Right Wing Nut House

If there were any doubts that Marilyn Bauer was hiding some shocking secret about her son Josh, they were swept away by this exchange between Jack and his former lover following the rescue.

Jack is still trying to figure out why Philip Bauer is so interested in having Josh by his side and fills Marilyn in on what his father told the young man:

JACK: He told him he was taking him to China, that he was his legacy.

MARILYN: Is that all he told him?

The look of panic that crossed her face when she uttered those words sealed it for me.

Then again, the writers may have it in for me since I’ve criticized them so much this year and want to make me look ridiculous. And a man in my position can’t afford to look ridiculous.

No matter. I will be in for the surprise of my life if Philip and Marilyn Bauer aren’t hiding something momentous about Josh - both from the boy and from Jack. Whether it has to do with his parentage or something else is anyone’s guess. But I will lay odds that either Jack or Philip himself is the father of the young man and that for reasons as yet unknown, Marilyn has kept the secret from Jack.

The problem with this kind of speculation is that there is no firm timeline established for when Jack’s relationship with Marilyn ended. Josh appears to be about 15-16 years old while Jack’s daughter Kim is probably close to 25 (she was 17 in Season 1 and a couple of the “days” in future seasons occurred with a gap of anywhere from 18 months to this season’s two years).

This means nothing to the writers, of course. But it would be more logical if Philip, in fact, was the father (making Josh Jack’s long lost brother!). Controlling and dominating as he is, one can see him moving in on his son’s wife and initiating an affair.

This will probably be the most interesting thing to watch for during next week’s 2 hour finale - except perhaps what Jack will do with Philip. Oedipus killed his own father but was unaware of who he was when he took his life. Jack has no such excuse. And there may be enough hate in Jack’s heart toward his father that patricide is definitely an option.

SUMMARY

Cheng’s chief goon Zhou orders two of his men to take Josh to his boss which sends Marilyn into hysterics. As they are about to kill her just to shut her up, Jack intercedes and proves why everyone likes him:

JACK: (To Zhou) Please let me help you.

ZHOU: Get on your feet! Keep her quiet!

JACK: Thank you.

It’s a wonder terrorists and thugs don’t just break down and repent on the spot when Jack is so nice to them. Saying “please” and “thank you” to someone with a gun to your head may be stretching politeness a bit far. But then, Bauer is a man of extremes. Coming from him, we find it perfectly natural for Jack not to forget his Emily Post.

With Josh gone, Zhou makes ready to move the CTU prisoners into a secure room. Realizing that if they’re locked up they won’t have a chance to get the circuit board, Jack whispers to Nadia that they have to make a break for it. As the gang is filing out, Jack and Nadia bringing up the rear, Jack makes his move.

Head butting an unsuspecting Menudo, Jack begins his death struggle with Zhou while Nadia distracts another guard and Morris leaps on the back of a goon who was about to kill Jack. Bauer takes out one thug with Zhou’s gun and then the three CTU’ers are fighting for their lives. Finally, Jack gets Zhou in a position where he can use the thug’s weapon strap as a choker and just as the killer of Milo is about to lose consciousness, Jack snaps his neck like a dry twig.

Nadia is having a lot more trouble - until Little Ricky shows up and blasts the terrorist, saving her life.

And Morris? We never find out. We glimpse him struggling with his antagonist but no more mention is made of his heroics nor do we even know what happened to the Menudo he was fighting with. Let’s give Morris a kill anyway, shall we? He has partially redeemed himself for violating the CTU code of honor which requires death before helping terrorists. Maybe it will even help get him back together with Chloe.

Meanwhile, Jack is hot to go after Josh until Nadia reminds him he’s still under arrest. Brushing aside this little detail (what’s a half dozen felony counts among friends?) Jack is allowed to go Josh hunting albeit with Little Ricky in command.

The fact that Jack doesn’t take orders from anyone anyway seems to have been lost on Nadia. At any rate, Jack and the TAC Team go after Josh.

As the team wades through the sewer trying to pick up the trail, Josh and his captors arrive at the warehouse where Cheng is holed up. He immediately informs Philip that he has the kid at which point the elder Bauer demands to speak to him.

It is hard to glean much between the lines when listening to this conversation. In an earlier recap, I talked about Philip’s desire for immortality, wanting to see himself live on through the survival of his company. His obsession with Josh as his “legacy” strikes me in a similar manner - especially now that his company is no more. And it appears that this obsession may have driven him insane.

Cheng loads Josh into a car and they start for the rendezvous with Philip. Jack shows up just as Cheng is pulling away and opens fire, killing the driver of the car and causing it to careen into a concrete pillar. In the confused firefight that follows, Jack kills three more thugs while Cheng - using Josh as a human shield - slips away once again.

Jack offs two more Menudos while chasing Cheng to the roof of the warehouse. And Josh proves his mettle by escaping Cheng’s clutches, kicking the Chinese security chief in the face and running for his life.

If Josh is in fact Jack’s son, he acquitted himself in the finest tradition of the Bauer family. Contrast Josh’s quick foot with Kimmy’s confrontation with the Mountain Lion from Season 1 where she cowered and screamed for help. Brave lad, that Josh.

Cheng empties his gun in a fruitless attempt to kill Jack who has now arrived on the roof just as Josh escapes Cheng’s clutches. But in order to do so, Josh hangs precariously from a heating pipe. And his grip is slipping.

Just as Jack is about to take Cheng into custody (or, more likely, execute him as soon as he tells him where Josh is), the boy slips from his perch and desperately needs help or he’ll plunge to his death. Jack is forced to take his eyes off of Cheng, allowing him to escape and help the boy. So while Jack has Josh, Cheng is still at large.

When Josh tells Jack that it was Philip who was behind his kidnapping, Bauer looks perplexed. He has no idea Philip is in possession of the circuit board. But he realizes that a showdown with dear old dad is now in the offing.

DOYLE: Your father is involved with the Chinese? Why?

JACK: I don’t know. I’ll ask him when I find him.

Thus, the stage is set for the confrontation of the season. Philip has proven that he has no compunction about killing his own son. But if it comes to it, can Jack kill his own father? Stay tuned.

Back at the White House, Karen tells Daniels about menacing Russian troop movements. This causes the Veep to confide in Karen about Lisa the Slut and her betrayal as well as his “personal relationship” with her. Karen is solicitous but Daniels is inconsolable, believing that his “lapse in judgement” will bring the country to war.

Funny that these two creatures of Washington never thought about the politics of what it would mean if Daniels relationship with Lisa was ever exposed. The guy would be toast and would probably have been forced to resign. The opposition would have had a field day with the revelations as would the press.

At Bishop’s apartment, the two rutting deer finally finish up. As Lisa goes into the bathroom, Bishop makes ready to download the fake info from her PDA when he stops, his spy instincts on full alert. Instead, he calls Lisa out to have a drink with him. Unable to carry on the charade any longer, the woman attacks Bishop who fights back, getting the Veep’s squeeze into a choke hold. Only the intervention of the Secret Service saves Lisa’s life.

Tom never skips a beat. He confronts Bishop and offers him a choice; cooperate or get the death penalty. Not surprisingly, Bishop chooses to download the fake evidence and send it along to his Russian masters.

Meanwhile, Cheng calls Philip with the bad news that he no longer has Josh. Philip coldly informs him that he is now useless to him and he will make other arrangements. It may seem as if that’s the end for the Chinese but somehow, I get the feeling they haven’t gone far and will be up to their necks in it next week.

Back at CTU, a gaggle of bureaucrats from Division arrive to investigate the security breach at headquarters that allowed the assault to occur. Nadia tries to explain that their in the middle of trying to prevent a war and that it’s three in the morning anyway.

Nadia is unfamiliar with the bureaucratic mind set that recognizes nothing except it’s own relentless rationale for existence. In this case, the end of the world matters squat. Getting the job done, the report written, the paper shuffled means more than any silly notions of saving the planet from Armegeddon. Nadia promises full cooperation, something Morris objects to saying that Milo didn’t die so that the blame for his death could be laid at Nadia’s feet. But the woman is feeling guilt for hesitating ever so slightly and allowing Milo to take the bullet meant for her.

Lennox reports back on the success of the operation with the exception that Lisa has been badly injured - perhaps brain damaged - as a result of her post-coital tussle with Bishop. Daniels seems out of sorts which is not a good thing. Not when they now have to call the Russian President and confirm the fake emails by lying to him about destroying the circuit board.

The conversation with President Suvarov turns into a nightmare when he tells them he knows of the fake emails and other data thanks to their surveillance of Bishop. Suvarov makes it clear that unless Daniels can come up with the board or evidence of its destruction before the show is over (within 2 hours) we’ll be at war with the Russkies.

Making his way back to the White House, Tom is about ready to attend a military briefing on the situation when he receives a call from none other than Philip Bauer. Breaking into the meeting and asking for privacy with Karen, Daniels finds out that Philip will give them the board in exchange for Josh and clear passage out of the country. Karen argues against it. Tom says it’s a no brainer, that they should give the kid to Bauer.

In this case, I agree with Tom. Giving a grandfather his grandson in exchange for a chance to stop the war would seem to be an easy choice. The well being of one 15 year old kid versus the prevention of World War III? No contest.

Choosing the obvious, Daniels orders Lennox to tell CTU to round up Josh. The risk of war is just too great what with many more anti-American generals like Gredenko calling the shots in Moscow.

And this leads to the heart wrenching scene in the parking lot when Jack is called away for a phone call after telling Josh to get in the car. Instead, Little Ricky shows up and drags the kid into a waiting helicopter. Realizing he’s been had, Jack races after him only to be restrained by CTU personnel. With Josh crying plaintively for “Uncle Jack” and Jack answering, one can only surmise that they are indeed father and son.

At any rate, we’ll find out next week, won’t we?

BODY COUNT

Once again, Jack breaks a record. With seven kills on the night, Bauer is making up for lost time from the previous weeks,

Four Menudos killed in the escape from CTU Island. (Two by Bauer)

Jack gets five more in the firefight to rescue Josh and in the wake of going after Cheng.

Morris breaks through and partially redeems himself.

TOTAL

Jack - 38

SHOW: 428

Will he or won’t he?

Newt Gingrich has teased his supporters (and detractors) for months with intimations that he would run for the GOP nomination for President.

Now it appears that he has pretty much decided that he will, in fact, run - but as is typical with the former Speaker of the House, he will do it in his own time and on his own terms:

In an interview with Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America,” the former Republican speaker of the House said there was a “great possibility” that he would run for president.

He will make that decision sometime in the fall. Sawyer noted that previously Gingrich had only said he was “thinking about” a run for president.

“You said you’ll make a decision at the end of the September,{is it} more likely, less likely this morning? Sawyer asked Gingrich. “I think right now, it is a great possibility,” Gingrich said.

“A great possibility you’ll run? Sawyer asked. But Gingrich declined to elaborate. “I don’t want to get into all this stuff,” Gingrich said. “I want to focus on what we have to do to make America successful.”

Gingrich was visiting “GMA” to talk about his new book, “Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December the 8th,” which he co-wrote with William Forstchen.

But Gingrich took time to assess the field of declared candidates and said he wasn’t happy with the current contenders, comparing them to contestants on “American Idol.”

“We’re in this virtually irrational process,” he said. “It’s exactly wrong as a way of choosing a national leader.”

So why wait until September? A look at the disadvantages of waiting so long to enter the race formally are daunting. Other candidates enjoy the benefit of having already hired most of the 1st tier pollsters, media and campaign consultants, fundraisers, and moneymen who supply the nuts and bolts organization to any campaign staff. Gingrich’s close advisors, including campaign consultant Joe Gaylord, have little or no experience running a national campaign - not necessarily a fatal flaw but certainly a problem when one is talking about hitting the ground running just 4 months prior to the first contest in Iowa.

Then there is the question of money. Rudy and McCain may each have raised over $70 million by September 1st. Romney may have raised more. Newt’s strategy is obvious. He is going to need to generate plenty of free press along with a breakthrough win in an early primary or caucus state. This would give much needed momentum to his campaign and allow him to carry on into “Super Tuesday” or, as some are starting to call it, “National Primary Day” on February 5. The problem there is that with less money to spend, Newt will be at a distinct disadvantage in heavy media states like California and New York (another big media state that will almost certainly move their primary to February 5 is Illinois). He will have to rely on the magic his name still holds for large numbers of conservatives as well as a general dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates.

Otherwise, his entering the race is an exercise in futility.

There is no doubt that Gingrich is an idea man first, last, and always. In a profile written for Cox News in 2003, Newt makes no bones about who he is:

I’m a scout, thinker, policy developer,” he explained in advance of his milestone birthday. “…I can actually go and look at all these things and meet all these companies and learn all these ideas. I can think about them from 40 years of experience. And then I have the standing to show up and do hearings or go to meetings.”

Sipping on a Diet Coke in a cafeteria on Capitol Hill, Gingrich had just presented his notions on how to cure the health care system in general and fix Medicare in particular to the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Afterward, he posed with admirers and autographed copies of his testimony text.

Now he is talking to a reporter who has written about him for 20 years: From brown hair to steel gray to nearly white. From obscurity as Georgia’s lone Republican congressman to Speaker. From Time Magazine Man of the Year in 1995 to humbled resignation four years later. The Newtonian words come as fast as ever. With a gaggle of young interns hanging on every syllable, Gingrich verbally bounds from history to high-tech, military to medical, arcane to august.

And Gingrich makes it clear that he doesn’t think much of the current GOP frontrunners for the nomination:

The top Republican presidential front-runners are trying to woo conservatives, but so far it seems an unrequited love.

“The three front-runners are just not viable conservative choices, and I think what we know about the three front-runners is enough really to doom them,” said one Republican voter.

There seems to be an opening for a conservative candidate. Former senator and actor Fred Thompson may have his eye on the White House. Some speculate that Gingrich, with the release of a new book and his apology to conservative leader James Dobson for past personal indiscretions, could as well.

That last nugget - Newt’s “personal indiscretions” - may doom his candidacy before it starts. For a rundown of “Newt the Philanderer” and “Newt the Hypocrite,” this website gives a good accounting. And with Hillary’s crew of experienced personal attack dogs, Republicans may want to think twice about nominating a candidate with so many personal, financial, and ethical problems in his past. He’s just too easy a target.

None of that will probably matter to legions of conservatives and fans. I gave my reasons for not supporting his candidacy here. Short version; idea men make poor executives. And Gingrich has a history of beginning to follow through on an idea only to leave it behind to conquer the next mountaintop.

No matter. If Gingrich runs - and it seems a virtual certainty that he will even with the mini-boomlet for Fred Thompson - he will certainly add some much needed color and fire to the GOP campaign. Wherever Gingrich speaks and whatever he talks about, sparks fly. Like flint being struck, ideas, facts, and historical analogies leap from his fertile mind and light up the TV screen. But given his late start and the almost overwhelming advantages enjoyed by the frontrunners, Gingrich’s candidacy will probably be a hopeless effort.

As we careen toward the blockbuster two hour finale, speculation in running rampant about how all the plot threads will eventually merge and tie themselves up into a nice, neat bow.

Of course, those of us familiar with the series know that no such thing will happen. The writers of the show treat the fans with a mixture of bemused contempt and haughty condescension. They believe that we have the memories of a fruit fly and are unable to recall details of what happened a couple of months ago. Ergo, the chances are about 100% that one or more major plot threads will simply disappear down the rabbit hole, victim of the writers maneuvering themselves into a corner and not being able to blow something up, kill someone off, or create some grand, revelatory moment that clears everything up.

No matter. We’ll still have fun anyway. And part of the fun is trying to figure out who lives, who dies, how the United States will be saved, and most important, the fate of Jack Bauer.

Leave your best, your craziest, your silliest speculation in the comments below (FSM readers email me at rick@rightwingnuthouse.com). Tomorrow afternoon, I’ll post the best of that speculation for all to see.

And then get set for tomorrow night’s blockbuster episode.

Exclusive to rightwingnuthouse.com! Must credit rightwingnuthouse.com!

If you thought it was bad enough that the Federal government uses the terrorist spying program to listen in on your Auntie Midge talking to her neighbor about the upcoming church social, think again. Rightwingnuthouse.com has learned that the United States Federal government will now use its massive intelligence capabilities to spy on global warming.

This will be the first effort to spy on climate and it is not sitting well with several members of Congress.

“First, we spy on global warming and the next thing you know, we’re at war,” said James Inhofe (R-Not OK With Me). “I have no doubt Democrats will fix the intelligence, twisting it in order to manipulate the American people into fighting global warming.”

Some pundits have their briefs in a twist over the revelations.

“My briefs are in a twist,” said Glenn Greenwald, whose listed occupation is “tail end of the horsey costume at Mardi Gras” as well as a sockpuppet and part time pundit for Salon.com. “Is there no end to this Administration’s attack on the Constitution?”

Speaking from his palatial house on an ant farm outside of Rio de Janeiro, Greenwald made it plain that civil liberties absolutists would not go along with another warrantless surveillance program.

“What has global warming ever done to us,” asked Greenwald. “We have global warming in a box and as long as we keep an eye on it, there’s no chance it will ever be a threat.”

Greenwald, famous author of a book on civil liberties (excerpts of which were read on the floor of the Senate as well as several prominent mens rooms in Omaha) pointed out that there is nothing in the NSA charter that gives it the right to spy on any climate - much less global warming.

“We need an amendment to the FISA statute that would prevent this abuse of power,” he said. “I propose we amend the law to include a ‘climate court” that would force these Rethuglinazikluxers to obey the Constitution.”

Representative John Conyers (D-Impeach Bush NOW) agreed saying he would introduce legislation to create the CISA early next week.

James Wolcott, food tester for George Soros and sometime columnist issued a thundering denunciation of the program on his blog:

So the government now thinks it has the perfectly legitimate right to spy on global warming. Is there no limit to this Administration’s evil? Even climate can’t change without Bush and his minions seeing a threat. Of course, he’s only doing it to satisfy his rich meteorologist friends.

Meanwhile, the CIA has issued no official statement on the matter. But one analyst who spoke on the condition his name not be used due to to the extreme sensitivity of the subject (not to mention he could end up in the slammer for 10 years for leaking to the press) was dubious of any concrete benefit of spying on climate change.

“I doubt whether we’ll find anything useful,” he said. “Global warming has proven to be very elusive, evading all attempts to find it. We think it may be in the hills above Karachi but no one really knows.”

The agent bristled when it was suggested that spying on global warming would take intelligence resources away from fighting the War That Democrats Haven’t Gotten Around To Renaming Yet.

“I categorically reject that notion,” he said.” Yeah, we might be thinned out in some places [as a result of the global warming spying program]. And sure, we might lose a little coverage here and there. But I’d place the increased threat of a terrorist attack at no more than 10 percent - 15 tops.”

“I can live with that,” he added.

This kind of cynicism deserves a special reward.

Mort Kondracke thinks he’s being sensible by coming up with a “Plan B” for the day that the surge proves itself to be a tactical success but a strategic failure. The plan is simple, elegant, immoral, and would condemn millions of people to slaughter and misery.

But hey! Who’s countin’ noses when we get our very own pet Shia running Iraq?

The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.

No one has publicly advocated this Plan B, and I know of only one Member of Congress who backs it - and he wants to stay anonymous. But he argues persuasively that it’s the best alternative available if Bush’s surge fails. Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows.

On the other hand, as Bush’s critics point out, bloody civil war is the reality in Iraq right now. U.S. troops are standing in the middle of it and so far cannot stop either Shiites from killing Sunnis or Sunnis from killing Shiites.

Winning dirty would involve taking sides in the civil war - backing the Shiite-dominated elected government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and ensuring that he and his allies prevail over both the Sunni insurgency and his Shiite adversary Muqtada al-Sadr, who’s now Iran’s candidate to rule Iraq.

What’s a little ethnic cleansing among friends, eh Mort? Standing by while Sunnis are slaughtered is going to sit quite well with our friends in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the majority Sunni Gulf States.

The plan, of course, is as immoral as the Democrat’s current political gamesmanship which would accomplish exactly the same thing - Sunni slaughter - but would have the advantage of giving the US plausible deniability. (”How were we supposed to know that was going to happen?”) Kondracke doesn’t even pretend the murder of several hundred thousand people would come as a surprise. In fact, it’s part of his master plan.

And in the muddle that is Iraqi politics, it is unclear whether Mookie al-Sadr is, in fact, an “adversary” of Maliki at all. In some respects and on some issues, he is almost certainly an “ally.” And while a rival for power, as long as Ayatollah al-Sistani draws breath, the SCIRI will never allow the young upstart cleric to run much of anything in Iraq - even if he’s backed by Iran.

As for the rest of this tripe, is Kondracke sure this “anonymous” Congress critter wasn’t pulling his leg? I can’t imagine the US standing by watching as Shias herd Sunnis like cattle, whipping them toward the Saudi, Syrian, or Jordanian border. It would be the largest forced migration of people since the India-Pakistan partition in 1947. But that’s what a lot of the Shias who surround Maliki are all about - making Iraq a Sunni-free nation. It’s why the political benchmarks demanded of the Iraqi government by Congress will never be met. There is not the desire much less the political will among major Shia parties and personalities to unite the country.

Kondracke’s explanation is unconvincing:

Prudence calls for preparation of a Plan B. The withdrawal policy advocated by most Democrats virtually guarantees catastrophic ethnic cleansing - but without any guarantee that a government friendly to the United States would emerge. Almost certainly, Shiites will dominate Iraq because they outnumber Sunnis three to one. But the United States would get no credit for helping the Shiites win. In fact, America’s credibility would suffer because it abandoned its mission. And, there is no guarantee that al-Sadr - currently residing in Iran and resting his militias - would not emerge as the victor in a power struggle with al-Maliki’s Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

Iran formerly backed the SCIRI and its Badr Brigades but recently switched allegiances - foolishly, my Congressional source contends - to al-Sadr, who’s regarded by other Shiites as young, volatile and unreliable. Under a win dirty strategy, the United States would have to back al-Maliki and the Badr Brigades in their eventual showdown with al-Sadr. It also would have to help Jordan and Saudi Arabia care for a surge in Sunni refugees, possibly 1 million to 2 million joining an equal number who already have fled.

Sunnis will suffer under a winning dirty strategy, no question, but so far they’ve refused to accept that they’re a minority. They will have to do so eventually, one way or another. And, eventually, Iraq will achieve political equilibrium. Civil wars do end. The losers lose and have to knuckle under. As my Congressional source says, “every civil war is a political struggle. The center of this struggle is for control of the Shiite community. Wherever the Shiites go, is where Iraq will go. So, the quicker we back the winning side, the quicker the war ends. … Winning dirty isn’t attractive, but it sure beats losing.”

Allah asks the tough questions that Kondracke shrivels from and lays out “we broke it, we’ve got to fix it” case for at least maintaining enough of a presence to forestall genocide:

We all understand the dilemma here: we’re the only thing preventing a pogrom, but it’s at a huge human cost to our own military. At what point does our responsibility to get our boys out of harm’s way morally justify leaving a power vacuum within which Iraqi Arabs can slam away at each other? We’re not going to solve a Sunni/Shiite rift that’s existed for 1400 years so why waste any more American lives trying to postpone it? The answer, or my answer, in two words: Pam Hess. It’d be unconscionable for the United States to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing in a country whose security we’ve taken responsibility for; if you believe some on the left (and right), it’s unconscionable for us to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing even in countries whose security we’re not responsible for, like Sudan. When we leave, we have to leave with a good faith belief that the two sides can co-exist, which is why political reconciliation within parliament is so important and why we’re stuck there until it happens. If you take Kondracke seriously, the best solution might actually be to have the Air Force carpet-bomb Anbar: it’d solve the problem instantly, we’d get “credit for helping the Shiites win,” and it’d send a none-too-subtle message to Sadr that he’d best not antagonize us in the future. It would also send the Sunni countries in the Middle East into a frenzy, of course, and would mean the destruction of a part of Iraq where the leadership is, increasingly, unabashedly on our side and has taken the lead in fighting Al Qaeda — but of course, Shiite ethnic cleansing would accomplish the same things.

Strangest of all, in what sense does Kondracke think “American credibility” would be served by letting Sadr put the Sunnis to the sword? We’d be hearing about it from the left and the Islamists for the next thousand years. Al Qaeda would make it a centerpiece of their recruiting strategy. Even Iran, the ostensible beneficiaries, would demagogue the hell out of it with crocodile tears about their “Sunni brothers” whom the Sadrists had no choice but to fight after the U.S. goaded them into it.

Kondracke is wrong on so many levels it is beyond belief that he isn’t just throwing this out in order to initiate discussion about what next in Iraq.

And if he’s seriously considering what he wrote as an actual course of action for the United States, he should, as I suggest above, be sentenced to be dressed in Sunni garb and dropped smack in the middle of Sadr city.

Methinks his perspective on Shia ethnic cleansing would benefit by a little first hand experience with the process.

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

When I wrote those words in August of 2006, I hoped that the Bush Administration would react to the dire situation that had developed the previous six months in the country as a result of the bombing of the sacred Shia shrine in Samarra. (Note: There is considerable disagreement about whether or not the bombing of the shrine was a catalyst for the increased violence or whether it was coincidental to the march of the Iraqis toward civil war.) As it happened, the Administration decided to sit tight until after the Mid Term elections, hoping that a Republican majority could be maintained and they could go on their merry way, blundering toward disaster all the while telling us how swimmingly things were going.

Rudely awakened on election day, the Bushies realized the jig was up and that they would have to finally admit that mistakes were made and that a change of course was necessary. Firing Rumsfeld and initiating a “surge” with about 30,000 additional troops was the correct prescription. But like a doctor who prescribes a drug to kill an infection only after the patient is at deaths door, the medicine was administered too late to have much effect.

Not, I hasten to add, that the “surge” itself is a failure. Three months is hardly enough time to judge the overall effectiveness of a strategy that is still being implemented. The idea that our troops (who still have not been fully deployed) could rein in the death squads, tackle the militias, initiate their neighborhood policing, confiscate weapons, crack down on the criminal gangs, and bring order out of chaos in Baghdad in just 90 days is pure idiocy, something only the New York Times and partisan Democrats (or scaredy cat Republicans) would believe. A more realistic yardstick to judge success or failure would have been the end of the year. And I have little doubt that the professionalism and abilities of our troops would have seen to it that success would have been ours.

And yes, there has been remarkable progress in Anbar province in getting the tribes to fight al-Qaeda and even initiate political changes that have the potential of significantly affecting the Sunni insurgency. That part of the surge too, is being carried out with great dedication and skill.

But all of this is taking place in a vacuum. That’s because here at home, it should be apparent to even the bitter ender Bushies that there is no sustaining political will to fight on, that spilling American blood to give the Iraqis the necessary breathing room to implement the political changes that would make their country whole again has disappeared. And not just in the hinterlands but most especially on Capitol Hill. Republicans are jumping ship or, at the very least, adjusting their life preservers. Being practical politicians with their ears to the ground, GOP lawmakers are not going to put their political survival into the hands of a lame duck President whose stubbornness and inability to grasp either the political realities at home or in Baghdad could lead the Republican party into a massacre on election day in 2008.

The last 48 hours have seen one of the more remarkable political transformations that I can remember. The dam apparently began to break on Tuesday following a meeting between Bush and GOP moderates in the House. The lawmakers were desperately trying to get through to the President that their support for the war would be unsustainable past September given the Democratic party surge in their districts that is being driven by anti-war feeling among their constituents. Couple that with the fact that the Democrats have placed great big bulls eyes on these Republicans and are busy recruiting serious contenders to face them in 2008, and the political survival instincts of these fellows kicked in with a vengeance.

Karl Rove is furious that the tenor and tone of the meeting was leaked to the press:

White House political adviser Karl Rove, furious that Republican moderates had divulged a confrontational meeting they had on Tuesday with Bush on the war, started yesterday with an angry conversation with the meeting’s organizer, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), according to several GOP lawmakers. Dan Meyer, the White House’s chief lobbyist, called the other participants to express the administration’s unhappiness.

But Bush struck a more conciliatory tone, pledging to include benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government in a final compromise on war funding legislation.

And it isn’t just the “moderates” who just want Iraq to go away. Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), a meeting participant, said that it “was reflective of where the whole [Republican] conference is.”

The heated meeting between the GOP moderates and Bush continued to reverberate through Capitol Hill yesterday, after several Republican conservatives told reporters that they shared the moderates’ fears that the war is wrecking the party. “There is no liberal-conservative divide on Iraq,” said one House GOP conservative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering the White House further.

With his own party in full blown revolt and Bush giving in on including benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet in order to continue funding the war - benchmarks there isn’t a chance in hell Prime Minister Maliki could achieve even if he showed the slightest interest in doing so - all that remained for total collapse of the Bush policy was a sign that it’s only going to get worse.

And the Democrats helpfully supplied that sign yesterday with their draconian “cut and run” bill - an up or down vote on funding the entire war, not just the surge. An astonishing 177 Democrats voted for it (and two Republicans). To say that this bill was the most irresponsible piece of legislation yet proposed by the Democrats doesn’t really matter. At this point, doing the responsible thing is not in the forefront of what passes for thinking by either party. Republicans want out. Democrats want to start sharpening their knives for the inevitable hearings on the Hill that will fix blame for this debacle squarely where it belongs - on the President and his subordinates.

I might add that even though the bill was irresponsible, it was about time that the Democrats put their money where their mouths have been for 4 years. It took some political courage to bring that measure up for a vote and Pelosi should be commended for doing so.

So, the Democrats want us out. The Republicans desperately want to disentangle themselves from the Iraq Tar Baby. The Iraqi Parliament voted to end the occupation (albeit with a sensible timeline that would keep enough troops to train the Iraqi army). And the American people most definitely want our mission in Iraq to end.

And if, as seems likely now, the Iraqi government fails to meet the benchmarks set for July or September (whichever date is decided upon doesn’t matter) and Congress cuts off money for at least the surge and possibly more, what’s a Commander in Chief to do?

Clearly, this is not going to be Saigon circa 1975 with desperate Iraqis clinging to the last helicopter leaving the American embassy (even though many liberals would dearly love to see that scenario play out). And it is just as clear that not all of our troops will be coming home. We will stay and train the Iraqi army while keeping up the pressure on al-Qaeda in Iraq who will find themselves more and more facing off against the Iraqis anyway. And I suspect we will have some kind of “tripwire” force in place to prevent mischief by Iraq’s neighbors in case they get a hankerin’ for military adventures against the very weak government there.

But it is just as clear that our days of nation building and democracy promoting are over - at least as far as our military can be of service in those areas. What is very unclear at the moment is how best to disengage. For that, the President will be forced into negotiations with the Democrats (something I was skewered for suggesting by my righty friends just a couple of weeks ago.) There’s no getting there from here while avoiding the worst of the consequences flowing from our withdrawal unless the two sides can sit down and try and do what’s in the best interests of the United States. I have no clue what the answer might be as to how best to leave Iraq. But the Commander in Chief in consultation with his generals along with the political leadership of opposition (who, after all, control the Congress) must come to some kind of an agreement on this vital question if we are to salvage anything at all from this misguided adventure.

Even if the bulk of our combat troops are out of Iraq by next summer, that may not be enough to save the Republicans from an historic defeat the following November. Most political experts smell political realignment in the air. Certainly the war has something to do with that possibility. But such an electoral outcome would occur more as a result of Republican disarray and a lack of new ideas to deal with the challenges of today than what has happened in Iraq. The war has been a catalyst that has altered the political landscape. But the incoherence of the GOP who will enter the political season with no recognizable agenda, no initiatives worth talking about, and for all intents and purposes leaderless is what should chill the bones of conservatives and give them cause for nightmares of a filibuster-proof Senate and veto-proof majority in the House.

For now however, our concentration should be on getting the troops redeployed with a minimum of casualties. They have earned far more than our respect and thanks in these difficult years. They have earned our fierce admiration. They have done all that has been asked of them with a dedication and professionalism that has been awe inspiring. And the sacrifices they and their families have been forced to make have been born with a singular fidelity to the highest traditions of military service.

And in order to validate their service and sacrifice, we must examine every action taken by our military and political leaders that has led us to this point and make sure that history holds those accountable who failed both them and the United States in this conflict. There will be other battles in this war. Learning the lessons from this fiasco will make sure that we will win through to ultimate victory in this war against Islamic extremism.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is “Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi” by Bookworm Room. Finishing second was “After Iraq” by Done With Mirrors.

Finishing on top in the non Council category was “COIN: The Gravity Well” by Blackfive.

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

Via the excellent Lebanese-Syrian blog Across The Bay comes Syrian President Bashar Assad’s formal response to Speaker Pelosi’s visit as well as Condi Rice’s sit down with the Syrian Foreign Minister in Egypt last week:

The latest news came today, when dissident Kamal Labwani, who was arrested in 2005 for meeting with State Department and White House officials to call for democratic and human rights reforms in Syria, was sentenced to life in prison, commuted to 12 years with labor. (And the NYT never questioned the Syrians’ bull when they said they sentenced a suspected al-Qaeda member for 3 years!)

This is what you get when you engage Syria: intransigence in foreign policy (a euphemism for the regime’s policy of sponsoring terror and destabilizing its neighbors), and wanton brutality domestically, against brave civic and human rights activists.

I’ll end with the words of the Post’s editorial: “The danger of offering ‘friendship’ and ‘hope’ to a ruler such as Mr. Assad is that it will be interpreted as acquiescence by the United States to the policies of dictatorship.”

In addition to the verdict against Mr. Labwani, two other human rights activists in Syria have been punished for daring to speak against the murderous Assad regime. The WaPo editorial Anton references above from two weeks ago highlights the plight of Anwar al-Bunni, democracy advocate and someone mentioned specifically in Pelosi’s statement on her meeting with Assad:

In a statement, her delegation reported that it had talked to Mr. Assad about stopping the flow of foreign terrorists to Iraq and about obtaining the release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers. It also said it had “conveyed our strong interest in the cases of [Syrian] democracy activists,” such as imprisoned human rights lawyer Anwar al-Bunni.

Three weeks have passed, so it’s fair to ask: Has there been any positive change in Syrian behavior — any return gesture of goodwill, however slight?

Mr. al-Bunni might offer the best answer — if he could. On Tuesday, one of Mr. Assad’s judges sentenced him to five years in prison. His “crimes” were to speak out about the torture and persecution of regime opponents, to found the Syrian Human Rights Association and to sign the “Damascus Declaration,” a pro-democracy manifesto.

I’m sure Mr. al-Bunni is thanking the Speaker profusely for her “intervention.”

And that’s not all. One prominent opposition figure, a former Syrian MP turned human rights activist who spent 5 years in jail and has since fled the country, begged Pelosi not to visit Syria:

Another source explains that Syrian activists believe Pelosi’s trip gave the Asad regime much needed breathing room. “Whether there is a real connection or not, political dissidents note that Anwar al-Bunni was sentenced to five years in prison in the wake of Pelosi’s visit.”

Another opposition figure, Muhammad Ma’moun Homsi, a former Syrian MP who was imprisoned for five years beginning in 2001, and who has now fled Syria, revealed that he had sent a letter to Pelosi asking her not to come to Damascus. In an interview on an Arabic-language website, Homsi added that the idea of engaging such regimes is “a very dangerous proposition cause next will be a call to engage terrorist organizations.”

And now some regional observers believe that Ibrahim Suleiman is a signal to the Democrats that they have an eager partner in Damascus. Walid Choucair, a columnist for the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, writes that Suleiman is part of a Syrian “wager on the changed position of a future administration (and) the Democrats coming to power in 2008.”

It’s hardly surprising that the Asad regime is trying to wait out a highly unfriendly White House and see what fate throws them next. But what has the Democrats so excited about a government that is helping to kill U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians, targeting American allies and interests in Israel, the PA, and Jordan, all while trying to reassert its presence in Lebanon?

Since that Weekly Standard article by Lee Smith came out on May 2, Anton reports:

[T]he regime seized Homsi’s assets, stripping his family of its home ownership, in order to pressure him and his family. That happened the same day Rice met with Syria’s FM at the Iraq conference in Egypt.

The level of cynicism it takes to engage Syria in any kind of “dialogue” while they round up and persecute those who expose themselves to extreme danger in order to affect democratic changes in their country is beyond me.

In a few weeks, after the UN invokes Chapter 7 to seat the International Tribunal that will try the murderers of the ex-Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and other Syrian opponents in Lebanon, solid evidence will be presented of complicity in those murders by the highest levels - the absolute highest - of the Syrian government. And then where will the proponents of engaging the Syrians be? On the outs looking in as the world recoils in horror and Syria becomes a pariah nation with a real effort in the Security Council to impose draconian sanctions on her.

Anyone could have told Pelosi and Rice this if they didn’t know it. But of course, they both knew. And they were probably aware that any discussion with Assad about going easy on human rights and democracy advocates was also doomed to failure.

That foreknowledge exposes their rank cynicism for the despicable attribute it clearly is. There are other ways to stop foreign fighters from coming into Iraq via Syria. And if Assad doesn’t know what they are, he should be informed in no uncertain terms of the options open to the United States military to deal with the problem.

Even though it has been a given for more than a year that Tony Blair would step down as Prime Minister of Great Britain before his term ended in 2009, his announcement today confirming that he will resign as party leader (maintaining his position as Prime Minister until a new Labour head is named) still should elicit much sadness here in the United States.

Blair forged one of the unique personal relationships of our times with George Bush that, much to his detriment and own personal political standing in Great Britain, has sustained the war effort in Iraq. The two made something of an odd couple although they complemented each other beautifully. Bush as the blunt, outspoken and emotional leader while Blair played counterpoint as the suave, sophisticated and often eloquent partner. Where Bush’s defense of his policies sometimes fell flat, Blair’s ringing endorsement of the war and the necessity for it made it seem at times that he was the senior member of the partnership.

And this is where the Bush-Blair relationship differed markedly from the FDR-Churchill and Reagan-Thatcher partnerships of the past. Blair was much more Bush’s equal in the “special relationship” that has endured between the United Kingdom and America for more than a century. It was Blair who convinced Bush at the beginning of the war to try and get the United Nations on board - a futile effort given the amount of Oil For Food bribery Saddam had spread around the Security Council membership as well as the general anti-American feelings in that body. But by taking his case to the Security Council, Bush gained some much needed legitimacy for the war with the American people - at least for a time.

And it was also Blair who outshone the President in defending the decision to go to war in Iraq as well as advocating a united western response to the threat of Islamic radicals - a threat that to this day is not acknowledged by much of the western left.

To win, we have to win the battle of values, as much as arms. We have to show these are not western still less American or Anglo-Saxon values but values in the common ownership of humanity, universal values that should be the right of the global citizen.

This is the challenge. Ranged against us are the people who hate us; but beyond them are many more who don’t hate us but question our motives, our good faith, our even-handedness, who could support our values but believe we support them selectively.

These are the people we have to persuade. They have to know this is about justice and fairness as well as security and prosperity. And in truth there is no prosperity without security; and no security without justice. That is the consequence of an inter-connected world.

But perhaps most strikingly, Blair is one of the few European leaders who acknowledged the “madness” of anti-Americanism and how destructive and dangerous this virulent hatred of all things American had become in the west:

And I want to speak plainly here. I do not always agree with the US. Sometimes they can be difficult friends to have. But the strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in.

The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged. The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us, can be resolved or even contemplated without them.

Our task is to ensure that with them, we do not limit the agenda to security. If our security lies in our values and our values are about justice and fairness as well as freedom from fear, then the agenda must be more than security and the alliance include more than America.

Those are words that have needed to be said for more than a generation as much of Europe has gloried in tweaking America’s tail every chance it gets. Now, with new leadership in Germany and France and a new Prime Minister ready in the wings in Great Britain, Europe may be turning the corner in its relations with the United States. Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President-elect Sarkozy of France cannot be considered “pro-American” by a long shot. But they represent a qualitative improvement over the nakedly anti-American attitudes of their predecessors. This bodes well for the United States as we ourselves prepare to elect a new President. Whoever takes possession of the oval office in January, 2009 will have an historic opportunity to forge new and stronger links to Europe which can only help the United States face the challenges in the Middle East and beyond.

Much will depend on the new US President’s attitude toward global warming and whether or not the US will join the rest of the industrialized world in making a serious effort to combat it. Even more than the Iraq War, the biggest stumbling block to better relations between Europe’s “Big Three” of France, Germany, and Great Britain and America is the perception that America is ignoring what the Europeans see as the real dangers of climate change.

But at the same time, Europe fails to acknowledge that by far the biggest economic burdens to be born in the fight against global warming will be carried by the US economy and industries. Even modest efforts to cut emissions here in the US will mean tens of billions of dollars in lost economic activity and probably increased unemployment. And as long as China and India - the two biggest polluters on the planet - are exempt from any climate treaties, the US will probably refuse to take any meaningful steps to reduce their carbon footprint.

Clearly, the new US President and his counterparts in Europe will have their work cut out for them.

For Great Britain, it is almost a certainty that Blair’s deputy Gordon Brown will succeed him as Labour Party leader and Prime Minister. What kind of man is he? What is his attitude toward America and the “special relationship” enjoyed by the two countries?

I gave some background on Chancellor Brown last year when it first became apparent that Blair would leave before his term expired:

Asked during the General Election of 2005 what Britain would look like under a Brown Premiership, the Chancellor replied ‘more like America’. Brown is a passionate Americanist, having studied economics at MIT and regularly vacationing on the East Coast. American business practice is held in reverence by him. A consistent theme has emerged in Brown’s key economic speeches; he wants the British and European economy to become more like the United States. More competitive, entrepreneurial and dynamic, but combining free-market capitalism with social justice. The Chancellor’s first foray into foreign policy, last autumn, with a EU/G8 trip to Palestine, gives us an insight of Brown’s approach to international policy. Brown intends to bring his economic expertise to the aid of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, by attempting to reduce the poverty and unemployment experienced by Palestinians, which makes them ripe for transforming into Jihadists.

Mr. Brown has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq War and has praised America’s ‘courageous leadership’ in the fight against Islamist terrorism. There has never been a hint from his camp that he would have done things differently, and on several tense occasions when Mr. Blair has been under fire over Iraq, Mr. Brown has intervened to offer his backing.

Clearly, Brown is a man we can do business with. But it remains to be seen whether the new British Prime Minister will be able to create the same kind of productive partnership that his predecessor forged with George Bush. And there may be a feeling among some of Mr. Brown’s supporters that perhaps being so close to America is not such a good idea, that pulling away from the extraordinary and unique Anglo-American alliance that has dominated the world for a century may be politically smart and in the national interest as well.

I believe this would be a huge mistake. The US and Great Britain have steadfastly supported each other through some of the most turbulent times in world history. The alliance has benefited each country enormously both economically and strategically. We’ve had each other’s backs for more than 100 years - World Wars, the Cold War, Viet Nam, the Falklands, and now Iraq. We’ve assisted in peace efforts in Northern Ireland as well as using Britain’s good offices on more than one occasion when our diplomacy has been stuck in a rut. There is a symbiosis, a melding of interests between the two countries that would not be easily pried apart. And any effort to do so would not only affect our two countries, but also Europe and points beyond as well.

For these reasons, I feel confident Mr. Brown will resist calls to redefine our relationship and instead, try and establish that special bond with the American President - whoever it ends up being - that has been the hallmark of this, the most remarkable partnership the modern world knows. It has benefited both nations in the past. And I see no reason why it can’t be a plus in the future.

UPDATE: IT”S OFFICIAL

Blair announced he’s stepping down as party leader on June 27:

Tony Blair has announced he will stand down as prime minister on 27 June.
He made the announcement in a speech to party activists in his Sedgefield constituency, after earlier briefing the Cabinet on his plans.

He acknowledged his government had not always lived up to high expectations but said he had been very lucky to lead “the greatest nation on earth”.

He will stay on in Downing Street until the Labour Party elects a new leader - widely expected to be Gordon Brown.

(HT: Fausta)

UPDATE II

Michelle Malkin rounds up react from the MSM as well as some interesting comments from British bloggers.

She also has an extended excerpt from one of Blair’s most eloquent speeches on the war.

Congratulations to the netnuts! They have achieved their goal of capturing a large segment of Congressional Democrats and turning them into a quivering mass of genuflecting cretins, unable to buck the will of their most passionate (and off balance) supporters because they’re too frightened of the consequences.

Apparently, House Democrats are prepared to limit funding for the war to two months, answering the call of their online masters to toe the line or risk the disapprobation of the Krazed Kossacks and the rest of the internet ruffians who make up the far left of the party.

For the last couple of weeks, the drumbeat from the netroots regarding the Iraq Supplemental has been about initiating a strategy known as “the short leash.” That is, limit the appropriation to two months and load it up with impossible demands on the Iraqi government to get moving on reform (reforms that won’t be initiated for two years much less two months) and then when the inevitable failure occurs, try the same gambit again with cutting off funding for the extra troops hoping that panicking Republican lawmakers will desert the President and join the Democrats in an attempt to save their political hides.

The strategy has the disadvantage of being transparently ridiculous - especially after Democratic lawmakers swore that they would forgo the limited appropriation path and stick with funding the troops through September. But that was before the netnuts began to ratchet up the pressure on their cowering minions in the House.

Here’s the #2 Democrat in the House just two weeks ago:

Many senators, as well as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), say they’re not inclined to support a two-month supplemental.

“There are a lot of ideas being discussed, and Mr. Hoyer personally feels that at this time he doesn’t see that particular option moving forward,” said Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Farnen Bernards.

(HT: Ed Morrissey)

The issue is apparently dead in the Senate with even Harry Reid seeing the stupidity of a two month appropriation.

Even if House Democrats seek to pass a short-term bill, the Senate isn’t yet on board.

“I don’t think that’s the best approach,” Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich) said Friday. “I think it’s too close to the end of the fiscal year for that.”

Senate Democratic aides also downplayed the chances that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would agree to try to pass short-term funding bills for the war, noting that it likely would tie the Senate floor in knots and prevent Reid from bringing up other Democratic legislative priorities…

And the problem isn’t just Democratic “legislative priorities.” How about a severe disruption in the Department of Defense?

[Secretary of Defense] Gates told the panel that proposals for a short-term funding bill would be very disruptive and “have a huge impact” on contracts to repair and replace equipment. And if Congress votes in July to pull the plug on war funding, “I would have to shut down significant elements of the Department of Defense in August and September because I wouldn’t have the money to pay salaries.”

The fact that House Democrats have apparently become beholden to their most extreme supporters does not bode well for the party heading into 2008. One way or another, the war is going to be winding down by next spring as the Presidential primary season gets underway. And then what? Are Democrats on the Hill simply going to pat the netnuts on the head, thanking them for a job well done, and then expect them to go back to posting cat pictures on their blogs and trading recipes for meatloaf? Not hardly. Kos & Co. have real power now. They can taste it. And they are eager to exercise it.

What that means for the party’s agenda going into the 2008 campaign is unknown. But a lurch to the left, away from the carefully crafted positions of both Hillary and Obama to appeal to the center would almost certainly cause problems for the eventual candidate, giving the Republican ticket the opportunity to fall back on the time honored and very effective strategy of painting their Democratic opponent as an extreme liberal.

It’s proved a winning strategy in the past. And even in a Democratic year as 2008 is shaping up to be, it could prove the difference again.