The Hillary Playbook and How to Counter It

Because I am a junkie of politics I subscribe to email lists of all persuasions. As such, I found myself on Hillary Clinton's email list. (This started initially when I wrote her an email about the absurdity of her mortgage bailout. Because I needed to put my name and email in my address I found myself on her list) Here is an email I just received from her campaign.

Running for president means asking a lot of people to put their faith in you -- and putting your faith in a lot of people. You've never let me down, and my promise to you has always been this: if you put your faith in me, I will fight for you every day when I'm president.

When I get to the White House, I'll end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home. I'll stop the cowboy diplomacy and Bush's war on science. I'll reverse the attacks on our Constitution and civil liberties. I'll ask the Congress to send me everything that Bush vetoed, like stem cell research and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

From day one, I'll be fighting for you, because America needs a clean and decisive break from seven years of George Bush. Not one of the Republican candidates is capable of making that happen. They're all promising four more years of the same failed policies. They see Bush's failure in Iraq and want to continue it. They see failure of leadership on the economy and want to repeat it. They see his assault on civil liberties and the disgraces of Guantanamo and want to carry them on.

Now, since this is meant for Democratic primary voters we can disregard the digs at Bush and look merely at the substance of what Hillary is saying.

She first says this about Iraq...

I'll end the war in Iraq?

My question is immediately when. Here is what Hillary Clinton said in a previous debate about pulling out of Iraq.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting,"

She went on not to commit to pulling out of Iraq before her first term were to end. Thus, while she gives her supporters the impression that she makes pulling out of Iraq a priority, she also doesn't even commit to pulling out of Iraq until after 2013. This dichotomy of positions is so easy to attack that I don't know where to begin. This is of course perfect for any advertisement. Also, depending what she says in any debate, her other position can also be used to bludgeon her.

Then, Hillary points out that Bush has conducted a war on science and mentions stem cell research. Here, like most Bush opponents on this matter, Hillary simply mischaracterizes Bush's position on the matter. Bush is not and never has been against stem cell research. In fact, the Bush administration has been funding stem cell research since 2001.

In a much-anticipated decision on what he called a "complex and difficult issue," President Bush on Thursday night said he would allow federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines.

Bush said there are about 60 existing stem cell lines in various research facilities -- cell lines that have already been derived from human embryos.

The president stopped short of allowing federal funding for research using stem cells derived from frozen embryos, about 100,000 of which exist at fertility labs across the country.

The question for the Bush administration always involved EMBRYONIC stem cells. Clinton doesn't say EMBRYONIC stem cells but rather an all encompassing stem cell research. Bush's position is that he doesn't want the federal government to fund research in which human life is created solely so that it can be destroyed and studied. Since this is a much more difficult position to attack, folks like Clinton try to inaccurately paint Bush as against stem cell research altogether. In this situation, as in any in which someone is not saying something accurate, Hillary needs to be confronted with the truth and see how she deals with it then. First, she must be held accountable for her mischaracterization of Bush's position. She isn't the only one and at this point I am sick of everyone mischaracterizing Bush. If you have to mischaracterize your opponents, then how strong can your position be?

Second, Clinton has to be confronted with this...if she is all right with science creating life solely so that it is destroyed, at what point does she see science as going too far? Is she against cloning for instance? After all, there are a lot of exciting possibilities in cloning? If she has no problem creating life to destroy in the name of science, why would she have a problem with cloning life in the name of science? Where would scientific research stop and morality and ethics start in her administration?

Next, she says that she would end the so called assault on civil liberties and mentions Gitmo by name. Since she doesn't specifiy which assualts, we can only assume that she means things like enhanced interrogations, warrantless wiretaps, military tribunals, and of course Gitmo altogether. Since she finds Gitmo so especially obscene, my first question would be where those prisoners would go. Most of their home countries don't want them. Does she plan on trying them in our own federal system? Does she understand that terrorists routinely kill the friends and families of those that they see as turning against them? Does she understand that any witnesses against any terrorist in any open court would immediately have their lives threatened? Given that, how exactly does she expect any terrorist to be convicted in any federal court?

As for enhanced interrogations and warrantless wiretapping, this creates another opportunity to paint Hillary as weak on national defense. First, I have always found the entire debate about warrantless wiretapping to be quite absurd. I don't know any other time in the history of warfare in which the President needed a judge's permission to spy on the enemy. Thus, proclaiming that the Commander in Chief is destroying civil liberties because he is spying on the enemy without a judge's permission is to me absurd. On a political level, it can be painted, rightfully so, as weak on national defense. Most of the Republican candidates have, rightly so, not identified what techniques they will and won't allow because then you are telegraphing that to the enemy. By coming out against Bush, as she has, Clinton has in fact told the enemy what she won't use. Because she sees anything outside basic police interrogation protocol as an erosion of civil rights, the enemy can prepare for the basic interrogation techniques that she will allow. This gives Republicans yet another chance to paint her as weak on national defense.

Now, anyone of us that knows Hillary knows that this is only scratching the surface as far as attacks on her, however since she has chosen to highlight these things to her supporters we can assume that these are her priorities, and this is how these priorities ought to be countered.

News and Views from Iraq and the Rest of the GWOT

Here is the latest from Michael Totten...

Fallujah today is an impoverished ramshackle mess, but it's not a war zone anymore. In 2004 it was by far the worst place in the country. It was still a hotbed of insurgent activity as recently as the first half of 2007.

“The unit we relieved was monitoring the city, watching the city,” Corporal Koch said. “We took that over from them. Then we started our push. It was a couple of months before the regular civilians got back in the city.”

“Months after you came in?” I said.

“We came in in November, on November 6th,” he said. “It took about two or three weeks altogether. The civilians stayed out of the city for another month or month and a half after that. We were still doing operations then, but it wasn't an all out push. It was just cleaning up. It was loose ends. Weapons caches. Just basically getting this place ready for the civilians to come back in. We made sure people weren't going into their homes while they were rigged to blow.”

The latest from Omar...

Unlike previous operations, this one is different in that the troops were sent following a request submitted to the government by the department of Sunni
endowment, an entity in charge of overseeing Sunni mosques and other religious activities. The chief of the Sunni endowment, Sheikh Ahmed Abdul Ghafour Samarraie, is a moderate Sunni cleric who has renounced the insurgency and explicitly accused the association of assisting al-Qaeda by justifying their murderous attacks against Iraqis.

For four years now we’ve been waiting for this to happen. This al-Qaeda apologist, so-called association of Muslim scholars had to be dealt with and honestly it was frustrating to see them operate freely when the damage they caused was widely known, in nature if not in extent.

This incident, I believe, is not to be seen as abstract and it’s no coincidence that the raid on their office came amid efforts to prosecute corrupt officials from Sadr’s movement and the Fadheela Party. The list includes the former deputy minister of health, a Sadr follower who’s been accused of running sectarian death squads and the chief of the integrity committee in the parliament; a member of the Fadheela Party which is believed to be involved in massive oil smuggling operations in the south. He is now about to lose parliamentary immunity over corruption charges.

Bill Roggio gives us the latest in a battle in Afghanistan to retake a Taliban stronghold.

The battle for the Taliban stronghold of Musa Qala in the southern Afghan province of Helmand is well underway. Officially launched on December 7, international and Afghan forces have prepped the battlefield for well over a month. A British armored column launched a feint to the outskirts of the town in mid-November and leaflets have been dropped on the town warning civilians to flee the impending attack.

The final assault on Musa Qala began after the Afghan government convinced a key Taliban tribal leader to defect. Last month there were reports Mullah Abdul Salaam was seeking to negotiate a deal with the Afghan government. The Times Online reported Salaam has indeed defected to the Afghan government, and "brought with him up to one-third of the fighters who had been defending Musa Qala."

British spy chiefs have weighed in with their skepticism over the latest NIE report on Iran.

The timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British Government, where officials believe it has undermined efforts to impose tough new sanctions on Iran and made an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities more likely.

The security services in London want concrete evidence to allay concerns that the Islamic state has fed disinformation to the CIA.

The report used new evidence - including human sources, wireless intercepts and evidence from an Iranian defector - to conclude that Teheran suspended the bomb-making side of its nuclear programme in 2003. But British intelligence is concerned
that US spy chiefs were so determined to avoid giving President Bush a reason to go to war - as their reports on Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes did in Iraq - that they got it wrong this time.

The Washington Post reports today that members of Congress including Nancy Pelosi were briefed on interrogation techniques at Gitmo including waterboarding.

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of
the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

Gordon Brown has declared the war in Iraq over for the remaining British troops in Iraq.

The PM was cheered as he praised UK troops and revealed combat operations in Basra will end “within two weeks”.

Iraqi forces will take over as the 4,500-strong British force switches from front-line duties to a training role.

By early next year, our contingent in Southern Iraq will be cut to 2,500 – and may be withdrawn completely in March.

In a not unsurprising turn of events, the Pakistan elections are being challenged on fairness grounds.

Pakistan's election campaign began in earnest Monday, a day after former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif dropped threats to boycott the balloting to protest the authoritarian rule of President Pervez Musharraf.

Sharif embarked on a tour of the country to stump for his Pakistan Muslim League-N party, even though election authorities have rejected his own candidacy.

The two-time prime minister was to address a rally Monday in the central city of Faisalabad and proceed to Multan, Rawalpindi, Quetta, Karachi and Peshawar in coming days, party officials said...

There you have the updated goings on from most of the hotspots of the war on terror.

Rudy On Leadership, the GWOT, Healthcare and More

I had a chance to see Rudy Giuliani speak at the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame in Chicago on Friday. While I don't necessarily have too much reference point, I do believe that in most ways this was much like any campaign towhall meeting and speech. It was still quite illuminating nevertheless.

I believe you can tell a lot about a candidate's agenda by what they focus on during such a meeting. The first policy that Rudy spoke about was illegal immigration and how important it is to finally get a handle on it. His newfound commitment towards combatting illegal immigration will no doubt be met with skepticism and controversy by many of my conservative colleagues. Unfortunately, it is one of those debates that is in many ways pointless. There will be plenty that will look at his prior New York City record and concluded based on past performance that he isn't serious. There will be those like me that will look at his current plan for illegal immigration and say he always gets accomplished what he sets his mind on. His plan involves beefing up the border patrol, building a fence technological and real, and creating a tamper proof ID card. Thus, take it for what it is worth.

His thoughts on the GWOT were no doubt general. His first thought vis a vis the GWOT is that we must stay on offense. This has became his calling cry with regards to this issue. He believes in victory in Iraq and he defined that as an Iraq that is an ally not an enemy in the GWOT. He believes that it is NOT an option to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. He also mentioned that Pakistan must be worked on though frankly besides vague ideas his plan was short on specifics. Some might take this as a sign that he may not be the right person however I would humbly disagree. Rudy has a long and very successful history in confronting and beating bad guys. As U.S. Attorney, he took on and defeated the mafia in his district. As Mayor of New York City, he took on the criminals and beat them lowering crime dramatically. He has a history of taking on bad guys. He has a history of beating them. While the terrorists may not be a perfect comparison to the bad guys he has a history of beating, his prior accomplishments can't be ignored when determining the best terror warrior.

The most fascinating portion of the meeting, for me, came in his answer regarding health insurance. Rudy's plan to revolutionize health care is entirely conservative. The hallmarks are lower taxes, health savings accounts, and market principles. He believes that much of the problem comes in the fact that people don't usually choose their own health insurance. Since most get it through work, it is essentially chosen for them. As such, when it comes to health insurance, people aren't the dutiful consumers that they are towards other products and services. Through credits, tax breaks, and health savings accounts, Rudy believes that individuals will be able to not only buy their own health insurance but at a lower cost than they normally do. In many ways, Rudy's vision of health care mirrors that of John Stossel's. Consumers drive down the price of everything and drive up the quality, and we must give the consumer choice back to the individual. He does it through health savings accounts, credits, and tax breaks. He also pointed out that our litigious society has created an environment of defensive medicine and higher costs. He proposed that the loser of any lawsuit must pay for the costs of both parties to limit many of the more egregious lawsuits.

On taxes and spending, Rudy tried to wake up the echos of Ronald Reagan. He stressed over and over his commitment to limiting the size of government. It was his solution to a whole host of economic related problems. He pointed out that limiting the size of government is largely done through leadership. He pointed out that none of his deputies in New York City ever came to him asking to make the budget for their respective department smaller. Thus, it was ultimately up to him, the Mayor, to stand firm in limiting the size of government even if he had to take on his own administration to do it.

He spoke about productive and unproductive taxes. An unproductive tax is one that is among the most extreme when compared to the civilized world. For instance, he pointed out that our corporate income tax is one of the highest in the entire civilized world. He said that if we merely lowered our tax so that is closer to the middle not at the top that it would keep a lot of the business we lose. He said his tax policy would focus on identifying and lowering those taxes that he determined to be unproductive.

He ended the meeting with an answer to something dear to my heart, the mortgage crisis. He said that he thought Paulson's plan to freeze rates was a good idea. I was quite put off by this question, and and if you want to know why please read this. He also said something very interesting right afterwards. He said that he believed that it was a good idea especially in light of pending Congressional action. I took this to mean that this was the least of two evils. If freezing rates means halting action on such things as H.R. 3915, then while it is still not a good idea it might be better than the alternative.

He was asked how he would confront the mortgage crisis, and this he answered perfectly. He pointed out that the duty of the President is NOT to focus on any given segment of the market but rather to be a proper momentum builder for the economy as a whole. He believed that shrinking government and waste would not only strengthen the economy but the housing market. One can take this as a canned answer, and to some extent it is, however I personally find it a positive that a Presidential candidate doesn't feel the uncontrollable urge to tinker with every portion of the economy that may be going wrong at any given time.

The meeting was revealing not only for what he said but what he didn't say. There was absolutely nothing about any social issues. Clearly, Rudy is trying to downplay his socially liberal record as much as possible and frankly his supporters didn't much care because there were no questions. I was surprised that he didn't touch at all on judges as well, though I assume his public unabashed support for strict constructionists holds. He also said nothing about guns or the environment as well. Rudy took out a lamenated card that had his twelve commitments. That is where I believe his focus will be in his administration. If you are worried about Rudy's position on any matter, check the twelve commitments. If that position isn't on there that, it is unlikely his administration will spend much time on the issue anyway.

All in all, I found Rudy to be quite charismatic and charming, still maybe not quite Mike Huckabee, but charismatica and charming nonetheless. At one point, a voter revealed that not only was he a supporter but also a registered Democrat. Rudy, spontaneously, came over and gave the man a big bear hug. I continue to maintain my support for him, and all reasons stand. He is a proven leader. He has a proven track record. He has a proven history of shrinking government, cutting waste, cutting taxes, expanding choice, and confronting bad guys. In this day and age, I believe that is exactly what we need.

Dems and Iraq: Rock Meet Hard Place

Here is the latest "good" news out of Iraq as reported by the New York Times yesterday.

As Iraqi refugees begin to stream back to Baghdad, American military officials say the Iraqi government has yet to develop a plan to absorb the influx and prevent it from setting off a new round of sectarian violence.

The Iraqi government lacks a mechanism to settle property disputes if former residents return to Baghdad only to find their homes occupied, the officials said. Nor has the Iraqi government come forward with a detailed plan to provide aid, shelter and other essential services to the thousands of Iraqis who might return. American commanders caution that if the return is not carefully managed, there is a risk of undermining the recent security gains.

“All these guys coming back are probably going to find somebody else living in their house,” said Col. William Rapp, a senior aide to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, speaking at a two-day military briefing on measuring military trends for a small group of American reporters in Baghdad...

But Mike, that isn't good news... Sure it is. This is, after all, the New York Times. If all they can find in the way of bad news is the government's troubles in dealing with refugees. Well, that frankly is good news. Our goals in Iraq were to remove Saddam, install a representative government, and turn Iraq from an enemy into an ally in the GWOT. None of that has anything to do with their refugee situation. That is, with all due respect, entirely the internal problem of the Iraqi government. If the government fails in such tasks as dealing with refugees, well then, the Iraqis will quickly grow as cynical toward their elected officials as we do here. So what. That has nothing to do with any of our goals in the country. The good news is that the New York Times can't actually find any real bad news.

On the same day, we also had vocal war opponent Jack Murtha say this.

Murtha said he saw signs of progress and continuing chaos during his one day in Iraq. A hospital he visited had been hit by a mortar attack the day before, but more parts of the country are peaceful than before, and Iraqi troops in the Al Anbar province are rooting out the remnants of al-Qaida in their area, he said…

Murtha said that “surge” of troops is working, but it only underscores how poor planning from the Bush administration has hamstrung the war effort. Other examples include the slow response to protecting troops from roadside bombs and a shortage...

Despite the expected caveats, Murtha couldn't deny reality. The surge is working. Violence is down. Iraqis: Sunni, Shia, Kurd, and all others are turning against the insurgency and are working with our side. Even the Daily Kos is starting to admit reality.

As U.S. casualties have continued to drop, many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have begun to quietly panic in recent days over this question: "Could George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan have possibly been right about the surge?"

Simply put, the answer is no. The surge is not working and George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan were not right. Despite what right-wing blogs are saying, and despite what conservative observers are noting, the plunge in violence is actually the result of an Iraqi political decision made by and implemented by Iraqis—and the drop has little to do with the "surge"—an infusion of 30,000 troops (which wouldn’t fill a Major League stadium) into Baghdad, a city of six million people...

It may in fact be desperately important for the Kossacks to prove to the world that the improved situation has nothing to do with the surge, however in reality, the arguement is silly, because it is not relevant. First, Bush's legacy will be set by history. Second, in the next election Bush won't be on the ticket.

Several anti war Democrats will be though. An entire Congress that tried to stop the surge before it got started will be. Let's take them one at a time...

Hillary Clinton

I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief...“In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view end up on the downside.’’

Barack Obama

I will not support funding for a failed policy. It is long past time for the Republicans to stop filibustering a responsible removal of our troops from Iraq, and for the President to stop threatening to veto anything that is not a blank check for his failed strategy.

"Our troops must not bear the burden for the failure of Iraq's leaders to reconcile, nor should they be kept in Iraq to counter Iran.

Harry Reid

I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week...

Nancy Pelosi

No statistic can capture the pain and loss endured by the families of the fallen in Iraq, particularly the children of parents who will not be returning home. Those who have lost loved ones, and those still serving in Iraq and around the world, are in our thoughts and prayers every day as we work to bring an end to the President’s disastrous war.

"While nothing compares to the loss of life in Iraq, the financial costs of the President’s policy are enormous and growing, with $10 billion being spent each and every month of the war. The total cost for the Bush Administration’s Iraq war could rise as high as $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office

"With every passing day, the President’s Iraq policy leaves the United States more isolated at a time when we must reclaim our moral leadership and rally the world to fight against terrorism. The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment of our troops and the President’s plan to spend another trillion dollars for a 10-year war in Iraq."

So, every Democratic leader is now on record as believing that what is happening would NOT happen. They called a policy failed before they even had time to assess it. They are now stuck between the perverbial rock and perverbial hard place. They must now convince the country that what is real isn't actually real.

That's why they are all fixated on the benchmarks which haven't been met. The Dems are reaching for anything out of Iraq that looks like bad news. It is a very difficult arguement to make though. It is hard to convince the public the surge isn't working because the central government hasn't reached agreement on some pre determined goals. Second, this is becoming more and more General Petreaus' war. Thus, in order to prove failure when there is success, they will ultimately have to show the country more credibility on this matter than General Petreaus (who they incidentally voted unanimously to install less than a year ago).

I pointed out that the Republicans are not in a great position either because they are handcuffed to a war that will likely never be popular, however their perverbial "pickle" is much easier to navigate. Here is how they are currently navigating it.

The 2008 Republican presidential candidates have a simple position on the war in Iraq: They want victory, and they want to talk about something else.

With the notable exception of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), they echo President Bush, and say the United States must remain in Iraq for an unspecified period until the country is stable, and that leaving before then would be a victory for al-Qaeda.

But they usually only say that when asked. The two leading candidates in Iowa, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts governor MittRomney, occasionally give entire speeches without even using the word "Iraq."

Unlike the Democratic candidates, who have competed over who can offer the most precise plan for withdrawing troops as president, the GOP candidates have offered limited visions about how they see Iraq's future, choosing instead to focus on howthey would enlarge the U.S. military to fight the broader war on terrorism.

The Reps want to minimize Iraq as an issue as much as possible. That maybe the appropriate strategy now, however as the war continues to get better, and especially after Petreaus' next report in March, this issue may even turn into a benefit for the Reps. All those quotes will be damning if our casualties fall into the teens or even single digits by the next election after all. For the Reps, the trick is easy. Divorce yourself from the failed strategy that Bush employed (relatively easy since it was Bush's strategy after all, and Bush isn't the first President to start with a failed war strategy, see Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Washington, etc.) Continue to back the current strategy and contrast that with the defeatist strategy that the Democrats are now married to.

The Changing Dynamics of the War in Iraq and Its Political Ramifications

Rick Moran wrote an amazing piece yesterday that really breaks down the situation currently going on in Iraq. If you have a chance, please read it. If you don't, here is a summary. There is no doubt that there has been some success since the institution of the surge. That said, Iraq remains an unbelievably complex place with all sorts of moving parts with varying agendas, and it is impossible to predict if our current success will transfer into ultimate success with all of these parts.

This is all no doubt true however I would also add that I believe that our forces have accomplished the most difficult part of the task so far, and that they have my full confidence in accomplishing the rest. It was fascinating and peculiar that former General Rick Sanchez gave the Democratic response to Bush's weekly radio address this past weekend. After all, the Democrats railed on Rumsfeld's failed Iraq plan and Sanchez was instrumental in its implementation. In 1864, former failed Union General George McClellan ran for the Democratic ticket. While I have no doubt there are eyes rolling, there are some peculiar similarities.

There are now two concurrent and divergent realities going on vis a vis Iraq. The first is that things are improving and the second is that this is a war that the public will NEVER like. This makes Iraq a paradigm politically for both parties. The Republicans are hand cuffed to a perpetually unpopular war and the Democrats are hand cuffed to defeat in an improving situation. It appears neither side wins in this case.

There is also great irony in the political framing that each party is taking vis a vis Iraq. For instance, Carl Levin represented the Democrats in the Iraq War debate on FNS. Here is some of what he said.

Well, it shows an improvement on the military side, but the president's policy very specifically had as its purpose — the surge's purpose was to give the Iraqi political leaders the breathing space to work out a political settlement, and that purpose has not been achieved.

They're just as far apart as ever. And I think there's a growing frustration with the Maliki government, even among our own military leaders, for the Maliki government's failure to make political improvements. That growing frustration is reflected in a State Department bulletin that just came out which said that the greatest threat which now exists in Iraq is no longer Al Qaeda, it is not the insurgency of the Sunni insurgency, it is not the militias.

The greatest threat to any success in Iraq is the failure of the Iraqi politicians to work out their political differences.

Senator Lindsey Graham represented the Republicans and here is some of what he said.

It's working amazingly well, beyond my expectations. I think history will judge the surge as probably the most successful counterinsurgency military operation in history.

Violence is down. Economic activity is up. It's not just about more troops. It's how the troops are used. So hats off to General Petraeus and all under his command. You're making military history and a phenomenal success. I was amazed, really.

Here is the irony. Both parties have maintained their overall assessments for much of the war. The Republicans are optimistic and the Democrats are pessimistic. That is true, however they have swapped their measures. Remember for years, despite all the violence Bush continued to point to political benchmarks: elections, the constitution, the formation of the government, etc. as signs that we were still succeeding, and the Democrats just pointed to the next car bomb. Now, since there are no car bombs, the Republicans are pointing to that, and the Democrats are pointing to the lack of political progress.

Now, if electoral history is any judge, the Republicans now hold the edge. The Democrats must convince the folks that we are losing when we are winning, while the Republicans must divorce themselves from Bush. More and more, the Iraq War is becoming the war of General David Petraeus. He will soon become the face of it almost entirely and the Democrats will likely counter with Generals that weren't in the theater or were there during years of failure.

The Republicans have no easy task either. Tying yourself to a neverending and deeply unpopular war is no easy task. Of course, Nixon proved that this position can still be better than calling defeat. The person in best position to use Iraq is John McCain. He called failure when there was failure and success as soon as that happened as well. Furthermore, no one has more credibility on military issues among politicians.

Hillary Clinton appears to be the weakest on Iraq political, at least to me (and my opinion is certainly slanted). She has had moving positions and at this point continues to not only defend her initial vote but also propose a vague withdrawal plan that has no definite end. That frankly ultimately pleases no one. Barack Obama is a bit stronger since he merely defends a withdrawal plan that is more forceful however ultimately pretty vague as well. He is, in my opinion, a totaly foreign policy light weight and I just can't see the voting public being impressed with foreign policy experience amounting to a few years spent overseas as a youth.

The next major event that will affect the politics of Iraq, in my opinion, comes in March. That is when General David Petraeus presents his next progress report. The last one was overshadowed by the Betray Us ad. It's other main highlight was Hillary Clinton claiming that believing there was progress required a "willing suspension of disbelief". If progress was difficult to see then, it will be darn near impossible to ignore then, again in my opinion only. The last three months we have seen a reduction in coalition casualties, Iraqi military casualties, and Iraqi civilian casualties. I believe that November will be month number four and if the trajectory holds it will be seven months of decreasing violence by the time he speaks to Congress.

The genius of Petraeus is that he has developed a plethora of measurements for progress. He develops so much data that accountants would probably get lost in it: deaths, violent events, business openings, recruitments, elections, etc. There is a statistic for just about everything. Given that progress was only beginning to show in September, the numbers will be nothing short of startling in March.

The Democrats will no doubt continue to point to political progress. By political progress, I mean benchmarks. Obviously, there are all sorts of political progress seen in Iraq, however none of them are included in the benchmarks. To me at least, arguing with a General, who has made Iraq his home for the last three years, that political progress can only be defined by static benchmarks set before the start of the operation seems like a political loser. There are all sorts of reconciling between Sunni and Shia sheiks and these partnerships have lead to security agreements. Things that have worked in Sunni areas have been copied with wrinkles in Shia and mixed areas.

Finally, if a lack of political progress by the Central government is any measure success based on pre set benchmarks, they have also just condemned their own Congress. Like I said, the ever changing political dynamic in Iraq is filled with irony.

Hillary Flips on Iranian Negotiations

To know if this is a true flip flop or just nuance we would need to get into areas where we will once again try and figure out what the definition of is is. I don't really want to do that. That is frankly par for the course for Madame Clinton as Charles Krauthammer points out. Instead, I just want to analyze the sensibilities of her current position vis a vis Iran.
Here is her current position .

[A]sked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran “with no conditions.”

“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,” she said at an apple orchard.

To me this is just mind boggling. I have a metaphor and let me know if it is appropriate. By Hillary's standards, if I don't know anything about car engines, I should try and fix my car myself before taking it to the mechanic. She says we don't really understand how the Iranian system works and thus she wants to jump in with two feet and begin negotiations. She doesn''t understand the nature of the enemy we are dealing with and she sees absolutely no potential negative ramifications of talking to them directly. I have pointed out before that the ruling government of Iran is a network of sociopaths. Furthermore, I have pointed out that George Soros is trying to buy the next Presidential election and unconditional negotiations with Iran and Syria is one of the pillars of Soros' vision of the GWOT.

None of these points should be taken lightly. Sociopaths are master manipulaters because they spend their entire lives getting what they want without ever thinking about the well being of anyone else. The ruling elites of Iran want to rule the entire Middle East. They already have proxies in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. The control the world's fourth largest oil reserve. They will use whatever unconditional negotiations with her administration to further those goals, because that is what sociopaths do. They manipulate every situation to their advantage.

Finally, it is no wonder that the majority of Democrats running for higher office favor some sort of unconditional negotiations with Iran. Most of their entire agenda: whether domestic, economic, or in this case foreign policy, mirrors that of George Soros. He wields a lot of power in their circles and the Dem candidates would much rather kow tow to him than take him on, in my opinion.

Do you think I am paranoid and turning Soros into the Democratic version of Karl Rove? Maybe? Think about this. More than half the Democrats running for office favor teaching second grader a book about two Princes living together. More than half want to eliminate the don't ask don't tell policy in the military. None of them want to do anything about securing the border. These radical positions mirror the radical positions of George Soros exactly.

George Soros Vision of the GWOT

George Soros is a character with which I am quite familiar with. His name has started to reach the public consciousness in the last several weeks because organizations which he funds have found their way into the news. Whether it is Moveon.org vis a vis the Betray Us ad, or Media Matters vis a vis the trumped up Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh stories, his proxies are finding their way into the news everyday. George Soros wants to buy the next Presidency of the United States and he is using a sophisticated network of websites, PAC's, and advocacy groups to do it. So, let's see what our foreign policy will look like if he does buy the Presidency.

First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists.

Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England.

Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world.

Now, to me, George Soros' vision is very dangerous and I believe firmly anti American. The problem, from where I am sitting, is that he uses the terrorists ingenuity and evil genius against us rather than the terrorists. Furthermore, his vision of the war on terror is completely theoretical with absolutely no practical application. Elitist circles have fallen in love with the term political solution, however none of them explain how to apply that. Last time, I checked Al Qaeda has a series of goals, including the destruction of all infidels, and none of those goals are negotiable. Soros is right. Terrorists have no country and they blend in with society, and for that Soros thinks, we shouldn't go after them. In fact, that is why they blend into society.

Furthermore, Soros claims that while AQ, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. use the same tactics, they have different goals. That may be true to a point, however they all share a common goal of eliminating those that they disagree with, meaning the U.S. Soros seems to think that some of these groups could be reasoned with. Again, he simply doesn't understand the sociopathic nature of the enemy we deal with. Furthermore, he is convinced that negotiation with Syria and Iran are the proper course to take with each of those groups. To me, this is a dangerously naive view of the world simply doesn't recognize the nature of the enemy we are dealing with.

He also advances the elitist view that GWOT is all about finding UBL and Zawahiri. There is no doubt that it is shameful and embarrassing that they haven't been found, however the GWOT won't end when they are and any vision that places this much emphasis on it, is a vision that has nothing to offer the day after they are found.

Now, let's go beyond the four points he made and look at the larger picture. He doesn't consider the GWOT a war, and thus, AQ, and other terrorist, are not enemy combatants but rather criminals. As such, in the world of George Soros they would receive the rights of any other criminal. This of course is crazy. First, a terrorist act is not a crime but an act of war and should be treated as such. Second, it is one thing to investigate a crime that already happened and quite another to investigate a terrorist act that is still about to happen. The two types of individuals will deserve completely different sets of rights.

Second, if a terrorist is a criminal, then Soros would want that criminal prosecuted in criminal courts not in military tribunals. This is just as crazy for its own set of reasons. First, one only needs to look at the spectacle of Zac Moussaoui to see what a nightmare it would be if terrorists were prosecuted in criminal courts on a wholesale level. On that note, the terrorists would get access to all of the government's evidence, be able to depose witnesses, and witnesses would have to testify in open court against them. Now, since a good portion of the evidence will come from fellow terrorists ratting them out, what are the chances that we will be able to get any of them to testify in open court?

Third, Soros would want to close down Gitmo and move those prisoners to places unknown though potentially to maximum security prisons in the United States. The main problem with anyone that claims that Gitmo needs to be shut down is that frankly there is no better alternative that I can think of. Most of these people originate in countries where their civil rights will be violated significantly more than anything that happens in Gitmo. Second, most of these countries don't want them. Does Soros understand the bureaucratic and economic nighmare of trying to house and protect these terrorists if they wound up in federal lock up?

Finally, since, again, he considers them criminals not enemy combatants, all of the tough interrogation techniques: water boarding, loud music, changing temperatures, etc would no longer be in play. It is all nice and well to be a beacon of civil rights even to the worst of the worst in theory, however these techniques work and they save lives. Bill O'Reilly interviewed both Michael Sheuer and George Tenet and they each swore by the techniques and said that using them has saved lives. Thus, while protecting the civil rights of terrorists sounds good in theory, in practice it endangers American lives.

I believe that George Soros is a dangerous man for many reasons, but this is how he is dangerous vis a vis the GWOT.