Red Ensign Rising

It looks like the Liberal juggernaut will finally be defeated on Monday, Canada's election day. Despite an hysterical last-ditch effort by an ad-hoc coalition of left-wing interest groups, urging their fellow citizens to "think twice" about voting Conservative, the final polls heading into the weekend were all good news for Stephen Harper.

Here are the "big three" numbers, from the latest polls, conducted Jan. 18-20. For those of you who, for some strange reason, do not share my obsession with Canadian politics, here is a quick guide:

Conservative Party: A moderately conservative party, would probably be considered right around the DLC-led right of the Democratic Party in an American context.

Liberal Party: The best-named party in North America, all liberalism, all the time.

New Democratic Party: Socialist party, would probably feel at home at a British Labour Party conference.

Bloc Quebecois: The federal wing of Quebec separatism.

Green Party: A moderate environmentalist party, with less leftism than you'd think.

Ekos:

Conservatives: 37%
Liberals: 27%
NDP: 20%
Bloc Quebecois: 12%
Greens: 5%

SES:

Conservatives: 36%
Liberals: 29%
NDP: 19%
Bloc Quebecois: 11%
Greens: 6%

Ipsos:

Conservatives: 38%
Liberals: 26%
NDP: 19%
Bloc Quebecois: 11%
Greens: 5%

Those numbers are pretty consistent. We'll see soon enough how right they are.

C-SPAN, an invaluable resource, will be running the CBC's election night coverage here in America beginning at 7pm PST Monday evening. Due to Canadian law on point, no election returns may be reported until that time, which is when the polls close on the west coast.

Funny old world, isn't it? The Iraq War, according to the experts, was supposed to spell disaster for its supporters electorally, and, yet, here we are with Bush, Howard and Blair re-elected and Stephen Harper doing well in Canada, while the Liberals, Chirac and Schroder look increasingly like yesterday's news.

The View

My sitemeter report tells me that someone logged in from La Mirada, California tonight.

Hey, that's my hometown!

Welcome, fellow sufferer.

The Council Has Spoken!

The Watcher's Council has selected this week's winners and an interesting batch it is.

I won't even mention the fact that my post came in last. Promise.

Winners of January 19, 2006:

Council Links:

Options on Iran II, The Glittering Eye.

This is an all-around excellent summary of the current strategic situation vis a vis the Islamic Republic. I don't say this often, but this is a must-read.

NY Times Confesses the Truth About NSA Leaks, The Strata-Sphere

Non-Council Links:

NY Times Tipped Terrorists?, The Anchoress

Bloggers: The Pamphleteers of Today, Liberty and Culture

Man, these are some good posts.

You can find the entire list here, courtesy of the mighty Watcher himself.

No Hudnas At Home Either

Osama has popped up once again to remind us that, yes, maniacal terrorists do in fact exist and, yes, they want to kill you, even if you are a good, progressive bike messenger with a Palestinian flag on your backpack. There has been a ton of commentary on the speech, so I'll just make a quick point here. In his speech, the "Saudi dissident" had this to say:

"My letter to you refers to the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and how to bring about its end. I did not intend to talk with you about this subject because for us, it's a closed matter. Only iron can defeat iron. Our situation, Allah be praised, is improving, while your situation is the opposite, but what brought me to speak are the repeated words of deceit by your president Bush, in his interpretation of the results of public opinion polls amongst you, which showed that the overwhelming majority of your public seeks to withdraw the forces from Iraq - but [Bush] opposed this and said that withdrawing the forces will convey the wrong message to the adversaries, and that it is preferable that we fight them on their soil rather than they fight us on our soil.

"I have an answer to these words of deceit, as follows: The war in Iraq is combusting without cessation, and the [military] operations in Afghanistan are in constant escalation in our favor, Allah be praised, and the Pentagon's numbers indicate an ongoing rise in the number of your killed and wounded, in addition to the huge material damage."

[...]

"... I say that the poll results please those of you who are wise, and that Bush's rejection of the results is a mistake, and that reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not remained limited to Iraq, as Bush claims, but rather Iraq has become a source of attraction and recruitment of qualified forces. On the other hand, the mujahidoun have, with Allah's help, succeeded time after time in breaking through all security measures taken by all the oppressing coalition countries. Evidence of this is the explosions you have witnessed in the capitals of the most important European countries that are members of this hostile coalition. Any delay in similar operations in America does not stem from lack of ability to break through your security measures. The operations are in the stages of preparation, and you will yet see them, in the heart of your homes, immediately with the completion of the preparations, with Allah's help."

[...]

"Based on the above, it can be clearly seen that Bush's words are false, but what he refrained from saying - and this is the essence of the poll results, which favor troop withdrawal - is that it is better that we do not fight the Muslims on their soil, and they will not fight us on our soil.

"We have no objection to accepting a long-term cease fire under fair conditions which we will uphold. We are a nation forbidden by Allah to betray and lie. Both sides will benefit from such a cease fire, from security and stability, and we will build Iraq and Afghanistan which have been destroyed in the war. There is nothing wrong with this solution, except that it will prevent the flow of hundreds of billions [dollars] to influential individuals and to the merchants of war in America who supported Bush's election with billions of dollars."

The following is an editorial from the leading American journal of left opinion, The Nation, from its January 6, 2006 edition:

The large Sunni Arab turnout in the December 15 election, together with George W. Bush's speeches the same week, may have briefly changed the tenor of the debate on Iraq. But it would be wrong to conclude that the Administration's strategy is working or that this magazine's case for withdrawal is any less compelling as a result. The election does not spell the waning of popular support for the insurgency, only a new phase in the struggle that will now have both a military and a political dimension. It would also be wrong to conclude that the election will stanch the sectarian violence. In fact, it may only accelerate the drift toward civil war if the Shiite religious coalition--primarily SCIRI and Dawa--dominates the new permanent government, as seems likely, and remains unwilling to compromise with Sunnis and other Iraqis on such critical constitutional issues as federalism and the division of oil revenues.

For these reasons, now is not the time for proponents of an exit strategy to back off from pressing their case or for Congress to give the Administration's strategy more time. Indeed, now is the time for honest critics of this war and for Congress to make any future funding for American forces contingent on establishing a clear-cut deadline for withdrawal. They must do so because a withdrawal-and-diplomacy strategy is the best hope--perhaps the only hope--of ending the insurgency and averting a full-scale civil war that could draw in the region's other powers.

In his speeches Bush got it exactly backward: An American withdrawal-and-diplomacy strategy is a condition, though by no means a guarantee, for progress toward stability, not the result of it. Such a strategy is more likely to achieve the goals Bush laid out--a united Iraq with a government strong enough to deny terrorists the use of its territory and an Iraqi security force strong enough to protect its people--than is the evolving counterinsurgency strategy the Administration is pursuing. Instead, the President made the drawdown of forces contingent upon establishing stability in Iraq, although there is abundant evidence that US forces are a major factor contributing to the instability and an obstacle to the process of national reconciliation.

To begin with, a US withdrawal would do far more to end the threat of foreign terrorists in Iraq than would US military action. The election made it clear that Iraqi insurgents control the security situation in central Iraq, not foreign fighters associated with jihadi extremist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who denounced the election as the work of Satan and threatened anyone who voted. But extremists were unable to make good on their threats, confirming that Zarqawi and his followers are militarily insignificant. Once the United States withdraws, not only would fewer Al Qaeda-inspired fighters be drawn to Iraq but nationalist insurgents would be more likely to throw them out. They might even turn Zarqawi over to Iraqi authorities, as insurgent leaders reportedly offered to Arab League officials at the league's November conference.

Second, a US withdrawal would remove one of the principal causes of the insurgency. Polls consistently show that some 80 percent of Iraqis oppose the occupation; there likely will be an insurgency as long as US troops are occupying Iraq. Representative John Murtha is correct: Our troops have become "a catalyst for violence." Top US military commanders have acknowledged as much. They also admit that the insurgency cannot be defeated militarily. This is in part why Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has announced that he is willing to open negotiations with the Sunni insurgents. To be sure, withdrawal might strengthen insurgent morale, but it might also dry up their political support and deny them their nationalist and anti-occupation cause. And if reports from contacts with insurgents are true, most armed groups, excepting only Islamic extremists, are open to a negotiated settlement to the conflict--but only if there is a clear timetable for US withdrawal.

Third, the US counterinsurgency has brought Iraq to the brink of a full-scale war of growing sectarian violence, including car bombings, torture chambers and Shiite and Sunni death squads. A US withdrawal would certainly not be a guarantee against civil war, but it would change the political dynamic and remove some of the obstacles to national reconciliation. Leaders of Iraq's three main ethnic groups are not likely to make difficult compromises while the occupation continues. The Sunnis believe they can't get a fair deal as long as the United States backs the most extreme Shiite parties, and the Shiite coalition has been unwilling to make any real concessions to the Sunnis. Why should they, while they enjoy the protection of the US military? A withdrawal would shift responsibility to the Iraqis to work out their own future, to give them ownership of their political process.

Fourth, a withdrawal-and-diplomacy strategy would be more likely to elicit international involvement. Other regional and international powers who share an interest in a stable Iraq might become more engaged once they see that the country's stability is also their problem and responsibility. It is especially important that an exit strategy include a pledge against permanent US military bases and control over Iraq's oil and a reversal of the privatization of its economy. Such a strategy would also pressure Iraq's neighbors to act responsibly to police their borders and curb their allies in Iraq--especially if they were brought into a joint Arab League-UN reconciliation effort. The Arab League conference was an important step in this direction; continued and accelerated multilateral coordination, with the United States and the international community providing reconstruction assistance, would be the best guarantor of long-term stability. In particular, a US withdrawal would change the strategic calculations of Syria and Iran, which have hoped to bleed the United States to weaken its larger neoconservative project in the region.

Finally, of course, there is more at stake for the United States and the American people than Iraq itself. The war has claimed more than 2,100 American lives, left more than 15,500 wounded, demoralized and severely weakened the US military, damaged America's standing in the world, degraded our civil liberties and diverted precious resources from domestic and international needs. As we have consistently argued, the war has become the most serious threat to our national security and our international reputation. The public understands this; indeed, the growing peace movement has helped reframe the debate, forcing our leaders, however grudgingly, to recognize the need for an exit strategy to help end this disastrous war. A withdrawal-and-diplomacy strategy would not only help stop the killing. It would demonstrate to the world that America has rediscovered the principles of international cooperation on which our security--and that of the world--depends.

We can debate about how it is, exactly, that the American Left's view of the War on Terror and its Iraqi front came to closely resemble that of Osama Bin Laden's.

However, what I want to know from left is: does the fact that your most deeply felt beliefs and opinions are echoed to an uncanny extent by a murdering, theocratic fascist give you any pause or moment for thought?

Any uncertainty there at all?

Or are you still completely sure you are right?

This Just In: Generalisimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead

Lectures from our European friends and allies on the subjects of democracy, human rights and the rule of law sadden most Americans who hear them for a number of reasons. Foremost among these is a sense of misunderstanding. Most Americans feel that the United States stands for those three principles and, to the extent we are held to be tarnishing any of them, we feel like our actions are not being properly explained. The fact that a large number of Americans generally agree with the European view further complicates matters. Obviously, people feel strongly about it, but whichever way they come down on the issue I would think that we can all agree that the growing rift between the U.S. and Europe/Canada is worrisome.

On the other hand, I would be lying if I also didn't admit that a lot of the commentary just simply makes me angry. Hitchens mocked this kind of anger in an essay a long time ago when he noted (I quote from memory) that there exists in every person a special kind of outrage when one hears foreigners tearing down one's country that goes something to the effect of "listen, I can say that the President is a moron, but I'll be damned if I have to hear some needle-dicked foreigner saying so!" That's exactly the kind of anger I'm talking about.

When I get it from the Germans, I want to point out that while I appreciate their advice, I'd rather not get it from the most criminal people in the history of the world, responsible for the death and torture of literally tens of million people. From the Irish, well, sure, just as soon as you all figure out how to stop killing each other over how to govern six minor counties, we'll listen. From the French, yeah okay, but your "republique" is younger than me so come back when you figure it out. From the Italians, well, I admit it, I usually just laugh. From the Scandinavians, I like to ask, now that they are no longer ethnically homogenous, if they have a little more perspective on the inherent difficulties of race relations. From the British, well, no one really cares what the way-past-their-sale-date Brits think anymore really, do they?

But the thing that really gets me the most is when I get it from the Spanish. Here they are, a whopping 27 years out of a military dictatorship, lecturing the world's oldest republic about democracy and human rights. I can still remember the last military coup attempt there, in 1981. It was on TV and everything.

But then I get over it. Rationality sets in and I start thinking about how much more preferable it is for Germans and Spaniards to get all exercised about concepts like human rights instead of, say, their right to conquer other nations, even if Uncle Sam is taking it in the shorts. It pisses me off, sure, but it's progress, of a sort. After all, we don't actually expect Europeans to be helpful, so it's enough that they're simply not getting us involved in yet another bloody war. Although, good, old-fashioned European death camps still seem to pop up with distressing regularity, though, truth be told, they don't tend to pop up in Iowa or Wisconsin so much as, well, somewhere in Europe.

Still, the ghosts of Europe's past never do quite get a rest, do they? Current example:

The Socialist government of Prime Minister Zapatero in Spain is committed to certain constitutional reforms. Among the reforms being considered are setting forth in greater detail the nature of the autonomy enjoyed by Catalonia. Catalonia, for those of you who weren't aware of the fact that Spain is not really a "nation" in the full sense of the world, is a province of Spain with its own language, politics and distinct culture, centered around its capital, Barcelona. (Quick aside: if your first stop in Spain is Barcelona, that is not the time to try out your college Spanish). Being good multi-culturalists, the Socialist government is going all out to try to give the various regions of Spain more autonomy.

The problem with the scheme is this very ancient Spanish Constitution, which dates back to the golden age of the Bee Gees. The Constitution not only enshrines national unity, it also makes the Spanish Army guarantor of that unity in Section 8, Clause 1:

The mission of the Armed Forces, comprising the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, is to guarantee the sovereignty and independence of Spain and to defend its territorial integrity and the constitutional order.

Uh-oh.

Earlier this month, Spanish Army Lieutenant General Jose Mena, then commander of the army's ground forces, gave a speech to fellow officers urging the government to reconsider the granting of more autonomy to Catalonia. Speaking forcefully of the Army's constitutional role, he more than hinted that the Army may be forced to intervene should the Socialist government go ahead with plans that would, in effect, dismember the Spanish state. General Mena warned of "serious consequences for the armed forces, as an institution, and its members if the Catalan charter is approved in its current terms...."

Defense Minister Jose Bono quickly sacked General Mena and ordered him confined to his house, where the general is currently awaiting his fate. Reacting to the speech, Prime Minister Zapatero sought to play down fears of military unrest by noting that this government was convinced, after a thorough review, that there exists no wide-spread unease in the Spanish armed forces regarding the increasing demands of the various Spanish communities for autonomy.

In response to the government and Mena's arrest, a letter appeared two days ago in Melilla Hoy (Melilla Today), the daily newspaper of the city/colony Spain claims control over on the northern coast of Morocco. (Don't tell me you didn't know Spain still has, in the Year of Our Lord 2006, colonies in Africa! And don't tell me you didn't know that the oh-so-progressive European Union claims it as E.U. territory!! And don't you dare tell me you weren't aware of the fact that this pleasant European enclave is protected by a double border fence, complete with guard towers, searchlights and light machine gun emplacements to keep out the natives!) This letter was from a certain Captain Roberto Gonzalez of the Spanish Legion, a portion of which is currently stationed in Melilla, having fled Iraq at Zapatero's orders after the Madrid Bombings.

Captain Gonzalez of the Spanish Legion responded to the assurances of Zapatero by informing the prime minister that to the extent his advisers have told him there is nothing to worry about regarding unease in the Spanish armed forces "your advisers have not told you the truth." Gonzalez continued:

There is a lot of unease, within and outside the armed forces, which sees how Spain is being dismembered, how the national flag is burned in public, how terrorists are allowed to hold demonstrations and social events, and how a generation of Spaniards no longer recognize Spain as their fatherland.

The Spanish Legion was the unit of General Franco, who launched the Spanish Civil War from bases in northern Morocco, like Melilla.

Uh-oh.

Reality Spoils Good Anti-Bush Story

As we all know, the useless and provocative Hellfire missle strike on poor Pakistani villagers celebrating a holy day feast was yet another example of the lawless Bush Administration's counter-productive policy....

Yet another good rant ruined by the cold, hard fact we call: reality.

U.S. Strike Killed Al Qaeda Bomb Maker

Terror Big Also Trained 'Shoe Bomber,' Moussaoui

By HABIBULLAH KHAN and BRIAN ROSS

Jan. 18, 2006 — - ABC News has learned that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.

Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of three known al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit conference in the village of Damadola.

The United States had posted a $5 million reward for Mursi's capture. He is described by U.S. authorities as the man who ran al Qaeda's infamous Derunta training camp in Afghanistan, where he used dogs and other animals as subjects of experiments with poison and chemicals.

"This is extraordinarily important," said former FBI agent Jack Cloonan, an ABC News consultant, who was the senior agent on the FBI's al Qaeda squad. "He's the man who trained the shoe bomber, Richard Reid and Zacharias Mousssaoui, as well as hundreds of others."

Pakistani authorities tell ABC News they have confirmation that Mursi was among those on the guest list for the late-night meeting. The authorities say al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was also expected to attend but apparently changed his mind.

We are at war. We will continue to target those who are waging war against us, without quarter and without apologies.

The Council, She Has Spoken!

I have been a proud new member of The Watcher's Council for more than a few weeks now and to say I've made a mess of it would be an understatement. I could bore you with excuses-work, family, the arrival of HHE (6 months later!), illness-but that would be, well, boring.

The Watcher's Council is an association of bloggers dedicated to bringing to wider attention some of the best posts of the week from the Blogosphere. Each week, we nominate, read, research and vote. However, none of this is actually of any use unless we get the final product to you, the reader. It is in this task that I have badly failed.

In an attempt to make up for that failure, and to catch up, I present below the winners from this week and past weeks. From here on out, the Council's weekly pronouncements will appear at this space on Fridays.

Winners of December 23, 2005:

Votes------------Council Links

3-----The Idiot's Guide to Victimhood, Dr. Sanity
2 2/3---Gender Warfare Without the Glass Ceilings, Gates of Vienna
1 1/3----Discovering "New Horizons," Right Wing Nut House
1------Quiet Christmas Eve, New World Man
1----The Lexus, the Olive Tree and the Manure Fork, The Glittering Eye

Votes-------------Non-Council Links

2 1/3---Legal Analysis of the NSA Suveillance Program, Volokh Conspiracy

1 2/3--Planned Parenthood Boasts it Covered Up 11-Year Old's Rape, The Dawn Patrol
1 2/3---A Day of (Cautious) Hope and Optimism, Belgravia Dispatch
1 1/3---Congratulations Time Magazine, Varifrank
1---NSA Kerfuffle: Redux (Updated), Protein Wisdom
1---Kids and Curiosity, Cahiers Peguy

You can find the full list of winners here, at The Watcher of Weasels site.

Winners of December 30, 2005:

Votes----------Council Links

2 2/3-----Above Thy Deep and Dreamless Sleep, Gates of Vienna
2-----The Suicidal Pursuit of Perfection, ShrinkWrapped

Votes----------Non-Council Links

2---The New, Updated, Alice in Wonderland, Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred
1 2/3---Political Entomology and Blue-Bellied Liberals, One Cosmos

You can find the full list of winners here, courtesy of the Watcher of Weasels

Winners of January 6, 2006:

Votes----------Council Links

2 1/3----Let Me Tell You Something, President Bush, Gates of Vienna
2----How MSNBC's Craig Crawford Saved My Day, Right Wing Nut House

Votes--------Non-Council Links

1 2/3---To Speak or Not To Speak: Coming Out as a Neo-Con, Neo-Neocon
1 1/3---Helpful New Year's Resolutions For the Left, Cavalier's Guardian Watchblog
1 1/3---Reporters or Lawyers: Who Will Get Us Killed First?, Dinocrat

You can find this week's impressive list of winners here, via He Who Watches Weasels.

Winners of January 13, 2006

Votes---------Council Links

3---Perspectives on Foreign Command of U.S. Forces, The Glittering Eye
2---Misogyny Day, New Sisyphus (yay, me!)

Votes Non-Council Links

3 1/3---Patterico's Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2005, Patterico's Pontifications
2---We Love the Troops; But It's Tough Love (#144), Protein Wisdom
2---Stuck on Thought, MaxedOutMama

This week's full list o' winners can be found here, care of The Watcher.

Phew! That is a whole lot of links, and a whole lot of good reading. My apologies to my fellow Council-ites for the delay in getting these out. Happy hunting!

Lord Black Wins One

Count me among those who think that former media baron Conrad Black will be vindicated after a full trial on the merits on allegations of fraud. It is, frankly, heartening to see a man use every last resource at his disposal to save his reputation and to defeat his political enemies.

Already this strategy is beginning to pay dividends. As Black's name was dragged through the mud last year, it became fashionable to pile on. All of a sudden, every former National Post column writer had interesting dirt on Lord Black and important insights into his criminal behavior. Funny how none of this ever saw the light of day when the checks were still signed Crossharbour, eh?

But, true to his word, Black has been vigorously fighting his corner. And now, in response to a multi-million dollar lawsuit for libel, Peter C. Newman, a former colleague of Black's, has been forced to retract "facts" used in his recent book and apologize.

The Toronto Star has the story:

Celebrated author and journalist Peter C. Newman has issued a statement of regret a month after he was accused of libelling his old friend Conrad Black in a 2004 memoir, Here Be Dragons.

Newman's lawyer said late yesterday the move is part of a deal that will see Black officially drop the multimillion-dollar libel lawsuit.

"There was an agreement that upon issuing the statement that ... the action by Conrad Black would be dismissed," said Howard Winkler.

He said he expects to hear from Black's lawyers in the coming days to formally conclude the deal and obtain a release clearing future publication of the book.

According to Black's a statement of claim, the disgraced newspaper magnate says he is libelled by a passage in Newman's book that alleges that he broke criminal laws. None of the allegations contained in the passage about Black has been proven in court and the statement issued for Newman by his legal team notes that Black denies these allegations and believes he will be vindicated.

"Mr. Newman acknowledges that Lord Black is entitled to the presumption that he is innocent of any wrongdoing and apologizes for and retracts any contrary impression his words may have conveyed," the statement reads. Black was seeking more than $2 million in damages and an injunction against further distribution of the book.

Newman's statement yesterday said the comments at issue were based on information from a report by a special committee of Chicago-based Hollinger International, once Black's primary operating company.

"It was always our position that what was reported in the book — and that which was complained of by Conrad Black — was the reporting of allegations that had been made by others," said Winkler.

Black has launched the largest libel suit in Canadian history against the authors of the committee report, the statement said. Black's statement of claim, filed in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice on Nov. 9, contains allegations that have not been proven in court.

Newman was served last month during a gala anniversary celebration for Maclean's magazine in Toronto.

For more background on Lord Black's fight, see, as usual, the Great One: here.

Major Hecker, Rest in Peace, Your Work Continues

A former colleague of mine sends to his fellow class officers a report from Iraq:

Hi everyone,

Today I finally arrived back in Najaf. I've been working in Al
Hillah (about 40 minutes away) for the last week. Their PolOffs are
either on leave or in transit back.

In early December the Army unit that I have been working with
started to return home and the new unit arrived. One of the first
people to arrive was their Operations Officer. As a rule, my
dealings with the local unit are often through the OpsO (S-3). When
we met, I told him that I was the diplomat assigned to Najaf.

* * *

In our conversations I came to realize that he was a really good
man. He graduated from West Point and was incredibly bright. The
good sort of bright. The kind that pervades our class. Smart, but
not all about being smart. Funny and well read. We became friends.
When I left for leave I told him I would be "right back" and that we
were going to do great things for Najaf.

When I got back yesterday I went to battalion headquarters to
check in with the guys and meet their commander whom I hadn't
previously met. After bouncing around HQ for about half an hour I
went in to see the commander and talk about what I would be doing for
him and the unit. He is excited and looking forward to getting
started. He introduced me to his executive officer and asked if I
would meet with his S-3 this week and get him up to speed. "Of
course, I said. In fact we're old friends". He said, "Tim, no
you're not. You're talking about Maj. Hecker. He was killed in the
IED attack last week". I was stunned. I am stunned. I said, "I'm
sorry" to the commander and we finished our conversation.

I'm so sad. Broken hearted in fact. And angry. I'm sad
because he was such a good man. So ready to help this country. He
had so much honor and was so noble about this job. Moreso than me,
even. I can't convey the way he would talk about what we were doing
here. Not in a partisan or "true believer" way. In a way that only
showed what's best about the United States. I was humbled by him.
And I'm angry at myself because I forgot how dangerous this place
is. I know that part of me thought that because I've made it this
far that this place is safe and it's not. I feel like I'm in a state
of shock.

It's 4am and, while I held it together in the commander's office,
I'm sitting in the f-ing trailer in the dark, in the middle of the
Iraqi desert and I'm crying for a man that gave his life for this.
It's not fair.

I'm writing this for me mostly because there isn't anyone to
talk to here and when I walk out of this trailer, I have to have it
together.

I'm guilty of hearing about the deaths of Soldiers and Marines
and treating like it was "news". It's not "news". It's people's
lives and I'm a jerk for ever forgetting that.

I'm sorry for posting this here, but I needed someone to talk to.

Please remember Maj. Hecker and my friend in your thoughts and prayers.

And the next time you see someone posting or writing about those "traitors" at the State Department, remember my friend, serving in danger, working his ass off, getting the job done in Najaf.

Stay safe, buddy.

Kennedy is All Right

Conservatives have their bugbears just like any other group, and one particular liberal who seems to get under our collective skin is Ted Kennedy. Admittedly, there is a lot there not to like: the authoritarian heritage, the family's probable criminal background, the knee-jerk 60's leftism, the insufferable posing.

Kennedy's recent performance during the Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito reinforced Kennedy's iconic status on the right. The conservative Blogosphere is shaking with laughter this morning upon the news that Kennedy is still today a member of the Owl Club, a Harvard-centered, all-male club. The hypocricy is obvious and doesn't require much in the way of comment.

And yet...

Maybe I'm a bit odd in this, but I've always thought that a good, healthy debate is more important than numbers. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy Republicans form the majority in the Senate and that the ranks of the conservatives on the Supreme Court continue to grow. But I'm still glad that there are people like Ted Kennedy in the Senate and Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think both institutions are better places for them being there, if only because when conservatives win the day they do so after hearing the full story.

Kennedy is a liberal; yes, it's true. But does anyone really doubt the man is a good spokesman for his position, which, it must be admitted, is in fact representative of the view of the majority of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

Let's engage him, let's argue with him, let's point it out mercilessly when he is wrong. That's what political debate is all about.

But it pains me to see otherwise good folk like the people at NRO's The Corner or the Wall St. Journal to pepper every counter-argument aimed at the senator with the words "drunk," "Chappaquiddick" and the name "Mary Jo Kopechne." Typical of the genre is this post by Jonah Goldberg this morning:

Ted Kennedy is going to quit an organization he's been a member of for five decades -- and to which he still pays dues -- because he's just discovered that it discriminates against women. When Kennedy tried to smear Alito as a sexist, critics noted the Senator belongs to an all-male group called the Owl Club. In 1984 Harvard cut ties to the group because of legislation Kennedy sponsored but he remained a member nonetheless.

But here's the best part. He says he will quit, “as fast as I can.”

Because, you know, the Owl Club is like one of those LA gangs where you gotta walk the line of a beat down by other members before you can leave and so it takes a while to get in good enough shape to quit.

Oh, he also says that he "probably" couldn't pass muster on the Judiciary Committee himself.

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

Most of this is a good argument, but constant references to the Senator's past are just insults that add nothing and only serve to diminish the cause of conservatism. We conservatives rightly are proud of the fact that we engage in debate, not name-calling. Let's leave this stuff for the Left.

On the merits, it is an open secret in Washington that Kennedy is to a large degree ashamed of much of the partying, alcoholism and womanizing that characterized his younger years. And, yes, those failings led him to Chappaquiddick, where the Senator did not conduct himself honorably and was, at the least, negligent in the face of the death of a young woman.

But we also know that his good friend Sen. Orrin Hatch has been instrumental in getting Kennedy to turn his life around. By all accounts, the Senator has given up the boozing and the disgraceful personal behavior, a fact largely credited to his wife Vicki Reggie.

Given the fact that this man watched his two older brothers get cut down in the prime of life and had all the pressures of the Kennedy name dropped on his shoulders, I think it's remarkable the guy managed to even survive.

By all means, let us debate him. Nine times out of ten--make it ninety-nine times out of one hundred--he is wrong, wrong, wrong.

But I'm glad Senator Kennedy is in the Senate, glad he turned his life around, glad he is there to champion liberal causes and even more glad to see him lose on the merits.

We don't need Chappaquiddick to beat the likes of him.