Right Wing Nut House

Call it “redeployment.” Call it “withdrawal.” Call it what ever you wish but what it comes down to is “retreat.” And since our boys are still getting shot at, there is no other way to put it except to state that the Democrats want to retreat in the face of the enemy.

Don’t pretend to be offended. Don’t pretend to be angry that anyone is “questioning your patriotism.” What is it about the word “retreat” that angers you so? It is not unpatriotic to argue for retreat now nor is it necessarily uncalled for. But trying to gussy the concept up by hamstringing the President or the Pentagon without actually effecting a retreat is cowardly. In actuality, by initiating the slow bleed the troops plan (now evidently as dead as a doornail, thank God) you force the President to do your retreating for you.

Why the Democrats are so timid about announcing this strategy to the voters is a mystery. There is nothing immoral or even unpatriotic about advocating retreat from Iraq. The immorality lies in their subterfuge, trying to hide what they are doing from the American people by scrambling every which way to couch their strategy for Iraq in something less than honest terms. This after loudly proclaiming that the election in November was a mandate on Iraq.

The problem with having a mandate, however, is that it would be nice if someone, somewhere in the Democratic party would define it for us:

Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush’s war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.

Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

Speaker Pelosi also appears to be at a loss on how to define the Democrat’s “mandate” from the November elections:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn’t support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.

The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress’ spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.

Pelosi said she supports holding the administration to training and readiness targets, but added: “I don’t see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops.”

Good to hear but hardly the stuff to please the rabid anti-war left who are already foaming at the mouth about the refusal of the Democrats to simply declare defeat and bring the troops home by not giving Bush another penny to fight the war. The problem, as the Democrats are beginning to realize, is that the American people have some pretty strong opinions about the war and not all of them line up in lockstep with the loony netroots who are hell bent on taking the Democrats for a long step off a short plank.

While partially debunked by some expert pollsters, the recent Public Opinion Strategies poll did in fact give the lie to many arguments made by the left that the American people agreed with them down the line on Iraq. Instead, despite problems listed by Pollster.Com and Kirsten Powers - two political professionals whose views should be respected - I still stand by the thesis of this article I wrote about the poll; that the American people have a much more nuanced view of what our role in Iraq should be than either the right or the left give them credit for.

And this is the problem that the Democrats are running into when they flail about looking for a strategy to differentiate themselves from the President without appearing to undermine either the troops or the mission. But it’s not for a lack of ideas. Here are just a few of the proposals floated in the House and Senate by the Democrats in addition to the aforementioned Biden plan on de-authorizing AUMF and Murtha’s slow bleed the troops plan:

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL) On His Resolution: “The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. The need to bring this war to an end is here. That is why today I am introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007.” (Sen. Obama, Congressional Record, 01/30/07, pS.1322)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY) On Her Proposal: “I don’t want to defund our troops. I’m against that. But I want to defund the Iraqi troops. I want to defund the private security going for the Iraqi government if they don’t meet these certain requirements.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 01/18/07)

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI) On His Resolution: “U.S. Senator Russ Feingold today introduced the Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007. Feingold’s bill uses Congress’s power of the purse to force the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq by prohibiting funds for continued operations six months after enactment.” (Sen. Feingold, “Feingold Introduces Iraq Redeployment Act Of 2007,” Press Release, 01/31/07)

SEN. TED KENNEDY (D-MA) On His Resolution: “I have introduced legislation which would require the President to get the authority he needs from Congress before moving forward with further escalation in Iraq. I intend to seek a vote on it, unless the President changes course. … I look forward to that debate and a vote at the earliest possible time.” (Sen. Kennedy, Congressional Record, 02/06/07, p.S1588)

SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT) On His Resolution: “Mr. Chairman, as you know on January 16, I followed up my statement of opposition to the President’s plan in Committee with the introduction of binding legislation in opposition to the President’s proposal to escalate US combat involvement in Iraq. I have done so by statutorily limiting troop levels to those on the ground as of January 16, 2007, absent the explicit authorization in advance from Congress to increase those levels.” (Sen. Dodd, “Prepared Remarks Of Senator Dodd – Dodd Amendment Limiting Troops Deployed To Iraq – Foreign Relations Committee,” Press Release, 01/24/07)

(HT: Jon Henke, New Media Advisor, Senate Republican Communications Office)

Some of these plans would make for interesting debate in the Supreme Court as one side or the other would almost certainly contest the constitutionality of various provisions contained in the bills or the President’s refusal to abide by them. Such would make for good political theater but hardly solves either the Democrat’s dilemma of how to retreat from Iraq without appearing to advocate it or the President’s problem of being able to keep recalcitrant GOP members in line long enough to give his strategy a chance to succeed.

The fact that Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi cannot even get a consensus within their respective caucuses on the way forward should give the President a small bit of breathing room on Iraq.

But I would bet that by the time the National Symphony revs up The 1812 Overture for the fireworks show on the 4th of July, if there is not a noticeable improvement in the security situation in Baghdad and - even more importantly - there is no tangible progress by the Maliki government on the host of political issues facing the country with regard to Sunni participation in the political life of the country and national reconciliation, I would suspect that the Democrats will once again find their voice and begin this process all over again. Only this time, they will be joined by many frightened Republican legislators who see Iraq as a millstone around the neck of the party and have no desire to go down to defeat carrying it with them.

It is too early to say much of anything about the surge except it seems to have gotten the Iraqis attention, especially Muqtada al-Sadr and his murderous militia. And the fact that the Maliki government has finalized the oil rights agreement is the first good news from that quarter in months.

But even that will not be enough to blunt the momentum for retreat if the Democrats ever get their act together. It won’t be for lack of trying. But as long as they insist on hiding behind sophistry and legislative tricks to accomplish their goals, the American people will treat them with the contempt they so richly deserve.

Last night’s episode highlighted the enormous challenges faced by the United States Secret Service, perhaps the most unsung of all federal law enforcement agencies.

No one talks about the “Silent Service” very much, which suits the agents just fine. While their missions have expanded much in recent years to include investigating financial crimes (so-called “white collar” crimes), identity theft, counterfeiting, and computer related crime, their primary mission remains as it has since 1901 - the protection of the President.

In that thankless role, several agents have given their lives or been severely wounded as a result of their dedication to their mission - to place themselves as “human shields” around the President to protect his life at the expense of their own. Most recently, Special Agent Timothy McCarthy was shot in the abdomen when he deliberately placed himself in the path of a bullet intended for Ronald Reagan. Video of the assassination attempt clearly shows Agent McCarthy, his arms akimbo in order to place more of his body between the shooter and the President, moving sideways as the gun tracked President Reagan, taking a bullet that could very well have struck the President.

(Reagan was not hit by a direct shot but rather by a ricochet that struck the inside of the open door to the limo.)

And a uniformed member of the Secret Service, White House Police Private Leslie William Coffelt, was shot and killed defending President Truman who was staying in The Blair House across the street from the White House in 1951 while the mansion was being renovated. Two Puerto Rican nationalists, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, attacked Blair House, wounding Coffelt severely who was on duty guarding the front door. As the assassins entered the foyer, they ran into a hail of bullets from Secret Service Agents including the wounded Coffelt who fired a bullet while lying prone on the ground hitting Torresola in the head and killing him instantly. Two other Uniformed Secret Service members, Donald Birdzell and Joseph Downs, were also wounded in the attack and recovered. Coffelt died later that day.

Oscar Collazo was convicted and sentenced to death but his sentence was commuted to life in prison by President Truman. In 1979, Jimmy Carter commuted the assassin’s life term to time served and he was released from prison.

Despite these heroics (and many more that rarely make the news), the Secret Service still desires to maintain a low profile for the most part. Only when the threat level is elevated will the agents make an ostentatious show of their numbers as well as how well armed they are, all the better to discourage assassins.

Instead, the Secret Service relies much more on prevention than on actual protection. To accomplish this, they have the most modern. up to date tools available through the National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC), a unit that makes much of what the fictional CTU does pale in comparison.

The NTAC draws intelligence and expertise from all over the government and disseminates their findings to law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. While they may not have as many cool gadgets that CTU purports to show, they have massive amounts of data that can identify and track potential threats. Sometimes, acting on some of this data leads to the Secret Service showing up at the door of bloggers, or high school kids,, or even elderly letter writers who make innocuous comments about the President.

Some see this vigilance as overkill or even ascribe more sinister motives to these visits. What all of us fail to realize is that the Secret Service is required by an Act of Congress to investigate all threats or potential threats to the President regardless of who they are from or how serious agents might consider them to be.

Last night’s episode revealed the service at its best and perhaps their worst. Should they have been able to detect the bomb parts in Carson’s briefcase? One would hope in real life, that such would be the case but I’m not so sure. The Agent inspecting the contents of the briefcase appeared to do a thorough enough job, going so far as to make sure that the dictation device that would contain the assembled bomb actually worked. It may be that other bomb parts that were unassembled would have been noticeable to a real Secret Service Agent but we just don’t know. Clearly, in the aftermath of any such assassination attempt, a review of how the bomb made it by security would have top priority. And if a weakness was found either in training or procedures, you can be sure that the Service would rectify that weakness to the best of their ability.

It is also worth noting that at least 3 agents raced to protect the President when Assad yelled “bomb” just before the explosion and that at least two appeared to have died. If so, they gave their lives as they had sworn to do; upholding their oaths to protect the President with their lives if necessary.

A thankless job for which all Americans should be grateful that there are men and women possessing the courage and dedication to perform this necessary and hazardous duty.

SUMMARY

We find Gredenko at what appears to be a deserted air strip waiting for that mysterious shipment from Las Vegas. He calls Fayed and tells him that once he has delivery, that setting up and reconfiguring the electronics will take a couple of hours. Somehow, these two are going to have to hook up so that the two parts of the plot can come together. When that happens, expect one or both sides to try and betray the other. The ultra-nationalist Gredenko and the fanatical jihadist Fayed are like oil and water; the idea that they will mix and complete the plot together doesn’t seem likely. Gredenko makes this even more likely when he sneers ““The Arabs and the West can destroy each other,” which could mean he will eliminate one of the only links in the plot who is aware of his involvement.

Besides, the Gods demand that both crooks try and double cross each other. If so, bet on Fayed to come out on top.

Back at the White House, the President gets a visit from an ambassador of presumably Middle Eastern origin who is informed of Assad’s upcoming speech to his radical jihadist buddies across the world asking them to “lay down their arms” and support this peace initiative.

The more I think about this, the sillier it is. The fact that any President of the United States would take this “peace overture” seriously is even sillier. And silliest of all perhaps is the notion that the many and disparate terrorist groups around the world - including narco-terrorist organizations like the Columbian based FARC or the communist inspired “Shining Path” in Peru who are responsible for hundreds of innocent deaths would care what one Middle Eastern terrorist was doing.

Having pointed this out, if we haven’t learned yet to suspend our belief in reality when watching this show then we are almost certainly not watching it anymore. It makes it all the more entertaining to watch as the left continues to hyperventilate about the show and its plot lines, drawing some kind of parallel between what happens in real life and what happens in this fictional drama.

The ambassador seems offended at the President’s demand that his government issue a statement supporting Assad’s efforts - that is until Palmer makes it clear in no uncertain terms that if another nuke goes off, the ambassador’s country is Number One with a bullet on our hit list.

Back at CTU, Jack calls Bill and tells him for the first time that his father is in on the plot and that he will fill him in later. What Jack really needs from Bill is authorization to speak to former President Jellyfish who has offered to help in the search for Gredenko. Jack asks Bill why the terrorist supporting Logan has not been punished for his crimes and we are informed that after pleading guilty to “obstruction of justice,” Logan has retired to his estate and is under house arrest.

Once again, the reason given is that we poor citizens just couldn’t handle the bad news that our President is not only a crook, but a traitor as well. Do you think that one day, the powers that be will stop treating us like children, hiding information that they believe might upset us?

Outside the hotel, Jack tells Marilyn and Josh to get back to CTU where they will be “safe.” Given the porous security we’ve seen in the past at CTU headquarters, they would probably be better off just about anywhere else including their own home. At any rate, Jack tells Josh (still wild speculation that the kid is Jack’s) that one day he will tell him what a creep his dad really was and how he masterminded plots to kill thousands of Americans. Well, perhaps he wasn’t quite as graphic but the kid isn’t stupid and knows enough about his dad and now his grandfather that he realizes he is part of perhaps the most spectacularly dysfunctional family in America. Maybe in world history although the Medici’s could give the Bauers a run for that title.

And judging by that special moment shared by Jack and Marilyn before they parted - the tender caress and soulful exchange of glances - my guess is that Audrey has her work cut out for her if she expects to retain Jack’s fealty. Perhaps the issue could be settled between the two women at 20 paces with revolvers. More likely, a good old fashioned cat fight would decide the issue - preferably in a ring filled with mud or jello. Think of the ratings bonanza for that episode.

After guiding Carson through the Secret Service checkpoint with the unassembled bomb in his briefcase, Reed tells him about Lennox and how he has had to restrain him lest the plot be discovered. Carson, who works for the “Abbot Institute” (sounds an awful lot like the conservative think tank Hoover Institution), calmly informs Reed that Lennox will have to be killed, preferably by making his death appear to be a suicide. But Reed is nothing if not loyal and objects saying that once the Muslims are being rounded up and the missiles start flying, Lennox will be back on board. Carson is unconvinced and begins to assemble the bomb.

Poor Morris is having a devil of a time concentrating on his work and Chloe suspects the worst - that he’s been drinking again. She asks if he has called his AA sponsor and Morris says that he has although when he would have found the time is not apparent. As Morris goes off to play with the server, Chloe surreptitiously finds the number to Morris’ sponsor and calls, leaving a message for the sponsor to call her back. Nadia also gets in on the controversy, believing that Morris is incapable of performing his duties by eventually deferring to Chloe’s judgement.

The confrontation between Jack and Logan is tense but delicious. You can almost see Jack’s hands itching to place themselves around the ex-President’s neck. Insincere and as oily as ever, Jellyfish tells Jack that Gredenko has a conduit at the Russian consulate in Los Angeles, the Consul General himself Anatoly Markov, who probably knows where Gredenko is and what he’s up to. Logan informs Jack that only he can get Markov to spill the beans about Gredenko because he was involved in all the plots from last year and he can threaten to expose the CG to his superiors. When Jack sneeringly asks what Logan wants in return, Jellyfish claims he got religion and only wants redemption.

Jack is unconvinced but with precious little else to go on calls the President for the Executive Order that would free Logan temporarily. Palmer too is skeptical but after talking to the man who murdered his brother, nevertheless gives the go ahead.

At the deserted air strip, Gredenko finally welcomes the shipment from Las Vegas: two small US army aerial drones that will presumably be used to drop the bombs.

This is actually an excellent choice by the terrorists. The drones are too small to be tracked by all but the most sophisticated radar, are virtually noiseless, and have a huge range. The fact that there are three bombs but only two drones makes how they deploy these weapons a very interesting problem that I’m sure the writers will either ignore or invent some lame situation where they can be re-loaded. Judging by the size of the drones, they would be incapable of carrying more than one bomb at a time.

Back at CTU, things are getting dicey for Morris. Bill tries to relieve him but still in the grip of his dry drunk, Morris announces to everyone in the conference room that even though he has had a very bad day, he can still do his job. Bill relents and allows Morris to continue over Nadia’s objections. Chloe also has her doubts which are fed a few minutes later by Nadia who shows her where Morris has evidently made a simple mistake in one of his reports. When she confronts Morris, he dismisses it as inconsequential, charging Nadia with having it in for him just to prove that she was right to question his abilities in front of Bill. Chloe just doesn’t know what to make of things and starts to obsess over the problem.

Back at Logan’s ranch, Jack proves that he is always prepared by showing up in a suit looking like a million bucks in order to pass himself off as a Secret Service agent. He gets the authorization from the President while Logan is in front of the mirror in his bedroom preening like a peacock. He quotes a verse from the bible as part of a personal pep talk, that makes us wonder just how far this religious “conversion” has gone.

Judging from his past history, we can safely assume that we can trust President Jellyfish about as far as we can throw him.

The dam breaks at CTU when Chloe gets a call from the woman who was listed as Morris’ sponsor on his personal phonebook. She claims she hasn’t talked to Morris in three years. Convinced now that Morris is lying, she hunts him down in the men’s bathroom and interrupts her ex-husband while he is in the process of attending to a very serious call of nature.

Claiming that he now has another sponsor and that Chloe has gone off the deep end, Morris convinces her that everything is, if not fine, then certainly not as bad as she believes things to be. Right after Chloe leaves the restroom, ashamed for doubting him, Morris pulls a liquor bottle (3/4 empty) from his pocket and, after deliberating briefly, pours the remainder down the sink while throwing the empty bottle in the wastebasket, Since it is probable that even the wastebaskets in the bathroom are inspected to make sure nothing important is thrown away, Morris’ drinking will probably be discovered anyway. But for now, he is safe.

Back in the boiler room, Carson is still constructing the bomb while Lennox is tended to by Reed. Tom pleads with his former aide to not become a terrorist by killing the President but to no avail. In the meantime, the President’s secretary calls Reed asking after Lennox who the President wants at Assad’s speech. Reed assures her that Tom is on his way while he hurries Carson along in his bombmaking. With the bomb assembled, Carson shows Reed how to activate it by punching a code into a palm pilot. Fifteen seconds later - kablam! The President must be in “the kill zone” of ten feet for the bomb to do its dirty work.

Making his way to the broadcast studio where the speech will first be rehearsed by Assad with the President in attendance, Reed sidles up to the podium and places the bomb inside. Just then the President walks in with Assad.

Back in the boiler room, a desperate Lennox sees a way to manipulate the steam pressure by turning a valve with his feet. Even though the alarm briefly goes off, Carson is able to bring the pressure back down and warns Tom that any further trouble will bring swift retribution. Tom can only suffer in silence as the moment approaches.

After brushing off the President with excuses about Tom’s whereabouts, Reed leaves the studio and stands outside the door. As Assad stands at the podium with the President standing only a few feet away, Reed punches the code into the PDA and waits.

The seconds go by with agonizing slowness. As the chemicals in the bomb mix toward criticality, some of the fluid leaks and dribbles down the podium. Curious, Assad stoops and looks inside. Deducing the threat he yells “Bomb!” and lunges toward the President as do 3 other Secret Service agents.

The explosion rocks the little room sending debris flying around like shrapnel everywhere. It is apparent that at least 3 Secret Service agents and possibly even Assad are dead. Secret Service agents rush past Reed who is still standing outside the room as if nothing happened, not even seeming excited about what just occurred. Let’s hope the agents remember this behavior later as it certainly would be considered suspicious under any circumstances.

But the President moves slightly suggesting that he is badly hurt but still alive. The agents probably deflected just enough force from the blast to save him. But it is also apparent that he is in no shape to continue in office - at least for a while. That means that the Vice President and his nefarious plans to destroy the Constitution as well as perhaps start a world war will move front and center.

BODY COUNT

It seemed obvious that at least three Secret Service Agents (or bystanders) were dead with Assad’s condition not confirmed. My guess is we will find out next week what the total body count was so until then, we will go with only the three obviously departed agents.

JACK: 8

SHOW: 370

With Vice President Cheney’s “unannounced” visit to Islamabad, the Bush Administration appears to be finally waking up to the fact that the situation in Pakistan has deteriorated to the point that it threatens not only Musharraf’s status as our primary ally in the region in fighting the War on Terror but also the safety and viability of the government of Afghanistan.

Musharraf’s Faustian bargains with several northern tribes - tribes allied with the Taliban and who tolerate al-Qaeda operatives in their midst - has backfired in spectacular fashion. The strictures in these agreements against crossing the border to fight in Afghanistan have been honored in the breach as NATO troops report Taliban fighters pouring across the border in great numbers. And since President Musharraf prohibits NATO forces from carrying out “hot pursuit” missions into Pakistan in order to catch and kill the Taliban when they retreat, northern tribal areas have become safe havens for the enemy who can then rest, refit, and re-enter Afghanistan virtually at will. Pakistani border guards don’t stop them. And the Pakistani army is precluded from operating in those areas as a result of the agreements.

With all this in mind - plus the presence of al-Qaeda in territory that the Pakistani army cannot operate - Musharraf’s credentials as our most important ally against radical Islamic terror groups have been tarnished considerably. In fact, the Administration may very well be losing confidence in the Pakistani President as a partner in both the War on Terror and in supporting the government of President Karzai in Afghanistan.

I have discussed on numerous occasion the impossible position Musharaff finds himself in as a result of his alliance with the United States. As a result, the Pakistani President has been trying - unsuccessfully - to juggle his need to please the Bush Administration (who have doled out $5 billion in military and economic aid over the last 4 years) and his need to appease elements in his own government who support the Taliban and even al-Qaeda.

It is true that Musharraf initially played the role of strong ally, locking up hundreds of Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda foot soldiers following our invasion of Afghanistan. And their help in capturing high value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been invaluable.

But much of that support has fallen by the wayside. Indeed, it took a herculean diplomatic effort on the part of the United States to keep Musharraf from releasing hundreds of those detainees following his agreement last fall with North Waziristan tribes. Apparently some high level Taliban prisoners were scheduled for release and only the intercession of both the State Department and the CIA prevented that from happening.

And now it appears that Musharaff isn’t even going through the motions of trying to keep the Taliban from Afghanistan soil and is instead blaming the Afghans themselves for their resurgence:

Underscoring growing alarm in the West at how militants have regained ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday sought Pakistani aid to help counter al-Qaida’s efforts to regroup, officials said.

However, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf insisted his forces have already “done the maximum” possible against extremists in their territory _ and insisted that other allies also shoulder responsibility in the U.S.-led war on terrorism…

“Cheney expressed U.S. apprehensions of regrouping of al-Qaida in the tribal areas and called for concerted efforts in countering the threat,” Musharraf’s office said.

He also “expressed serious U.S. concerns on the intelligence being picked up of an impending Taliban and al-Qaida ’spring offensive’ against allied forces in Afghanistan,” the statement said.

If Musharraf actually believes he has done “the maximum possible” to keep the Taliban from infiltrating in Afghanistan, his value as an ally in the War on Terror has dropped considerably.

Fueled by profits from a record poppy harvest in Afghanistan, emboldened by their political victories over Musharraf, and benefiting from help received by elements inside Pakistan including conservative religious parties and the Pakistani intelligence service, the Taliban appear poised to make a major effort this spring to inflict ruinous casualties on NATO troops that would almost certainly awaken the European left and send them into the streets calling for a withdrawal of their nation’s forces from the fight. And Musharraf, buffeted by mounting pressure from all segments of Pakistani society to pull back from his relationship with the US, is probably at the end of his rope and can do little else to assist us overtly in the fight against the Taliban and radical Islamists.

I would suggest the Administration start dusting off their “worst case scenario” plans regarding Pakistan and Afghanistan. And if there’s a rabbit they can pull out a diplomatic hat that will alter the political situation even marginally in Pakistan, now’s the time.

In this excellent overview of the Israeli’s view of the Iranian nuclear program in the Daily Telegraph, it’s made very clear by the government that attacking Iran before they can acquire a nuclear weapon is not a question of if, but of when:

Having already suffered a near-apocalypse in the form of the Holocaust, the Jewish people have no intention of being the hapless victims of Ahmadinejad’s genocidal designs. Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, last month gave his most explicit warning to date that Israel was prepared to use military force to prevent Teheran from obtaining a nuclear weapon: “The Jewish people, with the scars of the Holocaust fresh on its body, cannot afford to allow itself to face threats of annihilation once again.”

That single sentence sums up the consensus among most of the Israeli people. If the wider world is not prepared to take pre-emptive action to stop Iran from fulfilling its nuclear ambitions, then Israel is ready to act alone.

There are those who do not take the Iranian President at his word that he will “wipe Israel off the map.” But if you are an Israeli government official charged with the safety and security of your tiny nation, you cannot afford the luxury of wondering whether Ahmadinejad is serious or not. He is the leader of a nation that at the very least, is about to get his hands on the technology - uranium enrichment - that can be used for both peaceful and military purposes. If you can enrich uranium for fuel to drive a nuclear reactor, then you can certainly enrich it enough to build a bomb.

The process is exactly the same. The only difference is is in the percentage of isotopes that are converted from U-235 to U238. In short, all you have to do is run the centrifuges for a longer period of time.

Since the Iranians have not shown any willingness to allow for the very intrusive inspections and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which would give confidence to the Israelis that the Iranian program is peaceful, it is a virtual certainty that they will attack and take care of what they perceive to be a problem themselves:

As for Israel’s offensive plans against Iran, the Iran Command team’s task is to demonstrate that Israel has the capability to act unilaterally.

“No one is going to take this threat seriously until the State of Israel can demonstrate to the outside world that we have the ability to deal with this menace on our own,” said a senior security official who serves on Iran Command.

“The only way we can put pressure on the outside world to deal effectively with Iran’s nuclear programme is to demonstrate that we can do this ourselves.

”Of course, we hope it doesn’t come to a military solution, and we hope that this can be resolved through diplomacy. But Iran’s track record is not good.”

If the Israelis do go through with their attack on Iranian nuclear sites, the United States will almost certainly suffer for the Israeli action. The Iranians have made it clear that they consider the US and Israel interchangeable in this matter and that an attack by either one will require a response against both countries.

Given this set of circumstances, the Bush Administration may very well be thinking that if they are going to get blamed by Iran for an Israeli attack on Iran, why not carry out the attack themselves? In for a penny, in for a pound.

Of course, our attack on Iran would set in motion a series of events in Iraq and elsewhere that would have consequences far more costly than a “pound.” The resulting turmoil in the Middle East could have a catastrophic impact on our interests not to mention any interruption in the oil supply deeply affecting our economy.

But it is in Iraq where we would suffer most from our attack on Iran. Some Shia militias would almost certainly turn on us and make any efforts to stem the violence there futile. For this reason, as well as all the other downside probabilities, I believe that we are not seriously contemplating a military strike on Iran.

In fact, we may be playing a willing cats paw for Israel. While we send more and more naval assets to the Persian Gulf while keeping up a constant drumbeat of charges and allegations about the Iranians assisting in the killing of Americans in Iraq, Israel can carry out the enormously complex planning involved in their own attack on Iran largely below the radar of world scrutiny:

For the Israelis, taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities is a very different proposition to the 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Back then, the Israelis had the element of surprise - the last thing the Iraqis expected to see was a squadron of Israeli warplanes in their airspace.

Iraq’s nuclear programme also posed a relatively straightforward target in that all the facilities were concentrated at the Osirak complex, south of Baghdad. A few well-targeted bombs released in a single air raid were sufficient to do the job.

The Iranians, on the other hand, learning the lessons of the Osirak debacle, have scattered their resources around the country. Obvious targets, such as the controversial uranium enrichment complex at Natanz, are set in specially constructed bomb proof bunkers that would require high-precision, bunker-busting bombs to inflict any serious damage.

Yet another challenge is presented by the recent arrival of the Russian-made Tor M1 anti-aircraft missile system as part of an arms deal signed between Moscow and Teheran last year.

The military challenges may seem like a picnic when Israel considers the diplomatic nightmare of what the world’s reaction would be to their attack. Although the Jewish state can hardly be more isolated, actual sanctions would almost certainly be considered by the UN (and vetoed promptly by the US). And the idea of Israel attacking Muslim country would almost certainly roil the Arab street, although it would meet with secret approval in several Arab capitols where Sunnis dominate.

There simply are no consequence-free options on Iran for either Israel or the United States. But for the Israelis, who believe that Iran is willing and will be capable of carrying out another Holocaust of the Jewish people, the only consequence they fear may be from not doing anything at all.

We are really in for it.

An ice storm has hit and, in all liklihood, will wreak havoc on power lines and such.

Just giving you all a heads up just in case this site is down for a few days.

Yuck!

UPDATE: 2/25

Looks like we dodged a bullet. It warmed up more quickly than our brilliant weather service predicted which meant that most of the ice turned to rain.

Wish we had Al Gore as our weatherman. He’s great. He can predict the weather 100 years from now. What it’s going to be like tomorrow should be a piece of cake.

Time for the left to get their annual tin foil hat adjustment. And judging by the news coming out of Florida’s 13th Congressional District, they may wish to start saving up their Crackerjack boxtops to buy a new model:

An audit of touch-screen voting machines at the center of a dispute in a congressional election found no evidence of malfunction, Florida’s secretary of state said Friday.

Florida election officials announced yesterday that an examination of voting software did not find any malfunctions that could have caused up to 18,000 votes to be lost in a disputed Congressional race in Sarasota County, and they suggested that voter confusion over a poor ballot design was mainly to blame.

The finding, reached unanimously by a team of computer experts from several universities, could finally settle last fall’s closest federal election. The Republican candidate, Vern Buchanan, was declared the winner by 369 votes, but the Democrat, Christine Jennings, formally contested the results, claiming that the touch-screen voting machines must have malfunctioned.

So if the code was good, what might have been the problem?

While some voters in Sarasota bristled yesterday at the idea that they had done anything wrong in casting their votes, or that nearly 13 percent of all voters could have failed to spot the race on the ballot, members of the investigative team said that those remained the only plausible theories.

The report acknowledged that the huge undervote — in which voters cast a ballot in other races but not for the Congressional seat — was both “abnormal and unexpected.” But it said that all eight members of the investigative team, including some experts who have long been skeptical about the paperless machines, agreed that the basic programming “did not cause or contribute to” the loss of votes.

The study suggested instead that the confusion over the ballot design, which had also drawn complaints from voters, probably accounted for the bulk of the problem, much as the infamous “butterfly ballot” distorted the vote in Palm Beach County, Fla., during the 2000 presidential election.

Evidently, the paper ballots were able to highlight the race for Congressman (or at least set it apart) while the ballot that appeared on the touchscreen was extremely difficult to read. Also, if a voter touched his choice more than once, the vote was negated - obviously to guard against someone being able to stand at the machine and vote numerous times.

It is probable that this was not explained to voters very well which means that around 18,000 people either missed the Congressional choice on the ballot due to the confused layout on the screen or hit their choice twice - about 13% of the total vote.

Because the netnuts triumphed in November, we haven’t heard very much about evil Diebold stealing elections. This begs the question: Did Diebold screw up or is the left full of crap when it comes to election conspiracies?

Just as soon as I get my marching orders from Evil Karl via thought waves, I’ll let you know.

I know that Ed Morrissey and the Powerline Boys like her but Geez Louise this is loony:

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann claims to know of a plan, already worked out with a line drawn on the map, for the partition of Iraq in which Iran will control half of the country and set it up as a “a terrorist safe haven zone” and a staging area for attacks around the Middle East and on the United States.

She said this in a taped interview with St. Cloud Times reporter Lawrence Schumacher, which is available as a podcast…

Here’s the extended excerpt:

“Iran is the trouble maker, trying to tip over apple carts all over Baghdad right now because they want America to pull out. And do you know why? It’s because they’ve already decided that they’re going to partition Iraq.

And half of Iraq, the western, northern portion of Iraq, is going to be called…. the Iraq State of Islam, something like that. And I’m sorry, I don’t have the official name, but it’s meant to be the training ground for the terrorists. There’s already an agreement made.

They are going to get half of Iraq and that is going to be a terrorist safe haven zone where they can go ahead and bring about more terrorist attacks in the Middle East region and then to come against the United States because we are their avowed enemy.”

This is pure fantasy, of course. She doesn’t say where she heard it or, more importantly, who made the agreement. Is it the Iraqi government? The Bush Administration? The tooth fairy?

Congress Critters have a tendency to spout when you stick a mic in front of their face. They trust that whatever comes out of their mouths is earth shaking and profound. It rarely is, of course. In fact, more often it is puerile and stupid. But many Congressmen are so in love with the sound of their own voice that sometimes they figure they can say just about anything and no one will challenge them on it.

Is it possible that she was talking about a worst case scenario for Iraq and just forgot to mention that she was positing a hypothetical?

Sure hope so. If not, I would suggest a long vacation in a nice quiet room at a facility that offers a dose of reality therapy.

UPDATE: THE RETRACTION

Think Progress thought to call the Congresswoman’s office and get a clarifying statement.

What they got was even more mystifying:

ThinkProgress contacted Bachmann about her remarks, and received a statement from her office stating that coverage of her Iran statement was “misconstrued.” Bachmann claims she was actually talking about widely-discussed plans to partition Iraq among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, and her fear that Iran would overtake the Shiite region.

Bachmann is no stranger to conspiracy theories. She continues to insist that there is a link between the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Iraq, despite the 9/11 Commission’s conclusion that there was “no credible evidence” of any connection.

Here’s a link to the original podcast. You tell me if anyone can possibly construe what she says on tape as anything but what was quoted above. Besides, that “widely discussed plan” to partition Iraq has the Shia state in the south, not the “western and northern” portions as she claims in her original statement.

I wonder if she got a briefing of some kind from the Pentagon and is just all bollixed up about what she heard and what was being speculated on. One thing for sure, her “clarifying statement” did nothing but muddy the waters even more.

It appears that the CIA, who experimented with psychics and “remote viewing” back in the 1950’s and 60’s didn’t share their experimental data with the British Ministry of Defense.

If they had, the could have saved British taxpayers around $40,000 and the MoD a heap of embarrassment:

Psychics were recruited by the Ministry of Defence to locate Osama Bin Laden’s secret lair, it was claimed yesterday.

Newly declassified documents revealed that the MoD conducted an experiment to see if volunteers could ’see’ objects hidden inside an envelope.

It is claimed the ministry hoped positive results would allow it to use psychics to ‘remotely view’ Bin Laden’s base and also to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

However, after running up a bill of £18,000 of taxpayers’ money, defence chiefs concluded there was ‘little value’ in using psychic powers in the defence of the nation and the research was taken no further.

What makes this stupidity even more hilarious was that the MoD couldn’t get any “real” psychics and had to settle for “novices:”

The MoD tried to recruit 12 ‘known’ psychics who advertised their abilities on the Internet, but when they all refused they were forced to use ‘novice’ volunteers.

The report, released under the Freedom of Information Act, shows 28 per cent of those tested managed to guess the contents of the envelopes, which included pictures of a knife, Mother Teresa and an ‘Asian individual’.

But most subjects, who were holed up in a secret location for the study, were hopelessly off the mark. One even fell asleep while he tried to focus on the envelope’s content.

A former MoD employee who received a copy of the report said the timing of the study must have been related to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You know you’re pulling apples from the bottom of the barrel when even “internet psychics” refuse to help you out.”

It’s a shame. Just think if one of those “novices” had actually been able to prove “remote viewing” was actually true. The psychic who can prove it stands to make a helluva lot of money by winning the “James Randi Challenge:”

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the “applicant” becomes a “claimant.”

To date, no one has ever passed the preliminary tests.

I’m not surprised.

So how do you defend the indefensible? If you’re a Brit, you add a little humor:

The MoD last night defended its decision to fund the secret tests despite the questionable use of taxpayers’ money.

And Mr Pope said: “I don’t think this was a waste of public money. Many people will say so, but I think it is marvellous that the Government is prepared to think outside the box.

“And this is as outside the box as it gets.”

Mr. Pope should be hired by the Democratic National Committee where he can put his talent for finding the humorous in the sublimely silly to good use.

Saw this in the Daily Star of Lebanon - a somewhat pro-western (but by no means pro-Bush) publication. The writer asks the question: “Are things coming together for George W. Bush in Iraq?”

One key factor is that, for the first time since the United States and Britain invaded Iraq, Arab Sunni leaders are backing a US military plan for that country. These Sunni leaders live in abject fear of the geopolitical earthquake that any disintegration of political authority in Baghdad would bring. They believe that all-out civil war would invariably follow - a war that would not respect international borders.

Of course, America has been encouraging Sunni leaders in this belief. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent tour of Middle East capitals helped spread the word to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states that any US failure and sudden withdrawal would be certain to destabilize them. Given the fragile grip that these leaders have over their societies, America’s warnings have been taken to heart.

But the truly curious factor that might bring success to Bush is that those who have opposed or resented America’s presence in Iraq, such as the Iranian-backed Shiite parties, now also appear to want Bush’s new strategy to succeed. They are for it because they believe it will defang Moqtada al-Sadr, the rogue Shiite cleric whose power has mushroomed over the past three years - to the point that he now dominates much of Baghdad and holds the allegiance of countless angry young Shiite men.

This makes the Administration resistance to a regional conference on Iraq all the more troubling. I actually thought the conference idea was one of the only real positive proposals put forth by the Baker Commission. It seems to me that other players in the region who would be directly affected by the kind of pullout envisioned by the Democrats are eager to explore ways to tamp down the violence and help make the Iraqi state viable.

This must hold true especially for Syria and Jordan who are being drowned by a human tidal wave of Sunni refugees from Iraq - more than 2.3 million so far. This doesn’t include the more than half a million displaced Sunnis inside Iraq already - a number that Maliki absolutely must bring down dramatically if our surge policy is to succeed.

But what about the Shias?

Of course, attacking Sadr’s Mehdi Army in the name of fighting militia death squads has the potential to draw American military forces into a level of urban warfare unseen since the Falluja assaults of 2004 and 2005. Sadr is seen as the protector of the Shiites of Iraq and has an estimated 60,000 fighters in his militia. But he is deeply mistrusted by other Shiite leaders, who fear that they may one day have to take him on by themselves. Better to let the Americans do it, though of course these Shiite leaders prefer a slow strangulation of Sadr to a direct and bloody assault.

But make no mistake: How Sadr is handled is the big test of Bush’s new strategy. Should the US choose to face him and his forces head on, they risk alienating Iraq’s Shiites, adding fuel to the anti-occupation resistance and thus probably dooming Bush to failure.

Of course, we’ve been trying to bring Sadr’s bully boys out into the open for a couple of years. It makes killing them easier as we proved in Najaf and Fallujah Sadr City. And both al-Sistani (who can’t stand the upstart Sadr) as well as al-Hakim (leader of the SCIRI) would love to have us de-horn al-Sadr if only because it would leave them a clear field for supremacy among the Shias.

All depends on how willing the firebrand cleric is in seeking a truly political solution to Iraq’s domestic troubles. Even al-Sadr himself may be secretly urging the Americans on so that the more radical (and disobedient) members of his army will disappear. If that happens, it is possible that Sadr will back Maliki’s reconciliation plan with the Sunnis. This presumes facts not in evidence - that Sadr truly wants to work within the political framework of the Constitution in order to wield power and influence. But at the same time, Sadr has also proved himself quite the practical thug in the past in that he came off the streets in the first place to participate in the elections. Perhaps Sadr will see the writing on the wall and rather than risk all by fighting the Americans, he will slip into his Iraqi statesman costume and cooperate with Maliki.

But Sadr is only one of the pieces of the puzzle. The other is in Anbar. And here this Arab observer thinks that we’ve finally hit upon the right strategy:

The “surge” also opens, perhaps for the first time, a serious possibility of pouring water on the insurgent fires in Anbar Province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. The US has achieved relative successes in the province through alliances with Sunni tribes. The hope is that such realistic and pragmatic accommodations will be extended to Iraqis who are fighting under the banner of a nationalist and anti-occupation agenda.

So some of the stars have come into alignment for Bush. But to keep them there in the long term, the Iraqi government will need to amend the constitution in a way that appeases the Sunni community. Reassuring Iraq’s Sunnis that they have a place in the new Iraq will also reassure neighboring Sunni governments, which have mostly turned a blind eye to the support for the insurgency that has come from their lands.

We’re still waiting on Maliki to show some leadership on political issues like reconciliation, oil revenue sharing (which is currently in limbo after Sunnis balked at the deal), amnesty, power sharing, and federalism agreements with the Kurds and Sunnis. Embroiled as he is now in these rape allegations, it remains to be seen if all the good work our people do in tamping down most of the violence will bear fruit at the Iraqi conference table when the factions get together to hammer out accommodations they can all live in peace with.

It appears that the “slow bleed the troops” plan of Representative John Murtha (D-Okinawa) has been withdrawn thanks to the Pennsylvania Congressman’s big mouth. If only Murtha had kept quiet about his cowardly plans to make it impossible for the Pentagon to deploy the troops General Petraeus feels are necessary to the mission’s success by throwing a monkey wrench into readiness and rotation requirements, the Democrats would probably have been able to sneak the amendment through in the middle of the night while no one was watching. Once exposed to the light of publicity, many of his fellow Democrats evidently got cold feet, however.

House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party’s own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“If you strictly limit a commander’s ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could put some missions and some troops at risk,” said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who personally lodged his concerns with Murtha.

So what’s a cheese eating surrender monkey to do? Too chicken to vote on defunding the war directly and up front. Too stupid to finesse a comatose President by trying to backdoor a withdrawal through fiddling with deployments and readiness. And actually waiting to see what happens in Iraq as a result of the new strategy is just plain unacceptable.

How about jumping in Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine and pretending that the vote you cast for military action actually said no such thing?

“I’ve had enough of ‘nonbinding,’ ” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is helping to draft the new Democratic proposal. The 2002 war resolution, he said, is an obvious target.

“The authorization that we gave the president back in 2002 is completely, completely outdated, inappropriate to what we’re engaged in today,” he said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) began calling for a reauthorization of the war early last month and raised it again last week, during a gathering in the office of Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Participants included Kerry, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.), Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.). Those Democratic senators have emerged as an unofficial war council representing the caucus’s wide range of views.

An “unofficial war council…?” ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Try “The Official Surrender to the Terrorists Caucus.” That would be more accurate.

As far as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), just what, pray tell, would you replace this “completely, completely” legal resolution with?

While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

The decision to try to limit the military mission marks the next move in what Reid and other Senate war critics have said will be a multistep effort to force a change in Bush’s strategy and eventually force an end to U.S. participation in the nearly four-year-old war.

Hinderaker:

That sounds like a really great idea. If someone plants an IED or shoots at our troops, they can’t fire back until they determine whether the attackers are al Qaeda or garden-variety insurgents.

I have a feeling this trial balloon is not going to get airborne. One good thing, though: the Dems’ Senate leadership is floating this concept in part because they are unhappy with Mad Jack Murtha’s “slow bleed” strategy. Not, of course, because they object to his objective of bringing about defeat; rather, because they think Murtha’s plan could create political liabilities.

In other words, rather than cut our troops off at the knees by defunding the war why not aim the knife slightly higher and castrate the military by saying who they should be fighting and who they should allow to kill them. If a non-authorized enemy fires upon our guys, maybe one of them can call their Representative and get an amendment passed to grant an exception to the new policy.

Yes, yes it’s an exaggeration and wouldn’t really work that way. But can you see our boys landing on Omaha Beach in 1944 and having to get permission to fight Poles, North Koreans, Hungarians, and the other foreign troops the Nazis put into the front lines just because the Declaration of War didn’t mention any of those nationalities?

I agree with John that this is a trial balloon and not a serious proposal. Unless the Dems want to spark a full scale Constitutional crisis, they won’t do it. Ed Morrissey has them pretty well pegged:

Nor are they opting for an honest method of floating this unconstitutional nonsense. The Democrats plan to attach the reworked AUMF as an amendment to a Homeland Security funding bill rather than allow an up-or-down vote on it in the Senate. They want to dare the Republicans to filibuster the spending bill or Bush to veto it if it passes with the new AUMF intact. They’re playing games with the funds necessary to secure the nation during a time of war — and they expect to be taken seriously on how to conduct one?

In the House, the Democrats plan to offer a different plan after the collapse of the Murtha strategy, but it will be just as transparently partisan. They will propose a more straightforward funding bill for the war, but will include a waiver on any deployment readiness restrictions by allowing the Secretary of Defense or the President to certify that unprepared troops will be deployed into battle. It’s a silly and blatantly partisan mechanism, but that matches the Democratic Congress perfectly.

Their entire strategy consists of sneaking around like criminals instead of standing up forcefully and proudly for what they believe. It truly is nauseating.

Fear not, however. Eventually, through the process of elimination, the Democrats will hit upon a strategy that will stop the war, make Bush and the Republicans look even worse than they do now (if that is even possible), while celebrating their “speaking truth to power” by dancing a jig on the Chamber floor…

At the same time that al-Qaeda is dancing a jig in the streets of Baghdad.