Although they will both take issue with the title of this post, they are both heroes to me and I am honored to have met them (virtually) and looking forward to the day when we meet in person.

I am very happy to report that two of my friends have returned safely from Iraq. Sgt. Tim Boggs, and Buck Sargent are now back home with their loved ones. Please stop by their blogs and give them a warm welcome home.

I don’t know how else to respond to this:

It is a peculiar American fascination to continually look for the next Hitler. Josef Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and even Saddam Hussein were all touted at one time or another as Hitler incarnate. Ahmadinejad is simply the latest figure to be contemplated for that role. Evidently, many in Washington simply cannot grasp the fact that Hitler was a uniquely evil politician and that he is in fact dead.

He can start here:

I did a comprehensive overview of available estimates, including those by Conquest, and wrote a book, Lethal Politics, on Soviet democide to provide understanding and context for my figures. I calculate that the Communist regime, 1917-1987, murdered about 62,000,000 people, around 55,000,000 of them citizens (see Table 1.1 for a periodization of the deaths).

Then here:

Jung Chang and Jon Halliday’s Mao that China’s Great Famine was a democide, and that this raised the communist democide 1923 to 1987 to 73,000,000, exceeding by over 10,000,000 the democide total for the Soviet Union 1917-1987.

Then here:

Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or “disappeared”. No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein’s reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

So sadly no Hitler was not unique in his evil.  The other sad truth is  our confrontation of Hitler was the unique moment in history. We and the rest of the world allowed the genocides to occur in the  Soviet Union, China, Iraq, Cambodia, Vietnam, Somalia, Rawanda, Bosnia (before the US finally intervened), and now Darfur.

What Mr. Takeyh apparently wishes us to return to is the out of sight out of mind policy. That in my opinion is shameful.

This post is filed under Liberals And Democrats because it is about Liberals and Democrats. So, what else would I blog in a blogsite devoted to the POV of a right wing, knuckle dragging, neandertholic, conservative? But, I digress. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) is the presumptive Speaker of the United States House of Representatives when the next congress convenes in January, 2007. The newly elected Majority Leader is Jack Murtha Steny Hoyer. Hoyer IS is NOT a friend of Pelosi, and in fact, lost to Pelosi in the race for minority leader two years ago. This setback for Pelosi brings to mind a question as to her competence to be the Speaker (not that Denny Hastert was any shining example). Too, Pelosi has proposed a number of folk for leadership positions that absolutely call into question her fitness for the job. She has proposed, as a sop to the Congressional Black Caucus the elevation of Alcee Hastings to the chair of the House Intelligence Committee over Jane Harmon. The CBC wants Hastings because of the (gasp) ethics problems of William Jefferson (D-La). This is compounded by the fact that Pelosi doesn’t like her fellow Californian Jane Harmon. Ruth Marcus, commenting in the afore linked Washington Post article a week prior to the election notes:

Pelosi is in a box of her own devising. The panel’s ranking Democrat is her fellow Californian Jane Harman — smart and hardworking but also abrasive, ambitious and, in Pelosi’s estimation, insufficiently partisan on the committee. So Pelosi, once the intelligence panel’s ranking Democrat herself, has made clear that she doesn’t intend to name Harman to the chairmanship.” [emphasis added]

Insufficiently partisan? For the Intelligence Committee? Isn’t that what Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have railed against? What happened to the Democrats cry’s for bipartisanship when they lost an election? In fact, there is some evidence that a Pelosi “speakership” will be frought with multiple problems in getting her liberal agenda through. There are the so called “Blue-Dog” Democrats, 44 by last count, who represent a little less than 1/5^th(19.3832599% to be a little more precise) of the incoming “ruling” Democrats. What are “Blue-Dog” Democrats you ask? Simple, they are moderate to conservative Democrats who ran and were elected as Democrats in spite of (because of?) not running as Liberals. The website Capital Questions states that Blue-Dog Democrats are

The Blue Dogs, [,,,] are less fiercely partisan, and they do not all hail from the South. They seek to build ideological bridges to the Republican side of the aisle, are known for their independence from the leadership of their own party, and tend to be more pragmatic than partisan.

This alone presents an interesting connundrum for Pelosi and the other liberals in the Democratic House Heirarchy. Will her hyperpartisanship (despite her photo-ops with George W. Bush and pronouncements to the contrary) cause her to run up against the Blue-Dogs as often as she will the Republicans? Note also, that many of the “defeated” Republicans were what many conservatives called RINOs (Republican In Name Only). As I have stated in a previous post, the coming battles may well prove to be a target rich inverionment for this and other bloggers. In fact, my blog-father, a big time “progressive” (he dosen’t like the term liberal applied to himself) Marc Cooper, alluding to the missteps by Pelosi regarding her selections and appoitments saying:

In the end, it’s a stupid, pointless fight and regardless of its outcome a dumb first move by Pelosi that focuses the debate on flawed ethics rather than on bold leadership.

Cooper also noted that his friend (and fellow liberal progressive Doug Ireland had this to say about Pelosi: “…she just ain’t all that smart”

Just who is Nancy Pelosi, the lawmaker from San Francisco with an exagerrated reputation for liberalism? She’s an opportunist and a trimmer, who — just two days after the Democrats re-took both houses of Congress and her Speakership was assured — proclaimed, “We must govern from the center.” When she was first elected to lead the House Democrats six years ago, I investigated Pelosi’s background for the L.A. WEEKLY. And one of the things I found out in my digging was that she just ain’t all that smart.

And there you have it beloved readers, Nancy Pelosi (DIMocrat - California), incoming Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is an airhead. I’m sure that this is a portent of things to come and I just can’t wait!

Crossposted at GM’s Corner

Robert Novak has a must read at Townhall today.

WASHINGTON — The depleted House Republican caucus, a minority in the next Congress, convenes at 8 a.m. in the Capitol Friday on the brink of committing an act of supreme irrationality. The House members blame their leadership for tasting the bitter dregs of defeat. Yet, the consensus so far is that, in secret ballot, they will re-elect some or all of those leaders.

In private conversation, Republican members of Congress blame Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt in no small part for their midterm election debacle. Yet, either Boehner, Blunt or both are expected to be returned to their leadership posts Friday. For good reason, the GOP often is called “the stupid party.”

Are they really this stupid?

Apparently so:

The conventional wisdom on the Hill is that, at best, only one of them can win because the Republicans would not dare elect two conservatives to the two top House leadership positions.

In fact, the voting records of Boehner and Blunt are nearly identical to Pence’s and Shadegg’s. The difference between them was demonstrated last Thursday when Blunt went to the Heritage Foundation to campaign for his retention as whip. He delivered a defense of earmarking, echoing the House appropriators’ claim that the elimination of earmarks would do “nothing but shift funding decisions from one side of Pennsylvania Ave. to the other.”

That is the view that led Republicans to earmark a “bridge to nowhere” and hundreds of other projects in competitive districts, hoping it would save them on Election Day. The House has been a place where Rep. Don Young (a notorious Alaska porker) was setting national transportation policy, where the “Cardinals” on the Appropriations Committee established earmarking records, where the pharmaceutical industry had a pipeline to party policy and where even Speaker Hastert was making personal profits on an earmark. Maybe that’s what Republicans want to retain, even in the minority.

If the GOP members of the house re-elect Blunt and Boehner they deserve to lose again in 2008. Ditto for making Mitch McConnel the minority leader in the Senate and resurrecting Trent Lott.

I have said it before, these men are not leaders, they have no personality. Why would anyone follow them? At least why would any voter follow them? I understand why the rank and file in the house does. These guys have connections to lots of lobbyists who hand out lots of cash. If that’s what the GOP members of congress want instead of actually living up to the political ideals they claim to have (small government, fiscal responsibility, national security) then why should any registered Republican vote for them?

Let alone a 9/11 Democrat like me.

If we want big government, pork barrel spending and a weak foreign policy we can vote for Democrats. At least they believe in what they are selling.

Captain Ed thinks the GOP house members are insane:

If they insist on holding these elections so quickly, then Republicans should understand that they have no choice but to jettison their current leadership. Re-electing Boehner, Blunt, and the entire slate will be tantamount to an endorsement of the same failed policies that lost the GOP the midterms.

Update:

Dan Riehl signals big problems for the GOP with independents like him as well:

Stupid is as stupid does, I guess. As an Independent who has been voting Republican for years, I can tell you this, if the GOP sticks to the same path it’s been on and the Democrats continue to nominate moderate and even right-leaning candidates, I am perfectly willing to consider switching my voting habit to column D from column R.

I agree. My whole complaint with my own party has been they have gone too far to the left, and have been weak on national defense. If the Dems start running moderate candidates and national defense hawks, and fiscal conservatives, while the GOP keeps up the same old same old they could be on the outside looking in for a very long time.

Strange how things can change so quickly.

that’s what Glenn Greenwald thinks.

One theme that has emerged among a very specific strain of embittered Bush followers — exemplified by the likes of Marty Peretz, John Hinderaker, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds — is that Al Qaeda and America’s other enemies, such as Iran, are celebrating the results of the midterm elections because Democrats are their allies.

To make this claim, they cite a series of playground taunts from Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and various Iranian political officials mocking President Bush because his party was rejected by Americans in the election and because he lost Donald Rumsfeld. Taking these taunts with the utmost seriousness, these Bush followers claim this to be proof that Democrats are the allies of the Terrorists and/or demand that Democrats take immediate action in response in order to prove that this is not the case.

Talk about childish. Greenwald sounds like the little kid in the corner covering his eyes and ears shouting “I can’t hear you”.

The fact is Al Qaeda and Iran are cheering the Democrats victory. There is no denying it. It’s on audio, video, and in print all over the world.

Does that make Democrats their allies?

Of course not but it certainly shows they prefer Dems to the GOP. Who knows what will happen with a Democrat controlled Senate and Congress they my press for more troops, they may press for more violent reaction to the current real threats we face from Al Qaeda, Iran and North Korea but their rhetoric suggests other wise.

A suggestion of a serious show of force is a very sound one. It would let our mutual enemies (that would be the people who want all Americans dead be they Democrats or Republicans) know we are united in our resolve to fight back.

One other thing to be clear, a threat to blow up the White House is not a play ground taunt. Even with the evil George Bush living there it is the symbol and very real head of our system of government.

If you need proof why don’t you write such a threat on your blog Glenn. Next time you come in to the country some very grim faced men from the FBI will be waiting for you. You can tell them it was a play ground taunt. I doubt they will find it funny.

Such a threat being made by a lone kook is a very serious matter (not calling you a kook).

When it is made by a leader of a world wide terrorist organization that has already struck our largest city, and destroyed two of our largest buildings, attacked the Pentagon killing thousands of our citizens, and has been actively waging war against American troops in two countries over the last 5 years it is a very serious matter.

I guess this goes to the very heart of disagreement between us Glenn.

You believe these kind of threats to be some kind of joke. I don’t.

Let’s hope the Democratic congress takes these threats far more seriously than you do.

With friends like this who needs enemies?

ust days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany’s top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called “20th hijacker” and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings.

You think the Germans are trying to finally get even for that whole Nuremberg thing?

Stop the ACLU was one of the first to post on this.

Bush better come out strong in defense of Rummy or even more folks will be done with him.

Hot Air points out Time is behind the times again.

1. Time is claiming its story is an exclusive. Really? Then how’d it end up on the Blotter yesterday morning?

Oh and the headline appears to be a bit sensational and misleading:

Sounds like they’re petitioning the German government to prosecute, but whether it ultimately will or not is up to the powers that be and hasn’t been decided yet. Also, why would they prosecute this time if they opted not to do so two years ago?

AJ Strata has a positive spin for this:

Al Qaeda is cheered by the news the Dems are coming to surrender to them, the Europeans are ready to charge us with war crimes against the people targetting them for annihilation, and the Dems want to expose the terrorist defenses we have in place to stop attack.

Shakespeare’s Sister is afraid the Germans will fail to follow through:

I still don’t have a lot of hope this will go anywhere, to be quite honest, but as I said before, I certainly don’t begrudge their trying

Rumsfeld, War Crimes

Well I tried to put up the GOP straw poll that is running at Captain’s Quarters, Wizbang and several other conservative blogs to see which potential GOP candidates my readers prefered compared to the true blue red bloggers out there but the script wouldn’t work and ended up screwing up the alignment of the blog (.

So I guess if you have any comments about who you would prefer get the GOP nomination in 08 or who you definitely don’t want please leave it in the comments section.

KT at the Scratching Post has proposed an initiative for his fellow conservatives. Here is part of his plan:

Many people on the net, including Hugh, have echoed this sentiment. We lost because there was no reason to vote for us. We voted against feckless Democrats, not for purposeful Republicans. If the leaders in congress had the ability to set forth an agenda, they would have done it. They didn’t and now it’s up to us.

The blogosphere and talk radio has a huge opportunity now to set the agenda. With all of the communications tools open to us, there is nothing to stop us from developing a positive, optimistic, constructive agenda by consensus. Even if we tabled the issues where large numbers of us differ, we should still be able to develop a valuable second Contract.

Hugh and his colleagues have touted townhall.com as a way to make a difference politically. I suggest that he and his team produce web-based interaction tools for developing, discussing and voting on a new Contract. Here’s my proposed plan of action and milestones.

1. The blogosphere develops a set of candidate topics through blog posts. I’ll go first. Balance the freakin’ budget! This step is to be complete by January 1.

2. Townhall.com develops a voting site where we are allowed to pick our top 5 (or whatever) issues. Voting complete by January 15.

3. Townhall.com develops discussion boards organized by topic and by strategic element. Strategic elements would be things like deadlines, definitions of terms, and no-fly zones. In my example, I would argue that the budget should be balanced by 2010, where “balanced” means no borrowing from Social Security and it is not acceptable for the government portion of the GNP to pass 30%. The discussion boards would be unveiled January 22.

I urge you to read the whole thing. This is exactly what the blogosphere is made for. Giving voice to the people. It is up to all of us to use it.

Maybe KT needs to run for office.

The short answer: President Bush and the GOP majority in Congress share the blame. But not for the reasons the media is reporting this morning.

Yes the Iraq war is unpopular but at least a third of the people unhappy with the Iraq war want or at least wanted the US to be more aggressive in Iraq. Muqtada al Sadr should have been killed 2 years ago, and should be killed today. Everyday he lives the people who are tearing Iraq apart grow stronger. He isn’t the only problem but is a notable symbol of the many problems in Iraq and a murderer allowed to roam free. 

Now many people who were originally strong supporters of the war are growing tired of hearing about Americans being injured and killed for Iraqis who seem to not want our help. 

There simply aren’t enough Iraqis who would prefer to live in a peaceful secular democracy who are willing to fight for it.  That leaves us two choices, send in more Americans to impose order and crush the militias, insurgents, and Al Qaeda or leave them to their own devices. Our current half measures are costing American lives and gaining us little good will, and show too few signs of progress.

GOP’ers in both the Congress and Senate who defected but failed to offer real constructive options on Iraq made themselves look weak and no doubt cost their party seats. How many GOP congressman who stood up and said “me too” do the Dems complaints on Iraq kept their job?

Not many. If you want an anti-war candidate why would you vote for a Republican?

Illegal immigration. Hugh Hewitt ever this optimist has this one wrong in his analysis of what this means to the GOP.

The anti-illegal immigration absolutists got their heads handed to them.  As the fence goes up, their rhetoric must go down –dramatically. 

The Republicans blew a huge opportunity on an issue tailor made for them. Americans across the country support a strong enforcement first policy. A GOP senate unwilling to do so gave people every right to ask the question “what is the difference” between the two parties?

The problem with the President’s, and the “centrists” in the GOP’s “comprehensive solution” is we have been sold this bill of goods before. Frankly we don’t believe you. Show us you can enforce the existing immigration laws, and seal the border then we can talk about a path to citizenship for the millions of immigrants who are already here illegally. Not before.

Denny Hastert may be a nice man as many who know him say but he was a terrible majority leader. He is a bad communicator, and fairly or unfairly looks like a “good ol boys club” insider. His handling of the Mark Foley scandal certainly cost his party more than a few seats.  Perception is reality in the 24/7 news cycle. 

Same for John Boehner. Hey may be able to schmooze his fellow Republicans in the house, and on the golf course, but he comes across as a stiff on TV and on radio.

Bill Frist? His presidential bid was over before it started, and his leadership of the Senate was lackluster at best.

The President’s ideas on Social Security reform may or may not have been good ones but at least he tried. The fact that his own party left him twisting in the wind, never supported him, and never offered anything constructive was embarrassing. Of course it hurt the President’s agenda but more than that it hurt the party nation wide, and gave them the well deserved title as the new “do nothing” congress.

Then there is the spending. You can’t be the party of fiscal responsibility when you are running up the national debt at the fastest pace in history. Isn’t this one of the pillars of the GOP platform?

I have two words for you Ted Stevens.  Abramoff may be the scandal with the long tail but Ted Stevens who actually comfortably won his re-election bid is a cancer on the GOP and his party should have excommunicated him for his temper tantrum on the Senate floor over his bridge to nowhere. More than just pork this stinks of exactly what is wrong with Washington cronyism, and politicians using their position to enrich themselves and their friends. 

There is plenty of blame to go around, and the Republicans got exactly what they deserved for getting fat, lazy and comfortable.

Congrats to the Democrats and congratulations to the moderate Dems who won across the country. Hopefully both parties will learn the right lessons from this election. Unfortunately I don’t have much faith in that.  

AJ Strata has a great post where he says the term Rhino should be banished, thinks the GOP stance on immigration cost them hispanic support, and points out another faulty point in Hugh’s analysis:

Hugh is blaming the Gang of 14 for the defeat we faced yesterday, but that group succeeded in getting conservative judges an djustices to the bench without any filibuster. DeWine did not lose because of that - he lost because of the scandals plagueing Ohio.

While I disagree with him on immigration, He is dead on about Mike DeWine. This is far better analysis than you are going to read in any newspaper today.

Kim Priestap has a great round up of blogger reaction over at Wizbang.

Well for starters I know I have hit middle age when my buddy Gary from Ex-Donkey tagged me with this meme back on September 25th and I am just getting around to responding today.

Other tell tale signs from recent experience.

You head home from the halloween party before midnight.

You have the money to buy all the cool music equipment you always wanted when playing in your band but don’t have the time to play.
You start paying attention to what’s going on with Social Security.

The health plan your company offers becomes important to you.

and a related item, you actually visit the doctor more in a year than you did in the previous decade.

You listen to talk radio more often than the local rock & roll station.

You tell yourself 40 is the new 30!

To pass this one on I am gonna tag The Gun Toting Liberal, and my buddy Gaius from Blue Crab Boulevard.