The Cool Blue Blog

The Iraq Exchange

Clearly there are those who think that the Presidential Campaign has already begun, and in a sense it has: For John McCain.

And John McCain is directly addressing the presumed nominee, Barack Obama. But will Obama really be the nominee?

The conversation between Senators McCain and Obama about Iraq began at the Democratic debate in Cincinnati Ohio

Tim Russert noted

You both have pledged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. You both have said you'd keep a residual force there to protect our embassy, to seek out al Qaeda, to neutralize Iran.

And then asked Obama

...do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?

SEN. OBAMA:

...Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests.  And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.  So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places.

...I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations, but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9/11, it is my job -- it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.

Senator McCain picked up on this and responded in public

“I have some news,” he said at a town-hall-style meeting in Tyler, Tex. “Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq.’ My friends, if we left, they wouldn’t be establishing a base. They’d be taking a country, and I’m not going to allow that to happen.”

Senator Obama responded

“I have some news for John McCain,” Mr. Obama said at a large rally at Ohio State University. “There was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”

Which of course simply sidesteps the issue because he is running for President now. Given that it is clear that al Qaida is in Iraq, that al Qaida has proclaimed to the world that Iraq is the central front in their declared war on the United States, why would anyone leave the field of battle when we have the enemy on the run, allow them to refit and rearm, and then return?

McCain responded

"The fact is, al Qaeda is in Iraq," McCain said. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. If we left Iraq there's no doubt that al Qaeda would then gain control in Iraq and pose a threat to the United States of America. Ask anyone who knows about the situation on the ground in Iraq. I look forward to continuing this debate...."

"I guess that means that [Obama] would surrender and then go back," McCain said.

Now this is something Senator Clinton has been unable to do for the past year: Attack Obama from the right and when that happens, it is clear that Obama is at a severe disadvantage. And Democratic voters who are set to go to the polls in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont next Tuesday now have a preview of how it will go in the General election.

Will this raise doubts about the efficacy of Obama's candidacy? Will this exchange make some of Obama's supporters give Clinton a second look?

A recent poll of Democratic primary voters showed that a plurality think Clinton is a strong and decisive leader, has a clear plan for solving the country's problems, and a majority think she can get things done.

Yet a majority think that it is Obama that can beat the Republican in the General. What's more only 21% of primary voters think that experience is the most important trait in their nominee.

A majority of primary voters also think that Obama has the advantage in dealing with corruption in government but as I have shown, when we begin to have that conversation, McCain will come out ahead.

But most primary voters don't know that yet.

What they do know, if they want to know, is that Obama is at a severe disadvantage to McCain on the war issue. And that deficit will raise doubts among the General Election voters as to his qualifications with regards to Foreign Policy in general.

I think that there is a better than even chance that this exchange helps Clinton and that in the future primaries, many former Obama supporters might switch their support to Clinton.

Agent of Change

Back in 2006, when Democrats won the majority in both Houses of Congress, they did so partly on the promise of ethics reform. They campaigned heavily on the theme that the Republican Congress was mired in a Culture of Corruption

After railing for months against Congressional corruption under Republican rule, Democrats on Capitol Hill are divided on how far their proposed ethics overhaul should go.

Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, mindful that voters in the midterm election cited corruption as a major concern, say they are moving quickly to finalize a package of changes for consideration as soon as the new Congress convenes in January.

Their initial proposals, laid out earlier this year, would prohibit members from accepting meals, gifts or travel from lobbyists, require lobbyists to disclose all contacts with lawmakers and bar former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists from entering the floor of the chambers or Congressional gymnasiums.

But

None of the measures would overhaul campaign financing or create an independent ethics watchdog to enforce the rules. Nor would they significantly restrict earmarks, the pet projects lawmakers can anonymously insert into spending bills, which have figured in several recent corruption scandals and attracted criticism from members in both parties. The proposals would require disclosure of the sponsors of some earmarks, but not all.

Senator Barack Obama was tasked with spearheading the Democrats ethics proposals

“The dynamic is different now,” Mr. Obama said Friday. “We control both chambers now, so it is difficult for us to have an excuse for not doing anything.”

He is pushing to create an independent Congressional ethics commission and advocates broader campaign-finance changes as well. “We need to make sure that those of us who are elected are not dependent on a narrow spectrum of individuals to finance our campaigns,” he said.

In February of 2006, Senator John McCain sponsored a bill "that would require lobbyists to disclose more information on their activities, including the gifts they give lawmakers, double to two years the waiting period before a lawmaker can take a job as a lobbyist and require members to pay charter rates when they travel on corporate jets." Senator McCain included the freshman Senator from Illinois whose public statements indicated he would be good candidate to count on for the bipartisan reform package. And it is clear, McCain thought that he had private assurances from the Senator that he was indeed on board.

The problem is, the Democrats had no intention of passing such sweeping reform and when push came to shove, Obama bailed.

And Senator McCain got offended and he wrote the Senator from Illinois to tell him

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform were sincere," McCain writes.

Obama attended a meeting with McCain and senators committed to a bipartisan task force on ethics reform. McCain left the meeting convinced that Obama was open to working closely together, according to an aide....

"When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter. ... I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in political to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again."

Senator McCain is no poser when it comes to ethics reform and porkbusting

In 1996, McCain was one of five senators, and the only Republican, to vote against the Telecommunications Act. He did it because he believed the act gave away too much to the telecommunications companies, and protected them from true competition. He noted that AT&T alone gave $780,000 to Republicans and $456,000 to Democrats in the year leading up to the vote....

In 2000, McCain ran for president and reiterated his longstanding opposition to ethanol subsidies. Though it crippled his chances in Iowa, he argued that ethanol was a wasteful giveaway....

In 2004, McCain launched a frontal assault on the leasing contract the Pentagon had signed with Boeing for aerial refueling tankers. McCain’s investigation exposed billions of dollars of waste and layers of contracting irregularity.

In 2005, McCain led the Congressional investigation into the behavior of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The investigation was exceedingly unpleasant for Republicans, because it exposed shocking misbehavior by important conservative activists.

In spite of all of this, Senator Obama has the audacity to question McCain's street creds in this area and in fact tired to paint him as a tool of lobbyists

Sen. Barack Obama said Saturday that the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, Sen. John McCain, has lobbyists as top aides and "many of them have been running their business on the campaign bus while they've been helping him."

The Democratic presidential hopeful also said McCain's health care plans reflect "the agenda of the drug and insurance lobbyists, who back his campaign and use money and influence to block real health care reform."

Obama was put in charge of ethics reform but when an opportunity to join a bipartisan working group presented itself, Obama chose partisanship which resulted in less ethics reform.

Obama now claims to be a man who can bring the country together; someone who knows how to be bipartisan; and he claims to be a leader in this regard. But to be bipartisan means that you sometimes have to piss off your "clan"; in this case the Democratic leadership. But Obama has not shown he can do that and in fact he record shows he can not do that.

McCain, as everyone knows by now, is willing to piss off his party when it means getting something done. The very quality that made his nomination iffy, is now the very quality that holds the seeds to undermine Senator Obama.

In every case where he had the opportunity to do the bipartisan heavy lifting he refused.

Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama did not partake in the Gang of 14’s bipartisan deal on judges while Mr. McCain was one of the Gang’s leaders. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never had his own Kennedy-McCain piece of legislation on immigration or any other issue that infuriated his base. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never had his anti-partisan equivalent to McCain’s policy stand against torture.

Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never lambasted the Secretary of Defense of his party’s own presidential administration for chronic incompetence. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never voted for environmental legislation that angered his fellow party members. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never cussed at people in his own party for sending loads of pork to their home district and state. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never principally voted against subsides for ethanol, even when it alienated members of his own party in politically significant Iowa.

When the time comes, and McCain and Obama are compared in the arena of change, Obama will fall far short of the mark.

When the time comes, and McCain and Obama are compared in the arena of bipartisanhip, Obama will fall far short of the mark.

When the time comes, and McCain and Obama are compared in the arena of leadership, Obama will fall far short of the mark.

When the time comes, and McCain and Obama are compared in the arena of Foreign Policy, Obama will fall far short of the mark.

So where will Obama make his stand.

 

Adhamiya Council

Adhamiya Council Meets, Chooses Leaders, Committee Members

Monday, 25 February 2008 By Pfc. April Campbell
3rd Brigade Combat Team Public Affairs

BAGHDAD — Leaders from the Old Adhamiya neighborhood in Baghdad met with Iraqi Army Soldiers Feb. 18, to agree upon leaders and committee members for the Tribal Support Council. 

Sheikh Amar Amid Al Azawi was elected chairman; Sheikh Abdu Khadir Al Dulaimi and Abu Abid were elected as vice chairmen. Abid is a prominent ‘Sons of Iraq’ (SoI) leader in the area.

SoI is a volunteer security group formally known as the Concerned Local Citizens.  The group mans check points, conducts security patrols, and helps Coalition and Iraqi security forces identify terrorists and find their weapon caches. 

The council members also determined who would serve on various council committees including the arbitration, reconciliation, security, sports and youth activities, essential services and education. 

Maj. Darryl Perry attended the meeting and will be working with the council as a civil affairs officer with the 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, along with Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 1st Brigade, 11th Iraqi Army Division. 

This tribal support council is modeled after similar ones initially established in Anbar province. The council is to provide local governance in accordance with Iraqi customs, said Perry, a Baltimore native, who serves as a civil affairs team leader with Civil Affair Team A 5025, 450th Civil Affairs Battalion, 360th Civil Affairs Brigade, attached to 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Multi-National Division – Baghdad. 

“It’s another form of government based upon traditions where the sheikh was in charge,” he added. 

The Iraqi Army and Coalition forces worked together to determine who would be nominated for the council leadership positions and committees. 

“We used everybody’s expertise and knowledge to figure out where they could be the most useful,” said Lt. Col. Jeff Broadwater, a Radcliff, Ky., native, who serves as the commander for the 3rd Sqdrn., 7th CAV. 

One factor enabling the formation of the Adhamiya Tribal Support Council is the improved security situation. The safety provided by the Iraqi Army, SoI and Coalition forces has contributed to the neighborhood citizens’ ability to work together. 

“The level of attacks has decreased, increasing security and giving (the people of Adhamiya) freedom of movement within their neighborhood to talk to one another,” said Broadwater. “They feel less threatened to voice their opinions.” 

The council is a method of capitalizing on the momentum and hope a more secure environment has brought forth. 

“It’s people within (the Adhamiya) area wanting to make a positive difference,” Broadwater said.

Puppetmaster

Did you watch the US Embassy in Belgrade burn? Did the spectacle appear ominous?

The mostly-Muslim, mostly Albanian area of Serbia called Kosovo, over which President Clinton went to war to restrain Serbian ethnic-cleansing, has declared independence from greater Serbia. The US and most of Europe immediately recognized the new country and government.

Serbia, was not so happy.

And neither was Russia who sees the US and Europe rapidly winning former Soviet states over to their side.

Most understand that the Serbian government allowed the riots and the burning of the US Embassy.

"We have made known to the Serbian government our concern and displeasure that their police force did not prevent this incident," President George W. Bush's spokeswoman said....

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana stressed that Serbia had an "obligation" to protect embassies, and said talks with Belgrade on an accord that could lead to Serbia joining the 27-nation bloc would be put on ice.

I don't think Serbia much cares about joining the EU anymore and Serbia's close ally, Russia, couldn't be more ecstatic about having yet another of it's former states joining "the enemy".

More importantly, Russia is the Puppetmaster orchestrating this unrest in the heart of Europe.

Russia supplies missile and nuclear technology to Iran. When the US attempts to deploy a missile shield to Europe to protect them from Iran, Russia balks, claiming the missile defense is really targeting Russia.

Well, if you ask me, that's revealing if you consider Iran a proxy of Russia.

Russia supplies arms to America's enemies in Syria and Venezuela

Russia has made a strategic military alliance with China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan

And now Russia is fostering unrest in Europe which, if maintained, will further occupy NATO troops on European soil, providing less resources to quell Islamists in Afghanistan.

How will the Obama deal with Russia and Putin?

We already know that Democrats tried to cut funding for the missile shield, the very system that was just proved in a real world situation as being effective

This is not a situation for platitudes. Russia is seriously orchestrating a play for dominance, using the Islamist wild card whom they only barely control as their proxy.

This is very nuanced and complex global situation and from what I can tell, his Foreign Policy team is not up to the job.

Can we trust an inexperienced newcomer to the global sandbox with the challenges the next President will face?

The Change he brings could very well be the Change we have been trying to avoid since the end of the Second World War.

Tech Sgt Jeremy Sudlow

Logging 434,000 miles, 14 missions, and nearly four months on some of the world's most dangerous roads earned Air Force Technical Sergeant Jeremy Sudlow the military's fourth-highest combat award, the Bronze Star. The scourge of the desert - the improvised explosive device was always a possibility, yet Sudlow heroically led his convoys to complete their operations. Coalition forces in Iraq rely on supply convoys for their entire mission, and Sudlow handled this dangerous job for six months while serving the 424th Medium Truck Detachment. Without this precious cargo, the intense tempo of the war effort could never have been maintained.

Sudlow demonstrated his managerial skills by training his assistant convoy commander and lead vehicle commander in advanced convoy techniques to ensure the safest possible travel for all missions under his command. With the IED threat looming over every journey, Sudlow worked to continually upgrade the convoy vehicles, equipping them with "Go-Lights" to improve visibility, and sirens to alert daytime traffic. During one operation, Sudlow's convoy captured a group of criminals who had stolen military and civilian equipment from their contracted vehicles. Sudlow alerted Forward Operating Base Taji of the incident and successfully concluded the mission.

Once, an unidentified vehicle made an alarming u-turn towards the supply column while on the road in Iraq. Sudlow had to make a split-second judgment. Was it a suicide-bomber behind the wheel, or an innocent Iraqi civilian? Previous lessons he had given to the gun-truck crews helped them remain calm and focused. It turned out that there was no threat, and because of Sudlow's forward-thinking leadership, a tense situation passed without incident.

The Tech Sergeant's paramount concern was always the wellbeing of his 15-man squad and the foreign nationals assigned to his convoy. Due in no small part to his efforts, Detachment 424 escorted 4,680 tractor-trailers loaded with valuable cargo from Kuwait to Iraq while guiding and protecting 2,300 foreign national drivers.

For his efforts he received the Bronze Star [pdf]

Tech. Sgt. Jeremy Sudlow, from F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo., served as a convoy commander. He personally conducted 14 missions and his teams amassed more than 434,000 cumulative miles while spending more than 110 days on the road. He helped capture a group of thieves who stole military and civilian equipment
from the convoy while out on a mission.

Retreat

In the Anbar Province city of Hit, once a place where al Qaida tortured and murdered fellow Muslims while plotting further terror against them, a transformation has occurred.

In a pageant filled with poetry, song, political speeches and a display of the Iraqi security forces' increased firepower, the U.S. Marines on Thursday turned over major responsibility for protecting this Euphrates River valley town to the Iraqi army and police.

It was the second such turnover in recent weeks in the western province of Anbar, once a major battleground with Sunni Arab insurgents, with more expected, Marine officials said.

Marines from the 1st Battalion, 7th Regiment, based in Twentynine Palms, Calif., are redeploying outside the city limits but will remain close enough to provide assistance to the Iraqis if insurgents attempt an assault.

A similar turnover was accomplished late last year in Baghdadi, also along the Euphrates. In addition, Marines are pulling out of Haditha as soon as the Navy construction team, the Seabees, finishes building a camp for them just outside the river town.

Iraqi forces conducted their first all-Iraqi operation this week in Haditha, searching former insurgent hide-outs, officials said.

According to former CIA case officer Reuel Marc Gerecht, Sunni extremeism is in full retreat in Iraq

A ... striking fact about Islamism and the Iraq war is that the arrival of foreign holy warriors is deradicalizing the local population -- the exact opposite of what happened in Afghanistan. In the Soviet war, the "Arab Afghans" arrived white-hot -- their radicalization had occurred at home in the 1960s and 1970s, when Islamic fundamentalism replaced secular Arab nationalism as the driving intellectual force. On the subcontinent, Arab holy warriors accelerated extreme Islamism among both Afghans and Pakistanis. We are still living with the results.

In Iraq, as we have seen with the anti-al-Qaeda, Sunni Arab "Awakenings," Sunni extremism is now in retreat. More important, the gruesome anti-Shiite tactics of extremist groups, combined with the much-quoted statements made by former Sunni insurgents about the positive actions of the United States in Iraq, have caused a great deal of intellectual turbulence in the Arab world.

It's way too soon to call Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda spiritual outcasts among Arab Muslims, but they have in fact sustained enormous damage throughout the region because of Iraq. The lack of holy-warrior manpower coming from the Muslim Brotherhood is surely, in part, a reflection of this discomfort with al-Qaeda's violence, the complexity of Iraqi politics and America's not entirely negative role inside the country. If bin Ladenism is now on the decline -- and it may well be among Arabs -- then Iraq has played an essential part in battering the movement's spiritual appeal.

Iraq could still fall apart (and if an American president starts withdrawing troops haphazardly, it probably will). The country's descent into chaos and renewed sectarian strife would likely reenergize Islamic extremism. But it is certainly not too soon to suggest that Iraq could well become America's decisive victory over Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and all those Muslims who believe that God has sanctified violence against the United States.

If this continues, it won't be long before Democrats are denying that it was Senator McCain that advocated for the present winning strategy, claiming instead it was Harry Reid.

And that retreat was never an option

Foreign Policy Questions

Former KGB spymaster turned President of Russia gave his final press conference before relinquishing his position to become Prime Minister.

Russia has been supplying Iran will nuclear and missile technology. In response, the US has offered to deploy a missile shield in countries vulnerable to an attack by Iran. But Putin has decided to take it personally.

"Our generals, our security council, consider these moves a threat to our national security," he said. "We asked our partners to stop but no one listened to us. So if they continue we will have to react appropriately by retargeting our missiles." Mr Putin also made similar threats against Ukraine if it joined NATO.

Russia is intent on reigniting the Cold War, using proxies such as Iran, Syria, and Venezuela

The question that needs to be answered by the Presidential Candidates is how will they deal with Russia?

There is little margin for error here. Russia is not only supporting and arming our enemies they are growing their own military power. And brazenly demonstrating their capability

And then there is the elephant in the room: Iraq.

When the Surge worked, Democrats who argued against it said, "yeah but..."

"Yeah but there has been no political progress"

Well, I have argued that there has been political progress for a long time; just not the kind Democrats were able to accept. But now there is also political progress that Democrats can't deny.

Iraq's parliament on Wednesday passed three key pieces of legislation that set a date for provincial elections, allot $48 billion for 2008 spending, and provide limited amnesty to detainees in Iraqi custody.

The three measures were bundled together for one vote to satisfy the demands of minority Kurds who feared they might be double-crossed on their stand that the budget allot 17 percent to their semiautonomous regional government in the north.

Parliament cleared the way Wednesday for provincial elections this year that could give Sunnis a stronger voice and usher in vast changes to Iraq's power structure.

The new law — which set the vote for Oct. 1 — is one of the most sweeping reforms pushed by the Bush administration and signals that Iraq's politicians finally, if grudgingly, may be ready for small steps toward reconciliation.

As of the September report, The Iraqi government had fulfilled 9 of the 18 benchmarks. That wasn't enough for Democrats. Now Iraq has moved significantly beyond that.

So the question for the Presidential candidates is what will their Iraq policy be on a go-forward basis?

Perhaps we have the answer to this already

"It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq, it's if we succeed or not," McCain said to CNN's Larry King.

"And both Sen. Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal -- that means chaos, that means genocide, that means undoing all the success we've achieved and al Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America.

"I won't let that happen."

Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

“Make it 100 [years in Iraq]. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so; that would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me ... if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al-Qaida is training and equipping and motivating people every single day.”

Perhaps it's denial, perhaps it's just politics, but both Democratic Presidential contender have been mischaracterizing McCain's statement

"He said recently he could see having troops in Iraq for 100 years," Clinton said at an Arlington, Virginia, rally last week in a line she's repeated on the campaign trail. "Well, I want them home within 60 days of my becoming president of the United States."

Obama took a similar tack.

   "Sen. McCain said the other day that we might be mired for 100 years in Iraq -- which is reason enough not to give him four years in the White House," Obama has said on several occasions.

We need to hear serious responses from the Democratic contenders on serious issues of foreign policy.

Mischaracterizations and platitudes aren't going to cut it for a public that is already suspicious of a Democratic Party that has demonstrated itself to be not just weak, but fickle with regards to matters of national security and defense.

And then there's this

What in the world are advisers to both Senators Obama and Clinton doing in Syria in the middle of a presidential campaign — and why are the two campaigns so unforthcoming about the details of the visits? The same week that a terrorist mastermind harbored by the Baathist regime in Damascus was assassinated by a car bomb, both one of Mr. Obama's foreign policy counselors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a long-time critic of Israel, and one of Mrs. Clinton's national finance chairs, Hassan Nemazee, were meeting with President Assad...

Where is the sense of reality about who President Assad is and what his regime is all about? To suggest, as the Syrians report Mr. Brzezinski said, that they share some kind of common interest in respect of "stability" is disingenuous. Mugniyah, whom the Syrians had been harboring, has been among the FBI's most-wanted terrorists since 1983, when he authorized the attack on the American Marine barracks in Beirut. Mr. Assad runs a police state. Dictatorships can only thrive if the population is in constant terror and convinced the state itself is all knowing.

The Democratic Presidential contenders need to demonstrate that have a sense of reality.

Maj Lisa L. Carter

When Lisa L. Carter was an Atlanta postal worker caring for her two-year-old daughter, she had a strong feeling she was capable of more. Little did she know that, almost two decades later, she would be in command of more than 90 soldiers in the sands of Iraq. Nor would she have predicted that a Bronze Star would be pinned on her uniform in 2003 for her extraordinary service in support of the 555th Maintenance Company.                   

Spurred on by colleagues, she joined the Army Reserves in 1987 and was forever changed when she saw a black female officer and thought, "If she can do it, surely I can do it." From that day forward, she tirelessly reached for excellence. In 1996, she received her bachelor's degree in social work from Georgia State University and earned Army lieutenant gold bars through the school's ROTC program, all the while raising a family as a then-single parent.                   

Around the Christmas holiday of 2002, the 2/43 Air Defense Artillery Battalion and the 555th Maintenance Company received their deployment orders to Iraq with 80 percent of the company on leave. Carter had a goliath task ahead, and she embraced it. As the 555th Maintenance Company Commander at Ft. Bliss, Texas, she meticulously, safely, and effectively rail-loaded the entire company of 51 pieces of equipment in record time. Under her leadership, the unit's support of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force aided more than 65 contact missions, recovered 45 vehicles, and repaired more than 35 pieces of equipment within a four month period. Able to maintain a grueling operational tempo, her personnel were instrumental in the battalion's 95 percent above readiness rate during three critical weeks of intense combat. For these stellar accomplishments, then-Captain Lisa Weems (Carter) was awarded the Bronze Star.                   

Now back in the United States as member of the Defense Department's Why We Serve program, the major is engaged in telling her story to fellow citizens. From a hard-working single mother in Atlanta to a distinguished Army major, Carter now sums it up: "Service members know that this is their job and responsibility to serve."

Read more at Black Military World

Dean's folly

A year ago, no one would have guessed that the race for a Democratic nominee would be so close. Back then there was talk of the inevitability of a Hillary Clinton coronation. Back then, Howard Dean, as DNC Chairman seemed in control of the Party. When Florida and Michigan defied his wishes to not hold an primaries prior to February 5th, he punished them swiftly and severely by stripping them of their delegates.

The two states collectively amount to 10% of the Democratic electorate.

Now with the race so close, he's coming to regret his decision.

[RNC Chairman Mike] Duncan revealed that Howard Dean has called him up and asked if the RNC would be enforcing their sanctions on states that scheduled caucuses or primaries earlier than RNC rules allowed. Duncan told him that they would be ("we're the law and order party," he joked). Republican candidates may end up bringing their alternate delegates to St. Paul, and those people may get to attend as guests, but probably not as voting delegates.

That's a pretty easy call for Duncan, though. When the national parties decided to punish state parties for moving their contests early, the RNC announced that they'd sanction Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Wyoming by cutting their delegate slates in half. The DNC announced that they'd sanction Florida and Michigan by not letting them seat any delegates. The Republican sanctions won't affect the result of the fight for the nomination, and they won't disenfranchise entire states.

The same isn't true of the Democratic sanctions. By adopting those draconian rules, the DNC put itself in an impossible position; if they don't enforce the sanctions, particularly if it turns out to matter, Obama's supporters will be furious -- they agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan, and weren't even on the ballot in the latter state. If the DNC does enforce the sanctions, they'll alienate not just the Clinton faction but also two battleground states.

Yes, it is not just the Candidates that are angry. The Party that has a history of crying disenfranchisement at the drop of a hat, has no problem with doing so amongst themselves as well. Florida Democrats, for instance, are not ready to roll over

“The Florida delegates are very important,” said Bruce Strayhorn, point person for the Clinton campaign in Lee County. “It would be terrible if the fourth-largest state in the nation didn’t get its voice heard.”

Florida Democrats said Wednesday the stakes have gotten a little higher but their strategy so far remains the same in their efforts to seat the state’s 210 delegates at the party’s convention. Florida Democrats are confident a clear candidate will emerge prior to the August convention, so it then would be business as usual.

“It’s too early to say if Florida is going to be the kingmaker in this,” said Sen. Dave Aronberg, D-Greenacres, whose cross-state district includes south Lee. “I still think we’ll have a settled nominee going into the convention.”

State party officials say they are sticking to their game plan and the assumption remains that whoever comes out on top, Florida’s Democratic delegates will be in the house.

“Nothing has changed,” state Democratic Party spokesman Mark Bubriski said. “We’re still going through our delegate selection process and we expect our delegates to be seated.”

And the end result might be a court battle

The deadlock between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has Michael K. Jablonski, the general counsel of the Georgia Democratic Party, imagining some unusual scenarios that could decide the race.

Litigation is possible over the fate of delegates from Florida and Michigan, he said, although he is skeptical either candidate could achieve much in the courts.

Probably true. It was Howard Dean's decision and the problem is Howard Dean's to fix. But according to David Broder

Howard Dean does not have the status to broker this, this deal.

But the DNC Chairman sees the light at the end of the tunnel, and knows it is a train

Dean told a New York TV station, "The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario… I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don't, then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement."

But his suggested solutions are not going over well

Polk County Democratic Party leaders, like party officials throughout the state, are saying no to the "do-over" recommended by National Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean. Ignoring the primary and replacing its results with a caucus might satisfy national party leaders, but it won't satisfy Florida, local Democratic officials said.

"Howard Dean is trying to squirm out of the mess he's created," said Polk County Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy Simmons. "They already gave us those options months ago. The voters of Florida have spoken."

If this ends badly, Howard Dean will take, and deserve, the blame.

And even if it doesn't, I suspect.

The pup tent

When in 1992, Bill Clinton won the White House I blamed Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, I know that Ross Perot was a factor and I know that George HW Bush was not a great candidate when compared to the political skills of Bill Clinton.

Still I felt that the beating HW took from Limbaugh day after day was a significant factor. And I was very angry with him and refused to listen to his show for years, not that I was a big listener before that.

After a while my anger diminished and I would listen again periodically.

In 2004, regardless of the fact that Bush 43 had transgressed with regards to Limbaugh's conservative principles, Rush backed him up and he won re-election.

But what Rush was willing to overlook in 2004, he can not overlook in 2007.

Yesterday, Rush was talking about how the Big Tent of the Republicans has lead to their demise. What he means is that the Big Tent has diluted the influence of Conservatives as he defines them. And he defines Conservativism in terms of a stool with three legs

Yet because Republicans felt all defensive and we felt all ashamed, and we were being shamed by the media, we adopted this "big-tent" strategy, and the big-tent strategy effectively eliminated the three legs of the conservative stool I've been telling you about: fiscal, foreign policy, cultural.

By fiscal he means small government deficit hawks and by cultural he means social conservatives who are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and anti-evolution.

So he laments the fact that Big Tent Republicanism lets people into the tent that may not have all three qualifications.

...by the way [Rush says], I'm all for big tent, but you bring people in as us; not as them.  Don't misunderstand.  There's nothing exclusionary about me. You want to expand the party? I'm all for it.  It's what we've been trying to do here, in fact, with conservatism!

But he has a fundamental misunderstanding. And that misunderstanding is revealed here

This confusion, this mess -- contrary to the take of the Drive-By Media -- that conservatism, slash, Republican Partyism finds itself in today, is a reaction to the establishment Republicans who have ignored conservative principles and watered down their party for the last decade or more and their failures.

Notice he says "conservatism slash Republican Partyism" as if they were the same thing, but they are not. There is a Conservative wing to the Republican Party, that is true. But it is not the majority of the Party. Now you could say "Exactly. That's what Rush is saying." But it gets worse.

Because even among people who claim to be "very conservative" even fewer meet the three legged spec that Rush employs. So there are even fewer "conservatives" out there than he not only would admit, but can admit to, because it is clear that he believes there more conservatives (by his definition) in the world than there actually are.

Let's analyze the numbers:

I have already pointed out that in Florida, the first primary in which only registered Republicans could participate, only 27% of the primary participants self-identified as Very Conservative. Now one would imagine that such people would fit the definition that Rush proposed for Conservatives. But 20% of these people voted for Huckabee, a man who does not embrace the fiscal conservative leg of the stool. According to his web site he is for farm subsidies and federal crop insurance. He is protectionist with regards to global trade. He increased taxes as governor of Arkansas and the State government grew by 20% during his administration. The CATO institute gave Huckabee an "F" grade for fiscal policy during his last year as Governor.

Huckabee doesn’t just embrace big government in the form of big taxes. He truly appears to believe that if something is a good idea it should be a federal government program.

For example, having become health conscious while losing more than 120 pounds (a remarkable feat), he now calls for a national smoking ban. Because he believes that "art and music are as important as math and science" in public schools, he wants these programs funded -- and thus, directed and administered -- federally.

On National Security, he says he's for the Global War against Islamists, but was unwilling to secure the borders of Arkansas.

In 2005, Huckabee called un-Christian, un-American and irresponsible a bill introduced by state Sen. Jim Holt that would have denied state benefits to illegal immigrants and would have required valid proof of citizenship to register to vote....

   Gov. Mike Huckabee heaped criticism upon immigration legislation in the Arkansas Legislature,     describing it as "inflammatory . . . race-baiting and demagoguery."     He also challenged the Christian values of its main sponsor.

    Huckabee said the bill, seeking to forbid public assistance and voting rights to undocumented immigrants,     "inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there's a real problem. But there's not."

    The bill is modeled after Proposition 200, approved by Arizona voters in November.     The Arkansas measure was filed by Republican Sens. Jim Holt of Springdale and Denny Altes of Fort Smith.

I do not see how you can embrace the principles of national security while aiding and abetting illegal immigration.

McCutchen acknowledged Huckabee declares on his website that he now calls for closing the borders.

"But that's 180 degrees from what he did as governor of Arkansas," McCutchen said.

So clearly, those to considered themselves Very Conservative, yet voted for Huckabee, would not fit the definition that Rush proposes

And we can repeat this analysis everywhere. In Alabama, 37% of those voting in the primaries self-identified as Very Conservative and 46% of these voted for Huckabee.

By the same token, in Florida 21% of those claiming to be Very Conservative voted for McCain, and in Alabama, 29%.

In Arizona, those claiming to be Very Conservative were 30% of Republicans participating. Huckabee got 14% of those and McCain got 22%

What does this all mean?

It means that first, Rush is wrong when he associates Conservatives and Republicans: The two are certainly not the same now, and probably never were.

Second, Rush is promoting a particular brand of Conservatism, the Three Legged Stool School of Conservatism which clearly is a school that not all Conservatives embrace. And even more clearly, is not the majority of the Republican Party.

I can imagine other schools of Conservatism that would be excluded from Rush's Pup Tent: Two legged Conservatives who believe in the Fiscal and Foreign Policy Conservatism but reject the Social Conservatism of Rush's School.

Then there are the One Legged Conservatives who are all about Huckabee and his Social Conservative message but reject the other two legs of Rush's Stool School

There are probably other combinations as well.

All of these people are in the Big Tent of Republicanism, but few make it into the Pup Tent of the Stool School of Conservatism.

And while I think it is fine that Rush continue to promote his particular approach to Conservatism, I think it is important for him to recognize that it is not the only approach: The Stoolies are not the only way to define Conservatism.

McCain is good on National Security and is good on Fiscal matters. He even embraces some aspects of the Social Conservatives.

And when compared to Hillary and Obama, he is quite Conservative indeed.

I think it is now time to get past the narrow definitions of Conservatism, and embrace the larger tent of conservatives so that neither Clinton nor Obama gain the Whitehouse.

And if you really want small government and a strong national defense, Rush does have some useful words of advice:

...the thing that you're going to have to focus on here to keep the country from moving left is to focus on House and Senate races, support as many Republican conservatives in both the House and Senate in your state as you can and try to limit the so-called vast increases the Democrats are expecting in this presidential election....

I don't care if it's McCain who wins the presidency or if it's Hillary or Obama, the point is, this is not the time to sulk and sit out and forget the election.  This is what happened in 2006.  People sat out in 2006.  I played the sound bite from October 18th of 2006, a couple of weeks ago before that election, I predicted if you sit out and you turn the House and Senate over to Democrats...

I have argued many times, if you want small government, fiscal conservatism, and a strong national defense, the battleground is the House and Senate, not the Presidency

Donald Rumsfeld once famously said you go to war with the Army you have. And the Army you have is the Army provided by the Congress.

Similarly, the President can not spend any more money than Congress allows him or her to spend.

And the size of the government is directly proportional to the amount of money allocated by Congress to the Government.

You want small government? Select and elect small government Senators and Representatives.

It not a problem you can fix with a Chief Executive.