It doesn’t appear, however, that the Senator really considered the facts on the ground. Thanks to Max Boot for all his work at getting the story in Iraq and writing about what is happening as a result of the new operation headed by General Petraeus.

Max Boot looks at the progress in Baghdad, Baqubah, Ramadi, and Falluja in an article today in the Weekly Standard: “Can Petraeus Pull It Off?” For me this was the money quote:

Nevertheless, with only three of five extra brigade combat teams on the ground, the situation in the capital has already shown signs of improvement since Fardh al-Qanoon [Operation: “Enforcing the Law”] started in February.

The whole article is recommended.

Wisdom is a much sought end for its own sake. Over the generations many seekers of wisdom begin their search by looking to Socrates for guidance. Today, conventional wisdom supports the idea of an exit strategy; it is especially favored when we are talking about pre-nuptial agreements, which plan for marital failure, and military conflicts, which plan for military failure. For example, per conventional wisdom it would be gross negligence to begin a war without an exit strategy at the ready in case military conflict becomes difficult.

In light of the foregoing, here is a list of ten reasons why we need an exit strategy from the United Nations.

1. The U.N. Security Council could not even pass a meaningful resolution on January 26, 2007, specifically condemning Iran or its President for comments about wiping Israel off the map or denying the Holocaust.

Comment: A resolution was passed that “condemns…any denial of the Holocaust,” but it doesn’t mention Iran by name or condemn Iran’s President for his denial of the Holocaust or his repeated threats that Israeli will be wiped off the face of the earth.

2. The U. N. Development Program is believed to have been distributing cash directly to the North Korean government for years while these “funds have been used by Pyongyang for its own illicit purposes.”

Comment: U.S. deputy ambassador Mark Wallace alleged Friday, January 26, 2007, that the UNDP’s North Korea operation had been run “in blatant violation of U.N. rules” for years. He demanded an outside audit focusing on concerns that development funds had been used by Pyongyang for ‘its own illicit purposes."

3. Corruption in Iraq Oil-for-Food Program.

Comment: Saddam manipulated the sanctions by bribing individuals who acted on behalf of U.N members. The failure of the Security Council to enforce sanctions in cases of repeated violations of UN Resolutions actually exacerbated the situation. For example, if all 5 members of the Security Council spoke with one voice, the chances Saddam backs down without military action and complies with the resolutions improves. The lack of seriousness of purpose by the other members of the Security Council, however, actually increased the odds the UN would be ineffective and the resolutions would be meaningless.

4. Member nations have refused to approve recommended reforms despite overwhelming evidence of mismanagement, fraud, waste, and wide-spread ineffectiveness.

Comment: In 2005, the U.S. contributed over $5 billion dollars to the United Nations. The need for financial reform continues as evidenced by the recent example of the UN plan “to finance the expansion of U.N. headquarters in New York City. The renovation costs will be in the neighborhood of two billion dollars — many times the amount that developer Donald Trump says can be justified.”

5. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is a failure.

Comment: The war between Israel and Lebanon during the summer of 2006 demonstrated the abject failure of UNIFIL peacekeepers stationed in Lebanon since 1978 to ensure peace. The new arrangement of increasing the number of troops did not improve the chances for peace; in fact Hezbollah has replenished and increased its weapons arsenal and ignored all the terms of the U.N. Resolution.

6. UN Peacekeepers commit criminal offenses and misconduct in several Africa countries (e.g., sex abuse, rape, and extortion of those they are charged with protecting), but no action is taken against the offenders.

7. The sooner we exit the U.N. the sooner we can begin to re-construct a world body capable of living up to U.N. ideals.

Comment: Continued membership is a mistake. At some point it was clear the League of Nations was broken and continued membership was not only a mistake, but delayed the option of creating a better organization. Now, members refuse to comply with basic UN obligations such as submitting to inspection procedures in Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. They play the system while others refuse to enforce the rules for their own personal reasons. The UN has become like a reality game show for countries around the world that play Lilliput and see if they can tie Gulliver (the U.S.) down.

8. The U.N. is not even living up to the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Comment: In his September 19, 2006, address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Bush began by noting that the principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares that the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world.” One of the authors, a Lebanese diplomat named Charles Malik insisted that these principles apply equally to all people, of all regions, of all religions, including the men and women of the Arab world.

9. Subordinating our national interest to a rogue gallery of dictators, genocidal regimes, and corrupt world leaders, in order to achieve consensus, is not only immoral, but against our national interests. Further, we are frequently only achieving agreement at the lowest common denominator rather than taking the morally right and effective action.

Comment: For example, the failure of other Security Council members to act with a singleness of purpose against Iraq gave Saddam Hussein a false sense of security that required us finally to take military action. As a result of the failure of other members to support past resolutions (due to the influence of the Oil for Food scandal), we were left with a series of bad choices. Due to our good faith efforts to work with the UN, our situation was aggravated by the delay when an election in Turkey closed a planned access into Northern Iraq.

10. Genocide has become all too acceptable as the UN delays action in Darfur and the world becomes complacent about the immorality of such slaughter after being desensitized by Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda.

Comment: As recently noted in Genocide Awaits Us, starting in 1992, the U.N. failed over 200,000 men, women, and children in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Rwanda in 1994, the U.N. abandoned 800,000. And in Darfur, it is too late for the 500,000 already dead and thousands more who perish every month while the U.N. dithers.

In Darfur, UN lack of action is immoral. Members are unwilling to protect those at risk and take action against the offenders. While those who commit genocide are guilty of crimes by commission, the UN’s failure to act is a crime of omission. It is immoral; a stain on all those belonging to the organization, and our acquiescence destroys any moral authority we might have as a democracy to call for action in future cases.

And this is only a partial list of UN deficiencies. What would Socrates say after reviewing such a list? Whether he would consider an exit strategy a sign of real wisdom or not, since he believed in keeping promises, it is likely he would say these are valid reasons to end your relationship with a failed organization, however well intended when founded. It is time to place the UN next to the League of Nations as a failed experiment. We can do better.

Ralph Peters’ column today, Ugly Choices, covers the broader strategic issues we face in the Middle East and looks at the conflict between our short and long-term interests. This is a thoughtful analysis that will make the current machinations over nonbinding resolutions in Washington frustrate and anger you even more. Serious times require serious people and our elected leaders in Washington are fiddling while Rome burns.

The whole article is worth reading, but here are some essential questions Mr. Peters raises.

In all-too-real a sense, backing either side, Sunni or Shia, is just betting on black or red at the roulette wheel - knowing that the house always wins in the end. And the house is the collapsed and vengeful civilization of the Middle East.

But we're locked in the casino; we have to make our bet. So here are the fundamental questions the administration has to ask itself before pushing the chips across the table:

* How do we defeat Iran's government without alienating the Iranian people?

* Do our long-term interests truly coincide with repressive Sunni Arab regimes?

* Are we once again in danger of starting a fight we lack the guts to finish? The administration's less-than-half-hearted military policy in Iraq and Israel's disastrous loss to Hezbollah last summer aren't encouraging models.

* By reinvigorating our "alliance" with Saudi Arabia and other repressive Sunni states, are we just setting ourselves up for another round of "let's you and him fight," with American blood defending Arab oil wealth? Are we still the Saudi royal family's whores?

Today, Senator John Kerry at the Davos economic summit attacked the Bush Administration for isolating the U.S. and turning it into "a sort of international pariah."

Others have commented on the inaccuracies in his allegations, but there is also the troubling aspect that Senator Kerry and a few other Americans feel at liberty to travel overseas and then attack the United States. Gone is the old tradition that criticism of your country ends at the waters’ edge.

In his defense, Senator Kerry may see himself as more the cosmopolitan man with world-wide portfolio and allegiance to no country. If, however, he still considers himself an American first and foremost, then perhaps he and others congenitally cursed with foot-in-mouth disease, should, at least during this time of war against a ruthless enemy, return to some basic concepts of civic duty.

In Civilization And Its Enemies, the author explains the role that forgetfulness plays in the fall of civilizations. His comment on civic duty is one that Senator Kerry should take for action.

They [Civilized people]forget that to fight an enemy it is necessary to have a leader whom you trust, and how, at such times, this trust is a civic duty and not evidence of one's credulity. They forget, in short, that there has ever been a category of human experience called the enemy.

Senator Kerry needs to recognize the risks he, and all our elected officials, create for our troops and the Country when they provide talking points to our enemy.

Lee Harris, in “Civilization And Its Enemies,” presents an in-depth look at our current military conflict with radical Islamic extremism. He discusses 9/11 in the context of a fantasy ideology; the nature of the enemy and the role of ruthlessness in warfare; and the critical role that forgetfulness plays in understanding why civilizations fail and the risks that we are facing.

This is a grand adventure that examines Western Civilization from the early Greeks, through the Enlightenment up to the present day. It covers a wide-ranging discussion of how military conflicts and philosophical thought from the past apply to our current situation.

The discussion also raises ideas that shine light on the endless futility of a Middle East Peace Process in any region that has not experienced “the civilizing process” societies must go through and the essential requirement of “respectability” for any nation.

Civilization And Its Enemies, is a perfect set-piece (the past, present and future) to read along with Oriana Fallaci, The Force of Reason, and Mark Steyn, America Alone.

In, The Force of Reason, Oriana Fallaci, explains how European leadership and those who shaped public opinion failed to meet the challenges of assimilating their Middle Eastern immigrants. She discusses her shock and disbelief at the role of the “elites” in trading away basic western values. Her journey especially covers the recent past.

In, America Alone, Mark Steyn, explains why the future of Europe is hard-wired into an Islamic presence that is based upon demographics and the declining birth rates in most European countries (except for the high birth rates of Islamic immigrants). His view is one of the future and how the countries of Europe have failed to maintain a necessary population base to preserve their basic values and identity.

Civilization And Its Defense offers perspective and presents our conflict against an extremist Islamic ideology with a broader brush that helps the reader to put our current situation in historical context and understand why we face what President Bush refers to as the defining challenge of the 21^st Century.

As the Biden-Hagel Resolution waits for a floor vote and the Warner allies discuss a more acceptable, but equally damaging Resolution, nattering Senators wail about conditions in Iraq. Many urge “redeployment” (an offensive term that is a deceptive use of the English language amounting to a call for retreat and failure) without any acknowledgement about what conditions in Iraq or the Middle East will look like after the U.S. departs the region. The race for the exits preempts all rational discussion, few impress with their knowledge of the region or battlefield, and even fewer ask relevant questions about the enemy.

In a recent report, we learn that the plan is underway in Baghdad and success is resulting in a response from some that “it is too quiet.” Progress is being made and yet only the provocative news reports of the latest bombing seem to evoke a response from our elected officials.

Meanwhile, I am waiting for any critic of the President’s Plan who is promoting a withdrawal from Iraq, to ask and answer a question that Sherlock Holmes might tell Watson is like noticing that the dog didn’t bark. The question is:

· What is the condition of the enemy?

Apparently, Al Qaeda is undertaking its own withdrawal in Baghdad. Isn’t it interesting what a demonstration of determination and will can accomplish? For example, few have probably considered this report:

In other words, battling the insurgency now essentially means battling Al Qaeda. This is a major accomplishment.

Last October, my sources began telling me about rumblings among the insurgent strategists suggesting that their murderous endeavor was about to run out of steam. This sense of fatigue began registering among mid-level insurgent commanders in late December, and it has devolved to the rank and file since then. The insurgents have begun to feel that the tide has turned against them.

In many ways, the timing of this turnaround was inadvertent, coming at the height of political and bureaucratic mismanagement in Washington and Baghdad. A number of factors contributed to this turnaround, but most important was sustained, stay-the-course counterinsurgency pressure. At the end of the day, more insurgents were ending up dead or behind bars, which generated among them a sense of despair and a feeling that the insurgency was a dead end.

The Washington-initiated "surge" will speed-up the ongoing process of defeating the insurgency. But one should not consider the surge responsible for the turnaround. The lesson to be learned is to keep killing the killers until they realize their fate.

Additionally, an informed proponent of any withdrawal option should also ask and answer these questions:

· How is Al Qaeda doing (i.e., what is the condition of their supplies, morale, and manpower)?

Partial Answer: What needs to be understood is the central role that Al Qaeda — or more accurately its successor organization, a group called the Islamic State of Iraq — is playing on these fronts and the diminishing role of all the other insurgent groups.

· If we adopt the Murtha/Kerry/Edwards plan to retreat and capitulate are we handing over victory to Al Qaeda?

For those who are ready to jump on the “let’s micromanage the President’s War Plan” bandwagon, it is time to think about G. K. Chesterton’s advice: “He who weds the spirit of the times quickly becomes a widower.”

Chesterton was quite right; joining an emotional bandwagon is not leadership. For example, all of those who opposed Gulf War I looked quite foolish a few months later.

There is only one Commander in Chief; it is time for Congress to join ranks and stop contemplating actions that will give aid and comfort to the enemy.

The Resolution today by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee disapproving the President's Iraq policy is very harmful to the national interest. Contrary to Senator Biden's disclaimer, the public dispute can only be interpreted as an effort to embarrass the President. Furthermore, there is no evidence the resolution will improve our position by making our troops safer or our mission easier.

There is a need during hazardous times, when we face a ruthless enemy, for elected officials to communicate privately to the Commander in Chief and withhold announcing their public opinions when they disagree. Further, any comments of disapproval should include a plan for success that is arguably superior to the President's plan. During wartime, elected officials need a modicum of self-restraint. They have to filter their comments of public disagreement with an understanding of the risks.

Yesterday, General Petraeus testified that such a Resolution would give encouragement to the enemy and depress morale among our allies and troops. Certainly, General Petraeus was correct. We know this enemy and 9/11 was a response to our ealier signs of weakness.  The President’s plan is underway and a non-binding resolution only gives encouragement to the enemy. Contrary to Senator Chuck Hagel’s argument, there is nothing courageous about voting on a nonbinding resolution which advises the enemy that if they just bide their time we will run for cover.

A non-binding measure is not an act of political courage; please don’t embarrass Washington residents by publicly voting for failure. All of those who opposed Gulf War I looked quite foolish a few months later. G.K. Chesterton said: “He who weds the spirit of the times quickly becomes a widower.” Chesterton was quite right; joining an emotional bandwagon is not leadership. A show of unity and a wait and see approach are called for at this time to give the plan a chance for success.

In the movie, The Godfather, Don Vito Corleone, the head of the family, told a rival family that he opposed entering the drug and prostitution business with them. Immediately, a member of the family spoke out against the Godfather and publicly showed there was a lack of unity. The rival Mafia gang recognized they could get their way if they removed the Godfather and subsequently tried to kill him. Disunity communicates weakness and a lack of will.

There is only one Commander in Chief, please don’t break ranks and give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Dear Senator:

I am writing to express my concern about early comments about denying funds by Democrats to the President's speech before it is given. Statements by Speaker Pelosi and others that threaten to eliminate support for any additional funding before hearing the reasons for an increase of troops and the rationale for such a proposal not only consign the President to the status quo but seem purely partisan, political, and signal signs of capitulation and abandonment without exploring all options. Surely more thought, effort, and planning can go into a response to the President's proposal, which he spent two months investigating, than a premature refusal to accept any new way forward?

If anyone wanted a strategy to discourage officials in Iraq from taking responsibility, cutting funding would be an ideal remedy. If anyone wanted to sabotage any chance of success in the region, cutting funding would guarantee less than a full effort to achieve success. If anyone wanted to catapult the region into chaos and achieve a terrifying scenario, cutting funding would be a great idea.

Before any response is taken, discretion suggests that one listen to the President's plan and evaluate it in a clear-headed manner. As for withdrawing from the region under an umbrella of "redeployment," such euphemisms for retreat are offensive. Plain speaking is called for on a matter of such importance. Despite the current preoccupation with minimum wage as the sine qua non of all political problems, Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East demand far greater attention.

As for cutting funding and leaving the region, please consider this excerpt from an article in the current issue of The Weekly Standard, by Reuel Marc Gerecht, a Middle East analysts, about what might transpire in the region if we fail or pull out: The Consequences of Failure in Iraq, They would be awful. But failure can still be averted. 

Certainly the most damning consequence of failure in Iraq is the likelihood that an American withdrawal would provoke a take-no-prisoners civil war between the Sunni and Shiite Arabs, which could easily reach genocidal intensity. The historical parallel to have in mind is the battle between subcontinent Hindus and Muslims that came with the independence of India. Although of differing faiths, the pre-1947 Hindus and Muslims were often indistinguishable culturally, linguistically, and physically. Yet they "ethnically cleansed" their respective new nations, India and Pakistan, with exuberance. Somewhere between 500,000 and one million Muslims and Hindus perished, tens of thousands of women were raped, and more than ten million people were forced to flee their homes. This level of barbarism, scaled down to Iraq's population, could quickly happen in Mesopotamia, long before American forces could withdraw from the country. (And it's worth recalling that few British officials anticipated the communal ferocity that came with the end of the Raj.)

Mr. Gerecht is one of the few to actually describe the consequences of a €redeployment€ and detail the conditions in Iraq if we pull out or otherwise fail. Does America really want to abandon 5% to 10% of the population to slaughter? Such an estimate based on a population of 25 million in Iraq means that one million to two and half million people could be killed. Additionally, there seems to be little consideration for what the U.S. costs would be in terms of military casualties were we to withdraw and then be forced to enter Iraq again when terrorists set up shop and start attacking American targets around the world. The consequences of failure seem totally unacceptable as concluded by the Baker-Hamilton Commission.

If the President adopts the proposal by Frederick Kagan and General Jack Keane (U.S. Army, ret.) calling for a substantial and sustained surge of U.S. troops to secure and protect critical areas of Baghdad, I would at least like to get a sense that elected officials have reviewed and studied the proposal before talking. As of this date, many public comments display a shocking failure by the speaker to even be familiar with the slide show that is available on the internet.

Whatever your personal feelings about Iraq, attacks by the leadership on the President's plan will give succor to the enemy, they will demoralize our Iraqi allies, and they will cost U.S. lives by making the troops job more difficult. All I ask is that before joining any bandwagon or effort by Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, and Congressman Murtha, that you seriously consider the consequences of your vote and comments.

Thank you for your time.

Today, with smiles from ear to ear, trumpets blaring, much fanfare, and cameras rolling, Democratic members of Congress appeared for the television audience to announce -- wage slavery will continue! Dependency on government is back.

Okay, they didn't say that, but essentially by increasing minimum wage they made it easier for anyone in the targeted class who was truly in need of a salary increase to continue in the same job. While there are disagreements about what constitutes wage slavery, for our purposes, wage slavery might apply to a minimum-wage worker who has no choice in who they work for, the type of job they can get, or due to circumstances under their control (e.g., lack of education) limit their employment options to jobs paying only minimum wage.

For a moment, consider welfare reform which was hailed as a significant accomplishment by President Clinton. Congress recognized welfare destroyed individual motivation and trapped the poor in an endless cycle of government dependency. The tragedy of welfare was evident in the anecdotal reports of third and fourth generation family members still depending on the government. Welfare reform was designed to stop that cycle of dependency and force people into the work place.

Now, consider the effect of an increase in minimum wage for those truly needing a push up the ladder, like the welfare recipient, and motivation to enhance their market value to employers. With this mandated federal subsidy will they be more or less likely to get their high school diploma, attend school in the evenings to gain another skill, or attend a vocational school? Or will they find it more comfortable to depend on the federal increase in wages and continue in their low paying minimum wage job? Wage slavery is another form of dependency. If you were a truly needy beneficiary of a federally mandated minimum wage increase, for example, a head of household and sole-wage earner, who has been trapped in a minimum wage job for more than a year, it is now easier for you to stay a wage slave in your current job.

So, who is Congress trying to help with an increase in minimum wage? George Will recently looked at those affected by an increase in minimum wage and found a small group which would be even smaller if those receiving minimum wage, but not truly needy were excluded. Therefore, this increase in minimum wage arguably isn't for the part-time worker who lives in a household where annual income is $42,000 per year or greater. Nor is the increase for the restaurant worker who receives significant tips or the teenager working part-time while in school. Additionally, it isn't for the two-thirds of those earning the federal minimum today that will, a year from now, have been promoted and be earning 10 percent more. Furthermore, it isn't for the seventy percent of the work force in 29 states covered under state mandated minimum wage that is higher than the Federal Minimum Wage. Finally, it isn't for the 2 percent of high school students in states that allow people to leave school before 18 who will drop out due to the wage increase.

While the foregoing members of the group receive minimum wage, surely they are not members of the targeted group requiring federal intervention? They are not the truly needy. Their status is temporary, and in many cases their household is not in need of federal help. It is hard to believe they constitute the significant crisis that requires expedited House action (in disregard of campaign promises about protecting minority rights), reductions in entry level jobs for first time workers (e.g., the young high-school student working at the corner gas station today who used to fill up the gas tank, wash the car windows, and put air in the tires), and an increase in prices for everyone in the market place to compensate businesses for the greater costs of doing business.

So for the very few left who qualify as truly needy it is time to thank the Democrats who after twelve years in the wilderness as the minority have made a federally mandated subsidy their number one priority. If you are one of those truly needy workers, you will find it easier to stay in that minimum wage job and wait for the next federal hand-out. Don't bother getting off the couch, turning off the cable movie, and moving up the ladder. Dependency is back and being a wage slave will soon be easier.

What are we to think of the announcement by Keith Ellison, the newly elected Congressman from Minnesota, and the comments for and against his announcement, that he will use the Koran to take the oath of office as the first elected Muslim Congressman in January 2007?

* Dennis Prager in an article entitled: “America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on” argued that the Bible has been our traditional book; “when all elected officials take their oath of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization;” and if it is good enough for Jews, Mormons, and atheists, then Ellison should use the same book.

* Eugene Volokh, in “Oh Say, Can You Swear on a Koran?” responded that officials have selected sacred books other than the Bible. He observed further that under the Federal Rules of Evidence a witness could affirm or take no oath. The purpose of the oath is that it be meaningful to the witness and impress upon him the seriousness of the occasion. Professor Volokh explains the oath is to awaken the conscience of the witness and impress on him a duty to testify truthfully.

* Today, Mr. Prager explained in response to criticism of his position, he was not arguing for a religious test, but for Mr. Ellison to recognize the role of the Bible and the traditions that have provided the freedoms all Americans enjoy.

Additionally, are there other factors that were not considered which suggest that the use of the Koran might be different? What if:

• Islam is both a religion and a political ideology,
• Many Muslims reject man-made laws of their country of residence: for example, in England only 1 in 4 Muslims believe England is their country, “twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state,” and some believe that only Sharia law applies to them,
• An oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States is inconsistent with the Koran’s teaching that all belongs to Allah and Allah’s laws as found in the Koran must be obeyed, and
• An oath on the Koran inherently conflicts between the belief system in the sacred text and the words of the oath to protect and defend the laws of the United States.

Shouldn’t Congressman Ellison at least address these issues with his constituents before beginning his service in Congress?   Shouldn’t Congressman Ellison reconcile his obligation under the Koran and his duty to protect and defend the laws of the United States before taking an oath on a sacred text that many believe forbids man-made law, separation of church and state, and equal treatment of all religions?

As my thoughts turn to the job performance of Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, I realize, to borrow part of his rhetorical legacy, that before I can reach a judgment I need to consider my known unknowns. He came to the job with high expectations and a resume that was perhaps unequalled by any of his predecessors, and he is about to step down as Secretary of Defense for the second time. During the past six years Secretary Rumsfeld has worked on: transforming our military forces, implementing foreign and domestic policy changes in responses to 9/11, forcing the Taliban out of Afghanistan, toppling the government of Saddam Hussein from Iraq, democratizing and rebuilding Iraq into an ally in the global war against radical Islamists. Iraq during the pre and post-Saddam era created the greatest controversy. Since events in Iraq have been the most significant grounds of criticism, what was Secretary Rumsfeld’s role in supporting or advocating another course of action concerning Iraq with respect to just three of my known unknowns?

* What was Secretary Rumsfeld’s position and advice on the decision to seek another UN resolution on Iraq, despite the fact that there were more than a dozen violations?

Did he agree, for example, with Oriana Fallaci who argued the significant delay after 9/11 in dealing with Iraq was a mistake? She contended that world opinion supported U.S. action after 9/11, and the sooner we acted against Saddam the more world support we would have.

* Did Secretary Rumsfeld advise the President before the election in Turkey that further delays for any reason could radically alter the military campaign and battle plan?

While pursuing further UN action access to Turkey was lost as a means of transit for our forces into Iraq. U.S. forces were positioned to enter Northern Iraq and engage the opposition north of Baghdad. However, as a result of our delays and an election, the Muslim RPK party gained significant representation and opposed our use of a corridor through Turkey. We were therefore forced to conduct an invasion solely from the South, and our troops billeted in Turkey were required to board ships and travel to Iraq by another route. We never did engage the resistance in the North since our forces stopped at Baghdad. So much for waiting to make another useless trip to the UN.

* What was Secretary Rumsfeld’s position on democratizing and rebuilding Iraq, i.e., nation building, with primarily military forces?

Did Secretary Rumsfeld agree with General Powell’s maxim: if you break it you own it, or did he give other advice to the President? General Powell’s maxim suggests if we remove Saddam then we are responsible for nation building, i.e., putting Iraq’s government and infrastructure back together again. In America Alone, Mark Steyn distinguishes between how we have handled “undesirable” leaders in certain countries in the past by removing them versus the British approach in India, which was to stay for as long as it took to create a country that adhered to British law. Since there were Pentagon efforts to create an out-of-country Iraqi force under Ahmad Chalabi so as to put an Iraqi face and group in charge immediately after the fall of Saddam, the Pentagon apparently did not support a nation building strategy. Unfortunately perhaps, (our known unknown), the State Department prevailed and “the postwar plan failed to provide for the Iraqis themselves to take control as soon as possible.”

Comments By Speaker Pelosi: November 29, 2006

Question to our Speaker: President Bush made the following statement while he was in Estonia en route to Jordan to meet with Prime Minister Maliki about the situation in Iraq:

There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of these attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal. And we will work with the Maliki government to defeat these elements.

Response by Ms. Pelosi: When asked for her thoughts about the President’s overseas comment Ms. Pelosi responded that: "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again." (Emphasis added)

Comment: Speaker Pelosi didn’t exactly dazzle the Fox All Stars with her blatantly inaccurate response, which they characterized as "confused," "mixed up," "she clearly screwed up here.”

What is sad about “sad” Nancy is that she missed an opportunity to defer comment with a grace note.  All she had to do was say:

While the President is overseas, while he is in route to a meeting with President Maliki, all Democrats wish him the best of success and I prefer to wait until he returns from his trip before commenting on any of his remarks.

It was an opportunity for a simple turning away of a question with grace.  Not only did Ms. Pelosi fail to demonstrate an instance of grace, but also she raised further questions about her judgment and ability. “To every thing there is a season, … a time to keep silence, and a time to speak….”  If Ms. Pelosi had considered this she might have avoided embarrassing herself.

For an earlier Pelosi profundity blog go here.

"Audacity, always audacity, still more audacity."
General George Patton

What would General Patton advise President Bush to do with the much anticipated James Baker, Iraq Study Group (ISG) recommendation to talk with Iran and Syria about achieving stability in Iraq? Patton would likely point to the military campaigns in Afghanistan, where the Taliban were promptly driven out of the country, and in Iraq were Saddam was quickly forced to flee Baghdad. He might say: using U.S. Special Forces with cell phones on camels to help the Afghan rebels defeat the Taliban was “audacious,” and General Tommy Frank’s battle plan racing to Baghdad to remove Saddam was “more audacious.” Rather than talking to Syria, who is sedulously training assassins to kill leaders in Lebanon, and Iran, who is assiduously training Shia militia in Iraq, you need: "Still More Audacity."