Failure by whom? Updated

Nancy Pelosi:

“Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?

“It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies—policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.

Let's review this video:

What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

This potent and highly popular Internet video “Burning Down the House” – which traces responsibility for the housing/credit crisis right back to liberal Democrats – was yanked from YouTube in recent days due to a music copyright claim. It now has been re-edited to avoid that problem, and, for the moment at least, it is back.

Well Nancy , looks as if the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies wasn't the only problem.

And look at this.

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

Seems clear that our do nothing congress, did what they do best, nothing. Who's the failure?

This should be all over the msm airwaves, will they ignore this? I bet'cha a nickel.

Glenn:

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? For the press? Ridiculous. "Shouldn't the MSM look closer at the conflicts of interest in their own newsrooms? I'm not talking liberal bias, but issues like David Gregory's marriage to a senior executive at Fannie and Andrea Mitchell's marriage to Alan Greenspan."

-----------------------------

UPDATE: WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do?

Hmmm, if Mr. Obama becomes president, this could be an on going problem since he seems to be at the root of it.

More here on Who caused “the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression?”

Happy Birthday Big Tobacco

Here's to better years.

There should be a name for that moment in an Iraq tour that I'm guessing he just reached or recently passed. Maybe it's "gut check".

It happens to us all.

Should Children Serve?

I say "maybe". (But you'll have to convince me.)

Check, Please

Washington Post debate fact checker Glenn Kessler on another point made by McCain:

9:52 p.m.
John McCain correctly asserted that in 2003 he began to question the Iraq war strategy, which is correct. In November 2003, he criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war, saying the United States should send at least 15,000 more troops or risk "the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam."

But he has also made later, more rosy pronouncements. After visiting the Shorja market in Baghdad in April 2007, where he was protected by more than 100 soldiers, McCain said, "Things are getting better in Iraq, and I am pleased with the progress that has been made." Privately, according to a recent book by Bob Woodward, he was more critical, telling Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "We may be about to lose the second war in my lifetime."

So... before the extra troops went in McCain said we needed more troops. Then, as they started to arrive, he said "things are getting better" and "we may be about to lose." I'm not sure what Glenn Kessler's point is here - perhaps it's that in his opinion some of McCain's comments on Iraq have been "rosier" than others. But unless you're the sort of imaginary loon who feels that "in war, everything is rosy" or the sort of real loon who believes that such imaginary people exist (and that John McCain is one of them) that variability (or "honesty" as I call it) won't get you very excited.

I suppose if one feels a need one can apply some sort of subjective "rosiness scale" to each of those comments - but I'd say an "accuracy" scale might be more useful. On that scale I'd say hindsight reveals the "things are getting better" comment as most accurate (I'd even call it "correct" or "right"), the 2003 call for more troops as "debatable"(it worked in 2007, but who can really say with certainty what would have happened in '03 - at best, the answer is hypothetical), and the "we may be about to lose" speculation as least accurate - in fact without the "may" it would be flat out wrong. I'm glad the "rosiest" comment was also the most accurate - a position I hope most Americans share. (I simply can't imagine what sort of person wouldn't.)

But on the surface, are the statements inconsistent? Clearly the oddity is the "about to lose" quote - especially coming within days of the "better" statement. So let's turn to the cited source - Woodward's The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008. for an answer. The passage including the full comment in context begins on page 344, and follows a description of McCain's April, 2007 visit to Baghdad:

At a press conference following his hour-long tour, McCain said that the American public was not receiving "a full picture" of the improvements in security. "Things are getting better in Iraq, and I am pleased with the progress that has been made."

Later, McCain was widely criticized for making such a judgment after touring a market fortified with blast walls and cement barriers, surrounded by a virtual cocoon of American security. One U.S. military official told The Washington Post that McCain's diagnosis of Baghdad security was "a bit of hyperbole."

Condi Rice appreciated McCain's positive comments. She invited him for for a private visit at the State Department at 08:30 A.M., on April 12. McCain seemed tense when he arrived. Rice had expected him to reiterate his optimism, but after some pleasantries, he let loose.

"We may be about to lose the second war in my lifetime," said the man who had been held and tortured for five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The senator launched into a full-throated critique of the State Department's role in Iraq. You guys aren't fully in this, he said. You don't act like we're really at war. The civilian side is not doing it's part. Rice listened calmly. His criticisms echoed a lot of State Department bashing.

I'll refrain from comment on whether that's a fair treatment of State or not - that isn't the point of this post, but note that Secretary Rice did counter that - details are in the book. But clearly McCain was noting improvement (not victory) in Baghdad, crediting the military surge for that, and warning State that it would all be wasted if they didn't do their part. That's in line with the bigger strategy of the surge - the military couldn't do it all - as described by President Bush and General Petraeus from the start (and co opted by the opposition as their own exclusive policy point immediately thereafter) and it seems to me to be completely appropriate (important, even) for a senator returning from Iraq to bring those concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State.

But again, what the hell is the point of the "fact check"?

A Tale of Two Bracelets

I wish this wasn't a story - but it is.

Mrs. Jopek was an Obama supporter (at least in March of this year) and doesn’t want to sabotage the campaign, so she refused to give interviews. But I found an old radio interview with the father Brian Jopek (who served in Iraq and is now apparently serving at the Guantanamo base):

BRIAN JOPEK: Whatever is decided, we need to make sure that it benefits the American servicemen, and also the Iraqis.
* * *
We don’t wanna go back in there in ten years, at a greater cost and more lives.

I sure hope that, whoever is elected, Democrat or Republican, that they look at the big picture and don’t just pull up stakes — or “pop smoke” as we say in the military, because of the political atmosphere.”

Regarding Barack Obama: According to the father, Tracy Jopek wrote to the Senator: “She had asked him not to wear the bracelet.”

The parents are reportedly divorced now. I don't think either wants the spotlight. Nothing I've seen refutes the senator's assertion that “She asked me ‘can you please make sure that another mother is not going through what I’m going through'". Likewise nothing I've seen indicates that this woman wants to be the next Cindy Sheehan (nor have I heard any accusations of that, but if she's forced to clarify her comments I can see that coming.)

The blogosphere is likely to turn stupid over this - followed closely by the mainstream media, and I foresee a train wreck with a military family forced on board. I really hope I'm wrong.

Update: I agree completely with this.

Checking the Fact Checkers

Hitler did it better!!!!

John McCain kicked the evening off with a wild exaggeration by describing the allied invasion of Normandy as “the greatest invasion” in history.

Such historical comparisons are always dangerous. In scale, the D-Day landings were far exceeded by Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union, in June 1941, and the Soviet invasion of Germany at the end of World War II.

A total of 326,000 allied troops took part in the initial D-day Landings in June 1944. By comparison, Hitler’s sent an army of 4.5 million men into the Soviet Union in June 1941 along a 1,800 mile front.

So a big neener neener neener and in your face to McCain (and all surviving D-Day vets, too).

After getting over my initial disgust, my honest assessment is we're looking at a case of someone trying too hard to demonstrate their extensive knowledge of a topic (WWII history in this case) rather than trying to "debunk" McCain. But that's just a guess, so I'm also inclined to agree with Jules: "...in the end what it comes down to, Clintonianly speaking, is what you think “great” is."

Air Force Baby

More USAF news here.

No Military Solution?

So, today's Washington Post editorial begins with:

WHILE WASHINGTON was seized with congressional negotiations over the Wall Street bailout, Iraq's parliament on Wednesday took another major step toward political stabilization. By a unanimous vote, the national legislature approved a plan for local elections in 14 of 18 provinces by early next year -- clearing the way for a new, more representative and more secular wave of politicians to take office.

And ends with:

Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible.

In short: "Senator Obama, withdraw your troop withdrawal".

Interesting - coming on the day of the foreign policy/national security debate.

I would note, however, that the simple presence of a large number of US forces on the ground doesn't automatically promote political reconciliation or facilitate a functioning government without some willing cooperation (or "buy-in") by key players. In short - the local elected officials have to want to make progress before progress can be made. Case in point: the United States. I'm not sure the US Government can reach Iraq-level results this weekend, but I am certain beyond any doubt there is no military solution to the problem.

More on this (and many other topics) in The Dawn Patrol.

Exonerated Marine vs Ex Marine

Via Instapundit:

Exonerated Marine to sue Rep. Murtha

One of the Marines cleared in the killings of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha plans to sue his congressman today for statements he says defamed him and other members of his squad.

Former Marine Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, 24, of Canonsburg, will file a civil lawsuit against U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Johnstown, who was widely quoted two years ago saying that eight Marines carried out a cold-blooded killing of 24 civilians in the Iraqi town on Nov. 19, 2005.

Charges were later dropped against all but one of the Marines, with a military prosecutor calling allegations against Mr. Sharratt "incredible."

If you've never read Lieutenant General Mattis' letter to Sharrat, you should take a moment to do so here.

Marine/Vietnam veteran Bing West , in his book The Strongest Tribe: War, Politics, and the Endgame in Iraq offers a recap of Murtha's attack on the young Marines:

On May 17, 2006, a bombastic politician rushed before the the cameras on Capitol Hill to accuse Marines of cold blooded murder in Haditha, unleashing a torrent of scurrilous speculation by a hyperbolic press. A panel of foreign policy experts ranked the 2006 Samarra mosque bombing as the worst setback in the Iraq War. Haditha ranked as the second worst. Al Qaeda was responsible for Samarra; the press and politicians, sacrificing balance for sensationalism, were responsible for distorting and deliberately exaggerating Haditha.
<...>
"They killed innocent civilians in cold blood. They actually went into the houses and killed women and children," Murtha thundered. "But I will not excuse murder. And this is what happened. There' no question in my mind about it."

As a leading advocate for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, Murtha advanced his own agenda by acting as judge and jury. Instead of cautioning restraint, other politicians opposed to the war attested to Murtha's credibility. "What I know is here is a guy who served our country," Senator Barack Obama said. "I would never second-guess John Murtha... he's somebody who knows of which he speaks."

Murtha typified the type of politician the mainstream press ordinarily despised - a man who flouted his power, cut backroom deals, and inserted earmarks into appropriations bills that funneled hundreds of milions to special interests, while receiving campaign contributions from those interests that ensured his reelection and and perpetuated pork barrel politics. Murtha abused his office as chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations by slipping into the 2009 defense bill $176 million in earmarks - a record in the House. Instead of excoriating Murtha for sleazy politics, the mainstream press deified him because it suited their purposes.

For more insight on Murtha's treatment of serving soldiers, here's a description of a September 12, 2006 meeting between Murtha and Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker from Bob Woodward's book The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008. On that day, Schoomaker had called on the congressman (and ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee) to discuss the Army's budget:

Schoomaker argued that it was important to win in Iraq. Most people he had met out in the country, he said, wanted to see it through. It was important to succeed.

Murtha launched into a diatribe against the president and the Iraq war. You can be as enthusiastic about the war as you want, he said, but we simply don't have the troops to sustain it for much longer. Public opinion was strongly against the war. How could the president ignore the American people? This is a democracy, Murtha insisted, pounding the table, waving a copy of the Constitution in the air and claiming that Bush had become a "dictator."

Schoomaker suggested that if Murtha thought the president's approval rating was low, he ought to take a look at recent polls. You'll find that the military is the institution that people have the most confidence in, followed by police and firefighters, then organized religion, he said. All these were above or near 50 percent approval. The president was down in the 30s, and Congress was in the 20s or lower. "Congress is even lower than the president, Schoomaker said.

"This meeting's over!" Murtha shouted, red faced and angry as hell.

Schoomaker left quietly.

Me, I just loves me some John Murtha movies:

You can find the original story on that second video here.

In the interest of fairness and impartiality, I should also note that Murtha's opponent in the November election is William Russell.

Congressman Murtha has an opponent. A man who is himself a decorated Iraq war veteran. A man who was in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. A man who has spent nearly 3 decades serving his country in uniform. Lt. Col. William Russell (USAR ret.) is challenging John Murtha – holding him accountable for his words and actions against our U.S. Marines. His web site, russellbrigade.com, takes you into the Pentagon during the events of 9-11. It also gives the people of southwestern Pennsylvania a real vision for economic growth and principled leadership while reminding us of the shame of Mr. Murtha’s unbelievable accusations. The best way to ensure that the Haditha Marines get their full measure of justice is to help the man who so vehemently and falsely accused them into retirement this November. William Russell is planning to do just that.

asiadomainnameregistrar scam

Via email:

Dear Manager,

We received a formal application on intending to register "mudvillegazette" as their domain name and Internet brand in China and also in Asia from an investment company on Sept.24th,2008. During our audit period, we find that this Investment company has no trade mark, brand or patent. As a professional institution of domain name registration, we have reasons to suspect this investment company to be a domain name grabber. Therefore, we need your confirmation on two points as follows.
First of all, whether this investment company is your business partner or distributor in China?
Secondly, whether you aslo need these domain names? (According to the rules of domain name registration, the investment company will be entitled to obtain a domain name but not need the permission from the original trademark owner.)
If you are not in charge of this issue, please transfer this email to the right department.
This is a letter for confirmation. If the mentioned third party is your business partner or distributor in China or in Asia, please DO NOT reply. We will automatically think that this application was from your business partner after our audit period.

Best regards

Linda

Asia Domain Name Registrar
TEL : 86-21-312 609 71
FAX : 86-21-312 609 72
Email: Linda@asiadomainnameregistrar.com
Web: www.domainorg.net.cn

So I googled asiadomainnameregistrar and discovered (no surprise) it's a scam. (Unless the dollar has fallen so far that 840USD/ 5 Years Per Name is a good rate .)

Points and Pointing

Jimbo weighs in on on Mackubin Thomas Owens' Wall Street Journal piece, and takes issue with statements therein. Boil it down to simplest terms, and the central argument becomes (per Jimbo) "whose fault our choice of the wrong strategy to start with was and who to blame for the failure to change it after several years of simply staying the course", with options limited in this discussion to America's military leaders or their civilian leadership. Jimbo's answer: "it was Rumsfeld" counters Owens:

If Mr. Woodward's account is true, it means that not since Gen. McClellan attempted to sabotage Lincoln's war policy in 1862 has the leadership of the U.S. military so blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority. It should be obvious that such active opposition to a president's policy poses a threat to the health of the civil-military balance in a republic.

I urge you to read the full links above for background. But recognize that Owens is presenting an opinion piece that's fundamentally a book review - for Bob Woodward's The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008. - I book I'd urge you to read, too. I'm half way through it myself (completion delayed by the Milblogs Conference and time well spent with great friends old and new), and can't address whether the specific claims in the excerpt above are Woodward's or Owens' interpretation of Woodward. (I'll know soon - I'm almost there.) Though he makes no direct claims to objectivity, Woodward generally avoids such outright editorializing (or moralizing, if you prefer) in favor of a more subtle approach to swaying the reader.

Case in point, his treatment of Donald Rumsfeld. On page 129 Woodward describes a September 19, 2006 meting between the Secretary of Defense and retired General Jack Keane:

Few had more command experience than Keane. He had led a full corps of 50,000 soldiers. He'd become a Rumsfeld favorite among the generals - no small feat, given the mutual contempt between Rumsfeld and many of his military officers.
<...>
Like many, Keane found Rumsfeld abrasive, dismissive, and distrustful of the uniformed military leaders. But he believed Rumsfeld was right about the need for dramatic change within the military, especially in the Army. As a member of the Defense Policy Board, an outside group of advisers that received regular top-secret briefings , Keane stayed up to date on Iraq. He shared his frustration with a fellow policy board member, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who urged him to lay out his concerns to the secretary.

And so he does - and in fact he provided a fine explanation of what was "wrong" with the strategy then in place, and presented a description of what we should do differently - a change in strategic focus combined with "an escalation of forces to gain security" - an approach that would be adopted the following year and refered to by the shorthand term "the surge".

But from Woodward's description we are left with little doubt that Rumsfeld was not too keen on the idea - and we can anticipate from Woodward's selection of adjectives ("abrasive, mutual contempt, dismissve, distrustful") exactly what sort of reception the Secretary would provide that (now proven correct) advice.

Or we can infer from that same selection that Woodward doesn't think too highly of Donald Rumsfeld. That argument is reinforced later in the book. By November 2006, various groups were completing studies of "the way forward" in (or out of) Iraq. The groups independently compiled a wide variety of options and the anticipated results of executing each. The Pentagon's "Council of Colonels", for example, offerred a range of considerations from "go big/full court press" (perhaps several hundred thousand additional troops) to "swift withdrawal", and Woodward presents those options to the reader without editorial comment. Immediately following that passage, however, he describes a (November 6, 2006) memo sent by Rumsfeld to the White House, listing possible options for Iraq (presumably independent of the Colonels - but Woodward is silent on Rumsfeld's degree of approval, interaction, or even awareness of the group).

"In my view it is time for a major adjustment", he [Rumsfeld] said... He listed some possible options: "an accelerated draw-down"; a withdrawal of U.S. forces from vulnerable positions and patrols; or providing money to key political and religious leaders, as Saddam had done.
<...>
Runsfeld wrote that the "less attractive options" included continuing on the current path, moving "a large fraction of all U.S. forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it," increasing U.S. forces "substantially" or finally setting a "firm withdrawal date". He was all over the map.

As were all those groups - from the Pentagon's colonels to the Iraq Study Group and others. But only for Rumsfeld does Woodward break from objective presentation and inject his own critical analysis. Why? I can't pretend to see into the author's mind. But I would argue that the media hated Donald Rumsfeld, to the point where objective reporting on the man was impossible. (One could argue he was a victim of Alinsky's rule #12 - a tactic applied at one time or another with varying degrees of success to every member of the Bush Administration.)

More to follow...

2008 MilBlogs Conference

Behind the scenes stories, photos (yes, actual conference photos), and more at MilBlogs today.

And from Andi, for those who haven't heard:

As we said from the beginning, holding our conference in conjunction with BWE was a trial. While we're certainly interested in having some kind of presence at future Blog World Expos -- it is the premiere trade show for bloggers, after all -- I think the MilBlog community feels most at home in Washington, DC. Our "official" conference will be moved back to Washington in 2009 and will revert back to the model of the 2007 conference.

There will be Disturbing Stories...

I'm shocked - shocked I tell you, to discover some of the things that were allegedly going on in a room I may or may not have been in in Vegas.

And how should I feel about the comment "Greyhawk is a very good public speaker and should probably run for emperor" when it comes from Barry Manilow's biggest fan? (I kid, I kid...)

In Time of War

Home safe and sound.

Waiting in the mail box: In a Time of War: The Proud and Perilous Journey of West Point' Class of 2002.

Those fine folks are captains now, with a six year baptism by fire. Over the next two decades they will become the leaders of America's Army (though many will lead elsewhere, no doubt). Some might argue the cost, but the nation benefits when those in the paneled offices are armed with knowledge beyond that gained from text books.

More...

...Milblogs Conference posts at A Soldier's Mind.

Video:

LTG William Caldwell's address to the 2008 MilBlog Conference:

Even though he was addressing the MilBlogs Conference specifically I think there are implications there that should be noted throughout the new media landscape. Lt Gen Caldwell is positioned to lead the military "charge" to embrace new media - far beyond just milbloggers. If this sort of thinking catches on, the opportunities/access for bloggers will continue to grow in the DoD.

And Lt Gen Caldwell isn't a guy just showing up for the game - his new media "strategy" has been evolving for quite some time, and in many ways is similar to his predecessor at CAC/Ft Leavenworth (then-Lt Gen Petraeus) reworking of larger strategy (or strategic thinking) for counter-insurgency operations.

And like that effort, this one would have been useful a few years earlier, too. But again I see parallels - Roggio's early embeds with Marines in Anbar being an example of the same sort of isolated early success in IO that Col McMaster's Tal Afar campaign or Col MacFarland's embrace of the Awakening movement was in COIN.

Less dramatic? Indeed. Less important? Time will tell.

There Will Be Stories

The outline of history (at least the history of the Millblogs Conference) begins at

AWTM

Homefront Six

Doc in the Box

A Soldier's Perspective

Hooah Wife and Friends

Communicators Anonymous

Some scrolling may be required.

More to follow. Also, check Pajamas TV through the day - you may find some video interviews with familiar folks.

We're on the road again.

There Will Be Pictures

...and Sean has some good ones.

B5, too.

There Will Be Blood

Vegas, baby, Vegas.

Today: at the convention center, wandering about. Tonight: Blackfive and Co have something planned.

Into the West

And here we are, somewhere west of sunset, enjoying the hospitality of Some Soldier's Mom somewhere in McCain (or is it Goldwater? Or God's...) country.

Forgive the dearth of posting. But we are out seeing the world, a few selected views of which are below in hopes that we gain your sympathy and understanding...

For those of you bound for the milblogs conference this weekend, we look forward to seeing you there. For those who can't make it, we look forward to bringing it to you via this humble portal. One way or another, I hope you can join us.

Numbers

The Telegraph: Barack Obama's Democrats accuse John McCain campaign of telling lies - heh, the wonderful British sense of humor by understatment...

A memo from the Obama campaign at the weekend said that Mr McCain's aides had "distorted, distracted, and outright lied to the American people about her [Mrs Palin's] record in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that a McCain/Palin Administration would be nothing more than a continuation of the failed Bush policies of the last eight years".
<...>
The memo also quoted a Bloomberg News report that stated McCain aides falsely claimed 23,000 people attended an outdoor McCain-Palin rally in Fairfax, Virginia last week. Journalists attending put the number between 8,000 and 10,000.

It's about time! If I had a dollar (or a pound) for everytime I saw a media report cite an organizer's claim that an anti-war rally had "thousands (or tens of thousands) of attendees when the number was actually lower by an order of magnitude I could retire from this high-payin' blogger gig and just hit the beach.

I'm not sure why they decided to start questioning those numbers now, but good on 'em.

GEN Petreaus Farewell Letter

When I took command of Multi-National Force-Iraq in February 2007, I noted that the situation in Iraq was hard but not hopeless. You have proven that assessment to be correct. Indeed, your great work, sacrifice, courage, and skill have helped to reverse a downward spiral toward civil war and to wrest the initiative from the enemies of the new Iraq.

"Hard is not Hopeless" - words to live by.

In the Mail...

...my copy of Bob Woodward's The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008. Arrived just in time to take along on a trip this week - one that will end at BlogWorld Expo/The Milblogs Conference - hope to see you there.

I'll have Bing West's The Strongest Tribe: War, Politics, and the Endgame in Iraq with me, too. Woodward's book is focused on the leadsership - West's on the troops. Expect some compare/contrast posts to follow.

John McCain: "We have succeeded in Iraq"

But wait - did you hear the one about the photographer hired to get some shots of John McCain for the Atlantic Monthly? I'll let her explain: "Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them to hire me.”

And the Atlantic's PR firm, working weekend overtime: "She has, in fact, disgraced herself".

And Jeffery Goldberg, the author of the cover story: "Greenberg is quite obviously an indecent person who should not be working in magazine journalism"

You can find most of those quotes - and the photos in question, at the link. The quote you won't find is the one from McCain. That's because it's from Goldberg's story, which isn't linked there or at any of the other sites that have made the pictures into the story. And while those pictures are a (briefly) noteworthy story that's too bad - because sometimes you can learn a lot from reading the words, too.

And while The Wars of John McCain includes a lot of words, they are most definitely worth reading.

A few weeks ago, sitting in his suite in a Columbus, Ohio, hotel, I handed the senator a copy of his father’s 1972 Times opinion piece.

“1972?” he asked, reading it. “I hadn’t seen this. I was still in the prison.” He turned to Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who is among his closest friends in the Senate, and who had wandered into the suite while McCain and I were talking. “Hey, Lindsey, look at this article. This is from when The New York Times still published op-eds by McCains,” he said with a half-smile.

That, my friends, is good stuff.

You'll find mention of McCain's father and grandfather and sons beyond what little was presented in the biography video at the Republican Convention - and discussion of the wars they fought (or are fighting). And interviews with several of McCain's fellow POWs (though I'm inclined to take issue with the blurring of the distinction between their position and that of John Kerry's felllow Swift Boat vets - those few words could have been cut from the finished product altogether) and fellow congressional Vietnam vets. You'll read some articulate and informed debate on America's final years in Vietnam, and how and why that (and all those other wars) does or doesn't inform John McCain's view of the world today. It is one of the finest, most balanced pieces of writing I've seen on John McCain, and it would be a damn shame if all anyone ever saw was the pictures - at least the ones that don't accompany the story anyway.

And while not referred to by the candidate as such, most of the article deals with McCain's view of his son's war. “The country is in one of our occasional periods of isolationism, a reaction to what [the public views] as failure, even when we are succeeding in Iraq—and we have succeeded in Iraq."

Goldberg notes - accurately - that "McCain rarely discusses his original vote, in 2002, to authorize the Iraq invasion; he prefers to talk about the surge." And that's unfortunate, because in spite of the opposition's steadfast refusal to back away from Iraq is Vietnam arguments (many of which were developed in 2002 - and most of which can still be validated by rapid withdrawal) one of the side benefits of winning is that you can actually say you knew we could do it all along. (Especially if you were right all along about what needed to be done - but in the US Government that group has a population of approximately one.)

There are two things I believe I can't be accused of - one is lack of commitment to finishing what we started in Iraq, and the second is not paying attention to what's going on over there. In late 2006/early '07 I wasn't sold on the idea of a surge (even though I knew I was going to be over there regardless). That's partly because I knew something that only a handful of people in America did - not just that something called the Anbar Awakening was turning things around in that province, but that American forces in Iraq had committed to ensuring the Awakening was going to work. I wasn't happy with McCain's treatment of General Abizaid at the time, and also thought certain people weren't paying enough attention to Afghanistan.

That makes me one of a very few people who can now legitimately argue that I was against the surge because I thught we could win without it and that we needed to pay more attention to Afghanistan. (But I also knew that if we fled Iraq we wouldn't stand a chance against the al Qaeda recruiting boom for the Afghan campaign that would follow.)

But I won't - because I was wrong. And throughout 2007 I came to realize that McCain was right, and that we couldn't calm Baghdad without "the surge". And we did - throughout a long hot summer while Americans were completely focused on Mexico.

How do I know McCain is right in saying we succeeded? Because of the number of people making this point (from the Atlantic):

Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island and a former Army officer, who traveled with Obama to Iraq in July, said of McCain: “I think he’s ignoring the consequences of Iraq. First of all, the intelligence and the arguments for Iraq have been proven universally wrong."

Obviously he isn't going to take my advice, but I say give 'em hell, John.

But McCain believes strongly that the only way to ensure Saddam would never pose a threat to American interests was to remove him from power. “Is there anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have pursued WMD?” he asked me. “He told his interrogators he would. Is there anybody who believes that the sanction regime was going to hold, or that the status quo would hold, or that sooner or later they wouldn’t shoot down one of our planes patrolling the no-fly zone?”

This comment was unusual because McCain rarely discusses his original vote, in 2002, to authorize the Iraq invasion; he prefers to talk about the surge. The comment was also striking because it is almost identical to something he said to me around the time of the original vote. “There is no such thing as containment,” he said then. “If we don’t act, we’ll pay the price later. If we ‘give peace a chance,’ Saddam will pursue his ambitions against us, but he will be more powerful, and more deadly than ever.”

His constancy is noteworthy. Nothing in his experience, recent or not-so-recent, has moved him away from his essential belief that the president has a duty to confront perceived threats well before they reach American shores. I asked Kissinger whether he thinks that McCain can be too inflexible on the subject of preemption. He said McCain will not change his mind if he feels that the nation’s defense is at stake. Much of this, Kissinger continued, is related to McCain’s sense of national honor, and personal honor. “He will not do the easy thing,” he said.

I pointed out that McCain has changed many of his positions during his candidacy in order, it seems, to better conform to Republican orthodoxy. Kissinger replied: “Under the pressure of a presidential campaign, it’s possible that he will make adjustments. He may deviate from his positions, but he will not like himself for it.”

In my conversations with McCain, however, he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals. It’s not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore oil drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor—two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined—that he becomes truly unbending.

Kissinger learned this at their first meeting. “When I was in Vietnam for negotiations on implementing the Paris Agreement, the North Vietnamese prime minister had a dinner—I was leaving the next day—and he said if I wanted to take McCain on my flight, it could be arranged,” he said. “I told him that I won’t take McCain or anyone else on my plane. The prisoner release would have to happen on a schedule previously agreed. Somehow McCain heard about this and months later, at the White House reception for returned prisoners, he said to me, ‘I want to thank you for saving my honor.’ What McCain did not tell me at that time was that he had refused to be released two years earlier unless all were released with him. It was better for him to remain in jail in order to preserve his honor and American honor than to come home on my plane.”

For McCain, the doctrine of preemption clearly falls outside the realm of mere politics, as does the need to “win,” rather than “end,” wars; the safety of America demands that they be fought, and honor demands that they be won.

Read the whole thing.

On Guard (Part Two)

(Part one is here.) In this episode: Did Sarah Palin promote an Alaskan National Guard General because he "changed his tune" and switched from attacking her to praising her over the past few days? Read on...

*****

“I deal with trade issues with Mexico and Canada all the time, so you have that,” Napolitano said in an interview. “You’re the commander in chief of your National Guard and, in this context, many of us have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve been deploying Guard over there. We talk to the families of those who have died over there. So I think the current crop of governors has more relevant foreign policy experience perhaps than our predecessors.”

That's Arizona’s Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano, in July, 2007 explaining why a Governor would be a great pick as a Vice Presidential candidate. *****

After John McCain picked a governor as his running mate, one of the first knowledgeable individuals to attempt to educate political reporters on the State and Federal roles of the National Guard and the role of the Governor therein was the previously (see part one) quoted Maj. Gen. Campbell of the Alaska National Guard in this August 31 AP story:

Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.

But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.

It's possible, however, that Democrats think Americans are ignorant of the respective roles of State and Federal forces, and that they suspect that Republicans are preying on this ignorance by not stating clearly that "as Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin commands the National Guard when used in Alaska or in disaster relief efforts in other States but does not lead them in fixed-bayonet charges against the enemy if they are federalized."

CNN's Campbell Brown and John McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds sparred over this issue a few days later - both come off looking like blithering idiots. Barely able to hide her disgust, Brown attempts to get Bounds to acknowledge the "Guard Commander" position does not endow "foreign policy" credentials on the Governor (true). Rather than acknowledge that, Bounds insists that however little experience she may have in the "commander" role, it is more than Barack Obama has (true). But given a golden opportunity to mention that Obama's experience is "a speech in Germany" (or attending elementary school in Indonesia) he blows it. Given a chance to point out that at least Palin visited her troops at Landstuhl when she was in Germany, he passes. Perhaps he didn't know, or perhaps he did - and felt that mentioning the fact would be a low blow. (Some would argue, however, that that's his job.) And suddenly, Republicans are arguing that Palin's Guard Command is foreign policy experience. It doesn't and they aren't - at least not to the extent that Governor Napolitano did prior to Obama's Biden choice - but the rapid response is amazingly unstoppable - and likewise it has begun to denegrate the National Guard.

Many might not have noticed, but Maj. Gen. Campbell did:

As governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin has commanded the Alaska National Guard. Joining us live is Major General Craig Campbell from the Alaska National Guard. Major General, tell me, how long have you known Governor Palin?

MAJ. GEN. CRAIG CAMPBELL, ALASKA NATIONAL GUARD: Governor Palin? For about 12 years.

VAN SUSTEREN: Now, what was her job as governor in terms of the National Guard? What was her -- what did she have to do as governor in relation to the Guard?

CAMPBELL: Yes. Governor Palin is in charge, the commander-in-chief for the Alaska National Guard, and she plays the same role that all governors in all 54 states and territories play, running and managing and operating the Guard day to day for the states that they're responsible for.

I'll tell you, in the last few days, I've been watching the press, and I've not been very pleased with what I've been seeing about the chastising of the National Guard by having it diminished by the insinuation that a commander-in-chief of the National Guard doesn't really control the military. The National Guard has 500,000 people in it around this great country, serving in states and overseas. National Guards are state military forces run by governors, and Sarah Palin does it great.

VAN SUSTEREN: Now, I understand -- I was doing a little research. We've been coming through everything we can find out about the governor. I understand that she went to Kuwait a year ago to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard. By any chance, did you go with her, or do you know anything about that trip?

CAMPBELL: I did not, but I do know about the trip because right after she got elected, when she was sworn in as governor, one of the first things at one of our briefings, she asked me, Where are our soldiers deployed, and how can I go see them? I told her they were in Kuwait. She asked to go. We worked with the Pentagon and got her over there. And the key result of that was when she came home to Alaska, she brought ideas about what soldiers' desires were, what family needs were, and implemented those into law the following year. That's what a commander-in-chief does, is take care of soldiers and airmen, and she does it exceptionally well.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did she do it in any different way than the former governors that you may have served under in Alaska? Is there anything special about her, or is she simply does doing her job?

CAMPBELL: Well, no, she does it exceptionally well. She is above and beyond what a governor would do. And I've watched and see this for a long time in many states around the country. And you know, there are a few governors that rise to the challenge and they take the National Guard as their own and they really want to provide the services that a commander-in- chief needs.

Sarah Palin does that. She goes to deployments. She goes to returns. When we work the budget -- when we work the budget, for the state, she wants to make sure that the state's putting the right amount of money in to support the soldiers' and airmen's needs in our National Guard. When she does policy, she makes sure that soldiers' families are taken care of in the state of Alaska. This is what a commander-in-chief does, and she does it really good.

VAN SUSTEREN: Does she do her homework? Because, you know, each -- you know, when you start a job, there are lots of challenges, new topics, things you never expected. Is she intellectually curious? Is she a hard worker? Does she do her homework?

CAMPBELL: She is awesome. She is as a fast learner, and she is -- in my opinion, she's on the go 24/7. She's on her Blackberry. I talk to her on the phone. I have meetings with her. And she is a quick learner. The stuff she had to learn about what the military does in the National Guard in Alaska, she learned in rapid-fire fashion, so she was able to utilize (ph) to help the soldiers and airmen in Alaska.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, I don't know if you know, but she's taking -- she's taking some heat from some in the media, including at least one magazine cover that wasn't particularly nice to her. Have you seen any of this? Have you heard any of this?

CAMPBELL: Yes, I have. I really have, Greta. And what I find very disturbing is it diminishes the National Guard. It makes the National Guard sound like it's not a real military force and only the president activates the military. And that's so false. Most of what the National Guard does they do for states under the commander-in-chief of their governor.

I have soldiers and airmen deployed right now -- In fact, let me just tell you about this past weekend with the hurricane down southeast. We deployed a C-17 airlifter with the Alaska National Guard. We took two of our Alaska National Guard helicopters and 30 Alaska National Guardsmen, and they went down to respond to that hurricane. and it was by order of Governor Palin because she had had the request from Governor Jindal from Louisiana. That's governor to governor, action of what they need to do for a National Guard. It didn't require presidential approval. It was under the deployment direction of the governor.

That's certainly ebullient praise, but you can decide for yourself whether that contradicts his earlier comments:

Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.

But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.

...but I say no. The later interview is certainly far more detailed, and includes actual quotes and not paraphrasings, but still there is no difference between the two. But for some reason Democrats have been obsessed with that earlier quote - more specifically, just the second paragraph, without a direct quote, and without all that "extremely responsive and smart" nonsense that preceded it. Now that someone (specifically, Campbell) has dared to tell more of the story, the rapid response kicks in again:

Realizing that Campbell was severely undercutting one of the campaign’s main talking points, it appears someone leaned on him and got him to change his tune…

Leading the charge, the Democrats' own VoteVets group:

But suddenly--and strangely--the commander of the Alaska National Guard, Major General Campbell, changed his story. By the end of the convention, he was praising Palin's experience, talking on TV about how she had taken control of Alaska's National Guard operations and how she was a "great" leader.

They are particularly incensed that Campbell also just got promoted to a third star: "If nothing else, this series of events raises serious questions about what's going on. And the media would be wise to probe this further." No doubt they will, and no doubt they won't get it right. If they did it would be a first for this month, at least.

Before anyone else gets their knickers in a twist over this issue, it should be noted that "This state promotion carries no financial benefit to Campbell. When serving in state status, the Adjutant General receives commissioner pay and benefits. When serving in active-duty status (federal), the Adjutant General is paid under the federally recognized rank of Major General."

So why the promotion? Because of events subsequent to the Hurricane Katrina fiasco. Among other things, the promotion establishes the Adjutant General as the ranking Guard member on scene in his or her state - an important distinction if other state's (or federal) forces are present for disaster relief:

Palin took the opportunity to promote Campbell ahead of any pending emergency that may occur with the upcoming fall storm season. This allows Alaska to have more of a say in times of state disasters.

“This is about Alaskans serving Alaskans. The promotion is a statement that the Alaska National Guard is the state military force responsible for responding to state issues, at the direction of the Governor,” Governor Palin said. “The decision to promote the Adjutant General to Lieutenant General is based on a fundamental states’-rights stance, for which Alaska has a strong historical position.”

This issue gained momentum with governors following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, when the Department of Defense pushed a change in federal law that authorized the President of the United States to mobilize National Guard members to federal service in response to emergencies, without the consent of the governor.

The National Governors Association and the Adjutants General Association of the United States were unanimously opposed to this change, and the following year Congress reversed the law. Concurrently, Alaska Statutes were changed to permit the governor to promote the Adjutant General to the state rank of Lieutenant General specifically for state service.

While Alaska is one of the first states to take this step, others are expected to follow. That excerpt above is from a press release on the promotion issued by Palin's office. But the wording comes directly from a memo from Campbell, dated 28 August, 2008 and found on Andrew Halcro's web page:

Point Paper On Adjutant General State Promotion
Prepared: 28 August 2008

Thank you for allowing this opportunity to provide some background information on Governor Palin’s intention to promote the Adjutant General of Alaska to the state rank of Lieutenant General.

Halcro was one of Palin's opponents in the 2006 governor's race, so kudos to him for publishing the full response. You can read that link for background on issues confronting the Alaska National Guard prior to 28 August, 2008.

Wait - 28 August? That means Palin's decision precedes her selection as McCain's running mate - and has nothing whatsoever to do with any imaginary "behavior change" on the part of the General towards the press during September of this year. (In fact, it dates back far before 28 August - but this example is far more fun, for reasons we'll soon see.)

Back to the Democrats' VoteVets page - because you really aren't going to believe how stupid these people think you are:

See if this timeline is as eyebrow-raising to you as it is to me:

Sunday 31 August 2008: Major General Craig Campbell, Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard, tells the AP that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard...

Wednesday 3 September 2008: Major General Craig Campbell does significantly more damage to Palin's credibility in this piece in the Boston Globe...

Friday 5 September 2008: Only two days later, Campbell's story has completely flip-flopped. Now he's suddenly praising Palin, appearing on Fox News to gush about what a superb commander-in-chief she is...

Monday 8 September: After the weekend--and after his complimentary remarks--Major General Campbell is promoted within the Alaska National Guard to the rank of Lieutenant General.

Well, given that Friday, 28 August: Campbell had already responded to other isues raised by Halcro regarding his pending promotion, I'd have to answer that 'eyebrow' question "no". Given that VoteVets then links (in an update that says only "Whoah. The plot really thickens now.") Halcro's piece that completely destroys their own thesis (apparently they didn't notice THE DATE) I'd have to say it actually makes me laugh out loud.

*****

Okay, fall in, line up, no shoving - facts be damned - let's see who's ready to believe anything and everything they're told.

Crooks and Liars:

Alaska National Guard General gets promoted after retracting damaging Palin statements

This scandal is as easy to follow as it is transparently outrageous.

Really? If it's so easy, how did you fail so badly?

The Raw Story:

Palin promotes general after he changes his stance on her experience

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has promoted an adjutant-general in the Alaska National Guard to Lieutenant General after he reversed course on remarks that seemed to criticize the now-Republican candidate for Vice President.

These morons even link the Halcro piece, too:

The promotion was first noted by VoteVets' Brandon Friedman.

At least one Alaskan National Guardsman has expressed outrage at the promotion. In a posting on the blog of an Alaska radio host, a man who claims to be a member of the Alaska National Guard expressed his ire.

Think Progress had the sense to put their headline in the form of a question: Did Palin Promote Alaska National Guard General Because He Changed His Tone To Support Her Credentials? The answer is "no" of course, but they only provide the question.

The Sniffington Post has the story, too - but in fairness, it''s a complete re-post of the VoteVets primary idiocy.

More to follow, I'm sure. What many of these stories have in common is a demand that mainsteam media report their lunacies as fact. But now that the story has been thoroughly and completely discredited, how long before the mainstream media reports that "questions have been raised" about Campbell's promotion?

On Guard

“I deal with trade issues with Mexico and Canada all the time, so you have that,” Napolitano said in an interview. “You’re the commander in chief of your National Guard and, in this context, many of us have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve been deploying Guard over there. We talk to the families of those who have died over there. So I think the current crop of governors has more relevant foreign policy experience perhaps than our predecessors.”

That's Arizona’s Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano, in July, 2007 explaining why a Governor would be a great pick as a Vice Presidential candidate.

An odd argument. Given that George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter were governors before they were presidents (the two Democrats were unknown on the national stage proir to their campaigns, and Bush only had a familiar name) and no Senator since John Kennedy has moved into the White House, one might perhaps wonder why a governor would be forced to explain their qualifications for higher office at all. But Arizona's was asked, and that's her response. So there you go.

*****

I'm glad to hear of a Democrat proud of her position as commander of her National Guard. I've been a little worried about that lately. Democrats are having a tough time with the National Guard these days, as they have in the recent past, even though many are members and many are commanders. And I am sure there isn't a Democrat anywhere who would insult or denegrate the contribution of the Guard to the total force, or undermine an individual member of the Guard's contribution to the whole. Unless that individual is a Republican. Or unless that contribution to the total force can cost Republicans some "political points".

To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.

While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area.
<...>
Aides to Ms. Blanco said she was prepared to accept the deployment of active-duty military officials in her state. But she and other state officials balked at giving up control of the Guard as Justice Department officials said would have been required by the Insurrection Act if those combat troops were to be sent in before order was restored.

In a separate discussion last weekend, the governor also rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana National Guard.

Obviously Guard troops can be called up for overseas duty (or "federalized") in time of war, and in such cases they are clearly under federal control. But as evidenced in the aftermath of Katrina, there's a more complex relationship between Guard and Federal forces stateside - where and when they can be used, who commands, etc. etc. Confusion reigned supreme in 2005, and answers were as clear as Mississippi mud.

But few (and certainly none in the Bush administration) would deny that Governor Kathleen Blanco was in command of the Louisiana National Guard. Regardless of your feelings regarding her performance in that role, and no matter how badly (or rightly or wrongly) the national media wanted to "blame Bush" for all things Katrina, Blanco's perceived (by Louisiana voters) failures in that capacity contributed to this:

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) announced last night that she will not seek a second term this November, bowing to a political reality created by her handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

...and led to the election of Bobby Jindal, the man she defeated in the Governor's race four years before.

Such is the importance of the Governor's role as National Guard commander. Hopefully, any other Governors who didn't take that responsibility seriously enough to learn the complexities involved in coordinating with other Governors and Federal Agencies - perhaps in hope that television appearances screaming "HELP" would override the legal/constitutional requirements - learned something valuable from Blanco's experience in 2005. (Or 2007.)

Clearly Bobby Jindal did. Here's a quote from Alaska's Adjutant General, (then-) Major General Craig Campbell, Alaska National Guard:

I have soldiers and airmen deployed right now -- In fact, let me just tell you about this past weekend with the hurricane down southeast. We deployed a C-17 airlifter with the Alaska National Guard. We took two of our Alaska National Guard helicopters and 30 Alaska National Guardsmen, and they went down to respond to that hurricane. and it was by order of Governor Palin because she had had the request from Governor Jindal from Louisiana. That's governor to governor, action of what they need to do for a National Guard. It didn't require presidential approval. It was under the deployment direction of the governor.

Seems like a long way to go (although Gustav was expected to be a "big one") but perhaps some day Louisiana can return the favor.

But that brings us to today - and the odd position that Democrats find themselves in regarding the importance of Governors, and their role as commanders of their state's National Guard. This began with the introduction of Governor Palin by John McCain, about which his campaign released a statement containing this line:

As the head of Alaska's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops.

That launched the New York Times (and others) into rapid response mode:

However, a review of Palin's 20 months in office shows that aside from overseeing the National Guard's state-level emergency missions, as all governors do, the first-term governor played no role in any territorial defense or other national defense operations involving military forces.

I'm not exactly sure who was ever arguing otherwise, and unless Russia (or Canada, I suppose) invades Alaska, that fact won't change (and then only briefly, 'til the Feds take control).

For the record, I don't see the "Commander of the National Guard" responsibility as equivalent to Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, but other than direct military service (or US Secretary of Defense, if one wants to argue purely from the civilian control of military POV), it is the only "stepping stone" job thereto. Likewise, it is Palin's title. John McCain was once a prisoner of war, later a unit commander, then a House member and later a Senator. Barack Obama was once a community organizer, later a Senator from Illinois. Joe Biden was.. well, in the Senate forever. They is what they is, and listing their qualifications isn't the same as claiming that one specific accomplishment makes them Presidential material.

But Sarah Palin is Governor of Alaska, and commander of that state's National Guard. Does that matter? Should that information be withheld from voters? Should any information be withheld from voters?

There are those who would answer that final question "yes". We'll meet them in part two.

Questions Have been Raised

But don't worry - I've got answers!

Beau's deployment raises an interesting question: What will become of Biden's Senate seat if he gets the veep nods and Obama wins the election? Delaware political observers (yes, they do exist) have long presumed that Beau hoped to succeed his father.

The senator, who is seeking a seventh term this year, may remain on the November Senate ballot, according to state election law. If Biden wins both races, he can take the Senate oath and then resign. The Democratic governor, Ruth Ann Minner, would then appoint a replacement who would serve until the next general election in 2010.

The law is unclear, however, as to whether Beau Biden could be named while serving in Iraq.

So, "If Biden wins both races, he can take the Senate oath and then resign. The Democratic governor, Ruth Ann Minner, would then appoint a replacement...". Wow.

The Governor has the power to appoint Senators? Is there any sort of advice and consent mechanism involved? Can Senators likewise appoint new Governors? If not, one could almost infer some sort of informal hierarchy within the State, with the Governor at the top. (And please don't argue that Delaware is a small, insignificant State with a population under one million - Senators are equal.)

Update: Golly - it happened in Wyoming just last year, and in Minnesota a few years ago.

More: Holy Cow!

Gov. Janet Napolitano remains Arizona's most popular elected official and would top Sen. John McCain in a matchup for his Senate seat, according to poll results released Tuesday.
<...>
Several factors figure to influence any Napolitano decision about running for Senate. Perhaps most immediate is the presidential campaign, which, if a Democrat wins, could eventually result in a Cabinet or other appointment for Napolitano. If she resigns her office, Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer would serve the remainder of Napolitano's term as governor.

That story is from 2007, by the way.

But,

If Arizona Sen. John McCain is elected president, his vacant Senate seat would have to be filled by a Republican appointed by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano.

Perhaps she could switch parties and pick herself, and everyone would be happy!

Meanwhile, in a big important State,

With Sen. Barack Obama setting his sights on the White House, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is keeping an eye on Obama's Senate seat.

If Obama wins in November, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich will have the responsibility to fill Obama's vacant seat.

“I wouldn’t say no if asked,” Jackson, an Illinois Democrat, told Congressional Quarterly.

Jackson is a national co-chairman for Obama’s campaign, but he has competition to succeed Obama in the Senate. Tammy Duckworth, a disabled Iraq war veteran who lost a House bid in 2006 is often mentioned as a possibility, as are Illinois Reps. Rahm Emanuel, Jan Schakowsky, and Luis V. Gutierrez. Blagojevich could even appoint himself.

What Power these Governors have! Even if they lack the experience to be President, at least they can pick Senators.

Speaking of Governors:

If Palin wins election as John McCain's vice president, [Alaska Lieutenant Governor Sean] Parnell would move up to governor and state Attorney General Talis Colberg would become lieutenant governor.

So Ted Stevens would not get to pick a replacement Governor.

WaPo links Palin's son to al Qaeda

Other fine folks elsewhere have already noted other problems with this Washington Post piece by Anne E. Kornblut. It is marred by a sort of sneering, bitter undertone that few reporters can approach a Sarah Palin story without revealing - along with a bit of contempt for complete facts that inevitably seems to accompany their results.

But that's to be expected. This is a political campaign, and McCain and Palin are on the other side. Fair enough.

This, on the other hand, disturbs me greatly:

Pvt. 1st Class Palin is being sent to Iraq with the Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division. Palin, 19, will be deployed to northern Iraq and will be primarily tasked with protecting and helping transport the deputy commander of his unit, Lt. Col. Michael W. Smith. His position is one of dismounted infantryman.

I suppose it's possible the Army released that bit of information. But unless the rules have changed, that represents an OPSEC violation far exceeding anything I've ever seen. Certainly no milblogger has ever published something that blatant.

Compare that to this excerpt from a New York Times story on Jimmy McCain:

To protect Lance Corporal McCain in case he is again deployed to a war zone, The New York Times is not publishing recent photographs of him and has withheld some details of his service.

Some might excuse the difference in detailed reporting by accusing Palin of using Track (and Trig, for that matter) as a campaign prop. (For that argument to be truly effective one must ignore Beau Biden's speech at the Democratic Convention). But Track joined the Army after she was elected Governor and long before McCain picked her as his running mate. Since she is one of three of the candidates with a son in the service, the degree to which we know details about any of them is less a result of the candidates' efforts and more a reflection of reporters' willingness to dig for facts and tell their tales. As I wrote a couple weeks ago,

And I don't want to get into details of MOS/unit/mission here either, but I'm sure that's going to be on the TeeVee before the weekend is out. I'd hope not - likewise with Biden's son - but enterprising reporters is what they is and do what they do and people have a right to know, alluh akbar.

Here's an AP story on all the Candidate's sons

Citing security restrictions, the Army will not say where in Iraq Palin's or Biden's units are being sent. Both units are scheduled to be in Iraq for 12 months.

The same story adds this speculation about Palin's deployment:

Palin's unit is believed to be headed to Diyala, among the most dangerous of Iraq's 18 provinces. It extends from the northeastern suburbs of Baghdad to the Iranian border. Diyala has proven to be difficult to control because it is heavily mixed with Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds.

Diyala was the fourth most violent of Iraq's provinces, averaging more than 3.5 attacks each day, according to figures from June. It has not been returned to Iraqi control and probably won't be before next year.

And offers only this about Biden's

"Republicans always seem to imply that Democrats are somehow unpatriotic or want to be easy on the terrorists," said James Pfiffner, a professor at George Mason University's School of Public Policy. "But I think that Biden's son demonstrates that you can disagree with a policy and still support doing your duty."

Beau Biden, who is Delaware's attorney general, is a captain in the Delaware National Guard and will work as a military lawyer in Iraq.

This isn't about the difference in missions - those who deploy to Iraq do what they do, and all are needed. The difference is in the level of detail provided - and there's a huge difference between "Bill will be a cook in Iraq" and "Bill will be a cook in Iraq working the lunch shift in the DFAC on the northwest corner of FOB (insert name) about 200 meters west of the main gate". A determined reporter can find out a lot of information about a unit's deployment (thousands of troops + tens of thousands of relatives x an infinite number of friends = opportunity). Knowing the risk involved, how much they choose to publish is determined by their own sense of decency balanced against their perception of the public's need to know. If you somehow benefit from knowing exactly where Track Palin will be in Iraq, and exactly what he's doing, then the reporters can declare "mission accomplished". If you need to know exactly where Beau Biden will be they have failed.

Meanwhile, this bit of ugliness awaits elevation to "legitimate" news.

Update: Mrs G requests I clarify the title to this entry. It's a twist of the WaPo title "Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska". By "links" I mean to imply that the WaPo story tells the al Qaeda goons exactly where they'll be able to "link up" with the Governor's son. The WaPo, on the other hand, uses the same word to imply that his mother is a blithering idiot. Hope this clarifies.

Related:

Jonathan Adler, on the Post story:

Most egregiously, there is no indication on the web-version of the story that it was corrected, not even a note at the end of the piece. Whatever one thinks of the Post's reporting here, it should at least acknowledge that it changed the story's text to fix an error. If we bloggers are expected to disclose substantive revisions to our blog posts, shouldn't the MSM be held to the same standard?

911 Remembered: Rick Rescorla was a soldier

Note: This post is originally from September, 2003.

Have you seen the movie We were Soldiers?

A good one, in my opinion. Given just a couple hours to tell a tale I think all in all the folks involved did a commendable job.

Perhaps it's hard to go wrong, given the source material. We Were Soldiers Once, And Young is an account of the battle at Ia Drang Valley, fought in the still early phases of the war in Viet Nam. The book was written by Hal Moore, who was then a Lt Col and commander of the American troops in the valley, and Joe Galloway, a reporter who was at the battle. Their collaboration is a truly human account of men at war- including the enemy viewpoint, as Galloway and Moore's efforts at capturing the battle on paper were thorough enough to include interviews with survivors from the other side.

Take a look at the cover. The prominent figure is Rick Rescorla, described thusly on the LZ Xray web page:

No sleep for 48 hours.
Grimy, unshaven, filthy uniform.
Canteens loose, dogtags hanging out, pocket unbuttoned, helmet strap hanging.
No insignia of rank, sleeves up.
Dirty fingernails.
His bayonet is fixed; trigger finger alert and ready for action.
Lt. Rick Rescorla, Platoon Leader, B Co 2/7 Cav in Bayonet Attack on the morning of 16 Nov 1965(1)

This is not a posed shot; this is a man moving forward into combat. Eyes forward. Ready.

On that day,

The PAVN Commander knows that he had severely weakened and damaged the defenders in the Charlie Co sector the previous morning. What he does not know is that a fresh company - B Co 2nd Bn 7th Cav, had taken over the position after that engagement. That company, unmolested the previous afternoon, had cut fields of fire, dug new foxholes, fired in artillery concentrations, carefully emplaced it's machine guns and piled up ammunition(1).

Rescorla directed his men to dig foxholes and establish a defense perimeter. Exploring the hilly terrain beyond the perimeter, he came under enemy fire. After nightfall, he and his men endured waves of assault. To keep morale up, Rescorla led the men in military cheers and Cornish songs throughout the night(2).

Rescorla knew war. His men did not, yet. To steady them, to break their concentration away from the fear that may grip a man when he realizes there are hundreds of men very close by who want to kill him, Rescorla sang. Mostly he sang dirty songs that would make a sailor blush. Interspersed with the lyrics was the voice of command: "Fix bayonets - on liiiiine?reaaaa-dy - forward." It was a voice straight from Waterloo, from the Somme, implacable, impeccable, impossible to disobey. His men forgot their fear, concentrated on his orders and marched forward as he led them straight into the pages of history.(3)

The PAVN assaults four separate times beginning at 4:22 AM. The last is at 6:27 AM. They are stopped cold, losing over 200 dead. B Co has 6 wounded. At 9:55 AM, a sweep outward is made which results in more enemy dead and the position secured(1).

The next morning, Rescorla took a patrol through the battlefield, searching for American dead and wounded. As he looked over a giant anthill, he encountered an enemy machine-gun nest. The st