I guess it's kind of fun to talk about. But come on.

The president's most spectacular move would be to anoint a presidential successor. This would require Vice President Cheney to resign. His replacement? Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush regards highly. Her replacement? Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, whose Bush-like views on Iraq and the war on terror have made him a pariah in the Democratic caucus.

Mr. Cheney would probably be happy to step down and return to Wyoming. But it would make more sense for him to move to the Pentagon to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, a job Mr. Cheney held during the elder Bush's administration. The Senate confirmation hearing for Mr. Cheney alone would produce political fireworks and attract incredible attention. At Treasury, Mr. Bush has a perfect replacement for John Snow, someone he already knows. That's Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of Mr. Bush's council of economic advisers and currently dean of Columbia's business school. He is in sync with Mr. Bush ideologically and has the added value of being respected on Wall Street.

He also suggests appointing the Green Lantern as Director of Homeland Security. One drawback: the possibility that Al Qaeda will begin smuggling in WMD's painted yellow, over which the Green Lantern, of course, has no power.

Another drawback: Sinestro.

This column would seem a lot less silly if he suggested making Giuliani the new Vice President. At least, to me.

Condoleeza Rice is simply not a politician. Politicians have skills which Coldoleeza Rice has never demonstrated she possesses, nor has she shown any desire to learn them. They're trivial, superficial skills, like working a room, talking gibberish when you don't want to give a straight answer, telling one group one thing and another group another, a ruthless drive to get elected that puts personal success over principle, etc. But they're critical to actual success as a poltician.

In a perfect world we'd elect people who don't possess these skills, but we don't live in that kind of a world. We live in a world where the baby-kissers get elected President. (And yes, Bush has kissed some babies.) So can we all stop dreaming about this alternate universe in which non-politicians beat all the politicians at, you know, politics?

Found at My Pet Jawa and, well, just about everywhere else, too.

Posted by: Ace at 12:10 PM | Comments (32)
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

The main criticism seems to be that Rumsfeld attempted the Iraqi invasion with as small a force as possible to win the war, but not necessarily the peace.

He quotes and endorses an editorial in the NYT by Paul Eaton, at least with regard to this argument:

Now the Pentagon's new Quadrennial Defense Review shows that Mr. Rumsfeld also fails to understand the nature of protracted counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and the demands it places on ground forces. The document, amazingly, does not call for enlarging the Army; rather, it increases only our Special Operations forces, by a token 15 percent, maybe 1,500 troops.

Mr. Rumsfeld has also failed in terms of operations in Iraq. He rejected the so-called Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and sent just enough tech-enhanced troops to complete what we called Phase III of the war — ground combat against the uniformed Iraqis. He ignored competent advisers like Gen. Anthony Zinni and others who predicted that the Iraqi Army and security forces might melt away after the state apparatus self-destructed, leading to chaos.

It is all too clear that General Shinseki was right: several hundred thousand men would have made a big difference then, as we began Phase IV, or country reconstruction. There was never a question that we would make quick work of the Iraqi Army.

I really don't buy this argument and never have. The problem wasn't that the "state apparatus self-destructed, leading to chaos." The entire point of the war was to destroy the "state apparatus." That's what regime change is. It's a decapitation of the government and of course the police, army, and secret police that propped that government up for so long. It's almost absurd to think that we could have just removed Saddam and his inner circle and left behind nearly the entirety of his military and para-military forces to "retain order."

Chaos did not ensue because we didn't retain Saddam's old security apparatus. That was never a realistic option. Chaos did not passively ensue; it was actively created by Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda terrorists.

If there was a mistake along these lines, the mistake was Bush's, and Cheney's, and all war supporters, for not comprehending deeply enough that any tyranny, no matter how repugnant, must be popular with a significant portion if not majority of the public, or else it simply could not endure. A tyranny simply cannot continue without some significant base of support. And Saddam's base of support was, of course, the Sunni Arab population, which enjoyed perks and power denied to the Kurds and the Shi'a.

Now, a miscalculation was committed here. Many, like myself, believed that most of the Sunnis would actually welcome the removal of Saddam; it turns out that the majority, or at least a very significant fraction, of Sunnis did not support his removal and did not and do not support any sort of government in which they are not the masters of Iraq.

But is "more troops" the answer?

We are not fighting a conventional war. In a conventional war, more troops are almost always the answer. Or if not the answer, at least a very good one. We are actively fighting a smallish number of actual enemy "soldiers," supported with money, shelter, and moral support by a good number of non-combatant Sunnis.

I'm not certain that "more troops" would help. We have plenty of troops to easily rout the actual terrorists, if only they would show themselves. (And when they do, we obliterate them.) How would "more troops" decrease Sunnis' support of the terrorists? Would we have soldiers patrolling inside private homes to make certain Sunni civilians aren't harboring or supporting terrorists?

Of course we do break into private homes and detain suspected terrorist-enablers, but only when we have some kind of intelligence on a specific house. These operations are frequent, but do not require huge numbers of troops. We have all the troops we need; what we lack is intelligence.

There is also a practical rebuttal to the call for several hundred thousand troops invading Iraq. We just don't have that size army any longer. Bush I had a large army; Bush II, after all the cuts in the military during Clinton's years of reaping peace dividends, does not. As Rumsfeld said, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you had. A major deployment strains the entirety of the armed forces; even with troop levels at around 120,000, our military is overtaxed and exhausted. It would be worse if we had 450,000 soldiers based in Iraq for several years.

Of course, the "more troops" proponents believe that they wouldn't have been based in Iraq for several years. They believe that only if we had had three times as many troops in Iraq post-war, the insurgency would have quickly been put down, order restored, the country put to peace, and then the bulk of those troops could have been brought home. So the big deployment would have been a short-term strain which would reap large rewards further down the road.

But again: the whole point of an insurgency/terrorist campaign is to avoid direct confrontations with regular military forces, who will exterminate you quickly. How would having three times the number of troops, among a Sunni population of seven or eight million, have significantly cut down on Sunnis' ability to hide and support terrorists, or terrorists striking quickly and melting back into the civilian population?

I do admit that a larger troop level would allow us to turn hotbeds of Sunni resistance -- Fallujah, Samarra, etc. -- into virtual prisons. But the terrorists seem to be able to move between cities with relative ease. There is no realistic level of troops we could have committed to Iraq that would allow us to turn the entire Sunni portion of Iraq into a closely-monitored prison camp.

Thanks to Craig for the tip.

Posted by: Ace at 11:38 AM | Comments (68)
Post contains 997 words, total size 6 kb.

So much of this bizarre behavior is motivated by sexual dysfunction. Here's the latest example:

His name is Ali Abdul Motalib Hassan al-Tayeea. Or, if you prefer, "Pimp Daddy"--a nickname Gitmo's guards gave him, for reasons that become obvious from the transcript.

Ali was brought before the military tribunal that is determining whether he and the several hundred other Guantánamo detainees should continue to be held as enemy combatants. At the outset of his hearing, Ali thanked America for getting rid of Saddam's "cruel regime," which he said killed one of his uncles. Ali claimed he had escaped service in Saddam's Republican Guard and decried the Butcher of Baghdad's poor treatment of his fellow citizens. He even professed a desire to become an "American person."

So far so good. But then, something odd happened. Ali launched into an obscenity-laden rant that takes up much of the 24-page record of his tribunal proceeding.

He is clearly a very angry man. But why? Is it the occupation of his native Baghdad? His detention at Gitmo?

No. Ali explains:

My problem isn't just that I am poor, or that Saddam's government killed my second uncle. My problem, I'm sorry to say in front of the two ladies, but I want the Judge to know everything about me. I was never a "homo" or gay, but I have a problem. I can't get married because my penis is small-sized. I went to the doctor and they said there is no help. They said I couldn't have an operation or surgery of any kind because I'm poor. I want to get the operation or drugs in America or Europe. Who can help me? . . .

This problem has taken all of my life and my thinking. For example, when I was in school, a lot of my friends were married. I look at my friends and say they have a good life. I can't stay in my house, because my father and mother are waiting very anxiously for me to get married. She says she has a nice girl for me to marry, because she says this is my goal in life. I run away from these questions from my mom. I told her that I want to go to college and be a good person. My family said it was a bullshit reason and that I'm Arab and I can marry and complete my life. I can't stand the sight of my mom, because she says, "my son, I want to see your kids." I just kiss my mom and I say "maybe someday."

In The Mouse That Roared, a small country attempted an invasion of America just so America would, as it had done with Germany and Japan, fix it and rebuild it.

So, this guy joined Al Qaeda in a mouse-that-roared effort to get his junk bulked up?

Thanks to Michael. No, not that one.

Posted by: Ace at 11:13 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 502 words, total size 3 kb.

In fairness to Charlie, he is very, very dumb:

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, the star of current hit comedy show Two and a Half Men and dozens of movies including Platoon and Young Guns, Sheen elaborated on why he had problems believing the government's version of events.

Sheen agreed that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself....

"We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen.

"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

Sheen described the climate of acceptance for serious discussion about 9/11 as being far more fertile than it was a couple of years ago.

"It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning."

"In my circles." By which he means his nutjob father and the one Denise Richards breast he's managed to remain on good terms with.

His evidence? The "pancaking" of the upper floors of the WTC on to the lower floors "looked like a controlled demolition," ergo it must have been.

Thanks to Craig.

Posted by: Ace at 10:20 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

Something else that just ain't gonna work:

Led by former FCC Commissioner Susan Hess and Jones MediaAmerica exec Edie Hilliard, a Seattle-based MoveOn.org supporter, the fledgling operation claims its programming will focus on lifestyle topics, rather than politics.

With Jane Fonda, Rosie O'Donnell, Billie Jean King and Gloria Steinem providing financing, in addition to Hilliard's far-left background and that of its newly-hired hosts, however, will this really be possible?

Or is it now impossible to raise money with "liberal politics" found anywhere inside a business plan?

Do women really have that much in common that they need their own radio station? Is there really enough woman-specific material fo fill that much airtime? What the hell can they talk about all day?

I have a sneak peak at their tentative line-up:

7-10 AM: "I Don't Think I Should Have To Come Into Work When I Have My Period (Or The Week Before, Actually)," with hostesses Sarah McCord

10AM - 1 PM: "Are You Mad At Me? Seriously, You've Been Quiet All Day. You Would Tell Me If You Were Mad At Me, Right?," with co-hostesses Nicki Tyler and Susan "Bunny" Pappodopolis

1-4 PM: "Let's Chat About Last Night's American Idol, and Also Trading Spaces, Extreme Makeover, Nanny 9-11, and What a Whore The New Bachelorette Is," with hostess Bonnie Danielson

Good lord. 24 hours a day about eco-friendly diapers, lactation, job discrimination, and Meredith Baxter-Birney interviews. Fun.

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

She interviews Cindy Sheehan.

And asks her why her son doesn't yet have a headstone on his grave.

Sheehan balks at the question, but then in her speech to the protestors, says Casey doesn't have a headstone yet because his mother has been "too busy" travelling the world to make peace.

That's really frigging weird, isn't it? Many deaths are sudden and unexpected, and yet families can arrange a complete funeral and burial (with headstone!) within 12 hours. She's had more than a year.

What is up with that?

Thanks to DDG.

Posted by: Ace at 09:54 AM | Comments (55)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Whatever that means.

Why is it the less an idiot has to say, the more words she uses to say so? One big difference between the intelligent and the foolish is that the intelligent person has little qualms about admitting, "I don't know."

Idiots can't admit that.

Carlos Santana, meanwhile, is a blubbering imbecile as well:

"There is more value in placing a flower in a rifle barrel than making war," he said. "As Jimi Hendrix used to say, musical notes have more importance than bullets."

Again, the only rejoinder possible:

Mr. Santana, Ms. Stone, what you've each just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I'veever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Debbie Schlussel [CONTENT WARNING] knocks Sharon Stone around a bit here. The content warning is for a picture of Sharon Stone's chief qualification as an foreign relations expert, and it's not a snapshot of her college degree.

In related Stupid Celebrity News, Susan Sarandon will play "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan in an upcoming film.

I doubt Sarandon will go the award-friendly route of "going ugly" for the role. But I have to imagine some sort of greenscreen/CGI effect will have to be employed to remove those amazing cans of hers. Maybe they can just digitally shift them to her hips or something.

Posted by: Ace at 09:48 AM | Comments (48)
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

That's my headline, not MSNBC's. MSNBC chooses this headline:

Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details

SaddamÂ’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didnÂ’t agency listen?

The article concerns Saddam's Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, who met with CIA cut-outs in 2002, before the war, in a meeting arranged by French Intelligence. He told our cut-outs Saddam had no "significant, active" biological warfare program and was further from developing a nuclear weapon than the CIA believed.

So, Lisa Meyers and the liberal media want to know, why didn't we listen?

Um, here's a possibility: Because he was a high-ranking member of Saddam's team telling us, with regard to bio- and nuclear weapons, precisely what Saddam was. Does Lisa Meyers consider the possibility that we didn't listen because we figured was precisely what he seemed to be -- a mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein?

Futhermore, after all of her huffing, she wants to know "why we didn't believe him." Well, okay. If we had believed him -- and it seems, perhaps, we did -- then we also would have believed what he said about Saddam's poison-gas capabilities:

On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.

The MSM wants to know why we chose not to believe him with regard to bio and nuclear weapons, but doesn't seem interested in why Bush did believe him with regard to chemical weapons.

If a high-ranking member of Saddam's inner circle tells you point-blank that Saddam is hoarding chemical weapons -- a statement against the regime's interests, and therefore more plausible than the statements in support of the regime, like the claims about bio and nuke weapons -- shouldn't you, you know, act on that amazing admission?

Apparently not. Lisa Meyers thinks Bush should have listened to Sabri as regards the former and completely disregarded him as regards the latter.

Thanks to Scott.

Posted by: Ace at 08:30 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 383 words, total size 2 kb.

That's my headline, not MSNBC's. MSNBC chooses this headline:

Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details

SaddamÂ’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didnÂ’t agency listen?

The article concerns Saddam's Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, who met with CIA cut-outs in 2002, before the war, in a meeting arranged by French Intelligence. He told our cut-outs Saddam had no "significant, active" biological warfare program and was further from developing a nuclear weapon than the CIA believed.

So, Lisa Meyers and the liberal media want to know, why didn't we listen?

Um, here's a possibility: Because he was a high-ranking member of Saddam's team telling us, with regard to bio- and nuclear weapons, precisely what Saddam was. Does Lisa Meyers consider the possibility that we didn't listen because we figured was precisely what he seemed to be -- a mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein?

Futhermore, after all of her huffing, she wants to know "why we didn't believe him." Well, okay. If we had believed him -- and it seems, perhaps, we did -- then we also would have believed what he said about Saddam's poison-gas capabilities:

On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.

The MSM wants to know why we chose not to believe him with regard to bio and nuclear weapons, but doesn't seem interested in why Bush did believe him with regard to chemical weapons.

If a high-ranking member of Saddam's inner circle tells you point-blank that Saddam is hoarding chemical weapons -- a statement against the regime's interests, and therefore more plausible than the statements in support of the regime, like the claims about bio and nuke weapons -- shouldn't you, you know, act on that amazing admission?

Apparently not. Lisa Meyers thinks Bush should have listened to Sabri as regards the former and completely disregarded him as regards the latter.

The media is of course spinning this as a debacle for Bush. Actually, it vindicates him. If one of Saddam's top people says:

* he doesn't have a "significant, active" bioweapon program, suggesting he does have a small-scale, inactive program, at least that the official knows about;

* he can acquire a bomb, just in a longer period of time than is estimated;

* and he has 500 metric tons of prohibited chemical weapons he's still lying about

... what should Bush have story?

Thanks to Scott.

Posted by: Ace at 08:30 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

Very funny recap of a General trying not to lose his fucking mind briefing reporters about Operation Swarmer.

The general keeps patiently explaining -- while trying to avoid embarrassing the reporters -- that the operation took place in a ten by ten mile patch of virtually uninhabited desert.

But the reporters keep on asking him if they'll be reconstruction money following the grave collateral damage we did to... sand. And if we'll be able to revitalize the now-devastated economy there, what with their previously brisk trade in... sand. And what size force we'll leave behind to police and pacify the... sand, and make sure the... sand doesn't immediately again fall under the influence of Al Qaeda.

He keeps using the word "desert," but no one seems to grasp the concept.

You know the old question about whether people really listen in conversations or just wait for their turn to talk? I think we know the answer with respect to reporters.

Craig again.

Posted by: Ace at 03:19 PM | Comments (130)
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.