Do The Right Thing

I know the cause in Darfur has been previously championed here at TPS. So I thought it was appropriate to note today's latest development.

The Security Council voted to create a peacekeeping force in Sudan's Darfur region, despite the Khartoum government's strong opposition. But the troops will not be deployed until Sudan consents. The U.N. wants to replace and absorb an African Union force in Darfur, which has only enough money to exist until its mandate expires on September 30. It has been unable to halt the humanitarian crisis in the lawless west of the country, which the U.S. describes as genocide.

The resolution calls for up to 22,500 U.N. troops and police officers and an immediate injection of air, engineering and communications support for the 7,000-member African force. The measure, drafted by Britain and the United States, is designed to allow planning and recruitment of troops for an eventual handover. The Darfur conflict erupted in February 2003, when non-Arab rebels took up arms against the government. In response, the government mobilized Arab militias known as Janjaweed, who have been accused of murder, rape and looting.

Fighting, disease, and hunger have killed some 200,000 people driven some 2.5 million into squalid camps. Rebel groups have splintered and are now conducting similar atrocities against civilians. Bloodshed has only increased since the government signed a peace agreement with one rebel group in May and Sudan is planning to send some 10,500 troops into Darfur, which the West fears will lead to full-scale war.

I think most would agree this is a worthy use of the UN's ability to coordinate foreign aid and international peacekeeping. These processes are never easy. And lately the UN's reputation in this department has become greatly tarnished. However, if we are going to continue to support the United Nations (including leaning on that body heavily with regards to Iran), then what better opportunity to get it back on track by using its diplomatic resources to do something about genocide?

Hopefully, the hands of this international force will not be tied because surely potential forces will encounter some resistence in various forms. However, unlike the situation in Iraq, I believe these troops would be empowered by a clear awareness of their mission, and by always knowing the good guys from the bad. Those who have seen the film Hotel Rwanda will recall the frustration experienced by peacekeepers who witnessed genocide but were powerless to stop it. And despite the fears of some, I think involvement in Darfur carries only a limited risk of broad escalation. Even the Arab world hasn't shown much desire to defend the Sudanese government, which once gave safe harbor to Osama Bin Laden.

So I give Ambassador Bolton credit for getting this resolution to a favorable vote. Only the condition that Sudan consent to the mission before it may start gives me pause for concern. A test for this contraversial diplomat. We shall see.

N.B. - I'll give much credit to the ex-Regian on this blog who can spot the notorious Regis reference in this post.

Thanks, Rummy...

...for making it clear that your resignation will be tendered by the end of the year. Afterall, this geezer has finally gone off the deep end. I usually shy away from knee-jerk by nature. But with such a narrow-mided view of reasonable debate on fighting the War in Iraq, I now have no choice but to agree with the Cindy Sheehans of the world that this guy is so out-of-touch that he's dangerous.

Speaking to several thousand veterans at the American Legion's national convention, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld likened critics of the Bush administration's war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis in the 1930s.

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security.

So people like me are just Neville Chamberlains. And those Iraqis engaged in civil war are actually the new Adolf Hitler! Wow - what a misguided read of history. Apparently this man doesn't believe in degrees of evil. Personally, I'm very cautious in comparing anyone to a sicko dictator who directly murdered 6 million innocent people who weren't even fighting. Not to mention everything else Hitler did to push the world into total war. Seriously, I think there's only a few people in all of history who land on that level of satanism, and they probably fall a little short of the Fuhrer.

And I guess Republican Congressman Chris Shays is the latest unpatriotic facist-loving wimp. He's been a supporter of the War in Iraq since 2003. He's made 14 trips to Iraq in the past 3 years. He's met with every leading Iraqi politician. And now he's admitted that our actions in Iraq have become counter-productive. But Rummy says that makes Shays another Hitler-appeasing fool. So why is the administration still working so hard to re-elect Shays in his tight November race?

Rummy, you keep pushing people like me more and more to the Democratic side. I hope leading GOPers condemn his words, but I don't hold my breath. Senator Jack Reed countered this latest desperate attack perfectly:

Sen. Reed, D-R.I., a former Army officer and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Tuesday that "no one has misread history more than" Rumsfeld.

"It's a political rant to cover up his incompetence," said Reed, a longtime critic of Rumsfeld's handling of the war.

Reed said he took particular exception to the implication that critics of Pentagon policies are unpatriotic, citing "scores of patriotic Americans of both parties who are highly critical of his handling of the Department of Defense."

Well put, Senator.

Some Freedom in Gaza

Many TPS readers may be aware of my broad criticism of the handling of the "War on Terror". Indeed blending it with the War in Iraq has produced so many disastrous results. However, with today's news of the release of Fox News reporter Steve Centanni and cameraman Olaf Wiig in Gaza, I want to praise one important aspect of the war on terror. I give the Bush administration and its State Department credit for continuing the policy of a refusing to negotiate with those who kidnap Americans. For it is this long-standing tradition which more than anything has led to the release of these journalists.

It's not an easy thing to do to officially turn a government's back on efforts that could be made to free citizens held by terrorists under the worst of conditions. But were the US to negotiate with these or any other kidnappers (including those in Iraq), all the cliches would then apply to future incidents - it would be a slippery slope, have a snowball effect, etc. If concessions were made to gain Centanni's freedom, surely more would be taken hostage at a greater rate wherever terrorists may lurk.

The conditions experienced by Centanni and Wiig were certainly unpleasant.

Centanni said that during his capture, he was held at times face down in a dark garage, tied up in painful positions, and that he and Wiig were forced at gunpoint to make statements, including that they had converted to Islam.

As usual, the kidnappers initially demanded the release of all Muslims imprisoned by the U.S. by midnight Saturday in exchange for the journalists. This demand was rejected and actually pretty much ignored by the administration. All Americans wanted the journalists' release and I'm sure arms were twisted behind the scenes. But it is important that these thugs realize we will not jeopardize our efforts fighting legitimate terrorism even to save the lives of innocent non-combatants.

You have to admire Centanni and his commitment to his craft. It is certainly not shared by this blogger. My ass would be back in America immediately and I'm pretty sure I'd never go back to Palestine.

Centanni told reporters, "I hope that this never scares a single journalist away from coming to Gaza to cover the story because the Palestinian people are very beautiful and kind-hearted."

Journalists are usually an intrepid bunch. The kidnappings of the 1980's didn't scare them off and I'm sure this incident won't either. But I am very glad to see this diplopmatic policy paying dividends in the Middle East.

It does make me wonder, however, how this relates to the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, which was triggered by the kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers? Because those sides were already in a state of conflict with both sides holding prisoners, perhaps it's not directly analogous. But in another sense, Israel did send the message that if Hezbollah (or Iran) wants to push them into war, it would only take the kidnapping of 2 individuals to get it done. Maybe that is why the world questioned if their reaction was too strong. Afterall, nobody now claims the US "cut and run" by not bombing Gaza in retaliation for Centanni's and Wiig's kidnappings. We merely said "fuck off" and it worked. May not work everytime, but apparently neither do all-out Iraq or Lebannon style wars.

Lie-berman?

Captain Ed's post at The Captain's Quarters got me thinking about Senator Joe Liberman's ongoing Connecticut Senate campaign.

Lieberman is exploring the many facets of independence in American politics, and the people who forced it on him still express surprise and anger over it. The only surprise here is that they're surprised.

My thoughts on the matter are murky. Not that long ago, I believed party power-brokers would talk Senator Joe into stepping aside gracefully and then his support of the President would be rewarded with a cushy cabinet position. However, that now seems unlikely. Lieberman appears true to his word that he's staying in the race.

I'm an Independent. And I have so many problems with both parties. The thought of an independent senator should intrigue me. But this one doesn't. At least no more so than the presence of Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) or Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) already does.

It's because just like Jeffords or Sanders nobody believes that Lieberman is embarking on a quest to prove there is a 3rd way in American poltics. He just wants to save his job! And this is a rare instance where he can because the Connecticut GOP is so powerless that they can't run a decent campaign even on a split-the-vote strategy. Despite having a GOP governor and a couple of congressmen, no Republican in Connecticut actually supports their own nominee for the Senate seat, Alan Schlessinger. Granted, the guy looks like a dweeb. He's even admitted to large gambling losses just months before the election. But he did win the primary. Is the Connecticut GOP a legitimate politcal organization anymore?

That's why I can't get too excited about Lieberman running or even possibly winning as an Independent. It just smells fishy. Isn't this the same guy who Republicans chided mercilessly just 6 years ago during the "Sore-Loserman" campaign? But now he's suddenly the answer to the problems in American poltics? And, on the other side, if Lieberman really believes his party has left him, then why doesn't he have the guts to leave his party? Or why doesn't his party step up to the plate and show him the boot by promising no chairmanship in a Democratic Senate?

For me, it only adds up to one conclusion -- Lieberman is another hack who likes the power of being a Senator. He realizes there is a good chance the Senate will be evenly divided after the election, or perhaps the Democrats will gain a slim majority by only one vote. If that happens, Senator Joe could give his party affiliation to the highest bidder in the same manner of the spineless Jeffords following the 2002 election. He could go Republican? He could go Democrat? Lie-berman will be looking to see who makes the best offer. Win or lose, Captain Ed, I just can't get too excited about this particular "facet of independence" apparently being explored.

Time for a Change?

It won't be the lead on the news (for surely the tragedy of JonBenet Ramsey's murder some 10 years ago is more important than our troops dying?), but 2 more U.S. soldiers were killed today in Iraq. As with all our fallen heroes, I'm saddened for their sacrifice and pray for their families left behind. I found it a bitter irony that the government of Iraq announced today the release of 55 suspected terror-related detainees who had been held for the past 2 years with no charges, no trials, no lawyers.

So I wanted to reprint this piece from DNC Chairman Howard Dean that appeared today at DailyKos. I didn't support Dean in 2004, but I did attend a rally during the primary season in which he spoke before a good crowd in Atlanta. I found Dean to be a dynamic speaker who comes across as sincere, even if he does shout "ARRRGHHH" from time to time. I may not agree with Dean on many issues, but I don't doubt his principles nearly as much as I have come to question the sincerity of this administartion.

People have had enough. This administration cannot be trusted with our security. Democrats are going to reclaim American leadership with a tough, smart plan to transform failed policies in Iraq, the Middle East and around the world.

We will double the size of Special Forces to destroy Osama Bin Laden and terrorist networks like al Qaeda. We will implement the bipartisan 9/11 Commission proposal to secure America's borders and ports and screen every container. And we will fully man, train, and equip our National Guard and our police, firefighters and other first responders.

When it comes to national security, the Republicans have not led. We will.

---Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. [via email]

P.S. We are spending $8 billion a month in Iraq. That's $2 billion each week, $267 million each day, or $11 million each hour. For what we spend in three weeks, we could make needed improvements in order to properly secure our public transportation systems. For what we spend in five days, we could put radiation detectors in all of our ports. And for two days in Iraq, we could screen all air cargo.

And so, rhetorically, I ask the hawks.... would it really be so disastrous to give the other side a chance to straighten out some of the mess George Bush has made? I'm sure they could leave something of a mess in other areas too. But I also like what I'm hearing from Dean on security. Write him off as another liberal dove if you will, but he proved to me that he was anything but typical in 2004 when he boldly stated he wanted the votes of those with Confederate flags on their truck's bumpers too. I don't have one, but I might if I had a truck! And I'd sure like to see that Iraq money put to better use in providing us real security here in America.

Beating A Dead Horse

As a leading Bush basher and Iraqi war opponent here at TPS and a few other blogs, I continue to feel vindicated by recent events following the taunts by my former GOP allies over the past couple of years.

Firstly, Joe Lieberman calls for Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld to resign on Meet The Press this past Sunday in a desperate attempt to distance himself from Bush. Then Georgie Boy himself completely stumbles through a press conference at the White House yesterday. I think even supporters now may admit that the President seems so flustered about Iraq that he borders on incoherence at times. Did you see him attempt to explain to the press how he didn't mean to suggest Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 after somehow implying just that? Later that same day word broke that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had indeed met with reporter Bob Woodward in June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified that an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame.

And the bad news continues for the White House. Longtime hawk and Iraqi war supporter Senator John McCain is not surprisingly distancing himself from the President. Today he criticized Bush for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be "some kind of day at the beach." Maybe someone was listening to those of us harping on Republican statements like "Mission Accomplished" and the Iraqi insurgency being "in its final throes" afterall. Finally, new poll numbers on Iraq were released today by CNN. Just 35 percent say they favor the war in Iraq and 61 percent oppose it - the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago.

Bad stuff. Jeez! I almost feel like I've beaten this dead horse enough. I almost feel bad for Bush. Almost. You can get up now, Georgie Boy. Pretty soon you can get back on that horse and ride it all the way back to Crawford. We won't miss you!

Swimming In Stupidity

I live in NW Charlotte County, FL, about 1/2 mile from the Sarasota County line. That marks the end of Congressman Mark Foley's turf and the beginning of the 13th Congressional District being vacated by the witch known as Katharine Harris. For my neighbors 2 streets down in the city of North Port, I can think of several reasons not to vote for candidate Tramm Hudson for this solidly Republican seat in the September 5th Florida primary: Hudson is the "big money" guy in the race, he's slung a lot of mud against fellow candidates, and as the outgoing head of the Sarasota GOP he's linked closely to Harris.

That Mr. Hudson is racist is certainly not a reason. The campaign recently made national news when RedState broke this story and posted the accompanying video of Tramm's words during a recent speech.

In 1984 we were in Panama. Our unit was doing a two-week training down there. I commanded an infantry company and we were practicing crossing a river. You know, an infantry company has 140 some-odd soldiers. A large number were black. I grew up in Alabama and I understand and I know this from my own experiences that blacks aren’t the best swimmers or may not even know how to swim. But we were crossing this and wanted to make sure every soldier could swim and if they couldn’t we’d get them across the river.

We had the line across the river and we were making our passage way and one of the black soldiers with his ruck-sack on his back, his weapon and fell from the line and he let go. Sunk down to the bottom of the river. And I’ve got to tell you, it took my breath away. Two of the sergeants manning the boats immediately jumped into the river and pulled that soldier out form below. They gave him mouth-to-mouth resuscitations and we called in a medivac helicopter to take him to the hospital. That soldier could have died. I believe it was divine intervention.

So what does one make of Hudson's story from his Army days? I suppose he hoped to convey his belief that faith has a strong role in the lives of our servicemen. Like any good commander, he was naturally concerned about the safety of his men during tough training in Panama. Hudson appears to be genuinely giddy that a fellow soldier who came so close to death miraculously was saved.

But guess what? Those same words make Tramm Hudson a racist in our ridiculously PC society because he generalized (correctly) that many blacks don't swim well or can't swim at all. After the story broke, Hudson quickly issued a strong apology. He expressed his regret for hurting so many people's feelings. Too bad. Another Al Campanis. It may have been political death, but oh-the-respect I would've gained for Tramm if he stood firm and defended his harmless words.

Never mind that a New York Times article from June 19 2006 stated "black children drown at rates up to five times higher than white children" and "62 percent of the African-Americans surveyed [by the CDC] said that they had limited swimming skills." The NY Times isn't racist, it's liberal and may make the same generalization free of any fallout. Just like when Bill Cosby or Jesse Jackson preach about the breakdown of the black family in the inner city. It's ok because of the color of their skin. Never mind that they live in luxury in the wealthy surburbs of LA and Chicago, of which I and my low-income white family could only dream.

No, Hudson's a Republican. Even worse, Tramm's originally from Alabama. You know he better keep his mouth shut if he wants to get to Congress. White Men Can't Jump....but don't you say anything about a black man not swimming!

Statistics aren't racist, people. They used to be truths, that is until the civil rights, equal rights, human rights, and every other rights movement decided to rewrite the meaning of a good chunk of the English dictionary. That's not to say these movements didn't also achieve noble things, but just like Martin Luther King himself, they're far from the picture of perfection that liberals make them appear to be. I admit, treating an individual like a statistic is not always the best thing to do. But that doesn't make it racist. In fact, in this case it probably saved a man's life. Airport security, anyone?

What is worse in today's world: that soldier dying or having to admit that sometimes unfavorable racial stereotypes are true?

Yeah, I took some "white guy" comments over the years playing pick-up basketball in Atlanta's urban East Point and College Park neighborhods. And guess what? I loved it. Especially after nailing an open look on a backdoor cut to the hoop. But I still couldn't jump!

So Who Won?

A quick post in order to pose the question for readers' comments, "Who won?" A ceasefire is reached in Lebanon after a full month of fighting. Will it last? If not, how long before fighting breaks out once again? And beyond the destruction south Lebanon, what was accomplished?

I've traditionally been an advocate of Israel's right to take pro-active steps in its self-defense. But I felt differently from the very beginning of this latest conflict. With the U.S. already so vulnerable in the Middle East after the debacle of Iraq, I feared Israel's actions would only serve to put us in a weaker position in fighting terror.

And I think it has done just that. Hezbollah can claim to have looked Israel in the eyes and not blinked, a feat which no other Muslim fighting force had accomplished in the past. Hezbollah brought the fight to Israel and defended its homeland while under invasion. I certainly don't support the Islamists' cause here, but I do note that it is now Israel who is left to retreat. Iran and Syria can only grow more confident in the ability of groups like Hezbollah to effectively fight Israel and America on their behalf.

Finally, if you're not as sure as I who won here, I ask this final question. Will Islamic radicals get MORE support or LESS support following the result of this latest conflict? Israel's goal was to cripple Hezbollah. Instead, I'm afraid they just become its greatest recruiting tool ever.

Double Talk

I couldn't resist another quick Iraq war post when I saw this story. To his credit, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Peter Pace stood before 1,300 troops today on his first visit to Fallujah to hear what was on the minds of Marines doing battle with the insurgency.

Unfortunately, it looks like the Marines get the same double talk we get back home:

How much more time, one Marine asked, should the Iraqi government be given to achieve the political unity necessary to stabilize the country?

"I guess they have as long as it takes," Pace replied, quickly adding, "Which is not forever."

Pace argued that setting a deadline by which the United States would withdraw its support would risk pushing the Iraqis into political decisions that are unviable. On the other hand, he said, "You do not want to leave it open ended."

As long as it takes but not forever? No deadline but not open ended? Did George Bush write those lines himself? Afterall, "there's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

None Of The Above

We've had some good and very serious debate on terrorism and the Iraq War of late. So I wanted to take a break and showcase the lighter side of politics. This gem off the newswires recently caught my attention:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A man running for governor and the U.S. Senate does not have the right to use his middle name, "None of the Above," on the November ballot, a court ruled Friday. David Gatchell filed a lawsuit in Davidson County Chancery Court after the State Election Commission voted to nix his middle name from the ballot.

He argues that a number of state gubernatorial candidates - such as Walt "Combat" Ward and Carl "Twofeathers" Whitaker - have been allowed to include their nicknames on ballots, and that his middle name has been widely reported by news media and is known across the Internet.

Gatchell, 58, also ran as an independent in the 2002 governor's race on the platform that Tennessee election ballots should include a "None of the Above" choice for voters who don't care for any of the candidates. He won less than 1 percent of the vote. Nevada is the only state to offer a choice of "None of the Above," beginning in 1976.

Ah, populism at its finest. I'm curious of the reaction from our resident critic in that department. But I love the balls of this dork Gatchell running as a challenger for Governor and Senator simultaneously. Is that even legal? It does make a good point, however. I always lose respect for real politicians who hedge their bets in the same manner. Joe Lieberman, are you listening?

And how about how the writer seemingly discounting Gatchell getting "less than 1 percent of the vote?" Such wording implies he actually received some votes other than his own. Personally, I don't care if he got half of a half of a half of 1 percent. That's a victory in my mind. Imagine being able to cast a vote that literally reads "None Of The Above?" Like a SAT question. Sweet. I'm jealous that I can't do so here in Florida!

N.B. - I realize this is the 1000th post here at The Political Spectrum. Even though this is only my 19th entry (hey, it's almost 2 percent!), I think it's somewhat appropriate that the "Johnny Come Lately" write the 1000th entry because for most of the past 2 years I've been a TPS reader. And I happen to think this is a great blog and want to congratulate its creators on the achievment, even though I'm quickly realizing I'm the only contributor here who consistently catches arrows from both ends of the spectrum!

But that's fine with me. Because I read blogs like Captain's Quarters and Daily Kos on a daily basis. And they're always interesting reads. Yet speaking as an independent, neither matches my current approach to politics. I think the Republicans are wrong 50% of the time and that the Democrats are mistaken the other 50% of the time. And I dislike how the majority of other quality, politically-themed blogs invariably become very clannish to one particular mindset.

However, this never seems a problem here at TPS. And I think everyone wins because of the existence of a forum for such diversity - writers, readers, and commenters alike. When we get into it, any and all sides better duck and be prepared to come out swinging. And I love that. There's rarely an issue that can't produce some kind of back-and-forth. I think we all have earned the right to say, "If only the politcal debate in the halls of Congress could match the energy and intellect seen here." I applaud my colleagues who have created this fun atmosphere. Let's keep it going!

My Rant - I'm Sick of It!

I'll begin this rant by commending the work of British intelligence in foiling the recent Islamic terror plot on transatlantic flights. And I also understand the need for implementing new travel restrictions both in the UK and here in the US. But I do have a few additional thoughts on the matter.

I'm officially sick of the war on terror. I don't care who is winning and who is losing. We're all losing. I think a new approach is needed. I don't expect Bush or any other presidential frontrunner to actually take this approach, but here's my suggestion nonetheless. Let's give up. I mean it. I'm ready to give up on that pathetic little corner of the world altogether. I would withdraw all troops from the Middle East immediately. They don't want us there. And I'm sick of US lives and money being wasted there.

But what about oil? Firstly, as Iraq proves, our oil rescources are not even benefitting from our presence in the Middle East. It's still as tenuous as ever. These nations will continue to sell us oil because what else are they going to do with it? If they want Western money (and even Bin Laden wants that) they'll continue to offer oil to the West at rates we can pay.

What about the message we'd be sending to the terrorists? I actually like the message. It basically says "fuck off." Because the real emeny of people like al Quada is not the US. Instead, it is pro-Western governments in the Muslim world. I'm sick and tired of US troops and now US citizens serving as surrogates for their real enemies. If we pull out of the Middle East, Muslim governments will have no choice but to crush these groups for their own self-preservation. And we all know that they'll use successful tactics that we'd never be bold enough to employ even in our darkest moments in Abu Gharib. If not and if the people in that corner of the world honestly want terrorists to represent them, so be it. They can do whatever they want with that armpit of the world which appears to want to live like it's the year 1200.

I guess I'm just pissed and I don't know what to make of all this shit. But I will continue to value my freedom over my security, even if that apparently makes me different from most Americans. And remember, people, here's yet another example where a liberal Labor government in the UK led by a Bill Clinton clone, Tony Blair, is leading the fight against terror and doing a good job. More proof that there are alternatives to the GOP.

A Taste of Elections

Confident that it would make for some good debate here at TPS, I wanted to post a brief wrap-up of the major primary elections from Tuesday. Naturally, I begin with the Connecticut Senate race where Democratic challenger Ned Lamont defeated incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman by a 52% to 48% margin. Firstly, we should note the historic nature of this vote and how it only adds to the likelihood that 2006 will prove to be a watershed election, as some of us have been saying for 18 months now. Lieberman is only the 4th sitting senator to lose a primary for reelection since 1980. Even various senators suffering harsh downfalls like Daschle, Packwood, and Robb managed to avoid that fate.

Personally, I'm pleased to see Lieberman rejected by his own party. And I give Connecticut voters credit for not buying the typical incumbent tactics like "I know how the system works." Bullshale. A good senator can become a power broker in his or her 1st term in office. And a really good one can accomplish their goals in 1 or 2 terms and still know when it is time to walk away. Anyway, blame should be shared for the administration's failures in Iraq. George Bush indeed chose that the Iraq War should define his presidency - for better or for worse. Those in Congress had a choice too. And the ones who backed Bush with few questions raised and little oversight offered (such as Senator Joe) should now bear some responsibility too.

Apart from the issue of Iraq, I don't see much difference between sending Lamont or Lieberman to the Senate. Let's see how the idea of Lieberman running as an Independent in the general election plays out. I still think that Joe's too much of an insider to go through with it. I wouldn't be surprised if a deal is brokered that keeps him out of the race. Lieberman could end up with a plush cabinet position to wind up his career in DC and reward his support for Bush's Iraq policies. And don't let the public comments of Republican strategists fool you here. Neither party EVER wants to see any candidate successfully buck the very system that supports the whole racket. The GOP knows the Connecticut race is unwinnable to their candidate under any and all scenarios that may play out later this fall.

The other result getting significant press is the defeat of Cynthia McKinney in Georgia. I wouldn't read too much into this result. McKinney's DeKalb County district again grew tired of her antics. They've done it before. The vote had nothing to do with McKinney's stance on the Middle East, nor with any other issue of substance. This district is solidly Democrat and the vote only reflects an overflow of embarrassment from that notorious right hook the Congresswoman threw at a Capitol policeman a few months ago. But voters have short memories. If funding to the district grows dry, don't be surprised to see Cynthia sent back to Washington. I'll miss her there myself. And I fear for the residents of Georgia with her back in the Peach State. Perhaps K Street will come calling and keep Decatur safe?

Finally, this is my favorite result from the primaries that took place in 5 states yesterday:

In Michigan, Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz, a moderate who supports abortion rights, was defeated by conservative Tim Walberg, a former state lawmaker. The race has drawn more than $1 million from outside groups; Schwarz has received support from President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

With Bush and McCain having unsuccessfully rallied to Schwarz's defense, the GOP must see this as a vulnerable hold in the general election. That being the case, much like in Connecticut, I'm glad Michigan voters rejected the usual crap from party leadership and took a stand. If it's a toss-up then let the general race be one that involves principle - rather than insider power and big money. Walberg may well have a tough time of it this year. But it will be candidates like him who will be needed in the future once the Republican party finally decides to clean out its own house, or, more likely, once the voters decide to do it for them this November!

Grumpy Old Man

Did you see yesterday's heated exchange between Senator Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld? It was a good one. I don't think I've ever been more impressed with Hillary Clinton. Come to think of it, it may be the only time I've ever been impressed with her.

Senator Clinton on Thursday called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign, hours after excoriating him at a public hearing over what she called "failed policy" in Iraq.

I can hear the critics at TPS already. Yes, I'm well-aware that Hillary is coming over to the good side on the issue of Iraq a little late. And I hope the decision to back the administration's flawed policies comes back to haunt her during the 2008 election, just as it surely will Senator McCain and other leading GOP contenders. But I give Senator Clinton credit for at least making her stand now. If nothing else, even Republicans should respect the political saavy of Ms. Clinton and ought to note the timing of her changing tune.

The defense secretary rejected some of her specific criticisms as simply wrong and said the war against terror will be a drawn-out process. He said he never glossed over the difficulties of the fighting.

"I have never painted a rosy picture," Rumsfeld aid. "I've been very measured in my words, and you'd have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I've been excessively optimistic."

Don't you just love hearing the 70-something-year-old Rumsfeld talking about having "a dickens of a time." It's cute - except when you realize that this man's failures have indirectly contributed to thousands of American deaths. C'mon Rummy. Are you really going to make me do that Lexis-Nexis search to find the hundreds of "rosy pictures" you indeed painted from 2003-2005?

Like the infamous "Mission Accomplished," for example. Or your mocking of the press for asking about the chances of "guerrila warfare" or "civil war" back in 2003? That Lexis-Nexis search is heating up already!

No, our mission remains no more accomplished in Iraq today as in 2003 when George Bush declared a victory in front of that ridiculous banner. Even your own top generals are now admitting that a civil war is likely. And there's no need to detail further the tragedy of how many American boys have died since 2003 fighting what is very much a guerilla-type war. But I agree with Hillary in that at least one mission can still be accomplished with your resignation, Mr. Rumsfeld.

And For the Right

With Fidel Castro in the hospital and Cuba back in the news, I saw this on Lou Dobbs tonight. Sure, I know there's a lot more to the issue, but these numbers sure do raise questions. And it's especially odd when you consider the different ways we treat these 2 nations who comprise 40% of the world's 5 remaining Communist states:

China - population 1.3 billion
Cuba - population 11 million

China - Army of 1.3 million
Cuba - Army of 60,000

China - trade surplus with the US of $200 billion
Cuba - trade deficit with the US of $370 million

"We believe that the Cuban people aspire and thirst for democracy and that given the choice they would choose a democratic government," US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormacks said today.

Are not the Chinese thirsty too? I understand that we can't influence a nation of 1.3 billion half a world away as easily as we can one of 11 million only 90 miles away. But I do think we can (and should) do more with China to promote freedom and discourage oppression, even if still avoiding a general crusade for Chinese democracy.

Cause we sure do love those cheap hats, watches, and radios from China that are on sale now in your local Wal-Mart!

Equal Time for the Left

Shame on Senate Democrats. Shame on the party of Bill Clinton who famously said abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." Perhaps they only believe in the "legal" part of that trio, afterall? State restrictions involving parental notification are well-established as being within constitutional bounds under Roe and Casey. However, although Democrats reject states' rights in all other forms (including the very decision of whether abortion should be legal in a state), suddenly those same Senate Democrats are gung-ho for a state's self-determination when it helps promote abortion by using state lines to avoid otherwise legal restrictions on children having abortions.

From Bob Novak's latest column linked above...

Public signs of rare bipartisan cooperation on the superheated issue of abortion last Tuesday proved an illusion, when the Democratic leadership blocked a bill to strengthen state restrictions.

Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, sponsor of a bill prohibiting transportation across state lines to avoid a state's parental notification or consent laws, worked out one amendment with liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. Such a bill had passed the House many times, but never before won Senate approval. The 65-to-34 vote was approved by 14 Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (but not Boxer).

However, when a routine motion was made to send the measure to a conference resolving differences with the House bill, Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin objected. Since polls show 80 percent national approval of this kind of legislation, Ensign has called for public pressure against Democratic obstruction. If that does not work, attempted parliamentary maneuvers would be long and difficult.

I can't believe this issue is even under consideration. So let's see: You can't drink until you're 21. You can't own a gun until you're 18. You can't drive a car until you're 16. And we're not concerned about the deprivation of individual freedoms because we as a society have to protect our children. But when it concerns getting an abortion, let us not treat a child like, say, a child! Are you crazy? You should be able to have an abortion anytime you want. Just tell Mom that you're going to Jenny's house for a sleepover and you get your little butt across that state line. The good doctor will then take of you and nobody will ever know it happened.

Except maybe your conscience and God. But who cares about them anymore? And so the great tragedy of our time continues.