Right Wing Nut House

I have not written about my home state Senator Barak Obama previously to this. Generally speaking, I don’t write about obscure left wing politicians much anyway unless they do or say something hilariously stupid. But this recent boomlet for Senator Obama seems to have taken everyone by surprise. And still more than a year away from the first Presidential primaries and caucuses, it amazes me so little information has been disseminated about this likable, thoughtful man.

First, it must be said that a Democratic corpse plucked from a Chicago graveyard could have won the race for Illinois Senator in 2004. You might recall that the Republican nominee Jack Ryan was forced to withdraw 4 months before the election following revelations contained in child custody documents relating to Ryan’s divorce from actress Jeri Ryan (the sexiest Borg in the Star Trek Universe) that he forced the comely actress to go to sex clubs with him. The court records were retrieved by the Chicago Tribune and a local TV station in one of the most shameless examples of yellow journalism this city has seen in a while. As it turns out, Jeri Ryan released a statement saying that she still supported her ex-husbands candidacy while Jack Ryan was summarily dropped by the state party.

Casting about for a replacement, the desperate Republicans turned to “Da Coach” Mike Ditka, former Bears coach, restaurateur, motivational speaker, and the biggest loose cannon of a mouth this side of Howard Dean. Striking out with Ditka, the party considered everyone from former Senate candidate John Cox to the weird and wonderful Ted Nugent; former Amboy Duke, solo rocker, bow hunter extraordinaire, and second amendment absolutist.

In the end, they settled on Alan Keyes, a former ambassador and at the time, a major spokesman for the hard right. Keyes, an extremely articulate and passionate speaker, began to put his foot into it immediately by saying that a vote for Obama would be a “mortal sin.” He compared abortion doctors to terrorists, he said that “Christ would not vote for Barak Obama,” and homosexuality was “selfish hedonism.”

Obama was so far ahead by October 1st that he campaigned for other Democrats across the country, contributing millions to their campaigns. On election day, John Kerry polled 55 percent of the vote while Obama destroyed Keyes by winning more than 70%.

In the last two years. Obama has proved himself a typical freshman Senator, mainly keeping his nose to the Senate grindstone while maintaining a relative quiet demeanor. However, glancing at his votes on key pieces of legislation, one sees a cautious, thoughtful approach to a wide variety of issues from the economy to homeland security to the War in Iraq.

Is Obama really a new “New Democrat?” Tough on our enemies, tender hearted to those less fortunate, more protectionist without throwing free trade to the dogs, welcoming of immigrants, and on liberal touchstone issues like health care, taxes, and poverty programs someone capable of embracing new ideas and new solutions?

Or is he just a typical lefty who has been running for President since he stepped foot in the Senate and has deliberately positioned himself with his pronouncements and votes as a centrist candidate?

Obama is an empty vessel. Not a Clintonesque figure in that he tries to appeal to all voters in some way but rather a welcoming icon who invites the voter to take something away and make it their own as far as how they view the man. Is this dishonest? Or is it great politics?

At this point, it would be hard for Americans to say. That’s because we have no real sense of the man’s character. His personal story is among the most compelling in American political history. A man proud of his black African heritage but who grew up with his mother’s white family, if there was ever a more likely candidate to bridge the racial divide in America he has not emerged as of yet.

His state Senate voting record was decidedly liberal. He was perhaps best known for his stand against the death penalty in Illinois - an issue that was to prove him prescient when it was discovered several Illinois death row inmates were actually innocent. Governor Ryun took the extraordinary step of ordering a moratorium on executions until a review of every death row inmate’s case was completed. Obama has also fought to eliminate racial profiling which has not endeared him to homeland security advocates who believe that profiling passengers at airports is absolutely vital in protecting civil aviation.

Obama opposed the War in Iraq, giving a rousing speech to a downtown Chicago rally in late 2002 that many observers believed was the most inspiring anti-war message they had ever heard. But Obama is no knee jerk pacifist:

“I noticed that a lot of people at that rally were wearing buttons saying, ‘War Is Not an Option,’ ” he said. “And I thought, I don’t agree with that. Sometimes war is an option. The Civil War was worth fighting. World War Two. So I got up and said that, among other things.” What he said, among other things, was “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” Invading and occupying Iraq, he said, would be “a rash war, a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”

And indeed, Obama supported the War in Afghanistan. And he voted against establishing a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq, believing that we can’t leave Iraq until the situation is stable:

Q: You’re in favor of keeping troops in Iraq. How long?

A: The War on Terror has to be vigorously fought. Where we part company is how to fight it, because Afghanistan in fact was not a preemptive war, it was a war launched directly against those who were responsible for 9/11. Iraq was a preemptive war based on faulty evidence-and I say that not in hindsight, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Six months before the war was launched, I questioned the evidence that would lead to us being there. Now, us having gone in there, we have a deep national security interest in making certain that Iraq is stable. If not, not only are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national security problem on our hands-because, ironically, it has become a hotbed of terrorists as a consequence, in part, of our incursion there. In terms of timetable, I’m not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we’re going to be able to pull down troops.

Clearly not a typical liberal on the war.

Nor on homeland security. He voted yes on re-authorizing the Patriot Act but nay on extending the Act’s wiretap provision. But he is not a civil liberties absolutist, believing we should balance intelligence reform with Bill of Rights protections. He is for increased military spending and expanding the army.

In short, an interesting (or calculated) mix of hawk and dove. Again, an empty vessel that we, the voter, can fill up with whatever we wish to see in him. Do his positions on these issues denote thoughtfulness? Or a singular ability to sniff out the center and adhere to it like glue?

On other issues important to Democratic interest groups such as labor, teachers, blacks, Hispanics, and bureaucrats, he has a pretty standard liberal voting record. But there are interesting exceptions, such as his more balanced view of free trade. While voting against CAFTA, he also advocates “fair trade” practices, requiring other countries to enforce the labor and environmental laws that many nation’s like China and Mexico honor in the breach. While this may seem typical liberal pablum, he makes a point when speaking to labor groups to say that he knows that all of them support free trade - a brave pronouncement before the most protectionist group in America. He explains it this way:

He mostly told the union men what they wanted to hear. Then he said, “There’s nobody in this room who doesn’t believe in free trade,” which provoked a small recoil. These men were ardent protectionists. A little later, he said, with conviction, “I want India and China to succeed”—a sentiment not much heard in the outsourcing-battered heartland. He went on, however, to criticize Washington and Wall Street for not looking after American workers.

Later, I asked him if he wasn’t waving a red flag in front of labor by talking about free trade. “Look, those guys are all wearing Nike shoes and buying Pioneer stereos,” he said. “They don’t want the borders closed. They just don’t want their communities destroyed.”

Straddling? Or “triangulation? Or is it a position born of thoughtful reflection and heartfelt belief? Obama invites you to choose.

Is this what makes him such a threat to a run by Hillary? My good friend Richard Baehr, National Political Correspondent for The American Thinker hits the nail on the head:

Edwards, Clinton, and perhaps Al Gore are the likely candidates standing in the way of Obama’s next coronation, should he make his candidacy official. For now, he is being drafted to run by a liberal national media, hungry for a fresh face, weary and wary of the old demons that a Clinton candidacy will dredge up.

Obama would be a huge threat to Hillary, since African Americans, along with single women, are her two biggest support groups. I think it is a safe assumption that some of that huge haul of tens of millions that Ms Clinton has raised for her non—competitive Senate race this year is now going to pay for opposition researchers trolling for ‘material’ on Obama going back to his State Senate days in Illinois.

We see this dance by the media every four years. Bored with writing and talking about the same old faces, the media seeks out a darkhorse candidate and elevates him for a short while to prominence - only to then amuse themselves by tearing him apart piece by piece once they’ve decided he is not worthy of all the glowing coverage.

In Obama’s case, there is the added significance of race to be considered. Will the Senator’s blackness protect him from the usual smear tactics practiced by politicians from both parties? This is a fascinating question and one that won’t be answered unless or until Obama runs. Being able to ignore the criticism of his GOP rival during his one statewide campaign, Obama never had to develop a strategy to deal with political attack dogs. And since Alan Keyes himself was black, no one could accuse him generating attacks that were racially motivated.

My own sense is that Obama would be crazy not to employ his race as a shield in any campaign he undertakes. Just about any criticism that comes his way can be twisted and manipulated into the appearance of an attack on the candidate’s racial heritage. Perhaps not figuratively. But a clever campaigner can always bring the subject around to race. Will such a tactic appeal to the American sense of fair play? Or will it backfire and look like pandering?

And what of the media frenzy that would surround an Obama candidacy? The first African American with a legitimate shot at the White House is a storyline too compelling not to have the media do everything in their power to see that it comes true. We will be treated to daily features about racists who are opposed to his candidacy as well as the hope generated by his run in the inner cities. It certainly would make great copy and would be irresistible in the end. No wonder Hillary is worried. Even she would be overshadowed in the media shadow boxing that would accompany an Obama candidacy.

At age 42 and still just a first term Senator (who sailed to electoral victory with nary a rough spot to challenge him), Obama’s decision on whether or not to run is not the issue for him. In an already crowded Democratic field, he would emerge as a likely alternative to Hillary - someone who many Democrats believe cannot win the general election. Will the empty vessel Obama be able to entice enough voters to place their faith in whatever they want to see and believe about this man?

We’re going to find out sooner rather than later, I’m sure.

Rex (The Wonder Dog) Grossman rushes for 22 yards against the St, Louis Rams on Monday night.

Football fans in Chicago are a little batty. Maybe it’s all that hot chocolate we drink at those frigid December home games. Or perhaps it’s the fact that our womenfolk are liable to be more rabid about supporting the team than their erstwhile mates, a season ticket package being a bigger turn on than a pocket rocket or even front row tickets to Blue Man Group.

So you will forgive me if some of us exhibit all the signs of schizophrenia when it comes to our beloveds. It isn’t enough that the Bears are 10-2 and NFC North Division Champs. We must annihilate the opponent, make him suffer, make him grovel and beg for mercy. And when our quarterback of the future underperforms in the present, appearing ordinary or worse, reminiscent of Cade McNown, the schizophrenia overwhelms our common sense and a hue and cry ensues to burn the transgressor at the stake, to pillory him, to make him suffer as he makes us suffer by humiliating him and placing the mark of Cain upon his forehead (or move him down on the depth chart whichever can be arranged first).

Rex “The Wonder Dog” Grossman has exactly 19 professional football games under his belt. He has shown flashes of brilliance throughout the year. He has also looked like a junior college transfer from Guadalajara. Young quarterbacks - even the good ones - will do this in spite of everything we tell them; don’t throw off your back foot, don’t try to force the ball between 3 defenders, don’t forget your blind side, and whatever you do, don’t let Jay Mariotti interview you.

It does little good. Given the speed and ferocity of the professional game, youngsters like Wonder Dog have to learn it all by themselves. Coaching only takes one so far. In the end, it is what is inside the player that determines whether or not they succeed at the level of the NFL.

With most of the Bears nation screaming to play Wonder Dog’s backup Brian Greise, Coach Lovie stuck with his young gun rather than play the old, wise head. And on Monday night, that decision paid off as Wonder Dog rose to the challenge and played a game closer to what he is capable of rather than what we’ve come to expect the last 7 weeks. Looking cool and confident, Rex checked off primary receivers, settling for what the defense gave him, stayed out of trouble, and most importantly, made no mistakes in leading the beloveds to a 42-27 victory over the St. Louis Rams.

He also showed flashes of that brilliant downfield passing that was so much a part of the passing game in September and October. That’s the rub, of course. Playing professional football in Chicago outdoors, in December, means that conditions will be a little different than they were inside the St. Louis Jones Dome. The frozen ball doesn’t spiral quite so perfectly. The icy wind whipping off the lake entices the ball to perform erotic dances on its way to the target as it dips and wobbles seductively before reaching its intended. And the bone chilling cold numbs the hands and fingers so that holding on to the ball becomes an exercise in willpower.

This is why Chicago hasn’t had a pro-bowl quarterback since Crazy Jim McMahon in 1985. The toll that the weather takes on a quarterback’s statistics from Halloween on precludes consideration for any kind of post season awards. Only genuine, 1st ballot Hall of Famers like Tom Brady or Bret Favre can lay claim to post season kudos playing for northern teams. Those men have learned to manage the biting cold, the swirling snow.

For Wonder Dog, his problems are beyond weather. They are in his head. A quarterback can be many things - arrogant, yappy, a cheerleader, even a father figure - but he can’t question his own ability. He can’t doubt his qualifications to lead the team. For a couple of weeks, the seeds of doubt were sown in Rex’s head both by the rabid, stupid, blowhard Chicago media and his own subpar performances. But last night in St. Louis, with the wolves howling at the door for his professional scalp, Wonder Dog responded to the challenge with a 13-23, 200 yard, 2 TD no interception performance.

Brian Greise, competent and experienced as he is, will not lead the Bears to football glory in Miami in January next year. The belief by some Chicago fans that Greise can carry them to the promised land is not based on any kind of intelligent analysis of the situation but rather the fear that the growing pains exhibited by Wonder Dog are indicative of how his career will unfold. One need only ask Indianapolis fans about Peyton Manning’s early years or Denver fans of John Elway’s painful maturation process. Both of those men had many games like Rex has had in the last two months. But they learned to cope with blitzes and the complex defenses NFL coordinators would throw at them. And I can guarantee you that they didn’t learn in 19 games.

To give up on Wonder Dog at this point is just not logical nor would it be wise. As he proved in the Giants game, Rex can stink up the joint for an entire half and then suddenly look like a hall of famer. Greise, competent and steady (and incapable of engineering a comeback of any kind) just doesn’t have that extra spark of talent and determination that Wonder Dog has already shown. For this reason, I hope that no matter how Rex looks the rest of the way that Coach Lovie will stand by him and allow the youngster to mature into the pro-bowl quarterback we all hope he can be.

As for the rest of the game last night, there was the Windy City Flyer Devon Hester streaking for two kickoff returns which means he will likely not get more than a handful of chances the rest of his career to return anything. Anyone that dangerous returning the ball - Dante Hall of Kansas City comes to mind - ends up having the ball kicked away from him permanently. Many teams will prefer to give the Bears excellent field position rather than trying to pin them deep on kickoffs. On punts, he may get luckier but unless the Bears can consistently make the other team pay by scoring when given a short field, even punters will settle for kicking the ball high and short in order to give the coverage team ample time to surround the young phenom. Next year, look for Hester to move to the offense where he would make a great slot receiver.

And the vaunted Bears defense? No longer the best. No longer scary - except to Bears fans who realize that the early season dominance of the defense is history thanks to three key injuries to pro-bowlers Mike Brown, Tommie Harris, and Nathan Vashar. Of the three, only Vashar is expected to return. But the loss of Brown several weeks ago made the Bears run defense extremely ordinary (Brown was responsible for defensive signal calling, a job he was considered the best in the league at) and the most recent blow of losing Harris means that the strength of the defense - the defensive line - is now a rather ordinary bunch.

Can the Bears go to the Superbowl based on the strength of their special teams and offense? If their run game stays solid, I see no reason why not. As long as Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson can run effectively, the offense will probably score enough points to overcome any defensive deficits.

But take it to the bank; Coach Lovie will probably keep Wonder Dog as his starter from here on out no matter what he does. We will live or die with Grossman at quarterback. If that makes you nervous, may I suggest some Zantax? Or maybe you should stop reading the sports pages and listening to sports talk radio.

I have.

Join me today from noon until 2:00 PM central time for The Rick Moran Show on WAR Radio.

Today we’ll look at breaking news in Lebanon and Iraq. And we’ll have some fun with Kofi Annan’s clueless editorial in today’s Wapo.

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

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

This is the best news coming out of Iraq in months.

Realizing that current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is little more than an empty suit whose efforts to tamp down the sectarian violence tearing at the vitals of the country have failed miserably, the Bush Administration is trying to engineer a bloodless coup against the incompetent Prime Minister by shuffling the coalition of parties who are currently in the majority:

Major partners in Iraq’s governing coalition are in behind-the-scenes talks to oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki amid discontent over his failure to quell raging violence, according to lawmakers involved.

The talks are aimed at forming a new parliamentary bloc that would seek to replace the current government and that would likely exclude supporters of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a vehement opponent of the U.S. military presence.

The new alliance would be led by senior Shiite politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who met with President Bush last week. Al-Hakim, however, was not expected to be the next prime minister because he prefers the role of powerbroker, staying above the grinding day-to-day running of the country.

A key figure in the proposed alliance, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni Arab, left for Washington on Sunday for a meeting with Bush at least three weeks ahead of schedule.

“The failure of the government has forced us into this in the hope that it can provide a solution,” said Omar Abdul-Sattar, a lawmaker from al-Hashemi’s Iraqi Islamic Party. “The new alliance will form the new government.”

Of course, there’s no guarantee that whoever they replace Maliki with will be any more competent. But the exciting part of this move is they are seeking to marginalize Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army by keeping him out of the government:

News of the bid to oust al-Maliki, in office since May, came amid growing dissent over his government’s performance among his Sunni and Shiite partners and the damaging fallout from a leaked White House memo questioning the prime minister’s abilities.

Washington also has been unhappy with al-Maliki’s reluctance to comply with its repeated demands to disband Shiite militias blamed for much of Iraq’s sectarian bloodletting.

Bush publicly expressed his confidence in al-Maliki after talks in Jordan on Nov. 30. But the president told White House reporters four days later that he was not satisfied with the pace of efforts to stop Iraq’s violence.

It was not immediately clear how much progress had been made in the effort to cobble together a new parliamentary alliance. But lawmakers loyal to al-Sadr who support al-Maliki were almost certainly not going to be a part of it. They had no word on al-Maliki’s Dawa party.

They said al-Maliki was livid at the attempt to unseat him.

This puts the leaking of the memo in a little different context, no? It’s no wonder that Maliki bristled at what was in Hadley’s report - he must have seen the writing on the wall. And it could even be that Bush gave him the bad news personally - which would explain his snubbing the President at dinner the night before their meeting.

The Dawa party is an important member of the ruling coalition, however, and it won’t be easy escorting Maliki to the door. But the new coalition will probably be able to cobble together support from enough members of that party to keep them in government.

The brilliance of this move however, is in what it does to our good friend Mookie al-Sadr.

If al-Sadr balks and uses his militia to start attacking American forces, he is going to wish he hadn’t. Twice now the United States military has handed the Mahdi army humiliating and devastating defeats. Twice, the Grand Ayatollah Sistani has interceded with his American friends to pull Sadr’s chestnuts out of the fire.

Since Sistani appears to have re-engaged politically by backing this move against al-Maliki, it could mean that he wishes to put the upstart Sadr in his place - or 6 feet under. Clearly the US now has Sadr in a box. If he fights, he loses. And if he acquiesces, he’s out of power and loses.

A win/win situation is a good thing for the US in Iraq. And this is the kind of thinking that was totally lacking from the ISG. This move is creative with definite thinking outside the box. It goes to show that there are in fact other options available to the US - options with a chance of turning the situation around relatively quickly.

However, having praised this move it should also be viewed with some trepidation. This move will essentially put the Badr Brigade in a very powerful position. Al-Hakim is the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) - a pro Iranian group with close ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. The Badr Brigade is the armed wing of the party. Most of them were trained in Iran. This will open the question of how close the Iraqi government will be to Iran. Al-Sadr never trusted the Iranians, which displeased Ahmadinejad. But I think it’s safe to say that putting the SCIRI and the Badr’s in charge, there is a very real chance that the Shias will begin agitating for more autonomy in the south as well as escalate the violence already raging betwen Sadrites and the Badr Brigades.

Al-Hakim will not exactly be our new best buddy either. He has made it clear that he wants us out sooner rather than later. And Hakim has a reputation of using the Interior Ministry to settle party and militia business. Death squads and secret detention centers where Sunnis are routinely tortured and killed are a part of the Brigade’s profile. In short, we may be trading one gigantic headache for another.

But this move, if it pans out, is certainly welcome news. At the very least, it shows that the Administration is still engaged, still trying to come up with a solution that will allow us to leave. And it may just be the start of a turnaround in Baghdad that could go a long way toward establishing the rule of law in Iraq.

There were more massive opposition protests today in Lebanon as hundreds of thousands of Hizbullah supporters took to the streets to demand the ouster of Prime Minister Sinora’s government.

Meanwhile, in Tripoli, hundreds of thousands more rallied in support of the government.

As Naharnet points out, the opposition has several agendas on display:

The anti-government rally in downtown Beirut, spearheaded by the Shiite Hizbullah, reflected three separate agendas by its main components.

Hizbullah’s deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem said the protest, launched on Dec. 1, would continue for as long as 10 months until the anti-government factions achieve veto-powered partnership in the administration to prevent alleged alliance of the country with U.S. President George Bush.

However, parliamentary deputy Michel Aoun of the Free Patriotic Movement, pledged that the protesters would “in a few days declare our definite rejection of this government and we would ask for the formation of a transitional cabinet to organize new elections.”

Deputy Ali Hassan Khalil, a ranking leader of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s Shiite Amal Movement, stressed on the demand for the formation of a National Unity government to ensure participation in the administration by the various Lebanese factions. He did not call for the resignation of Prime Minister Fouad Saniora.

Aoun’s threat was followed up with this chiller:

He said the Saniora government “does not deserve to stay in power for one hour more … in a few days we will declare our rejection of this government and we will ask for the formation of a transitional government to organize new elections.”

He threatened that the “barbed wire doest not protect government offices. In the coming days the protest will expand.”

Aoun noted that protesters in Ukraine had stormed parliament building to push for regime change “and no one said that was an illegal move.”

As far as storming the Grand Serail where Siniora’s March 14th government is holed up, Naharnet reports that Hizbullah may be preparing for just such an eventuality:

Meanwhile, the leading newspaper An Nahar reported that Hizbullah purchased thousands of army and police uniforms from a local company trading with such items in south Lebanon.

The respected newspaper did not elaborate on its short report, which sparked concern in security circles that Hizbullah’s trained and tested fighters might use the uniforms as disguise to attack the heavily-guarded government offices, which Saniora and his ministers have been using as residence, across the street from the angry protesters taking part in the city center sit-in.

A ranking security official told Naharnet, that a shipment of uniforms similar to what is used by the Lebanese army and police force has been “imported by a local merchant from India and was recently sold to a local faction.”

There would be many nefarious uses for these uniforms in the hands of Hizbullah, not the least of which would be to break into the Serail and either murder or arrest Siniora and his government. At the very least, it shows how determined Hassan Nasrallah is in achieving his goal of ousting Siniora.

Meanwhile in Tripoli, another large demonstration in support of the government called for the resignation of pro-Syrian puppet Emile Lahoud:

In Tripoli, 80 kilometers north of Beirut, hundreds of thousands of government sympathizers cheered as parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri addressed them through a telephone connection stressing that the Saniora “government would not fall. Lahoud would collapse.”

Hariri, the son of ex-premier Rafik Hariri who was assassinated by a huge blast targeting his motorcade in Beirut on February 2005, reminded sympathizers that Lahoud’s mandate in office was extended for three years by an illegal constitutional amendment under Syrian pressure in 2004.

Syria withdrew its troops from Lebanon in April 2005, more than a month after the older Hariri assassination, for which it is blamed by supporters of the Saniora government.

There are many March 14th supporters who want to see Siniora and the government get more aggressive in reining in Hizbullah:

Speaking bluntly and plainly of Hezbollah and its lout-in-chief is what is missing today in Lebanon’s war of words. Calling a hoodlum a Sayyid and referring to his illegal militia as a Resistance is not only mendacious and hypocritical. It is outright dangerous. The March 14 culture is deluding itself thinking flattery and verbal gymnastics will assuage the Hezbollah bogeyman and his frothy mouthpiece. Semantics do matter. And as long as the March 14 jellyfish keep massaging the feelings of thugs and bullies, and as long as they keep spewing jaded rhetorical circumlocutions and euphemisms (to avoid calling a spade a spade), Nasrallah and his goons’ delusions arrogance and jingoist erections will remain on the upswing, until Lebanon is no more!

Siniora has been walking on eggshells when it comes to dealing with Nasrallah and Hizbullah since he came to power. Whether it’s because he fears civil war or simply Hizbullah’s guns doesn’t matter. Nasrallah and Aoun can be as irresponsible as they wish because they know that Siniora will go to great lengths to avoid a direct, armed confrontation.

Neither of those two want a civil war either - at least that’s what they piously proclaim. But as long as they can push Siniora to the wall without fear of any consequences, they will continue to test the Prime Minister’s patience and forbearance. In a way, this is even more dangerous because no one knows what Siniora’s breaking point and just as importantly, the breaking point of the Sunnis might be. At this point, it wouldn’t take much for the streets to erupt.

I can’t shake the feeling that things are moving toward some kind of resolution. With this latest report about the uniforms along with the fact that Nasrallah must know he can’t keep his followers in the streets forever, Hizbullah may feel they have no alternative but to force the issue of Siniora’s resignation by staging some kind of attack on government building. It may appear to be a “spontaneous” outburst by demonstrators. But no one will believe it. And therein lies the seeds of an explosion in violence that would rock the entire Middle East.

I don’t care how many elections Republicans lose or if a Democrat is elected President in 2008, the Democrats still have a long way to go in convincing me that they are as serious as I and many conservatives are about national security. And those in government - the bureaucrats and policymakers in the agencies who are charged with counterterrorism - have an equal distance to travel in order to lift the impression that our entire government is at war with an enemy that they don’t understand and have made precious little effort in trying to change that singular fact.

What do I mean by the Democrats getting “serious?” Taking the time to learn the facts about our enemies (calling them “enemies” would be a nice start), engaging in learned debate about military issues rather than simple knee-jerk pandering to their anti-military base, and perhaps, since we are at war, placing national security at the forefront of the party’s and the nation’s business.

I don’t see it. And this certainly doesn’t help; National Security Editor for Congressional Quarterly Jeff Stein iinterviewed incoming House Intel chair Silvestre Reyes and asked him his views about major terrorist groups:

The dialogue went like this:

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

[…]

And Hezbollah? I asked him. What are they?

“Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah…”

He laughed again, shifting in his seat.

“Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?”

“Pocito,” I said—a little.

“Pocito?! “ He laughed again.

“Go ahead,” I said, talk to me about Sunnis and Shia in Spanish.

Reyes: “Well, I, uh….”

(HT: James Joyner)

Stein has been on a quest of sorts for the last few months, going from the FBI to DHS, and othe counterterrorism officials to ask these simple questions about Sunnis and Shias. The answers have been eye openers.

But Reyes is a man who is in charge of overseeing our intelligence community. Can you see this moron sitting in a closed hearing room listening to the latest intelligence on al-Qaeda in Iraq? Or worse, how would he interpret Hizbullah’s moves against Prime Minister Sinora’s government in Lebanon? Or the Taliban’s continuing resurgence in Afghanistan?

It does not comfort me that many bloggers know a helluva lot more about our enemies than the incoming House Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

And it isn’t just Reyes, of course. From the President (who was ignorant of the Sunni-Shia distinction until 2003), down through our counterterrorism officials, and now evidently through our lawmakers charged with formulating and judging our national security policy, there seems to be a singular myopia about the history and nature of our enemies. What animates them besides anti-Americanism? What is their worldview? How does their religion shape their actions? These would seem to be basic concepts that someone charged with trying to forestall a terrorist attack on the United States would need to have a grasp of; the psychological motivations of the enemy.

As far as the Democrats are concerned, you don’t have to be a male chauvinist pig to say that Nancy Pelosi has made several major missteps since the mid term elections. In fact, the canard that she wouldn’t be receiving this kind of withering criticism if she were a man is ridiculous. She runs on an anti-corruption platform and her first move is to back a shady Congressman for majority leader? I don’t care if you’re a man, woman, or newt, that kind of tone deafness (or arrogance) bespeaks an incompetence not easily brushed aside.

Then there was this brouhaha over the Intel chair that was entirely unnecessary. Jane Harmon may have been a hawk at the beginning of the Iraq War. But when most of the intelligence community had been agitating for a decade to destroy Saddam and his WMD, one can hardly blame a Member of Congress who sat in those hearings listening to briefing after briefing about what a danger the Iraqi dictator was and then not support the effort to topple him.

I don’t know the details of the personal feud between the two lawmakers. But how serious can we believe the Democrats are about our national security if the leader of the party in the House allows personal animus to intrude on her decisions regarding the safety of the American people or, just as bad, shamelessly panders to her rabid, anti-war base on a matter involving the competence of those in charge of intelligence oversight?

It would be one thing if she pulled a stunt like this with the Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee or some congressional backwater that was not vital to the safety of the United States. But by compounding her original blunder by elevating a dunce to the chairmanship of the Intel committee is almost beyond belief.

Maybe we should send the lot of them to the nearest junior college and make them all take a course in the history of Islam. Or better yet, read Karen Armstrong’s Islam: A Short History, a fascinating and informative read.

Either way, it’s scary to think that the ignorance of people in charge of protecting us is found at every level of government.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Despite being under enormous pressure, the March 14th Forces and Prime Minister Siniora are continuing to resist calls for their resignations and the formation of a Hezb’allah dominated “National Unity Government.” Clashes in the streets between Shias and Sunnis have already cost the life of one young protester while the anti-government forces continue to surround the Grand Serail, in effect besieging the government.

Last Friday, it appears that Hezb’allah’s plans for storming the government building where Prime Minister Siniora and his cabinet have taken up residence since the assassination of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel were foiled only by the personal intervention of Saudi King Abdullah and the Lebanese Army who appealed to Speaker Nabih Berri to intercede with Hassan Nasrallah, Hezb’allah’s leader. The group had placed roadblocks all around the Grand Serail and refused to allow any access to the building. Hezb’allah protesters also shut down the vital road to the airport. Following the King’s intercession, some of the roadblocks were lifted but Hezb’allah has made it clear that they can be re-established at any time.

During the week, the crowds of anti-government protesters dwindled to just a few thousand but opposition leaders kept up their barrage of insults and charges directed against Siniora and his government. On Thursday, Nasrallah addressed the nation via the Hezb’allah propaganda arm al-Manar and with the crowd in front of the Grand Serail cheering his image projected onto gigantic TV screens, the Shia leader escalated his anti-government rhetoric, accusing the Siniora government of working with the United States to urge Israel to attack Hezb’allah last summer as well as interdicting arms meant to resupply his militia in the south:

“Some of the March 14 Forces, whom I will not reveal their names, sat with the Americans and urged them to ask Israel to launch war against Hizbullah,” Nasrallah claimed in a speech broadcast by several Lebanese and Arab television stations Thursday evening.
“Those are the ones responsible for the war, not the resistance,” Nasrallah charged.

Nasrallah accused Saniora of ordering the Lebanese army, during the July-August war with Israel, to “confiscate the resistance weapons that are being carried to south Lebanon.”

In separate statements released by Saniora’s office as well as the Lebanese army command, both dismissed Nasrallah’s allegations as untrue.

“It appears that Sayyed Nasrallah …has fallen victim of conspiracy and rumors spread by external intelligence,” Saniora’s statement said.

The Hezb’allah leader also rejected the idea that he was carrying out a coup while vowing not to leave the streets until Siniora’s government gives way to a unity government. He has called for an even more massive demonstration on Sunday, also promising to keep the protests peaceful, saying “We will win with our voices, and not with our arms!”

But interspersed throughout his bombastic address, Nasrallah made it plain that there was going to be a change at the top - one way or another. Addressing the March 14th majority in the cabinet, Nasrallah warned, “But soon, we will not listen anymore and will not want a government headed by any one of you,” a clear threat of a coup given that Parliament is the only body that could remove the Prime Minister and his government.

For their part, the March 14th Forces have begun escalating their rhetoric as well. In a nationally televised address on Friday, Prime Minister Siniora dropped his normally smiling and low-key manner and lashed out at the Hezb’allah leader. He accused Nasrallah of trying to engineer a coup (the first time that the Prime Minister had done so personally) and ridiculed Nasrallah’s rhetoric:

Addressing Nasrallah, Saniora asked: “who gave you the authority to say I am right and who do not agree with me are wrong?”

“You are not our Lord and the party (Hizbullah) is not our Lord … Who appointed you to say I am right and all else is wrong?” Saniora asked Nasrallah.

Siniora also left the door open for negotiations. In fact, the Prime Minister has been pleading with the opposition to come back to the table for talks since the Shia ministers left the cabinet almost two months ago. Nasrallah is having none of it. At the moment, he feels he has the upper hand. And with the prospect of another huge crowd in the streets on Sunday, anything would be possible.

There were two major efforts to resolve the crisis this past week. The first involved a former member of Parliament and Sunni scholar Fathi Yakan, representing the party of former pro-Syrian Prime Minister Omar Karami, who proposed a cabinet made up of 19 members of March 14th, 9 members from the opposition bloc, and 2 “independent” members thus denying a supermajority to March 14th but also veto power to the opposition. Siniora rejected the proposal, feeling quite rightly that any compromise that did not recognize the fact that March 14 won a majority in the election last year would undercut the democratic nature of his government. Not that it mattered. Nasrallah rejected the compromise out of hand.

The second effort is ongoing and shows some promise. The council of Maronite Bishops has called for early Presidential elections, ratification of the International Tribunal, and an “entente” government. Nasrallah professes to be interested and the Prime Minister has not rejected the plan either. The prospect of an early Presidential election would definitely appeal to Nasrallah’s junior partner in the opposition, Michel Aoun, whose Presidential ambitions have become something of a running gag in Lebanon.

Despite this glimmer of hope, the crisis remains. And Nasrallah, who went into the streets two weeks ago, confident that his masses of devotees could bring a quick end to the Siniora government, may, as Michael Young points out, have overplayed his hand:

Hizbullah’s strategy is now clear, its repercussions dangerous. The party is pushing Lebanon into a protracted vacuum, in which low-level violence and economic debilitation become the norm. Hizbullah is calculating that its adversaries will crack first, because they have more at stake than do poor Shiites when it comes to the country’s financial and commercial health. Its leaders know the powerful symbolism associated with dispatching thousands of destitute people into the plush downtown area, which best symbolizes that financial and commercial health - the jewel in late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s reconstruction crown.

Hizbullah’s reckoning is profoundly cynical. Its manipulation of the alleged Shiite ability to withstand more hardship than other Lebanese shows disdain for Shiite aspirations. The fact that everyone will lose out after an economic meltdown, which is coming, seems obvious. But that Hizbullah should take it as a sign of strength that Shiites would lose relatively less because of their poverty is abhorrent. The party has nonetheless made clear to its interlocutors that it will not give up on Syria and Iran. Hence the perilous path it is pursuing, along with Syria’s satellites and the futile Michel Aoun as water carriers.

Young, Opinion Editor of The Daily Star hits upon one of the major divides in Lebanese society; the Shias are very poor and have never shared in the economic life of the country.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the feelings of inferiority and resentment that have built up over the years in the Shia community. Nasrallah has skillfully played upon these feelings, making Hezb’allah not just resistance fighters against Israel but also champions of the Shia underclass. With Iran’s help, Nasrallah has established a separate and distinct social structure for southern Lebanese Shias outside of the government, with health clinics, food banks, schools, and other outward manifestations of government.

It has bred fanatical loyalty and devotion among the Shias toward his militia. As the Shia see it, Nasrallah is not carrying out a coup against the government as much as he’s standing up for the Shia, getting them proper representation in the councils of government. In this respect, most Shias do not see what is happening in front of the Grand Serail as pro-Syrian or pro-Iranian. They feel themselves as much a nationalist party as March 14th and their protests as legitimate as those that helped drive the Syrian army out of Lebanon last spring.

And Michael Young, who likens Hezb’allah’s efforts to those of the Soviet’s successful coup of the Czechoslovakian government in 1948, shows why this dream of Shia dominance of Lebanon will not be realized:

The Syrian and Iranian project can be derailed by a combination of other scenarios as well: Sectarian tension increases to the extent that President Bashar Assad’s regime is threatened by a violent Sunni backlash from Lebanon, and perhaps Iraq; the international community, notably Israel, decides it cannot accept a return to the status quo ante in South Lebanon; and Lebanese leaders in danger of physical or political elimination because of a Syrian return - principally Walid Jumblatt, Saad Hariri, and Samir Geagea - pursue a bitter, existential fight, preventing Hizbullah from controlling the situation on behalf of Damascus and Tehran. The implacable theorems of Lebanon’s formula of national coexistence have demolished far more powerful forces than Hizbullah.

Another flaw in Syrian and Iranian reasoning is hubris. Despite the tactical parallels in the staging of a coup, Lebanon is no Czechoslovakia. Tehran, Damascus, and Hizbullah imagine the country can be conquered, with Hizbullah somehow emerging on top. Only the fundamentally intolerant can fall for such a tidy, straightforward conceit. But that’s not really how things work in Lebanon’s confessional disorder. We may be in the throes of a faltering coup, but the ultimate challenge is to avoid being inadvertently manhandled by Hizbullah into a war nobody wants.

“A war nobody wants” but that may become inevitable unless Nasrallah can climb back from the very long limb he finds himself on at the moment. He has promised to stay in the streets until he gets a unity government acceptable to him. Anything less and his stock goes down with the Shias who have poured into the streets, answering his call for peaceful revolution. In effect, if Nasrallah gives up, he will lose credibility - not just with the Lebanese Shia but with his patrons in Tehran and Damascus as well as the “Arab street” who he claims is with him.

If that happens, he may be a very long time recovering his lost aura of invincibility.

One of my heroes died last night.

Jeane Kirkpatrick was a genuine intellectual; brilliant, honest, ever curious, blunt, even “acerbic” - an adjective I’ve seen on three different obits already. One wonders if Ambassador Kirkpatrick had been male if she would have been described that way.

She may have invented snark. Her cutting wit was justly famous around Georgetown University where she taught before getting the call from Reagan to be Ambassador to the United Nations. She served on his foreign policy transition team and impressed the President with her spirited defense of democracy and Israel. Her article in Commentary Magazine “Dictatorships and Double Standards” gave an ideological answer to leftists who wanted to cut off American aid to dictatorships for violating human rights at a time when the Soviets were on the march.

And despite the controversy of the subject, I will point out that Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, and Irving Kristol - former liberal Democrats all - helped define neo-conservatism.

They epitomized the neo-conservative movement. Liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues, and dyed in the wool anti-communists who left the Democratic party not only for their ruinous economic policies but also their pacifism in the face of Soviet aggression. They were warily welcomed by Republicans of the time who had learned over the years to have a healthy mistrust of Democratic intellectuals. But Kirkpatrick and others made deep thinking popular among rank and file conservatives again. In fact, thanks to Reagan, who brought several genuine conservative intellectuals into government like Martin Anderson, conservatives began to embrace the ideas bubbling up from think tanks and academia. In those heady days in Washington, ideas mattered a great deal. And seminal thinkers like Jeane Kirkpatrick whose vigorous defense of America at the United Nations became the stuff of legend, was in the forefront of the most important foreign policy debates of the time.

She was also a wife and mother - something she never let people forget. In a press conference following a particularly grueling UN session on the Middle East, Kirkpatrick said:

When the Syrian ambassador acted up, what I really felt like saying to him was, “Go to your room!”

And this in response to a question at one of her numerous seminars given at college campuses across the country:

Truth, which is important to a scholar, has got to be concrete. And there is nothing more concrete than dealing with babies, burps and bottles, frogs and mud.

But what endeared her more than anything to conservatives was her speech at the 1984 Republican Convention were she invented the term “Blame America First” regarding liberal Democrats of the time:

They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do - they didn’t blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians - they blamed the United States instead.

But then, somehow, they always blame America first.

When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the “blame America first crowd” didn’t blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn’t blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

The crowd went nuts. And the Democrats have been on the defensive about foreign policy ever since.

It is perhaps inevitable that with her forceful personality that she should be compared to John Bolton who was a good friend and was queried today about his thoughts:

She took with her [to the UN] a reputation as a hard-liner on foreign policy. Because of this, she often was a lightning rod for the opposition. In some respects, she shared Bolton’s controversial profile. Bolton recently decided to resign when it became clear the Senate would not approve him full-time as U.N. ambassador.

Describing his work with Kirkpatrick at the American Enterprise Institute, Bolton told reporters Friday: “When I was at AEI in the late ’90s for most of that time our offices were right next to each other and…” His voice then broke, and near tears he closed his eyes briefly, cleared his throat, and then continued in a quavering voice, “I benefited very greatly. It really is very sad for America, but she will be greatly missed.”

When a reporter noted that Bolton and Kirkpatrick had very similar attitudes, he replied, “I don’t really want to address that question.”

Yes, I suppose they did have similar “attitudes” - as if an American ambassador to the United Nations shouldn’t aggressively represent our interests in that body. The question reveals more about the reporter than it does about Bolton or Kirkpatrick.

In the end, of all that she had accomplished and was known for, she would probably be proudest of the fact that first and foremost, she was an American. And I might add, an American original at that.

One of our country’s best friends is gone. And I can’t think of a time when we needed her wisdom, her courage, and her driving personality more than right now.

The blue blooded “wise men” have spoken.

The Iraq Study Group has dumped their report on the American people and surprisingly, there seems to be a somewhat unanimous feeling about what our foreign policy elites labored to produce; it sucks.

The right hates it because “victory” isn’t mentioned. And because the group gave an honest assessment of what was actually happening in Iraq. And because they want the United States to talk to Syrian cutthroats and Iranian fanatics. And because it calls the President’s policy a failure. And because James Baker is a poopie head.

Taking these bullet points one at a time:

1. Since the world, the media, and the left have already decided we’ve “lost” in Iraq there is no sense in working toward something that doesn’t exist.

2. The ISG assessment of what is happening on the ground, in the councils of government, and in the streets is, by my reading, not scary enough. Very little about the Shia v Shia battle being fought in the south between Sadrites and the Badr Brigades (where the two sides ignore the government in Baghdad and have set up their own Islamic courts and police forces). Nothing on Shia incursions into Kurdish oil areas in the north that has resulted in violent confrontations. In fact, no word on the PKK, the Kurdish terrorist group, and their influence on the the Peshmerga or the Kurdish government and how that spells trouble for NATO ally Turkey.

3. The ISG recommendation that we talk to Syria and Iran is probably a non-starter as far as bi-lateral exchanges go. But in a regional framework, it might just work. I will say to my friends on the right that we desperately need the help of Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia as well as the political muscle of Jordan and Egypt if we are going to get a handle on both the insurgency and the sectarian violence. And in any regional context, you simply cannot ignore the Iranians and the Syrians. Such a conference would not be rewarding them for anything and may lead to their helping us.

Why? The one thing that neither Syria nor Iran wants is a failed state on their borders. Syria is already bursting at the seams with Iraqi refugees, straining their ability to take care of them and/or integrate them into Syrian society. Something similar could befall Iran if all hell breaks loose in Iraq as Shias stream toward the only bordering state with a majority Shia population. In short, it is in the national interest of Syria and Iran to help tamp down the violence and prop up the Iraqi government if we make it clear that we’re leaving.

How they would exercise their influence after that would be beyond our control anyway so why worry about it?

4. The President’s policy is not working and hence, is a failure. This is one of those self-evident pronouncements from the ISG that they shouldn’t have had to put in there but were forced to because of the extraordinary myopia of some of my righty friends. Let’s give it the Reagan test, shall we?

* Are Iraqis better off today than they were two years ago?

* Is it easier for Iraqis to go and buy things in the stores than it was two years ago?

* Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was two years ago?

* Do you feel that Iraqi security is as safe as it was two years ago?

* Is America as respected in Iraq as it was two years ago?

With the possible exception of a marginally smaller unemployment rate (it’s tough to get much worse than the estimated 50% unemployment rate from 2004) every Reagan inspired benchmark trends downward. Bush’s plan is an utter and complete failure. Eleven million people voted for a government whose writ does not run much beyond Baghdad; a government people do not trust to protect them and a government that has proven itself weak, corrupt, divided, and unable to stem the vicious sectarian violence that kills 200 people a day.

These are not the conclusions of the media or left wing loons. Most of these conclusions come from our own military and State Department, from people whose job it is to give policy makers honest assessments of what is going on. I feel ridiculous having to say these things because this information is out there for anyone who is truly interested in finding out what is happening in Iraq. And at the moment, this idiotic denial of reality on the part of many on the right is not only getting on my nerves but making them part of the problem - as much as the idiot lefties who only want to get out of Iraq regardless of the consequences.

5. Yes. It’s true. James Baker is a poopie head.

Only Baker could propose a regional conference of all the “important” countries in the Middle East and not include Israel. Only Baker could advocate putting pressure on Israel to commit suicide by returning the Golan Heights to their mortal enemy Syria. Only Baker could advocate a “right of return” for Palestinians (whose “return” would displace Israeli citizens who have lived on that land for nearly 60 years). And only Baker could advocate a peace between Israel and the Hamas terrorists that contracts the Jewish state to its 1967 borders.

On the left, they hate the ISG report because they see it as a gigantic conspiracy to deny them the fruits of their electoral victory. And because it doesn’t advocate an immediate withdrawal of forces. And because the word “defeat” isn’t found anywhere in the report. And because it isn’t hard enough on Bush. And because Bush will ignore recommendations that they disagree with too. And because James Baker works for the Bush family and is a poopie head.

Although much harder to come up with intelligent commentary given the material, here are a few thoughts on liberal “critiques” of the report.

1. The ISG’s mandate was to come up with recommendations on how to improve the situation in Iraq. They were not charged with validating leftist talking points about the war.

2. The consequences of an immediate withdrawal would be catastrophic . Even Democrats are coming around to that conclusion.

3. The word “defeat” is absent for the same reason that the word “victory” doesn’t appear. Politics. And the fact there are still options that would bring the United States something short of both “victory” but a long way from total defeat (if they work). If not, we may revisit this issue in a couple of years.

4. The report doesn’t blame Bush enough? I’ve seen this criticism on a couple of lefty websites and I’m puzzled by it. It reminds me of the criticism by the left about The Path to 9/11 where the Administration was rightly skewered for its handling of both the intelligence leading up to the tragedy as well as its handling of the attack while it was underway. But because the show dared to show some of the failings of the Clinton people, the entire project was condemned.

With the ISG report, it seems that because there wasn’t a picture of Bush with a dunce cap on his head on the cover, the left believes they went too easy on him. No accounting for taste. Or stupidity when it comes to our lefty friends.

5. The idea that the left is complaining that Bush will ignore the recommendations of the ISG - recommendations that they violently disagree with - is pretty amusing. The irony inherent in their criticism seems to escape them which isn’t surprising - the capability for introspection being necessary to appreciate this kind of an ironic juxtaposition is not present among most lefties.

6. Baker’s ties to Bush 41 (and the shadowy Carlysle Group) have brought out both the humor and paranoia of the left. They actually applaud most of Baker’s prescriptions for a general settlement between Hamas and the Jews since they would mean the almost certain destruction of Israel. And there have actually been some pretty funny allusions to Baker pulling “daddy boy’s” chestnuts out the fire. But the descent into paranoia about the all powerful Carlysle Group wanting to control the world gets to be a bit much, especially when you consider that our corporate masters have botched things royally.

And yes, The left agrees. James Baker is indeed a poopie head.

Those Americans in the middle seem to take the attitude that the ISG’s finished product has some good things and bad things but that most are disappointed. I mentioned the other day that Baker settled for a single when he might have tried for the home run. That seems to be the consensus among many Americans who view the group’s finished product as an interesting, yet fatally flawed document.

It’s not quite back to the drawing board on Iraq. But clearly we need a better “Way Forward” than that offered by the ISG.

The votes are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council and the winner in the Council category is Joshuapundit for “Genocide? What Genocide?” I was the runner up with my post “The Art and Artifice of War Reporting.”

Finishing first in the non Council category was Flopping Aces for “Getting the News From the Enemy.”

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

I’d also like to thank AbbGav for serving on the Council and welcome new member Andrew Olmsted.