Zbigniew Brzezinski GIVES HIS OLD BONES a SHAKE

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski showed up Charlie Rose Friday night and to my astonishment, he proceeded to promptly eat the conventional "Maliki Government" Iraq rhetoric for dinner.

TONY BLAIR UNDERSTANDS why don’t “WE” UNDERSTAND?

"…show them death and they will love the fever "- Peter Galbraith

Despite his poodle-like insistence on backing our doomed and misguided efforts in Iraq Britain’s Tony Blair is not functionally retarded. He set off on a diplomatic mission on Friday that seems squarely aimed at reassuring our perpetually ill-used NATO allies in Turkey about their prospects for joining the European Union and reviving the Middle East peace process.

Blair's trip to Turkey comes in the wake of European Union leaders foolhardy endorsement of a partial suspension of Turkey's EU entrance negotiations – supposedly as a punishment for Ankara's refusal to open-up its ports to Cyprus – but in reality a childish matter of “they’ve got bigger penises” type fear – which is to say that the Turks have a ferocious and battle hardened army and, other than the Brit’s, the rest of the Europeans don’t and therefore fear creeping irrelevance at Turkey’s decidedly manlier hands

“Egemen Baggis, a senior foreign policy adviser to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, noted in an interview that Turkey is one of the few Western-oriented countries with the credibility to talk with Syria, Iran and Israel. He added that both Beirut and Jerusalem pleaded with Turkey to send troops to Lebanon to participate in the multinational force there because a moderate Muslim country is acceptable to Lebanese as well as Israelis.”

You can read-up on Turkey’s troubled EU bid HERE and HERE.

Blair’s aides said Blair would try to reassure Turkey that Europe was not turning its back. Britain and Poland (NATO’s only other owner of an army of killers as opposed to and army of policemen by the by – which isn’t to say that those policemen wouldn’t have been pretty freakin’ handy in Iraq even though they’re darn near useless in Afghanistan) fear that the partial freeze will further complicate Turkey's membership negotiation while stoking a growing anti-EU backlash in a Muslim country of 70 million. Blair and his cabinet have been the most vocal advocates of Ankara's because they view Turkey as a vital geo-strategic anchor in an unstable region.

Given that “we” really need to make a deal with the Turks to protect our Kurdish friends, it strikes me as functionally retarded that the U.S. has yet to, loudly, intercede on Turkey’s behalf.

GOODBYE BAYH

In a statement released early today, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana took his name out of presidential sweepstakes hat … Apparently though not reportedly the site of his friends and family sneaking out the back of his New Hampshire campaign event last weekend to just on the off chance they might be able touch the hem of Barack Obama’s sport-coat, he decided that this just isn’t the year for him to run for president and so he won’t be a candidate for the presidency in 2008.

The reason behind Senator’s Bayh's decision appears to have been a remarkably sane assessment of his chances of winning the Democratic nomination are rather slim given a field that’s likely to include political heavyweight Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the charisma machine slash hope factory also known as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, 2004’s Vice Presidential Nominee John Edwards and soon to be Oscar nominated former Vice President Al Gore were too slender to justify commiting time and manpower for the next two years.

“The odds were always going to be very long for a relatively unknown candidate like myself, a little bit like David and Goliath,” Mr. Bayh said in a statement.

“And whether there were too many Goliaths or whether I’m just not the right David, the fact remains that at the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue. This path — and these long odds — would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation.”

You can read more HERE or HERE

I can’t help but note that Senator Bayh is the second serious Democratic to pass on a prospective presidential bid – after seeing Senator Obama in action, so to speak. After sharing a stage with Obama during Senator Tom Harkin, of Iowa’s, annual steak-fry, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner shocked political insiders by announcing that he wouldn’t be a presidential candidate in 2008. (Think: those bands who refused to go on after Hendrix -- ‘cause apparently Warner was the big event back then to Obama’s opening act). Though some will say this is good news of John Edwards, I can’t help but see Bayh’s Indiana as another likely win for Senator Obama.

MORE CONFLICT in THE HORN of AFRICA

Let me tell you a story …there’s a “Combined Joint Task Force-Horn Africa” and it sounds a smells a lot like units positioned throughout Central and South America during the 80’s and their early 60’s era predecessors (the infamous “military advisors") in Vietnam. It’s a unit based at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti—Camp Lemonier is reportedly 88-acres of swelter on the Gulf of Aden that (and you really couldn’t make this sh#t up) was a French Foreign Legion outpost once upon a time. The camp houses around 1,800 U.S. military personal—including hundreds of special-forces operators. They’ve been stationed there since 2003 conducting missions covering seven countries in Africa and on the Arabian Peninsula—Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Yemen. More importantly, according to the unadorned cubicle types at the Pentagon, the U.S. military presence in the Horn of Africa—even more than our wars of Afghanistan or Iraq — that will be central to the next decade of our war on terrorists.

"In the Horn of Africa, much of the task force's focus is on humanitarian projects like building schools, wells, and roads. It is not done out of altruism: The aim is to project a better image of the United States and make the ground less fertile for the seeds of Islamic radicalism. During another era, it was known as 'winning hearts and minds.' In April, when their Marine brethren were dropping bombs on Iraqis, marines in the Horn of Africa delivered 15,000 pairs of shoes to children in Djibouti city.

"There are, of course, plenty of bullets to complement the bread. Hundreds of special operations forces and CIA operatives based at Camp Lemonier have the mission of capturing or killing the biggest stars in al Qaeda's constellation and have the authority to launch covert missions throughout much of the Horn of Africa. Last November, a missile fired from a CIA-operated Predator drone killed an al Qaeda operative on a desert highway in Yemen, and intelligence officials are monitoring African airspace and dhow traffic in coastal waters to set the stage for future operations."

Before anyone leaps to conclusions and gets me wrong. I do not think the task force is a bad idea. I do wonder why we, meaning: the U.S. and our allies (meaning mainly the UK and its stable former colonies – *quip courtesy of Thomas P.M. Barnett) have made such a miserable and miniscule security commitment to an area larger than Western Europe. It’s not as if the area isn’t welter of familiar troubles just waiting to explode. For example:

“In the past week, several skirmishes have broken out between militias loyal to Ethiopia and those loyal to the Council of Islamic Courts, the movement that has taken control of the southern region of the country, including Mogadishu, the capital.

The fighting has occurred around the southern town of Baidoa, seat of Somalia's fragile but internationally recognized transitional government. Ethiopia considers the interim government a buffer against Islamic Courts leaders who have long expressed desire to create a "Greater Somalia," including ethnically Somali portions of Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi on Wednesday rejected a declaration by a leader of the Islamic movement that Ethiopia withdraw its troops or face war. Though the Ethiopian government has repeatedly denied having more than several hundred military trainers in Somalia, diplomats in the region estimate that at least 8,000 troops have poured in around Baidoa and that thousands more are gathering along the Somali border.”

You can read the International Herald’s take on this increasingly sad tale HERE.

ENTERING the BATTLEFIELD

I usually wouldn't post a whole piece, but everyone interested in film should plainly read it, so here goes ...

Why Film Criticism is Dying ... And How to Save It

By

Russell Brown
Jul 17, 2006

A few weeks ago, a friend and I went to see the revival screening of Funny Girl at the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. About halfway through the screening, a line from John Simon's review went darting through my mind. I hadn't read the article in years, but one of his observations had stayed with me, as being both particularly insightful and well-phrased. The moment I arrived home, I called my friend and read him the review. It was funny, as most of Simon's writing about Barbra Streisand can be, but also dead-on accurate. In just a few sentences, he captured not only his personal distaste for the actress (and the reasons why) but also placed her phenomenon in a larger social context. Reading the review aloud to my friend, I was reminded of why it's still fun to read John Simon 30 years after his reviews were published. The writing still crackles, the observations are still potent and there's something personal -- stylish and unique -- about how he approaches writing about a movie. Nobody could ever be mistaken for John Simon -- one sentence in and you know who's at the helm. It's the same experience when you read an old piece by Pauline Kael: You are immediately transported into her way of seeing things, her world and her life all coalesce into great writing about film. At the end of their essays, you felt these critics were writing about things larger than simply a movie -- and that's what keeps them fresh and vital, even when the movie itself is long forgotten.

Film criticism is experiencing a crisis this summer. Some of the most anticipated studio movies were not screened for critics before their release, or were only shown to a select few. Other films were rendered critic proof, opening to huge numbers after receiving lackluster reviews. It's not the first time, of course. Bad movies have performed well in the past -- the marketing and hype of a huge project overwhelming anything in its path. So what makes this summer any different? Why is the profession of film criticism suddenly under threat?

Most writing about the issue has focused on the influence of bloggers and online opinion making. The audience, some say, has taken back the power and decide which films they like on their own. Hundreds of blogs and online websites cater to the desire for people to have their voices heard. To boil down the growing cacophony, sites like Rottentomatoes add it all up and provide a percentage of how many critics liked something and how many didn't -- siphoning a film's success or failure down to a statistic.

But really, what is the difference between a blogger and a critic, other than the fact that someone has been able to convince an editor that they know something about films and filmmaking? The truth is, most "critics" reviewing for newspapers and magazines have no business writing about film. Self-appointed and self-aggrandizing, you can generally sense the vacuousness of the thinking that compromises most of these "film reviews." Why certain people have been deemed worthy of sorting the good apples from the bad ones is pretty much beyond comprehension, and why every paper needs their own "film critic" is equally questionable. I suppose, in a perfect world, there would be some sort of test (like the bar for lawyers) where people writing about film would have to pass a basic level of expertise before they are allowed to put their opinions in print. Frankly, if I was a studio chief or well-known filmmaker, I wouldn't want to be beholden to these amateurs either.

Great film criticism has been devoured by its ugly kid sister, the film review. I personally find it so dull to read what some guy sitting in an office thinks of this performance or that performance, this screenplay or that one -- it all seems dreadfully irrelevant to me. What turned me on about John Simon or Pauline Kael was how they brought films into their own philosophy of life and art -- how it was placed into a larger context. And in doing so, they were as vulnerable as the artists putting their work onscreen, and demanded the same respect. The film review, on the other hand, is simply the process of providing a cursory "authoritative" explanation for an argument (is it "good or bad") that is pretty pointless. There's nothing personal about it -- no glimpse into the soul of the person writing -- just a dashing off of "what I liked and what I didn't." There's rarely any comparison to other art forms or placing of the film in a social or political context. It's as colorless as a studio coverage form, a checklist of "what worked and what didn't" with a few snarky turns of phrase tossed in the mix. They never really "say" anything, and it's hard to imagine any critic writing today publishing a compilation of their work 20 years from now, because their writing is only about the movie.

I suppose the question for me has always been, "how did the movie affect you" versus "is it a good movie?" Sometimes a movie that's important might not be pleasurable to me, or a movie that's memorable or artistic or unique might be something I'd never want to see again. There are movies that I think are terrible but I remember a scene or image as having a moment of wisdom. I don't feel qualified to "review" the work of someone who's put years of his or her life into a movie, but I do feel qualified to say how it affected me and why. I think if film criticism is to remain relevant, we need great writers bringing more of themselves into the mix. Perhaps when the audience gets to know their critics, and the critic has something on the line too, they will regain the influence of halcyon days when what a critic wrote really mattered.

"A critic is someone who enters the battlefield after the war is over and shoots the wounded."
—Murray Kempton

NEO-CULPA? NOT! ANOTHER OPEN LETTER to MR. SULLIVAN

Last month, after seeing your post about the “neo-culpa” in Vanity Fair it occurred to me that the most import paragraph written about the proximate cause of the Iraq War and therefore the last few years may have appeared in Naomi Klein’s article “Baghdad Year Zero.” Specifically, her description of a strain of thought among certain conservative ideologues that assumes that any failure can only be the result of conservative ideology not having been applied ruthlessly enough.

My point is to well, point out, that Perle and his ilk have not reconsidered the logic that lead this country into Iraq, they’ve concluded that the Bush Administration was insufficiently pure of heart, so to speak, to give the new world they envisioned life. That means they’re still dangerous (read: a half dozen or so Kissingers), and it means that people like you can’t let them off the hook. They can’t be allowed to use a simple repudiation of the Bush administration’s execution of their disastrous misreading of the nature of things as a way to creep back into to the corridors of power.

It may seem like I’ve been hyperbolic above but stop and consider their Iran rumblings for a moment or the fact that Peter Galbraith never met with the Iraq study group but Kagan and Kristol did. I can’t help it …that scares me. Iraq could get worse.

2008 DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES and CAUCUSES

Does anyone else see encouraging news for the junior Senator from Illinois on the calander below ...or does anyone out there think he might loose South Carolina, D.C., Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, Hawai, Minnesota or Michigan?

• * January 14, 2008 - Iowa
• * January 19, 2008 - Nevada
• * January 22, 2008 - New Hampshire
• * January 29, 2008 - South Carolina
• * February 5, 2008 - Delaware, Missouri
• * February 12, 2008 - District of Columbia, Tennessee, Virginia
• * February 19, 2008 - Wisconsin
• * February 26, 2008 - Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho
• * March 2008 (date to be determined) - American Samoa, Democrats Abroad, Guam, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Virgin Islands, Wyoming
• * March 4, 2008 - Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont
• * March 7, 2008 - Colorado, Utah
• * March 8, 2008 - Kansas
• * March 11, 2008 - Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas
• * March 18, 2008 - Illinois, Oregon
• * April 2008 (date to be determined) - Alaska
• * April 1, 2008 - Pennsylvania
• * May 6, 2008 - Indiana, North Carolina
• * May 13, 2008 - Nebraska, West Virginia
• * May 20, 2008 - Arkansas, Kentucky
• * May 27, 2008 - Washington
• * June 3, 2008 - Alabama, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota
• * June 10, 2008 - California

It seems that in a one on one contest Senator Clinton would probably win out, but if the 2008 crop, as it seems likelt to, includes the regional "spoilers" like Biden, Richardson, Kerry, Edwards and Vilsack ... for once, KOS may be right and the contest may be Senator Obama's to loose.

DOES the REPUBLICAN PARTY HAVE ITS OWN DENNIS KUCINICH?

Ok …I’m going to go semi conspiratorial for a moment. Ready? Here goes: I need someone to explain why the recently defeated Senator from RI (Lincoln Chaffee) has hit the liberal talk show circuit at full speed. You can take a look or listen to his outing to see for yourself. Ousted by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse and generally considered to have been the most liberal Senate Republican – Chaffee was the only Senate Republican who voted against the Iraq war. And during his lame duck term Chaffee notably and might I add nobly split with his GOP cohorts again when he opposed John Bolton nomination as Ambassador to the United Nations, because and I’ll quote:

"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy,"

"And at this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoke out against."

So here’s the kinda-conspiracy part …If we take him at his word that he won’t turn Democrat (and no man honorable enough to do the above should be distrusted) why is he chatting with John Stewart (with nary a book in hand) could it be that he’s thinking of becoming the republican party’s Dennis Kucinich and running for the nomination as a way of redeeming his party and perhaps even his good name – sounds like a blurb/ad for a “West Wing” spin-off, doesn’t it?

CRESENTS and STARS

This is a problem and it couldn’t have come up at a worse time:

"...EU foreign ministers agreed Monday to punish Turkey for refusing to open its ports and airports to Cyprus, an EU member. They suspended talks on 8 of the 35 issues under negotiation ahead of the possible accession of the mainly Muslim country more than a decade from now. The decision is expected to be endorsed by EU leaders at their summit talks on Thursday.

"This decision is unfair to Turkey," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a televised speech. "Let us not forget that our friends in the EU also have promises they have not fulfilled."

He said that relations between Turkey and the EU were "going through a serious test, despite all our efforts."

Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said the EU's decision represented "a lack of vision."..."

Read it all HERE

Why? Because it is long past time that we Americans were disabused of the notion that there are, what we would call, “armies” in Europe – or elsewhere for that matter. Let me put it this way …there are essentially two kinds of military organizations in the developed world (read in the G-20 or so) . . . war-fighting armies and police force armies. And while the Europeans do indeed have plenty of police force army divisions laying around, there is only one war-fighting army in the EU (England’s) and it’s tied down along with ours in Iraq and Afghanistan. As for the remainder of Europe . . . Russia has a war-fighting army but it is doctrinally ill-equipped for peace-keeping (read: Chechnya) and Turkey is holding-out the prospect of using its rather large war-fighting army in such forays as a bargaining chip to get into the EU (a strategy that happens to depend on us throwing our weight on the scale – though for reasons that baffle me we haven’t – O’ and plain fear of obvious military impotence is partly why "Old Europe" needs a bit of coaxing). The Turks are also justifiably paranoid – worrying that if Dennis Kucinich & Arianna Huffington get their way, they’ll have to send it into Iraq to help counter whatever Iran and Syria try to cook up.

Unfortunately Turkey’s problems are pretty typical of the democracies with war-fighting armies (India, South Korea, Taiwan et al) and that means the United States should be doing more to help them sort-out freakin’ nonsense, like that nonsense above -- which is just my way of suggesting that 5,000 Turks would go a long way toward killing off our troubles in Southern Afganistan.

OPEN LETTER to THE DAILY DISH

You’ve asked what you’ve called the “big question” so here’s my two-cent answer: Regardless of execution – there was simply no way for the United States to achieve its stated goals in Iraq.

Why? …That comes down to three items:

ONE: The Kurds were never going to buy into our “Unified Iraq” idea—and we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that they will now, just because they were smart enough to lease it for a year or so. TWO: Invading Iraq was always going to transform Iraq into a “failed state.” THREE: This thing folks around the State Dept used to call the “West Africa Rule” clearly applied to overall societal DNA of Iraq. Please allow me a moment more to illustrate with a bit more detail.

First, 98% of the Kurds voted for independence, they’ve always had their own political leadership, their own middle managers, their own economic development plan, and their own (rather large) army. They were always going to head for the exit door the first chance they got. And why wouldn’t they? Expecting them to be a part of Iraq is frankly obscene. It’s like asking the Jews to give up Israel and settle in Munich?

Second, yes I know that Failed State is an overused and too often misapplied term, but what it means when used correctly goes something like this: When a State loses and or lacks societal mortar, it has failed. The mortar in question consist entirely of its middle managers or “nurses and sergeants” …Ask yourself; which of two losses would be more damaging, an army loosing all of its sergeants in a day or loosing all of its generals in a day? You see what I’m getting at. The only middle managers Iraq (south of the green line) had to offer were Sunnis. De-baathification or no de-baathification, invading was always going to disenfranchise those Sunnis.

Third, that so-called “West Africa Rule” refers to a pair of interrelated observations many carry away from any substantial sojourn in West Africa. ONE: tribalism always produces a cleptocracy—the severity of which will be directly proportional to the degree to which the “nurses and sergeants” thing applies (read: Nigeria bad, Congo worse). TWO: the presence of natural resources = a fight (read: ANGOLA). In other words, the Shia were always going to rob the place blind, kill the Sunni, one another and eventually start a fight with the Kurds over the freakin’ oil.

ONCE for LIFE, ONCE for DEATH and ONCE for POWER

You may not recognize the title of this post -- even if you happen to be a comic fan, it's a shortened version of the orginal Green Lantern blurb -- "three times will I shine, once for life, once for death and once for power" or so prophesized the lantern before it became the ring of power. Sadly, today we have news of the second:

Artist Martin Nodell, co-creator of the Golden Age Green Lantern, passed away on December 9 at age 91.

“Marty was a gentle soul who got a renewed lease on life from discovering his fans after years away from comics,” says DC Comics President & Publisher Paul Levitz. “He and Carrie delighted in the convention circuit, and we’ll miss both their warmth and laughter.”

Nodell began his comics career in the late 1930s, and first drew Green Lantern in 1940’s ALL-AMERICAN COMICS #16, working with writer/co-creator Bill Finger. The character proved popular enough to earn a solo title the following year. Nodell also illustrated the Green Lantern chapters for several Justice Society of America adventures in ALL STAR COMICS.

Nodell left DC Comics in the late 1940s to draw Captain America and other features for Timely before moving into advertising in 1950. Among other accomplishments, he is credited for creating the look of the Pillsbury Doughboy. Nodell returned to DC to draw Green Lantern on several occasions, including a page for GREEN LANTERN SECRET FILES in 2002.

DEATH on the BLUE NILE

Every so often someone I know suggests that Marxism and it’s associated ideologies haven't been decisively discredited. I always think that if they could have seen the handiwork of Mengistu’s regime first hand I’d get to stop having the argument.

"...Mr. Mengistu ruled Ethiopia from 1977 to 1991, which included some of the darkest days of the country’s history, when government soldiers rounded up tens of thousands of students and intellectuals and brutally killed them in a campaign called the “Red Terror.” Human Rights Watch has labeled it “one of the most systematic uses of mass murder by a state ever witnessed in Africa.”

Mr. Mengistu, 69, has been widely accused of killing many of the victims with his own hands, including Ethiopia’s last emperor, Haile Selassie, who was strangled in bed, probably in 1975, and buried under a toilet.

Mr. Mengistu was also, in a way, responsible for the extended famine in 1984-85 that claimed 1 million lives and reinforced the image of Ethiopia as a poor and desperate country. He first denied the famine was even happening and flew in planeloads of whiskey while his people starved.

He was ousted by a guerrilla movement in 1991 and escaped to Zimbabwe, where he lives in a fancy — and heavily guarded — villa. The Zimbabwean government has indicated that it has no intention of extraditing him.According to Reuters, Ethiopia’s High Court decision said that Mr. Mengistu and his top officers “have conspired to destroy a political group and kill people with impunity.” The statement added “they set up a hit squad to decimate, torture and destroy groups opposing the Mengistu regime.” "

You can read the rest HERE.

FLASH and SUBSTANCE

Maybe it’s just little ‘ole me, but every time someone somewhere brings up Senator Obama’s “lack of experience” as a negative, four things inevitably occur to me.

First, even a skim-style review of the last 50 years of national politics reveals that the individual who, indisputably, had the most experience when he assumed the Presidency was Richard M. Nixon.

Second, I can’t recall a single national election during that 50-year period in which “experience” played in favor of the eventual victor …For Example: When that 2^nd term Governor of a state where the Governor has little if any actual power and who lacked any other notable resume items (read: George W. Bush) defeated not one but two exceptionally well credentialed opponents (read: McCain and Gore) to become our current president.

I can however think of several examples of the more charismatic of two candidates emerging victorious. If anyone out there can think of a contrary example, I’d be happy to read it.

Third, other than Senator McCain and Vice Present Gore, none of the top-ranked 2008 hopefuls or talked-ups has all that much in the way of “experience either”. Warner was a one-term Governor of a state less populous than New York City. Romney is one term governor. John Edwards was a one term Senator. Wesley Clark has never held elective office or any governmental post outside of the military. Rudolph Giuliani was only the MAYOR of New York City.

O' and that still means Giuliani’s been the elected representative of more Americans than ANY of the current presumed contenders—other than Gore, Clinton and Obama.

Fourth, by far the most pressing concern facing the U.S. is a broken foreign policy ....and foreign policy simply does not emerge from individuals. It flows out of circles and or schools of thought. In other words … No one neo-conservative is responsible for Iraq, their school of thought is. No one RealPolitik purveyor (neither Kissinger or Brzezinski) is responsible for the paradigm that has caused us to regard the nuclear-proliferating, terrorism sponsoring despots of Pakistan as ¿allies? – the entire circle slash school is at fault.

But, how does that pertain to Senator Obama? Simple. The foreign policy types around him (Samantha Power et al) subscribe to the only school of thought that hasn’t been completely discredited by the last decade. So if you’ve realized that “we” need to kiss the neo-cons and the Kissinger / Brzezinski RealPolitik types a long overdue goodbye – Senator Obama becoming President Obama is the key.

The others will just offer us more of what we've already have far too much of.

UPDATE:

Just because I'm a fan of well formed thoughts in phrase ... I'd like to point out this editorial from TSPI:

"..The "wise men" of Washington, D.C., punditry have no business defining wisdom. Until recently, they performed as supine dorks backing the Bush administration's Iraq fiasco -- ignoring legitimate questions posed by dissenters like Obama."

HORN of AFRICA WATCH

Here's something folks may want to know . . .

“The fighting appear to be the fiercest yet between militiamen allied to the Somali Council of Islamic Courts (SCIC), which controls most of south-central Somalia, and Ethiopian-backed government troops. The SCIC has been steadily approaching Baidoa in recent weeks and has taken most of the surrounding towns and villages.

Salad Ali Jelle, the government's Deputy Defence Minister, told Reuters yesterday that 'war could start any minute because we are so close to each other'.

Many analysts and diplomats in Nairobi see a full-scale conflict in the coming weeks and months as inevitable. Though peace talks are scheduled to resume in Khartoum on Friday, a government spokesman said that they were 'a waste of time' and both sides have continued preparing for war.

With Ethiopia firmly backing the government - it has sent at least 6,000 troops into the country, analysts believe - and Eritrea taking the side of the Courts, the looming conflict could plunge the entire region into turmoil.”

…You can read the rest HERE.

Seeing as how Ethiopia is currently making incursions into Somalia that are more in our interests, vis-à-vis the war on terror, than Israel's summer assault on Lebanon (as distinguished from its attack of Hezzbolah -- which to be frank wasn't that helpful either), crazed wild-eyed hippies like myself think that maybe we should be doing something about it that Bush and Co aren't . . . Like maybe backing them publically or giving them more aid financially or . . . what's the word I'm looking for . . . REALLY helping them! (NOTE: No, 1,800 trainers scattered across an area larger than Western Europe doesn't count).

God forbid that we should have policy that didn't give one group of jihadist the breathing room to recover and re-arm while we're focused on another group.