John Dingle was booted as committee chair in a secret vote, to be replaced by Waxman.

In a victory for environmentalists, Rep. Henry Waxman of Los Angeles ousted John Dingell, the longest-serving member of Congress, as chairman of the House committee that handles all energy, climate change and health care legislation. In a secret ballot, House Democrats voted 137-122 to replace Dingell with Waxman.

The good news, is that Waxman will probably be so busy crafting this comprehensive, omnibus, pork laden, earmark fraught, bloated, monster from the swamp legislation that he's not going to have much time to run his usual stacked and orchestrated kangaroo court investigations he loves so dearly. After all, there are only so many hours in a day, and the democrats just dumped a pretty large dollop of real work on his plate.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 05:03 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't know myself. But the Fortress model didn't seem to work.

Soon after the initial invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that there was an insurgency, many of my (non-military) friends claimed there was no way to win an insurgent fight and we should just throw in the towel. “We’ll be stuck there forever! No one has ever won a guerrilla war!” All gloom and doom.

My response? Six to nine years. History tells us that most insurgencies fail. Even most insurgencies against an imperial power. They do tend to last a long time though. Say, 6 to 9 years.

When it became clear that Gen. Casey and the rest of the leadership was engaged in a bastion defense, I was flabbergasted. The very core of counterinsurgency is protecting the population. ThatÂ’s the whole fight. You canÂ’t do that when you are buttoned up in a FOB. Further, being holed up gives the insurgents freedom of maneuver, so that when you do travel outside your forts, you are vulnerable to attacks such as ambushes and IEDs. To hole up is to surrender the initiative to the enemy. You spend all your time reacting to him, rather than making him react to you. John Boyd must have been spinning in his grave.

We saw the results of this stupid policy through 2004, 2005, and most stunningly in 2006. Despite a great deal of blood, sweat and tears, and much truly heroic soldiering by our troops, the situation continued to deteriorate.

It wasnÂ’t until General Petraeus was nominated to lead the effort in Iraq that we began to see changes. Petraeus was the guy who wrote the book on counterinsurgency. He didnÂ’t come up with anything particularly new, but he did learn the proper lessons from history. Soon, American troops were no longer sitting inside their camps, but rather working side by side with the fledgeling Iraqi National Army, giving them a concrete example of what their army could and should be. The US Army became far more aggressive, pursuing insurgents and terrorists with a renewed vigor. And as the Iraqi people saw that our forces were there not as an occupying army, but rather the first line of defense against the barbarian forces of Al Queda in Iraq, they began to cooperate. Cooperation usually spelled actionable intelligence. Which lead to greater successes on the battlefield. Which lead to greater cooperation.

I would point out, though, that while our troops were based in FOBs, they were still fighting -- and grinding the enemy down, too.

I just have to point out that the Surge, itself, didn't win the war -- there was also the matter of the military fighting these guys for four years prior. There was a lot already done. I don't mean to discount the obvious fact that the surge really turned the trick -- I'm just pointing out that an enemy can be battered quite a bit before suddenly collapsing.

Posted by: Ace at 03:55 PM | Comments (88)
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

Without pay, yes. But she's been suspended for a month with pay, a tax-payer paid one-month vacation, now her new, final sanction is one month suspension without pay.

One month.

Whitewash, slap on the wrist. I'm shocked, shocked.

Gov. Ted Strickland suspended Director Helen Jones-Kelley of the Job and Family Services Department for one month without pay after a state Inspector General's report found Jones-Kelley improperly authorized searches of state databases and used her state e-mail account for political fundraising.

Based on her annual salary of $141,980, the suspension will cost Jones-Kelley, 57, of Clayton, $11,831.

The report issued on Thursday, Nov. 20, by Inspector General Tom Charles found that Jones-Kelley improperly authorized searches of state databases for information on Samuel Joseph — "Joe the Plumber" — Wurzelbacher, who emerged as a key figure in the Ohio presidential campaign.

Charles also found that Jones-Kelley's use of state e-mail resources to raise money for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was improper.

The decision by the Democratic governor isn't likely to satisfy Republicans.

Before it was announced, Senate President Bill Harris, R-Ashland, called on Strickland to "immediately terminate" Jones-Kelley and Doug Thompson, deputy director of child support who came with Jones-Kelley to Columbus from Montgomery County.

"You entrusted these individuals with sensitive information regarding thousands of Ohioans.

"They not only failed in their responsibilities to protect that information, but they abused positions of authority to access confidential databases for what, based on the evidence released today, had no legitimate government purpose, was not in response to media requests and appears to be based on political motivations," Harris said in a letter to Strickland.

Her suspension doesn't "cost" her anything, by the way. It's not a penalty. She's gets a month off -- sure, she's not paid for it, but then, she's also not working. There is no fine here, even.

In economic terms, she's decided that one month of her time working is worth $11,000. The two are, in other words, equivalent. They are fungible. So she's not losing anything -- sure, she doesn't get the $11,000, but she also keeps that time to herself, which she's valued at $11,000.

This is like agreeing to the price of $0.50 for an apple, and then the deal falling through. You haven't "lost" a thing -- sure, you don't have the apple, but you still have the fifty cents you decided it was worth.

Thanks to WilliamA.

Posted by: Ace at 03:03 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

Thursday night game, although as a reminder, I set the pools so you only have to pick that one tonight. The deadline is 5 minutes before each game's start time.

Faced with the option of checking out your investment portfolio this evening, or making your football picks, I don't know about you morons, but I'm going to do the one that makes me feel good.

Or at least, makes me not feel bad.

Hey, you got two reminders for the price of one.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 02:59 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Down 450, which is almost a yawner anymore.

"We're trying to make a bottom but we keep breaking through."

Change.

Posted by: Ace at 12:56 PM | Comments (157)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Important points made here:

1. There is no way to end a war but through victory or defeat. Defeat is embraced through various forms of nuanced language, such as "end it," "honorable withdrawal" and "redeploy." Victory requires no such trickery or vocabulary. Victory is victory.

2. No victory is ever assured, and not every idea or strategy is a good one. If such were the case, there would have been no need for an Iraq Study Group Report or The Surge® which ultimately defied it. But the drive for victory must remain constant; learning, adapting, lopping off the bad ideas not working and implementing new ones in their place. Likewise, an American public and political leadership must expect and demand the same rather than giving up and embracing defeat under the guise of "ending it," seeking honorable withdrawal or redeployment without defeating the enemy first.

[3 omitted, I don't get this one.]

4. There are many who deserve credit for the successful strategy that has brought victory in Iraq (one which must, naturally, be maintained and preserved), such as General David Petraeus, Fred Kagan, Jack Keane, Aussie David Kilcullen, Dr. Mary Habeck, and the list could go on to include every man and woman in and out of uniform who contributed and sacrificed. But the fact remains that only President George W. Bush made or would have made the command decision he made. Only President George W. Bush, derided and vilified, had the conviction and determination to allow a path to victory when nearly everyone else had written Iraq — and her people — off to defeat. Call it "The Audacity of Victory."

I'd add in John McCain, who was calling for a change in strategy and more troops when Bush was content to take a wait and see attitude. True, Bush still sought victory -- but he resisted a very important evaluation of how American efforts were working in 2004-2006.*

Zombietime is proclaiming Sat. Nov 22 V-I Day, Victory in Iraq Day.

I've resisted noting this because, like Allah, I'm reluctant to call victory prematurely. We did that once before (or, at least, we've been accused of doing that once before).

But it is becoming increasingly difficult -- now verging on the impossible -- for me to imagine a pathway whereby Iraq spirals back into chaos and war again. (That doesn't mean it can't happen -- I also couldn't imagine the Surge working to the extent it has, either.)

There were also political concerns about overstating victory -- leftists such as Barack Obama and Andrew Sullivan would always seize upon such statements and demand that, if we've won, well, there's no problem withdrawing our troops then is there?

But we hadn't quite won, at that point, so couldn't announce a precipitous withdrawal.

But now?

Bush, Petraeus, and all the men and women serving in Iraq (including the troops from Poland, Australia, etc., and Iraqis themselves) may just have won the war for real and for ever such that it really can't be lost at this point, even if Barack Obama tries his level best. (Short of actually arming the Iranian special forces troops murdering Americans, I mean.)

Iraq's building a 3 billion dollar subway in Baghdad.

Dana Perino says we should "celebrate the victory we've had so far."

It may be time to declare officially what everyone seems to know but is skittish about saying.

(Of course, we'll have to check with the brain trust at NBCNews first, to find out if the "Civil War" they notoriously declared in 2006 is still raging. Funny, they're rather tardy about un-declaring that.)

* As I always have to say, I'm not sure McCain really was right and Bush really was wrong. We do not know if the Surge came, as if by providence, at precisely the right time, just as the Anbar Awakening was clearing Al Qaeda out of the country and seeking peace. If the Surge had come earlier, it might have failed (the preconditions not being satisfied) and thus been discredited and never implemented when it would work.

On the other hand, a larger force might have stopped the chaos earlier.

I don't know. I'm not sure anyone truly knows.

The big questions I have are these:

1) If the 4th ID had been inserted into Iraq immediately following the fall of Baghdad (recall, it had been scheduled to enter Iraq from the north through Turkey, but Turkey balked; but then it was not inserted into the war at all, or at least not for a long time), would that have helped stop the insurrection early?

2) Did the British almost lose the war for us? By refusing to fight Moqtada al-Sadr's goons in Basra, the Brits gave them power, which they then used to start a abortive civil war with the Sunnis... what if the British had actually fought the Sadrists early and kept them from gaining the sort of power that enabled t hem to start a near (or full) civil war?

And at what point should the US have simply asked the British to go on border duty while we took over Basra (with more troops, of course)?

Posted by: Ace at 12:25 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 863 words, total size 6 kb.

A few silly challenges by Coleman, but I'm pretty sure those are defensive challenges to counter Franken's many silly challenges.

On one card, the voter clearly and fully fills the bubble for Independent Dean Barkley, and has clearly erased some sort of a mark by Franken's name.

Franken's claim? Clearly a vote for Franken.

Take the quiz. And compare to Allah's answers.

In some cases the quiz is misleading, or directs you to a conclusion -- for example, calling an ambiguous z-on-its-side shape a "checkmark" already puts it in one's head it's a checkmark for Franken. Except it's not a checkmark, and in any event, a checkmark doesn't really count. (The circle around the block on the side is better evidence -- just saying, calling this a checkmark already decides what is under contention.)

As for the No ballot... well, two ovals are filled in. Can't count it. As for the "NO" -- how about "NO" vote? How is it unambiguous that this guy intended to vote for Franken?

Posted by: Ace at 11:46 AM | Comments (87)
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Jim Lindgren looks at the other side of things: If we're subsidizing people to work in noncompetitive industries, aren't we also keeping them from working in competitive ones?

He also notes the hidden hand of the government, once again making things worse:

As with so many problems, it is unlikely that GM would have made such foolish deals if the government had not forced it to bargain with striking workers, rather than simply replace them. As with mortgages in the banking industry, the federal government pressured businesses to make deals that were economically bad for the businesses involved.

If an industry is contracting and there is an oversupply of productive capacity, then the worst thing we could do is prop up that industry by taking jobs away from the healthier portions of the economy (including better run automakers). If government planners really were a lot smarter and better planners than business people (they arenÂ’t), then the governmentÂ’s strategy should be to try to drive bad businesses out of business quicker, not try to destroy the healthy companies by propping up the dying companies.

The argument that the auto unions and the auto executives have already made sufficient givebacks is not credible. And as the Congressmen pointed out, the Detroit executives could have flown to Washington on commercial flights (in first class), instead of in private planes. If a business is failing, union auto wages should be priced well BELOW what nonunion auto workers make, not well ABOVE what nonunion workers make. So until the unions have given back everything above the market value of their labor, they havenÂ’t given back nearly enough. I donÂ’t know enough about what goes into the $72 compensation rate, but perhaps the parties should consider having all current employees, both management and union workers, take a 50% pay cut.

Top executives should take a bigger cut than that. For one thing, they've failed. For another thing, leaders lead.

Posted by: Ace at 11:34 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

Funny.

And note that ELO's I'm Alive is actually used ironically. more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:29 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Gate One of the expected, and well-nigh inevitable, whitewash, did not close and the case moves forward.

There are still three or four gates the case has to clear, of course. The "Not enough evidence to prosecute" gate, the "no controlling legal authority gate," and of course the standard "Helen Jones-Kelley has agreed to attend counseling, and we think this concludes the matter" gate.

Still, for now, it goes forward. The Inspector General doesn't seem to have participated in the inevitable whitewash himself.

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services director Helen Jones-Kelley improperly allowed employees to look at Joe the Plumber's confidential state records with "no legitimate agency function," a state investigation concluded.

That's the bottom line from a 48-page report released by Ohio Inspector General Tom Charles on Thursday afternoon. The report calls Jones-Kelley's authorization "improper" and says that she has committed "a wrongful act" by allowing ["allowing?"she authorized them --ace] underlings to search databases for information on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher-a Toledo plumber who was thrust into the spotlight of the 2008 presidential election after he asked a tax policy question of Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

The report calls her rationale that the agency often searches databases for those thrust into the public spotlight "unpersuasive." It says that two former agency directors contradicted Jones-Kelley's claim that such searches are done on newfound celebrities. It concludes that there was "no legitimate agency function or purpose" but does not find that it was politically motivated. [Huh? Maybe some whitewash afoot after all--ace]

The report also states that Jones-Kelley, who gave $2,500 to the Obama campaign, sent four e-mails through her state Blackberry where she provided lists of names of potential contributors to the Obama campaign. It states that such an act violates the governor's policy on political activity and constitutes a "wrongful act" by Jones-Kelley.

The case was referred to Franklin County prosecutors "for review and consideration."

Thanks to WilliamR.

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 348 words, total size 3 kb.