments mark congressional Democrats’ first real progress in putting legislative pressure on President Bush to withdraw U.S. forces.

Even more than the conservative Democrats leery of appearing to micromanage the war, House liberals have been the main obstacle to leadership efforts to put a timeline on the withdrawal of U.S. forces. They have complained that the proposal would not bring troops home fast enough. Their opposition has riven the antiwar movement, split the Democratic base and been the main stumbling block to the legislation, which had originally been scheduled for a vote yesterday.

How on earth did Pelosi pull it off? Did she appeal to their party loyalty? Their sense of honor? Their greed?

As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised 10.

“I find myself in the excruciating position of being asked to choose between voting for funding for the war or establishing timelines to end it,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). “I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war.”

That was the message of Democratic leaders: This is the best deal they could make, and it is better than no deal at all.

Indeed. The consequences of “no deal at all” were unthinkable:

“You really have two options here: One is that you can vote for a change of course here and say we’re going to find a way out of Iraq, or, two, you can vote against it and hand George Bush a victory,” said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq war and co-founder of VoteVets.org, a group that opposes the war. “It doesn’t make sense to me. George Bush got us into the war. They have challenged him on everything. Why would they give him this victory now?” he asked, referring to the liberals.

It is clear that the left hates George Bush more than they hate the war.

They hate him so much they are willing to sacrifice their anti-war principles in order to deal the President of the United States an embarrassing defeat. And given the absolute dead certainty that the President will veto the measure, a delay in funding the war could lead to dire consequences for our troops in the field:

In his assessment — delivered during a morning meeting with lawmakers and then repeated to reporters — Gates said that failure to pass the Defense Department funding request within the next three weeks might force the Army to slow the training of units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan.

He also cautioned that further delay into mid-May could force the Army to extend the deployments of troops in war zones beyond their usual one-year tours, because replacement forces would not have enough money to complete their pre-combat training.

Gates declined to tell the Democrats what they should do, saying only, “I think it’s my responsibility to let everybody involved in the debate know the impact of the timing of the decisions.”

But the political brinksmanship of his remarks was clear.

It is hugely ironic that the LA Times talks of “political brinksmanship” when referencing Secretary Gates remarks – especially since it is the Democrats in Congress who are holding a gun to the head of the President by passing a bill he cannot sign if he wishes to remain Commander in Chief:

A Pelosi spokesman said President Bush would be to blame for any effect that delays in passing a bill would have on the military, saying the president had failed to adequately fund the war.

But the warning from Gates, who has largely stayed out of the political fray in his first three months at the Pentagon, threatened to upset the carefully crafted coalition of moderate and liberal Democrats that party leaders have been laboring to assemble behind the $124-billion measure.

And that’s what it’s all about. It’s not about stopping the war. It’s not about bringing our troops home. The whole purpose of this bill is to score political points against the President, to weaken him, to embarrass him – all the while handing the enemies of the United States a victory on the field of battle they’ve neither earned nor deserve.

At the expense of principle and common sense, the Democratic left has allowed their hatred of the President to trump all. And the problem for the Democrats with this entire process is that they are now committed to a course of action (and setting a disturbing precedent that may very well come back to haunt them some day) that ignores military reality in favor of political expediency.

Does anyone actually believe that these arbitrary and capricious “benchmarks” laid out by the Democrats to put pressure on the Iraqi government are designed to do anything except further embarrass and weaken the President? It is a transparent political ploy, nothing else. And anyone who votes for this measure should be ashamed of themselves for abandoning principle in order to make Bush look bad while giving themselves permission to feel good about sticking it to the President of the United States.

For once, I agree with many of the netroots on this issue; give us an up or down vote on funding the Iraq War, not this sneaking around and playing political games with the lives of our troops. If, as Democrats have been saying for months, the American people elected them to end this war, let’s end it already. What in God’s name are they scared of? If, as they claim, the people are behind them, what is there to worry about politically? George Bush is beyond lame duck status. He’s a gone goose. The President is an irrelevancy, a non-factor. Republicans are sick of defending him. The base has abandoned him. Bush could claim from here to the next election that Democrats “lost” the war if they cut off funding but no one would listen or believe him. So why the hesitation?

The fact is, the left in Congress are cowards – unprincipled, abject cowards. They talk a good game but when push comes to shove – when history calls and asks them to stand up for their principles – they run and hide under their beds like five year olds scared of the thunder.

And the hell of it is, they are going to point to passage of this bill as a “victory.” It’s a triumph of hate over principle – hardly a victory unless you consider it more important to stick a shiv into the President’s gut to satisfy your own personal animus.

Serves me right.

I didn’t get any votes last week for my post. I guess I could blame the Watcher since he picked it out for me. (I even failed to submit a post for the competition.) But that would be unfair. It was probably the one I would have picked anyway.

Suffice it to say, I’ve “weasled” out of posting the results the last two weeks. For that, I am heartily sorry and have promised the boss that I will say three Our Fathers, 5 Hail Mary’s, and 10 Glory Be’s plus do the Act of Contrition on my knees…on a stone floor…wearing sackcloth.

Anyway, here are the results from the last two weeks. Great stuff – even if I didn’t win.

W/E 3/9

Council

1st Place: “Between Iraq and a Hard Place—Why We Went, How It Got So Screwed Up and Where It’s Going—Part 2” by Joshuapundit

2nd Place: Yours truly for “Death of a Titan”

3rd Place (tie): “Green Thinking from the Red Planet” by Soccer Dad
and
“You Ain’t Never Had a Friend Like Me” by Bookworm Room

Non Council

1st Place: “Uncomfortable Questions: Was the Death Star Attack an Inside Job?” by Websurdity

2nd Place: “Iraq Trip Report” by Small Wars Journal

3rd Place: “10 Institutions That Ruin the World—#1” by Kerplunk—Shaken Not Stirred

W/E 3/16

Council

1st Place: “Serving While Republican” by Eternity Road

2nd Place (tie): “What Are Europe’s Options?” by Joshuapundit
and
“I Disagree” by Rhymes With Right

Non Council

1st Place: “Tenured Deceit” by Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

2nd Place: “Tips For New Teachers” by Right Wing Nation

3rd Place: “Obama: “Nobody Is Suffering More Than the Palestinian People”” by Ace of Spades HQ

Also, another long time Council member decided to move on. Jimmie of the Sundries Shack decided to hand in his key to the executive weasel room. I always liked Jimmie’s perspective on things and he will surely be missed.

And taking the place of American Future will be a rising star of the blogosphere, Dafydd of Big Lizards. Welcome aboard!

Being something of an agnostic on the global warming debate, I was amused to watch Al Gore testify before Congress yesterday. Not only was the former Vice President entertaining – as most dogmatic, close minded advocates on both sides of the global warming debate usually are – but watching him wiggle and squirm as he sought to avoid charges of hypocrisy for not taking a pledge to live a life of carbon neutrality turned into either low comedy or high drama, depending on your point of view.

Environmental activist (and former vice president) Al Gore descended on Capitol Hill yesterday, telling two congressional panels that global climate change represents the most dangerous crisis in American history and that the measures needed to fix the problem—such as an immediate freeze on new emissions from cars and power plants—are far more drastic than anything currently on the table.

Gore, whose documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” won an Academy Award last month, testified before both House and Senate committees in an appearance that drew international media attention and lines of would-be spectators trailing through congressional hallways.

In both hearings, he had testy exchanges with lawmakers who doubted his scientific evidence or the feasibility of his solutions. Much of his day, though, was spent basking in an odd spotlight: Gore and his cause have Washington’s full attention. But his message, of a feverish planet and dwindling time in which to cure it, made for a grim homecoming.

“This is not a normal time. We are facing a planetary emergency,” Gore said in the afternoon Senate hearing. “I’m fully aware that that phrase sounds shrill to many people’s ears. But it is accurate.”

First, I wonder what Gore thinks of being referred to primarily as an “environmental activist” with his main claim to fame as Clinton’s Vice President given in parentheses. Considering the fact that Gore would probably like to ride his global warming crusade into the White House, my guess is that such distinctions don’t sit very well with him.

As far as his appearances, he was in his element – lecturing the assembled lawmakers and the rest of us that unless drastic action is taken, we’ll be under water before you know it. Or as dry as my Zsu-Zsu’s meatloaf depending on where you live. And we’ll either be hotter than hades or colder than an environmentalist’s heart unless we listen to he and other climate scare mongers.

You see, Gore and I are not scientists but we both share a passion for the subject. The difference between us is that I gather information from both skeptics (the serious kind, not including Senator Inhofe) and advocates who, surprisingly, are in close agreement on a few facts about climate change:

1. The climate is changing.

2. It is getting warmer.

3. Humans have had an as yet undetermined impact on these facts. (Still a matter of some dispute although the evidence has become pretty compelling over the last 2 or three years.)

4. No one knows what the hell to do about it.

For Al Gore to recommend the absolutely most catastrophic “solutions” – measures that would finish the United States as an economic power in the world – is not only irresponsible but silly. An “immediate freeze” on emissions from power plants would mean a helluva lot less electricity. Although I’m sure there would be enough to light up and heat Mr. Gore’s estate, as for the rest of us, I’m not so sure.

And a freeze in car emissions? How do we do that without shutting down the assembly lines and throwing tens of thousands out of work? Well, at least Al will still have a job. He could always latch on to a carnival somewhere as a barker.

Of course, this would be only the beginning. Huge increases in fuel taxes, a rush to shut down coal fired power plants, and other draconian measures that have little to do with saving the planet and everything to do with politics. The fact is, there is no scientific consensus on what to do about global warming and, in fact, there is a large body of scientific opinion that says even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gasses today, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.

Gore is not pushing science as much as he is touting a political agenda – an anti-capitalist, anti-industrial, pro-socialist agenda that would set up a super governing body to act as a carbon nanny, doling out punishments to nations that don’t measure up. The Luddites, the one worlders, the pastoral radicals, and anarchists who are his allies in this cause would basically be in charge of industrial production in the west.

By all means let us work diligently toward a society where greenhouse emissions are limited as much as possible. Let’s get the nuclear power industry up and running full bore. Let’s fully fund research into hydrogen alternatives to the internal combustion engine. Where possible, let’s encourage solar, wind, geo-thermal, and other alternative forms of energy (fat lot of good it will do since the savings in emissions would be minimal in the United States). And let’s start a massive educational campaign to inform the public of what each American can be doing to limit their “carbon signature” on the planet.

But at the same time, let’s tell Al Gore and his hysterical friends to put a sock in it. Their moralizing and politicizing the issue not to mention their filthy smears of not only skeptics but anyone who doesn’t buy in to their end of the world scenarios (some of them contradictory) is making the rest of us sick to our stomachs. Dismissing skeptics as shills for the oil and gas industry is outrageous demagoguery and indicates that, like religious zealots, it is impossible to challenge their beliefs in a rational, reasonable manner.

Perhaps the more outrageous Gore and his friends get in their dire pronouncements and calumnious denunciations, the less people will listen to them. I sincerely hope so. This has been the fate of other zealots in American history. And for Al Gore, such an outcome can’t come too soon.

UPDATE II

Check out the video at Michelle Malkin that has a jaw dropping example of Senator Boxer’s arrogance. And there’s a separate video of a CNN newsreader’s reaction (“Good for her.”)

What biased media?

And Dean Barnett has his own “Eco-Purity Pledge.” (Guffaw!)