I believe it is a system already in use by both the English and the French, and for sure by the Israelis. I am sure that in paranoid far left/right America it will be treated as a great afront, but the rules on this is pretty simple - the game is played rough outside the US, but in the US the rules must be followed. We need srict controls in place to keep politics out of it as much as possible, and create a professional class that carries out these operations without political interference while maintaining political oversight - routine for the Europeans, but damn hard for us. As you might guess, I feel Kerry would be better at implementing this than the political-agenda driven Bush. It has to get done, and I hope Kerry makes it an issue in the election, since this idea is in the Dem platform.

The Chair and Vice-Chair of teh 9/11 Commission testified before Collins' Senate committe concernign an awful lot of this. It was on C-SPAN and worth watching if you get a chance. I hope to catch it again because there were some excellent dialogues nearly free of political rancour, aside from that showboat Carl Levin. And would somebody buy him some eyeglasses that fit?

As usual, the networks and papers gave their views while C-SPAN reported and I decided.

B

Carl Levin is a good example of one of the senators who should be turned out in a general housecleaning of both repubs and dems in the senate, as I mentioned in another thread. The dems badly need to turn the party of the 60s out and start bringing in some of this fresh new blood exemplified by guys like Obama. The repubs need to do the same thing with their hacks. I agree with the guy politically, but I just think his world view has to go.

I will try to catch that on CSPAN, as I am very interested - thanks for the tip.

This is also a great argument for keeping the 911 commission in place for 18 more months, you got to admit Kerry is scoring some points here.

Yeah, Kerry did a Nathan Bedford Forrest* on Bush with the 9/11 thing. Kerry's team is far and away superior to Bush's in getting defensible arguments out before Bush. Leaves Bush either arguing against a good idea or playing, "Me too." reminds me of Clinton's excellent team in the same regard. Are any of the same players onboard?

B

*Asked how he won a particularly surprising victory Forrest responded,
"Ah got theah fustes' wit the mostes'".

Kerry has shied away from using Clinton people - he does not trust them, they could be there to sabotage him for Hillary. it paid off for him with Berger - shudder to think what would have happened to Kerry if he had been paid staff, as it was, Berger was an unpaid "unofficial advisor", enough away from Kerry to be pooh-poohed as someone who had no real relationship with the campaign. The people running the operation are the New England Democratic machine. Jean Shaheen, the former governor of New Hampshire, is his national campaign manager, and is an acquaintance of mine . She is a very sharp lady.

Sherman said Forrest was the only man he actually feared. The greatest blunder of the Confedercy in dealing with Sherman was not giving the army to Forrest instead of Hood.

Forrest lacked political skills, proper military education, and good breeding. No way he could be in charge of an army.

Ever read press reports of his funeral?

B

An interesting question. The point made by people with an opposite view is that Forrest should have been the man to be in charge of what was left of an army. If anyone could have organized a successful guerilla war against Northern occupation, it would have been him. He also was the only general operating in the Georgia theater who understood war had changed. Hood and Bragg were both locked in the Napoleonic paradigm. Hood was also not very bright, and we all know what to say about Bragg.

Other than the Klan thing, I never new much about his post war history.

Kirk,
You claim that Kerry would be proactive against terrorism. I found his remarks that, under a Kerry presidency, America will only fight wars when it HAS to; not when it WANTS to. Now, I know that isn't a perfect quote, but its close. That sounds decidedly reactive to me. Not having heard the whole speech--please don't post it--its long to read--- it may be that he proposes not going to war until he has to, but then his tactics in that war would be proactive.
If I could be sure that Congress would remain in republican control, a Kerry presidency may not be all that bad----A divided government actually accomplishes little, and that not bad. Down here in Maryland, the legislature meets for a 90 day session every year. After they adjourn the sentiment is that we are safe for another 9 months.

Actually that is a very smart statement because it sounds like it means something important but without committing to anything definitive. There is a lot less to it than meets the eye.

Lets imagine Bush saying the same thing in his 2000 campaign. In 2003 he could, without blushing, harken back to that promise in his speech initiating the war in Iraq--claiming that we HAD to go to war for ....[the list entered here].

Thus, the important thing is not saying something like that, any presidential politician could say that with a straight face--even Kucinich, but the key to understanding it is what would bring President Kerry (or any president, for that matter) to the conclusion that war is inevitable.

We feel the same way in Texas about the lege, which meets every two years. My home state, NH, has the best representative system of all the states I have lived in. The NH house is huge, I believe it is around 500 members, and no one gets paid a dime, except for gas and hotel, and they are even cheap about that. This means that the odds of a representative living in the neighborhood is pretty high, and when they meet, they try to get done as soon as possible so they can get back to their paying jobs. This is the main reason the state is the only one left that has neither a sales tax or income tax, and has a high economic growth rate, while at the same time being a socially liberal state. In addition, nothing can get done at the local level except thru town hall meetings. It is the most direct democracy in the US - it goes direct to the people. No local taxes can be put thru without everyone in town going to the local school auditorium, and figuring it out for themselves. All the states should do it.

I believe the point Mr. Kerry is making is that we need a higher standard of proof before we go to war. Its an obvious point, given what happened in Iraq. A lot of my own outrage at this war is driven by the senseless killing of women and children on what I thought, even before all the news broke, was flimsy, illogical and insufficient evidence of Iraq being a threat. I also believe Bush went looking for war - and morally, to me, that is wrong.

On the Congress, I don't believe, no matter how well Kerry does, it is going to be possible to elect over 60 democrats to the Senate. That is the magic number required for total control, a number neither the repubs or the dems have been able to achieve since the 1960's. In fact, I believe the repubs will keep a majority in the Senate. On the House side, the repubs have it in the bag. They added ten congressional seats due to population shifts, and they all moved from the Democratic north to the republican south. 7 of them are in Texas, and the lege has rigged the districts to the point if George Washington came back from the dead and ran as a democrat, he'd lose the election.

The best part about divided government is that it marginalizes the extremists of both parties. The reasonable middle has the majority, and if the president can work with that, then things can get done that will have compromise, not ideological extremism, as the main focus. If he can't work with them, nothing gets done. Either way, the people win.

I think the two senators from Texas exemplify the problem. Both are Republicans, but one, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, even tho conservative, makes a tremendous effort to work with the other side, and avoids extremist, partisan rhetoric, something I think a Senator, who is supposed to be the "the cool head and wise mind" in a democracy, should do. She personally visits a lot of the small towns in Texas, in public forums, and routinely writes op-ed pieces that give a good reasoned explanation for why she votes a certain way. She has helped a lot of average people. I wish she got more press, because she would make an excellent candidate for President, simply because no matter what her political views, she seems to get a lot done, thru compromise. I have voted for her every time she ran.

On the other hand we have Bush's hand-picked guy, another Karl Rove creation name John Cornyn. Rather than represent the people of the entire state as MS Hutchinson seems to do, he is the official representative of Texas right-wing religous fundementalists, and got in during an off year election when nobody was paying attention. He is a fountain of extremism, and is obsessed with homosexuals so much that I think he needs to see a psychiatrist. Too him, the fact men are having sex with each other, is the national agenda. He keeps his red meat crowd happy, but as far as I can see, he doesn't seem to get much done. Democrats refuse to work with him, as he routinely uses Limbaugh-style rhetoric to bash them while he advocates only extremist, no compromise solutions. End result, he accomplishes nothing for the state.

The downside of divided government is we have to listen to sleazy partisans take cheap shots to shift power. I hate that stuff.

The only good that comes out of divided government is inaction. But that is not a good thing in time of war.

B

Cynacism 101 is back in session. Class, get out your notebooks.

Simple, yet elegant
 

Yes, it's probably a good thing just to avoid war altogether.

I believe the democrats had the majority in the Senate when Mr. Bush got his resolution authorizing him to invade Iraq, and I don't believe this same Senate *****ed much when we invaded Afganistan. I believe Clinton had to get authority to invade Kosovo from a republican congress. I don't think the theory holds water.

Where is he now that we need him?

http://members.lycos.co.uk/brisray/misc/mclellan.jpg

http://members.lycos.co.uk/brisray/misc/mmcclellan.htm