Huge upset developing in Mass. race for Teddy's Senate seat, as new poll show Republican Scott Brown pulling ahead

Scott Brown, GOP candidate in special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat

A year ago, Barack Obama carried Massachusetts over John McCain by a whopping 62% to 36%, and John Kerry glided to victory in the Senate race with 63% of the vote. In 2000, Ted Kennedy was releected to the Senate with 73% of the vote. In 2006, he won 69%.

Now, a new poll shows a virtual tie in the race to fill the seat held by Kennedy in the Senate since 1962 -- with Republican Scott Brown actually edging democrat Martha Coakley. Brown's election would end the Senate Democrats' ability to control the Senate with a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority. Since Massachusetts is the bluest of all the blue states -- it was the one and only state that George McGovern won in 1972 (he also took D.C.) -- a GOP victory would be a huge upset, a bombshell, a true game changer, a political upheaval (add your own cliche; they're all on the mark):

The Massachusetts Senate race is now a toss up.

Buoyed by a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in the state, Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47. Here are the major factors leading to this surprising state of affairs:

-As was the case in the Gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia last year, it looks like the electorate in Massachusetts will be considerably more conservative than the one that showed up in 2008. Obama took the state by 26 points then, but those planning to vote next week only report having voted for him by 16.

-Republicans are considerably more enthusiastic about turning out to vote than Democrats are. 66% of GOP voters say they are 'very excited' about casting their votes, while only 48% of Democrats express that sentiment- and that's among the Democrats who are planning to vote in contrast to the many who are apparently not planning to do so at this point.

-Brown has eye popping numbers with independents, sporting a 70/16 favorability rating with them and holding a 63-31 lead in the horse race with Coakley. Health care may be hurting Democratic fortunes with that group, as only 27% of independents express support for Obama's plan with 59% opposed.

-In a trend that's going to cause Democrats trouble all year, voters disgusted with both parties are planning to vote for the one out of power. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Brown's standing is that only 21% of Massachusetts voters have a favorable opinion of Congressional Republicans...but at the same time only 33% view Congressional Democrats favorably. And among voters who have a negative take on both parties, who account for more than 20% of the electorate, Brown leads 74-21.

-Because he's basically been untouched so far, Brown's favorability spread is a remarkable +32, at 57/25. For some perspective on how good those numbers are, Bob McDonnell was at a +20 spread with Virginia voters in our final poll there before going on to a 17 point victory.

PPP goes on to point out that Coakley is very much still in the race and can pull it out by energizing reliable Democrats to vote, linking her campaign to Ted Kennedy's legacy and tying Brown to the national Republicans -- not a popualr bunch in Massachusetts.

Still, this is the first competitive Senate race in the Bay State in a long time.

Thoughts? Post a comment.

Related: Hmm...on the other hand, the Boston Globe has just released its survey which shows Coakley ahead by a comfortable 15-point margin! The PPP poll has a larger sample and a smaller margin of error. Also, PPP is a Democratic polling firm, so it's not a GOP shill. Overall, I'd say put your money on the PPP poll, since special elections have notoriously low turnout numbers. The Globe results probably reflect accurately voters' preferences in a larger turnout.

Jay Leno will return to late night because Conan O'Brian (still) really sucks -- big time!

Back in June, right after "The Tonight Show" with Conan O'Brian debuted, I posted here that I tried my best to watch Conan but found him and his show to be embarrassingly not funny:

So I watched a portion of Conan O'Brien's first two shows. Both times, I had to turn it off before the first half hour was over. I never had the slightest inclination to giggle and the whole thing was not so much boring as senseless. That's it for me.

With stories that Conan badly laggied in ratings and that NBC affiliates were complaining that Jay Leno's 10 pm show provided a weak lead-in to their late news shows, I decided to try out Conan again and see if anything had improved.

No, nothing improved. Conan still sucks -- big time!

OK, so maybe it's an age or generational thing, you say. Conan appeals more to the younger viewers -- the supposedly desirable demographic for advertisers, right?

Wrong. Young people think he sucks, too:

Mr. O’Brien, meanwhile, has had his ratings suffer on “The Tonight Show.” He has trailed the “Late Night With David Letterman” on CBS by about two million viewers a night; Mr. Leno had easily been the winner in that time period previously. Mr. O’Brien has been more successful against Mr. Letterman among the younger audiences that NBC most wants to reach (because they are preferred by many advertisers). But he has fallen below Mr. Leno’s ratings in the 11:30 time slot in every audience age group, even the youngest ones.

Leno has been having his rating troubles, too, but his audience of five million isn't such a bad deal for the network since the low cost of his show vs. prime time dramas jacks up NBC's profit margin. Still, affiliates want a stronger show before 11 pm, and NBC wants a winner at 11:30 pm.

So Jay will be back in the late slot again soon, and Conan will either swallow hard and return to a post-midnight hour, or NBC will buy out his contract and go elsewhere.

I'm happy. What about you? Post a comment.

Another month gone by and the "terminally ill" Lockerbie Bomber is still not dead. What's going on?

Mass killer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi supposedly dying in a Libyan hospital last August

On December 9, I asked the question here why the infamous Lockerbie Bomber wasn't dead yet. He had been released in August by Scottish authorities ostensibly on "compassionate grounds" after serving only 8 1/2 years of his life sentence for killing 270 people, mostly Americans, on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. Al-Megrahi was said to be afflicted with "terminal prostate cancer" and given only three months to live. He received a hero's welcome on his return to Libya. Soon after, the above photo of him in the hospital was released. Then, he dropped from sight, and by all accounts is still very much alive.

That was four months and 19 days ago. So what's going on?

Daily Beast editor Lloyd Grove tried to find out and got a run-around from British and Scottish officials. Grove was able to establish that, unbelievably, the British-Scottish responsibility for monitoring Megrahi's release is in the hands of the Community Health and Care Partnership of the East Renfrewshire Council -- sort of like your local town health department. Ah, but the Council guy told Grove that he couldn't comment on Megrahi's health since "the privacy of the client's medical details must be respected." Megrahi is a "client," no less, not even a parolee. much less a convicted terrorist!

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. From the outset in August, it was clear that the British government had sold out the Lockerbie victims to smooth the way for a huge BP oil deal with Libya and had persuaded the Scots to release him “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom."

Megrahi's three months are up long ago, and he's still not dead. The families of his victims deserve at least an explanation, but no one is talking. President Obama must demand an accounting from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. And the British press and people would be doing everyone a favor if they raised hell themselves.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Forget the polls: new campaign barometer is who's winning the "Tweet race"

Tweet race: comparation of Twitter rankings of Brown and Coakley (click to enlarge)

Over at Legal Insurrection, conservative blogger William A. Jacobson has been keeping close track of the Massachusetts special election on January 19 to fill the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. A big booster of GOP candidate Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley, Jacobson spotlights in a post today an intriguing new way to track how the candidates are doing -- the number of Tweets they're getting on Twitter, followers they're attracting on Facebook and other measures of online popularity.

Of course, after Barack Obama's campaign used the internet to generate excitement among younger voters and rake in zillions in small contributions, there is no question that how a candidate is doing online is potentially a big deal.

So how are they doing? According to Jacobson, Brown is way ahead and surging. Of course, in usually reliably Democratic Massachusetts, Tweets and Facebook friends from outside the commonwealth may not matter much. But then again...?

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Related -- The respected, non-partisan Cook Political Report has changed its categorization of the Massachusetts Senate race from "Solid Democratic" to "Leans Democratic."

What happened to FBI's "internal inquiry" about why G-men ignored Fort Hood killer's contacts with a radical jihadist in Yemen?

While we're waiting for the President to tell us who failed to "connect the dots" to nab the Pantybomber before he boarded a Detroit-bound flight and nearly killed 288 innocent people, here's a related question: What ever happened to that FBI "internal inquiry" into how and why our domestic intelligence whizzes failed to act in time on the knowledge that the Fort Hood jihadist killer, Nidal Hasan, had been emailing a radical imam and al Qaeda recruiter in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki?

We now know that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab met with Awlaki when the Nigerian suicide bomber was in Yemen for talks with al Qaeda big wigs. We also know that U.S intelligence and the Yemeni government regard Awlaki as a dangerous guy and, in fact, tried (unsuccessfully it appears) on December 24th to kill him.

Unmistakably, Awlaki has been known to the U.S. intelligence community of which the FBI is a key part as a very bad guy. Yet, as I blogged shortly after the Fort Hood murders, National Security Agency intercepts of up to 20 emails between Hasan and Awlaki were sent to the FBI which "analyzed" them and decided that the chummy relationship between a serving Army officer and a jihadist mouthpiece did not warrant any further scrutiny of Hasan. Had anyone at the FBI bothered to look, they would have found a wealth of other "dots" to connect with this one, namely reports from Hasan's Army colleagues and bosses that the guy was, at the least, unhinged.

Remember, immediately after the Fort Hood massacre on November 5th, while the blood was still on the ground, unnamed FBI "sources" were telling the media that there was no "terrorism nexus." For many days, the agency did its damnedest to keep feeding confusion about the glaringly obvious fact that Hasan was a jihadist. As late as November 10th, after reports about Hasan's contacts with Awlaki were all over the media, the FBI had this to say to an incredulous CBS News:

"At this point, there is no information to indicate Major Malik Nidal Hasan had any co-conspirators or was part of a broader terrorist plot. The investigation to date has not identified a motive, and a number of possibilities remain under consideration."

A number of frigging possibilities?

It's 100% clear that the FBI was stalling and evading for weeks because it dearly wished to escape blame and accountability for its patent failure at dot connecting. The agency's leaders knew that if they shuffled long enough and eventually launched an "internal inquiry," the heat would die down and they'd be in the clear. They were right, weren't they? When was the last time you heard anything about the inquiry, which is being run -- get this -- by former FBI Director William Webster?

The most amazing political and bureaucratic success story of post-9/11 period has been the FBI's ability to fend off any encroachment on the domestic counter-intelligence role it has held since before World War II. In the old days, maybe it was because everyone in Washington feared (with good reason) that J. Edgar Hoover had some dirt on them. But what's the reason now?

Yesterday, President Obama appeared to be standing by his whole national security team, even while declaring that the "system failed." Let's hope he takes that a step further today and actually holds someone responsible -- for the failure at Fort Hood as well as the one on Christmas Day.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

UPDATE -- I just watched President Obama's remarks on action following up the latest security review. Unfortunately, he's sticking to his no-blame approach, saying the problem was "systemic" so "reforms" are needed and in any case, the buck stops with him. Here's the thing, though: unless he really knocks heads and someone gets fired, a couple of months from now, the modified "system" will slip back onto auto pilot.

UPDATE 2 -- Hmmm. Today, someone leaked to CBS News a portion of the still-classified and unreleased Pentagon report on the dot-connection failure in the Fort Hood case. My take? The FBI did it on the classic PR theory that it would go largely unnoticed on the day Obama, Napolitano and Brennan dominated the media on the Pantybomber. Yet, it would be regarded in the future as a story already covered and, thus, "old news" by most of the media. Notice that the CBS story barely mentions "FBI."

Pantybomber aftermath: Obama says "system failed," calls it "intolerable" but stands by his national security team!

President Obama says someone "failed to connect the dots." But who?

Speaking yesterday at the White House after meeting for the first time since the Christmas terrorist attack with his whole national security team, President Obama minced no words about failure of the U.S. Government to head off this mortal threat.

President Obama said Tuesday that the government had sufficient information to uncover the terror plot to bring down a commercial jetliner on Christmas Day, but that intelligence officials had “failed to connect those dots.”

“This was not a failure to collect intelligence,” Mr. Obama said after meeting with his national security team for nearly two hours. “It was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.”

Obama said he wants action -- now:

I want specific recommendations for corrective actions to fix what went wrong,” said Mr. Obama, who was speaking in the Grand Foyer of the White House. “I want those reforms implemented immediately, so that this doesn’t happen again and so we can prevent future attacks.”

The "failure to integrate" charge seemed to point in one particular direction:

Mr. Obama’s stark assessment that the government failed to properly analyze and integrate intelligence served as a sharp rebuke of the country’s intelligence agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, the organization set up after the Sept. 11 attacks to ensure that the government had a central clearinghouse for spotting, assessing and thwarting terrorist threats.

Yet, it appears that no one's head is on the chopping block:

But Mr. Obama insisted that he was not interested in getting into a blame game. White House officials said the president was standing by his top national security advisers, including those whose agencies failed to communicate with one another.

Pointing no fingers himself, Obama told the 20-odd senior national security officials that "he would not 'tolerate' finger-pointing" among themselves.

But here's the serious trouble with that. Mr. President: if everyone is to blame for a major failure to protect the American people, then no one is to blame. Saying you'll hold people accountable is pretty much meaningless, if you don't actually hold anyone accountable!

The "system" that "failed" wasn't set up yesterday and needs some time to work out the bugs. The National Counterterrorism Center was set up in 2004 and placed under the new Director of National Intelligence when the latter office was established in early 2005. The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center was created in 2003. And the Department of Homeland Security was established by Congress in 2002. All the other involved agencies have been around much longer.

So if someone "screwed up," in the President's words, who was it? If Obama, Congress and the rest of us don't know, how can we be sure the problem or problems ever get fixed?

Was it the National Counterterrorism Center, which was set up pursuant to the 9/11 Commission's recommendation precisely to connect the dots? Was it the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center which maintains the U.S. Government's consolidated terrorist watch lists? Was it CIA officers in Nigeria or at Langley? Was it the State Department? Did DHS drop the ball? NSA had some intercepts, we're told, but did they share everything? And what about the Brits' report that their intelligence officials shared important information tying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to extremists a year ago? Last but not least, has the White House been on top of potential problems and fixes for them in the year since Obama took office?

No one should let any of this drop unless and until we see the actual people who screwed up directly or indirectly by virtue of their management or policy-making responsibilities pay a price.
What's your opinion? Post a comment.

Leading Democrats Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan and Bill Ritter all duck tough reelection races in 2010, drop plans to run

Top Democrats bowing out are (from top) Connecticut's Chris Dodd,

North Dakota's Byron Dorgan and Colorado's Bill Ritter

Senator Chris Dodd, a Capitol Hill fixture whose popularity in Connecticut nosedived over the past year, is set to announce Wednesday that he won't run for reelection in 2010. Dodd has been running way behind both of his prospective GOP opponents for months and is finally stepping aside. That will come as a relief to Democrats, giving them a chance to hold onto his seat with a more formidable candidate, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Just ahead of Dodd in the exit line was North Dakota's Byron Dorgan who surprised everyone Tuesday when he announced he would not run in 2010. Dorgan's retirement -- no doubt to the lucrative practice of Congressional lobbying -- isn't such good news for his fellow Democrats. More likely than not in the political climate shaping up for 2010, his seat will go to the Republicans, particularly if popular GOP Gov. John Hoeven decides to run for it.

And in a lamentable blow to the fortunes of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter will announce Wednesday that he's not running again, after only one term. Ritter had been widely seen as the sort of Western centrist Democrat who could help build the party's appeal in the mountain states. But facing an uphill race against former GOP Rep. Scott McInnis, Ritter is cashing in his chips early.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, the Democrats' best hope to hold onto the governorship there, Lt. Gov. John Cherry, is dropping out. Gov. Jennifer Granholm is barred by term limits from running again. In any case, her popularity with voters has cratered, opening up an opportunity for Republicans that just got a further boost from Cherry.

And if that were not enough bad news in a couple of days for Democrats, a new poll shows the GOP contender in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in deep blue Massachusetts is running only nine points behind the Democrat!

With at least four House Democrats already retiring before the 2010 midterms, Democrats may have good reason to worry that the latest announcements by Dodd, Dorgan and Ritter will spur a flood of incumbent Democrats heading for the exits and persuade competitive Democratic candidates for open seats to stand down, as expectations grow for a big GOP gain next November.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Unexpected change from a blue state? GOPer Scott Brown could win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat

It's Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat

Talk about game changers. Pigs can surely fly, if a Republican can win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in deep blue Massachusetts against one of the state's highest-profile Democrats, Attorney General Martha Coakley. It just might happen in the January 9th special election, if the one and only public poll of the race showing Coakley ahead by only 50% to 41% is right:

State Attorney General Martha Coakley holds a nine-point lead over her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, in Massachusetts’ special U.S. Senate election to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Coakley ahead of Brown 50% to 41%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided

Brown's surprising strength is coming mostly from independent voters:

Both candidates get better than 70% of the vote from members of their respective parties, but Brown leads 65% to 21% among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. In Massachusetts, however, Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans and it is very difficult for the GOP to compete except in special circumstances. Eight percent (8%) of Democrats remain undecided while just 3% of Republicans are in that category.

Brown is a relative unknown, compared to Coakley, but that may be an advantage in stirring enough enthusiasm to get his voters to the polls:

Twenty-one percent (21%) of those likely to vote in the special election have a very favorable opinion of Coakley, while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view.

For Brown, the numbers are 25% very favorable and 5% very unfavorable.

Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat.

If Brown wins, the Senate Democrats will no longer have the magic 60 votes to block filibusters. Naturally, that has the conservative blogosphere excited about his candidacy. Blogger William Jacobson has long been out in front pushing Brown's campaign. Now, it's gone viral on the right and the left, as you can see here, here, here and here.

Thoughts? Post a comment.

(Welcome Legal Insurrection readers)

Mystery solved: why Abdulmutallab was not on the no-fly list

Pantybomber Abdulmutallab didn't meet FBI's "reasonable suspicion" test

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father dropped a dime on him. The NSA picked up communications chatter about a Nigerian attacker. The UK had refused him a visa and the British intelligence service, MI5, had some dope on him. Nonetheless, the pantybomber walzed onto a Detroit-bound Delta flight using his own name. Why didn't all this info get him onto the no-fly list or at least the larger list of people to be subjected to added scrutiny? The President wants to know and has ordered a thorough review. The media are alive with theories about which agency failed to "connect the dots." Right and left are furiously spinning to somehow blame each other's favored politicians.

But the answer appears to be really simple: following a major finding of the 9/11 Commission, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center "maintains the U.S. government’s consolidated Terrorist Watchlist—a single database of identifying information about those known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity." But before putting anyone on any of the subsets of that watch list, the FBI insists on meeting the same "reasonable suspicion" standard of evidence required for a law enforcement officer to search your house. As L. Gordon Crovitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

Timothy Healy, the head of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, explained the unit's "reasonable suspicion" standard like this:

"Reasonable suspicion requires 'articulable' facts which, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant a determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to, terrorism and terrorist activities, and is based on the totality of the circumstances. Mere guesses or inarticulate 'hunches' are not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion."

If this sounds like legalistic language, it is. Indeed, a quick Web search was a reminder that this language is adapted from Terry v. Ohio, a landmark Supreme Court case in 1968 that determined when Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches allows the police to frisk civilians or conduct traffic stops. In other words, foreign terrorists have somehow now been granted Fourth Amendment reasonableness rights that courts intended to protect Americans being searched by the local police. Thus was Abdulmutallab allowed on the airplane with his explosives.

The difference between law-enforcement procedures and preventing terrorism could not be clearer. If a well-respected banker takes the initiative to come to a U.S. embassy in Nigeria to report that he thinks his son is a terrorist, we expect intelligence officers to make "hunches," such as that this person should have his visa reviewed and be searched before getting on a plane. Information is our defense against terrorism, but evidence of terror plots is often incomplete, which is why intelligence requires combining facts with hunches.

The result of prohibiting hunches was that Abdulmutallab was waved through. Information about suspected terrorists flows into a central Terrorist Screening Database, which is then analyzed by the Terrorist Screening Center, where FBI agents apply the "reasonable suspicion" standard to assign people to various watch lists including "selectee" lists and the "no-fly" list. It's at this point where an approach based on domestic law enforcement trump prevention, undermining the use of information.

Of course, it's also true that the others in the intelligence community might have connected the dots. And it's beyond doubt that smarter standards for screening passengers at the gates would have nailed Abdulmutallab. But the big unanswered question remains: why is the FBI using a law enforcement standard instead of an intelligence standard to "watch" possible terrorists?

In fairness to the FBI, it may feel it has to use a rigorous standard because of years of complaints and media stories like this.

What do you think? Post a comment.

(Welcome Dan Riehl readers)

Janet Napolitano, still clueless, still needs to be fired (someone should tip her off about El Al)

Israel's El Al -- the world's most secure airline

In her column in today's New York Times, Maureen Dowd quotes Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano saying this on New Year's Eve:

“I think we do a disservice if we tell people there are 100 percent guarantees. I think we tell them we’re doing everything we can to reduce risk. I think we tell people that they are also part of the system. I mean, the passengers on this plane were a line of defense, the flight crew were a line of defense. So everybody has a shared responsibility here. You can’t just say, well, this government department or that government department’s got the whole shebang.”

You'd think that Napolitano would have learned from her unbelievably mindless statement on December 27th about the Christmas Day fizzled bomb attack that the "system worked." In fact, she was forced to walk back that comment as the President acknowledged for the first time the seriousness of the security breach.

But here she was at a sit-down with Dowd on December 31st telling MoDo and the flying public that the zillions of dollars spent on airline security and other counter-terrorism measures can't guarantee that you'll reach your destination without being blown into tiny pieces, although the government, presumably her department included, is "doing everything we can to reduce risk."

Apart from her continuing defensiveness (and her infuriating attempt to suggest that passengers should be "a line of defense"), this statement is flat out false. The government is not doing everything it can to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks on airplanes.

The simplest way to test this is to ask the question still on most Americans' minds nine days after the pantybomber tried to kill 288 innocent people: how did a 23-year-old Nigerian with a Muslim name, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and a bomb in his pants waltz onto a Detroit-bound Delta airliner despite having purchased a ticket in Accra, Ghana, in cash and checked no luggage? And despite a trail of intelligence information tagging him as a risk that included his own father turning him in a month earlier?

There has been a great deal of attention from the media, politicians and the blogosphere to the second question. Rightly so. It's critically important to make sure eight years and huge expenditures after 9/11 that the much-ballyhooed system to "connect the dots" set up under the control of the new Director of National Intelligence, especially the National Counterterrorism Center, works smoothly to bring together and analyze intelligence in a timely and effective way.
In particular, the Christmas case points clearly to a need to broaden the criteria used by the NCTC to put a suspicion person on a list that would result in closer scrutiny in the process of airport screening.

But if we focus attention on the intelligence issues, aren't we missing the obvious and allowing Napolitano to beg off on the ability of her agency to guarantee security? Why wasn't Abdulmutallab screened carefully for no more reason than that he paid for his ticket in cash and had no luggage? Have we not been led to believe a thousand times since 9/11 that these are the sort of indicators that screeners use to trigger heightened scrutiny? And if his Muslim name were thrown into the bargain, wouldn't you want him questioned and/or searched more carefully? Isn't it likely that this kind of -- dare I say it? -- profiling would get us a lot closer to a "100 percent guarantee" than any imaginable further reshuffling of the intelligence community alphabet soup?

That's not "racial profiling," which would have an unsavory quality and unfairly brand all Arabs and South Asians. Rather, it's the approach used by Israel's airline, El Al, which has not had an aircraft attacked since 1968, even though every jihadist in the world would relish bringing down an Israeli airplane. From its inception, El Al's security program has taken into account that it might be targeted by pro-Palestinian leftist terrorists from Europe, Japan and elsewhere. El Al is well aware of the potential threat posed by the Richard Reids and Jose Padillas of the world who don't have Muslim names and carry European or American passports. And employing its behavioral profiling, El Al security once blocked from boarding a young Irish woman whose Palestinian boyfriend had placed a bomb in her effects.

To be sure, El Al takes into account that terrorists are most likely to be young Muslim men, but it's hardly that simple or crude. All passengers are questioned by highly trained personnel who spend little time on old ladies and families travelling with children but focus on those more likely to fit the terrorist profile. The questions are not always the same, denying terrorists the opportunity to rehearse answers. Anomalies do not go unnoticed. For example, El Al would have asked Abdulmutallab not only why he paid for his ticket in cash, but also why he bought it in Accra, who he knew in Ghana, when and why he had been there, and so on. El Al also examines carry-ons closely but doesn't do such silly things as banning shampoo and water bottles. It puts every bag through a decompression chamber that would explode any bomb rigged to go off at a certain altitude.

The only true measure of the US and Israeli approaches to airborne terror is results: no El Al aircraft has been attacked in 42 years, while terrorists have come terrifying close to exploding U.S. airliners twice now, even with the knowledge of 9/11 and all the subsequent known plots against airplanes.

No, Secretary Napolitano, you can't give a 100% guarantee the way things are now -- but you can try a lot harder and you have in El Al a (so far) perfect model to follow.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Welcome Dan Riehl readers.

Janet Napolitano MUST be fired!

Unbelievably, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano went on CNN and two other Sunday shows two days after a terrorist tried to detonate a high explosive on a Detroit-bound airliner and said, "The system worked." As if that was not stupid enough, she followed that up by saying, "There is no suggestion that he [the terrorist] was improperly screened."

We all know this is absurd nonsense. The entire multi-billion-dollar "system" of airline security over which Napolitano presides has one and only one purpose: to prevent terrorists and criminals from attacking airplanes. Thus, the "system" failed totally and abysmally. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was prevented from bringing the airliner down and sending 288 innocent people to their deaths by the incomplete detonation of his bomb and the swift action of one passenger.

We all know that the "system" of gathering and using intelligence on possible terrorists failed because information from Abdulmutallab's own father that his son might be a danger to the United States did not result in the cancellation of his open visa. We know that Britain recently refused to renew his visa to enter the U.K. and apparently, that "dot" was not connected to the other "dots." Most frighteningly, Abdulmutallab bought a one-way ticket to Detroit with cash and had no luggage! Yet, he was neither questioned closely nor frisked, revealing a huge gaping hole in the screening process that Napolitano says "worked."

Napolitano has now backtracked on her Sunday morning comments, acknowledging that something about the "system" did not "work" (a mealy-mouthed retreat in which she claims her comments were taken out of context).

But it's too late for that. Napolitano has shown herself to be an unserious nitwit. Napolitano must resign. If she doesn't, President Obama must fire her. The safety of tens of millions of air travellers must not be left in the hands of someone so dense and foolish.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

Video: Woman attacks Pope Benedict XVI at Vatican Midnight Mass

From AP:

VATICAN CITY – A woman jumped the barriers in St. Peter's Basilica and knocked down Pope Benedict XVI as he walked down the main aisle to begin Christmas Eve Mass on Thursday.

The 82-year-old pope quickly got up and was unhurt, said a Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Ciro Benedettini. Footage aired on Italy's RAI state TV showed a woman dressed in a red jumper vaulting over the wooden barriers and rushing the pope before being swarmed by bodyguards.

The commotion occurred as the pope's procession was making its way toward the main altar and shocked gasps rang out through the public that packed the basilica. The procession came to a halt and security rushed to the trouble spot.

Benedettini said the woman who pushed the pope appeared to be mentally unstable and had been arrested by Vatican police. He said she also knocked down Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, who was taken to hospital for a check up.

There's more: 87-year-old Cardinal Etchegary suffered a fractured hip in the melee and is undergoing surgery (a serious matter for a man his age). Turns out that the attacker, a 25-year-old Swiss-Italian national, Susanna Maiolo tried to do the same thing at last year's vatican midnight mass but was tackled by security guards before she could reach the pontiff.

I guess they need something like, you know, jails in Italy.

Thoughts? Post a comment.

Merry Christmas!

Food police say Santa is too fat!

Big fat Santa planning his Christmas travels, as imagined by Norman Rockwell

It had to happen. The food police want to crack down on Santa Claus for setting a bad example because he's too fat!

In this season of ever-present Christmas cookies, an unlikely figure is leading the offensive against America's obesity epidemic. The beard on his double chin is as white as snow, and when he laughs, his little round belly shakes like a bowlful of jelly -- and that, as Ernest Berger sees it, is the problem.

Yes, Northern Virginia, Berger is a Santa Claus. But as president of the volunteer group Santa America, Berger has been nudging some of his more corpulent colleagues toward a different model of Santa. He wants his fellow members of the Claus family to give themselves the gift of less girth, calling it "a matter of self-preservation" that will also help children to whom Santa Claus is a roly-poly role model.

"I'm pushing to reduce the size of Santa by 25 percent," Berger says from his home in Daphne, Ala. "We're gently and relentlessly focused on getting these men to be positive about fitness and wellness and reducing their weight."

Berger isn't the only one who wants kids to leave carrots instead of cookies for Santa.

[A]s the obesity epidemic has swollen, some public health experts have cast an increasingly critical eye on Santa's sprawl. Two years ago, acting Surgeon General Steven K. Galson said Santa's corpulence was setting a bad example. His remarks prompted howls of protest, with more than a few people accusing Galson of being politically correct in trying to make Santa physiologically correct.

Hello, Mr. Acting Surgeon General, a "bad example" of what? Right jolly old elves?

As for Berger, if he has a problem with his own weight, let him eat lettuce and work out more. But Santa is not a role model. Kids don't want to grow up to be Santa Claus. They want him say, "Ho, ho, ho," and bring them toys from the North Pole on his flying sled driven by eight tiny reindeer.

Here's a clue for the clueless food police: if Santa were going to die young of diabetes and heart disease, he'd have been long ago dead. But, curiously, he lives on...and on...and will handily outlive Berger, Galson and all the rest of us.

Any thoughts about people who want to put Santa on a diet? Post a comment.

Japanese guy "marries" his videogame girlfriend

OK, this guy (who not surprisingly, doesn't want his real name used) is giving computer geeks and videogame nuts a really, really bad name. On the plus side, he can just delete the little woman if she gets on his nerves. On the downside, the honeymoon must have seemed like all the other nights this clown spent playing with himself.

More here.

Thoughts, anyone? Post a comment.

Howard Dean plunges dagger into the heart of ObamaCare

Howard Dean says he'll support Obama's reelection, but "not vigorously"

As of yesterday, it was not at all clear that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had managed to corral the votes of moderate Democrats needed to reach the magic number 60. Senator Ben Nelson was still holding out for clear language barring the use of any federal funds for abortions. Joe Lieberman was being counted as a yes vote in some accounts, but all Lieberman said was that if the final bill had no form of public option or Medicare expansion, he was "getting to that position to where I can say...that I'm ready to vote for health care reform." Not exactly a ringing endorsement, especially considering that Reid has yet to unveil his final bill. Blanche Lincoln's view remained elusive and several other moderates, such as Virginia's Jim Webb, have been conspicuously silent all along.

Then, suddenly, the left lashed out against the bill, with a particularly damaging attack by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. Dean has many fish to fry in this debate. He's doubtless been licking his wounds since being passed over by President Obama for Secretary of Health and Human Services. His hostility to Obama was unconcealed in an interview with "Morning Joe" Scarborough (see video above) in which he said he would be supporting Obama for reelection, but "not vigorously." Since that's more or less how much of the left wing of the Democratic Party feels about Obama right now, Dean is making a bold move to claim leadership on the left.

Whatever his motives, in a Washington Post op-ed today, Dean made a powerful case against the Senate bill from his perspective:

If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.

I'd call this is a clear attempt to plunge a dagger into the heart of any compromise Senate bill that might meet the objections of moderates like Nelson, Lieberman and Lincoln. Of course, Dean doesn't have a vote in the Senate, but his fellow Vermonter, independent Bernie Sanders, does, and Sanders says he's not going to support any bill that strips out the public option and Medicare expansion.

This left-wing rebellion goes beyond Vermont. Half the influential left blogosphere has bolted, with DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas writing that it's 'time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate." Liberal MSNBC hosts are piling on as well. Addressing Obama, Ed Schultz said on his program, "Right now, Mr. President, your base thinks you’re nothing but a sellout — a corporate sellout, out that. … The only people who like this current bill right now, Mr. President, is the insurance industry — they get a bunch of new customers.” In a windy commentary, Keith Olberman underscored Dean's arguments, called the compromise Senate bill a "cheesy counterfeit of reform," and declared that he personally would risk jail rather than accede to the individual mandate, if the bill becomes law. Meanwhile, the powerful Service Employees International Union, a major Obama backer and go-to player on health care reform, appeared to be hedging its support and applying pressure on Reid to move the bill back to the left.

If Reid does that, he loses Lieberman and Nelson, probably Lincoln and maybe other moderates. At the least, Obama's Christmas deadline is now kaput. Come January, all bets are off.

What's your take? Post a comment.

UPDATE -- Ben Nelson has affirmed that he won't settle for any compromise on abortion language but will filibuster anything less than the House-passed Stupak Amendment. He also says he has other issues with the bill and that a deadline "isn't helpful." It's looking impossible for Reid to satisfy both Nemson and his rebelling left wing.

Tiger Woods "on the edge," whining about losing his wife. "Waaah!"

Tiger and knockout wife Elin Nordegren before 14 (plus?) girlfriends emerged

As Mistress Number 14 has come forth, Tiger Woods is said to be frantic and afraid of what his wife will do:

Tiger Woods is on the brink.

The shamed golfer is terrified that his wife is going to divorce him over his sexcapades and make his life miserable by moving to Sweden with their two young kids, a source close to Woods' camp told The Post yesterday.

"He's only just coping -- he's on the edge," the well-placed source said. "He sees everything coming crashing down around him. His career, his family."

Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren, is refusing to speak to him, the source said -- and the two are now definitely living apart.

Oh, poor puppy. After all, what did he do? Fool around with at least 14 (and still counting) other women -- cocktail waitresses, porn "stars," and what have you -- even when his wife was pregnant. And now his wife, the gorgeous model, Erin Nordegren is trying to make his life miserable! Gee, you mean she's not going to forgive him for preferring even a 48-year-old "couger" from Florida to her. How can she be so cruel!

Meanwhile, we mere mortal men wonder why any guy would need to cheat on Erin Nordegren -- which gives me a good excuse to put up these pictures of the sizzling hot soon-to-be ex-Mrs. Woods.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Is Barack Obama a closet Neocon?

President Obama and Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland

In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize today in Oslo, Norway, President Obama delivered remarks that included these noteworthy passages:

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

These are words that could easily have been spoken by George W. Bush, a fact that will not go down well with some of the anti-warriors on the Left.

So does that make Barack Obama a closet "Neocon?" Of course not, because they are also words that could have been spoken by any American President since FDR.

Defense of the nation is the paramount duty of the President and Barack Obama understands and embraces that responsibility. And while his understanding of America's unique -- some might say exceptional -- role in the world differs in some ways from that of some of his predecessors, he is at one with them in believing that the United States has a special responsibility to "underwrite global security." And that is a very big deal.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Boise, Idaho, 10 year old imitates Flick from "A Christmas Story," gets his tongue stuck to a pole

Flick tempts nature as Ralphie looks on in "A Christmas Story"

Yes, your tongue will get stuck to a pole in sub-zero weather, just like Flick's, as this Boise kid found out:

Boise fire officials were able to help a boy whose tongue was stuck to a metal fence pole outside the Fairmont pool near the corner of Milwaukee and Northview streets Tuesday morning. Firefighters didn't ask him his age but said he was probably 10.

The boy is OK, Boise Fire Capt. Bill Tinsley said Tuesday morning. The boy’s tongue was bleeding a little bit but there was no visible tearing, Tinsley said.

“I’ve been doing this 20 some years and this is the first (tongue frozen to pole call) I’ve had,” Tinsley said. “Poor guy.”

A woman driving by the pool saw the boy standing there, figured out what was going on, and called 911 a short time after 8 a.m.

When Boise firefighters arrived, they found the boy standing by the 8 foot tall chain link fence with his tongue stuck to the fence pole, Tinsley said.

No word on whether the kid was double-dog dared.

(Hat tip: JammieWearingFool)

Is Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi dead yet? If not, why not?

al-Megrahi (left) gets hero's welcome on return to Libya with dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif

On August 20, 2009, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, better known as the Lockerbie Bomber was freed by Scottish authorities on "compassionate grounds" after serving only 8 1/2 years of his life sentence for the terrorist murders of 270 people on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. Supposedly, al-Megrahi had "terminal prostate cancer" and had less than three months to live.

That was three months and 20 days ago, so the question should be asked, is he dead yet? And if not, why not?

On November 19, when al-Megrahi's three months were up, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown insisting understandably that the convicted terrorist be sent back to prison in Scotland if still alive. “The bottom line is Megrahi should have never been released in the first place, but it would be even more outrageous if he were to be able to live a long and free life after his release," Schumer said. At that time, it was reported that while al-Megrahi had checked into a local hospital in Tripoli initially on his return to Libya, he had been released and was living at his family’s villa.

On October 21, hopes for al-Megrahi's quick demise were raised briefly when Sky News reported that he had died, but his lawyer promptly denied it:

It's absolutely untrue," said al-Megrahi's lawyer Tony Kelly, according to Reuters. "He's definitely not dead."

Kelly would not comment further on his client's health, other than to say: "He is alive and breathing," Reuters reported.

Lest there be any doubt about the mass murderer's still breathing air, a Libyan official told Reuters, "Megrahi's condition is stable. He's alive."

That's the last reasonably authoritative reference to al-Megrahi's health that this blogger can find anywhere. If the bomber is alive today, he's well past his promised expiration date and the Obama Administration should renew Senator Schumer's demand to send him back to prison.

The business about "compassionate grounds" had a stink about it from the start. Needless to say, the relatives of al-Megrahi's victims saw little reason to waste compassion someone who had served a measly eight years for killing 270 people. And the British press soon found out that a huge BP oil deal with Libya played at least a significant role in the decision by the U.K. and Scottish governments to release him “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom."

Indeed, it would seem that the question must be raised and answered, does al-Megrahi have "terminal cancer" at all or was the whole thing a sham?

What do you think? Post a comment.

Welcome Dan Riehl and Hot Air readers

Today is Pearl Harbor Day. Spare a moment to remember.

Exactly 68 years ago today, on December 7, 1941, "a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan," President Franklin D. Roosevelt told a shocked Congress and nation the next day. Roosevelt also said this:

Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

"Always remember" and "never again."

Important words from a great President. So take a moment today to remember. That's the only way we can be sure it will never happen again.

Thoughts? Post a comment.

What Tiger Woods is throwing away (other than millions of dollars)

The wife Tiger Woods cheated on, model Elin Nordegren

I have no way of knowing whether Tiger Woods' wife whacked him with one of his golf clubs, but someone should slap him up side his head for being crazy enough to cheat on the wife pictured above, Swedish swim suit model Erin Nordegren, with reportedly at least this one cocktail waitress.

Tiger is now out an immediate $5 million, according to reports, and may be renegotiating his prenup with Nordegren in order to avoid more domestic messiness that would imperil his lucrative corporate endorsements.

But money is only money. Tiger may lose Nordegren (deservedly so, IMHO). Then, there is the little matter of the future of these two guys, Erin and Tiger's children, Sam (left) and Charlie. All in all, some big losses for a romp with a cocktail waitress.



What's your opinion? Post a comment.

Obama's Afghan decision took Presidential courage in the face of feckless left-wing and right-wing opposition

President Obama addresses the Cadet Corps and the nation at West Point

President Obama has made the right decision to commit 30,000 more Americans troops to the fight in Afghanistan -- on top of the 20,000 additional troops he approved early this year -- to "finish the job" of defeating al Qaeda and its essential ally, Mullah Omar's Taliban. Obama said last year as a candidate that this is the "necessary war" and that he would finish it. He said it again in the spring. He said it again last night at West Point. With the two troop increases, Obama is more than doubling the number of U.S. combat brigades engaged in this fight -- from three to eight. He is also ramping up a more aggressive U.S. strategy to deal with the al Qaeda-Taliban sanctuaries inside the Pakistani tribal areas, where he has already greatly stepped up the tempo of CIA-led drone missile attacks. It's hard to see what else Obama needs to do to demonstrate that he takes his Presidential responsibility for national security seriously.

It was also a courageous decision in light of the certain attacks it would draw -- and has quickly drawn -- from both the deeply unserious pacifistic left wing of the his own party and the comically aggressive right wing of the GOP.

Interestingly, a good deal of the barbs from both sides revolved around Obama's setting out a flexible 18-month time frame for the Afghan surge. Senate Democratic dove, Russ Feingold, found this wanting because it was not a strict deadline for withdrawal: ”I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there." Meanwhile, Senate Republican hawk, John McCain, undermined his standing as a national security guru by immediately leading a GOP attack on Obama over the time frame without even a feeble effort at demonstrating bipartisan unity behind a President making a hard choice to send young men and women to war: “Then it makes no sense for him to announce the date,” Mr. McCain retorted. In short, he said, “that gives the wrong impression to our friends, it’s the wrong impression to give our enemies.”

Beyond Capitol Hill, the attacks were far more intense -- and almost stupefyingly simplistic and irresponsible. MoveOn.org is already pushing a petition to Congress to set a binding deadline for a U.S. withdrawal. Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" right after Obama's speech, radical activist Michael Moore called the U.S. presence in Afghanistan "insane" and claimed, in effect, that "there is no al Qaeda in Afghanistan." On the right, columnist Ralph Peters would win if there was a prize for the most hysterical nonsense for writing that Obama's 18-month time frame was a " presidential declaration of surrender." It's a mystery to me how or why Peters, a former Army officer, thinks that adding the firepower of five Army and Marine combat brigades since last spring won't have any effect on the Taliban, while Obama's setting a target date to begin shifting security responsibility to the Afghans will lead to a U.S. defeat.

Obama's formulation is straightforward, clear and compelling: This is a fight we did not ask for but must win for our own safety and security. It has gone on for a long time because we did not apply the necessary resources to it. We're going to do that now. The Afghans and others must do their parts as well. It won't take forever, and as President, I won't let it.

I find it hard to take issue with any of that. Americans of every political persuasion should back the President. There will be more than enough time to find fault if he fails.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

President Obama makes the right decision -- to finish the job in Afghanistan

OBL: Answer to the unserious question about Afghan war: "Why are we there?"

About an hour from this writing, President Obama will speak at West Point to explain his decision to send approximately 34,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan over the next nine months or so, with the first contingent to arrive by Christmas. His decision is already coming under intense fire from left-wing critics of U.S. military action who don't appear concerned about the devastating attacks on Americans launched by al Qaeda from their refuge in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan --except as a way to criticize the Bush Administration. At the same time, right-wing bloggers and talking heads are still damning Obama for taking "too long" to decide and for seemingly choosing a troop strength somewhat below that requested by the American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Both of these lines of attack on Obama are at best foolish and at worst destructive. People on the left and the right have forgotten -- or choose to ignore -- the compelling reason for this war: Mullah Omar's Taliban government of Afghanistan not only gave refuge to and protected Osama bin Laden, so that he could plan and launch the attacks of 9/11. The Taliban were closely allied with al Qaeda, drew financial and logistical support from al Qaeda for their own war against fellow Afghans, and fought side by side with the literally thousands of al Qaeda's Arab, Pakistani, Chechen, Uzbek and other non-Afghan terrorists trained in bin Laden's Afghan camps. An American withdrawal from Afghanistan -- or a defeat in the field -- would result swiftly in Mullah Omar's return, the re-establishment of his "Emirate" government, and the reinstallation of of "Sheikh" bin Laden as an honored guest and crucial supporter of a renewed Taliban. Anyone who doesn't understand that this will happen as surely as the sun comes up in the morning is a fool -- or worse.

At the same time, the U.S. has no interest in conquering or occupying Afghanistan or in imposing on Afghans a style of government not of their own choosing. This is not World War II, there will be no "unconditional surrender," and the right amount of force must be used with extreme care. Too many on the right fail miserably to appreciate this.

We'll see soon enough if the new U.S. troop strength is sufficient and whether Gen. McChrystal's strategy -- as modified by the Administration's senior national security team and adopted by Obama -- needs further refinement. (In all military actions, planning is essential -- but so is flexibility in quickly changing plans to meet the actual conditions of the battlefield.) But right now, the President should have the support of everyone who wants to see this war end as quickly as possible with the job of defeating al Qaeda -- completely and permanently -- finished.

What's your take? Post a comment.