War And the Law

An interesting John Hawkins interview with Victor Davis Hanson:

Victor Davis Hanson: I think that’s just part of what it means to be a privileged Westerner. It means that you’re going to be wracked by self doubt and you’re going to be constantly picking apart, tearing apart you society to make it better. That means sometimes in war that you think that you can still win without bringing all of your assets to the table because you’re so wealthy or you’re so powerful, or you’re so sophisticated. There’s a certain arrogance there — that you can afford to give medals for courageous restraint. Or you can afford to suggest that because there was a civilian nearby that you didn’t take out a building. The enemy doesn’t really worry about that and doesn’t worry about the U.N. or the New York Times faulting them for not worrying about it.

Victor Davis Hanson: When you start to be legalistic about war, you’re going to create so many contradictions and hypocrisies and paradoxes because you’re really taking the elemental violence and trying to adjudicate it as if it was dominoes.

So for example, this country worked itself up over the water boarding of three suspects that were being detained in Guantanamo. We knew in each case that they were responsible in some part for the 9-11 mass murders.   We know they were water boarded.  But suddenly that translated in the campaign season to “The United States embraces wide scale torture.”  At the same time in the last 18 months, we’ve probably killed around 700 in targeted assassinations.  Perhaps over 100 civilians and one or two American citizens were killed and we were judge, jury and executioner.  So once you get into this legalistic mode, these paradoxes that I referred to start to appear.  It’s OK to judge a suspected terrorist, as guilty. It’s OK to pull the trigger and kill him by predator of remote assassination.  But it’s not OK to water board a known confessed terrorist.  Most people would rather be water boarded than have themselves and their children, everybody in the general vicinity, blown up.  Yet we adjudicate one as moral and one as amoral depending on a pretty shaky logic. We’re going to continue to do that more and more as we think that something is as unpredictable and savage as war must follow the same protocols as the health care plan or getting 500 channels on TV.

Victor Davis Hanson: If we try to restrain the use of violence, try not to humiliate the enemy during the war, and try not to defeat them, we’re only going to drag out the actual savagery.

This comment from VDH goes right in line with what I’ve been saying on the topic all along. The law, as such, can only be applied in the absence of war.  That’s because war, by definition, is the absence of lawfulness.  The only way to reestablish the rule of law, is to establish peace.  The only way to reinstate peace, then, is to win the damned war.

Thanks to incredible clients and partners, my company Libertas Technologies, LLC is celebrating its 9th anniversary!

(Sigh)

It’s become obvious that I’m unable to post regularly to the blog in the current set up work conditions, absent a laptop computer to put in the truck with me.

So, until I get one,  you’ll need to bear with me for a while.

I see it as nothing short of alarming that we go forward with the Fourth of July /Independence Day celebrations as if nothing was wrong; as if the instrument which has served better than any other to protect our freedoms …namely the Constitution of these United States… wasn’t under direct attack by those currently in power and who are run a clean and falsely claimed that they would support and defend said constitution.

I’m afraid that were going to hear lots of platitudes today, regarding our freedoms.  A large number of these are going to be platitudes issued from people who would just as soon that we didn’t have such freedoms.  The one of these, I fear, is the president of the united states .  How else can we aver that the he could in clean conscience nominate Elena Kagan to the united states supreme court… supposedly the final arbiter of what the constitution means …. who clearly believes that all that bull of self evident truths, inalienable, God-given rights of man, is just filler.  I’ll offer her exchange with Senator Tom Coburn.

Coburn: Do you believe it is a fundamental, pre-existing right to have an arm to defend yourself?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I very much appreciate how deeply important the right to bear arms is to millions and millions of Americans. And I accept Heller, which made clear that the Second Amendment conferred that right upon individuals, and not simply collectively.

Coburn: I’m asking you, Elena Kagan, do you personally believe there is a fundamental right in this area? Do you agree with Blackstone [in] the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense? He didn’t say that was a constitutional right. He said that’s a natural right. And what I’m asking you is, do you agree with that?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, to be honest with you, I don’t have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution. And my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Coburn: So you wouldn’t embrace what the Declaration of Independence says, that we have certain God-given, inalienable rights that aren’t given in the Constitution that are ours, ours alone, and that a government doesn’t give those to us?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I’m not saying I do not believe that there are rights pre-existing the Constitution and the laws. But my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.

Coburn: Well, I understand that. I’m not talking about as a justice. I’m talking about Elena Kagan. What do you believe? Are there inalienable rights for us? Do you believe that?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I think that the question of what I believe as to what people’s rights are outside the Constitution and the laws, that you should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief.

Coburn: I would want you to always act on the basis of the belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.

Kagan: I think you should want me to act on the basis of law. And that is what I have upheld to do, if I’m fortunate enough to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of law, which is the Constitution and the statutes of the United States.

The thrust of this thing, is precisely what I told Billy Beck several years back; that if we had people in power who actually held to the original meeting of the constitution, Beck and I would have far less to argue about.  Beck in our conversations over the years has stressed the idea that our rights do not descend from the constitution, or for that matter the government instituting said constitution, however accurately. either.  Insofar as that, I suspect we agree. Then again, so does the constitution, in its original meaning.

The reason is controversial, and a little vague in some discussions is because there’s a lot of people involved with this discussion who refuse to acknowledge that there’s anything that could possibly be more powerful than government, or more powerful than man for that matter.  that column is important because the founders didn’t have any trouble whatsoever with that concept.

The fact is, Kagan has a tendency to be rather selective when it comes to original meaning.   She tells that same hearing, that she is a strong believer in Stare decisis. But is she really? For example if Stare Decisis were the rule, Plessy would still be the law of the land as would Dred Scott. Somehow I suspect her devotion to court rulings of the past doesn’t extend quite so far as that.  When someone tells you that they’re a strong believer of Stare Decisis that means they think their views will not withstand continual challenge.  But I submit that on the whole our conservative principles DO withstand constant challange. Consider the recent ruling by the USSC as regards our right to keep and bear arms.

I more than suspect that the principles laid down by the founders of this nation will be continually upheld if given an objective look through the prism of our constitution and through an originalist mindset.  Kagan, I fear, is not one of these.  Neither , then, is the person who appointed her.

Our freedoms are being challenged by our own government as they have never been before.  By all means, celebrate today in its meaning.  But be prepared to stand up for it, as well.  That means standing against the current occupant of the white house and his followers.

For a fitting tribute to the now departed Senator Robert “Sheets”  Byrd, late of West Virginia, a cite Michelle Malkin 2001 article in Capitalism magazine, via Ed Dristoll,  Pajamas Media:

The ex-Klansman’s admirers praise his historical knowledge, mastery of procedural rules, and outspokenness. They refer to the Senate’s senior Democrat as the “conscience of the Senate.” They downplay his white-sheet-wearing days as a “brief mistake” — as if joining the Klan were like knocking over a glass of water. Oopsy.

This ex-Klansman wasn’t just a passive member of the nation’s most notorious hate group. According to news accounts and biographical information, Sen. Byrd was a “Kleagle” — an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a head. He said he joined because it “offered excitement” and because the Klan was an “effective force” in “promoting traditional American values.” Nothing like the thrill of gathering ’round a midnight bonfire, roasting s’mores, tying nooses, and promoting white supremacy with a bunch of your hooded friends.

The ex-Klansman allegedly ended his ties with the group in 1943. He may have stopped paying dues, but he continued to pay homage to the KKK. Republicans in West Virginia discovered a letter Sen. Byrd had written to the Imperial Wizard of the KKK three years after he says he abandoned the group. He wrote: “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia” and “in every state in the Union.”

The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act — supported by a majority of those “mean-spirited” Republicans — for more than 14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court’s two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. In fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of “injecting racism” into the Senate hearings. Meanwhile, author Graham Smith recently discovered another letter Sen. Byrd wrote after he quit the KKK, this time attacking desegregation of the armed forces.

The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight “with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

If this ex-Klansman were a conservative Republican, he would never hear the end of his sordid past. “Ex-Klansman who opposed civil rights and black justices” would appear in every reference to Sen. Byrd. And even the “ex-” would be in doubt. Maxine Waters and Ralph Neas and Julianne Malveaux and Al Sharpton and all the other left-wing bloodhounds who sniff racism in every crevice of American life would be barking up a storm over Sen. Byrd’s latest fulminations.  Instead, the attack dogs are busy decrying latent racial bigotry where it doesn’t exist, while the real thing roams wild and free in their own political backyard.

It is the truth and somebody has to write it.

I’ve been watching the nonsense over GOP Chair Steele’s comments on Afghanistan, with a somewhat jaundiced eye.

Look, the DNC may like to claim that Steele is “betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan”, but  what’s really happening here is that Steele is demonstrating the ability to see reality… something Democrats almost invariably lack at the leadership level and more often than not in the rank and file.  He sees Obama’s policies making this an unwinnable situation.  One can argue about if or not that is the official GOP position.   But that’s the point Steele was making and he’s right insofar as that point is concerned.

Steele has reportedly said:

“This was a war of Obama’s choosing.”

“This is not something United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.”

Oh, really?    This is what they’re objecting to? Does anyone recall the Democrats who made the same case in Iraq?  Gee… were they rooting against our troops, do you suppose? And what shall be said about the Democrats who now make the same case as Steele does now?  (And looking across the sphere,  I see quite a number of them)

Say what you will about this ‘officially ‘ having started after 9/11, as a Bush policy. The fact is Obama ratcheted up the Afghanistan situation by his own choice.  He made Afghanistan the central part of the military effort calling it’ the good war’ and one we must win.  Steele himself alludes to this in a Fox News posting:

Steele sought later to clarify his comments by noting that Obama said on the presidential campaign trail that the U.S. should concentrate fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

“Now, as president, he has indeed shifted his focus to this region,” he said in a written statement. “That means this is his strategy. And, for the sake of security of the free world, our country must give our troops the support necessary to win this war.”

Problem of course is, his policies make that impossible.

Something else the GOP needs to consider: Do we really want to remove all controversy from the political arena?  Is there anyone who doesn’t understand that doing so cedes the argument to the Democrats by default?

Good evening Mr. And Mrs. America and to all the ships at sea, and welcome to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the web; The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble

• GOP Disappointed In Schwarzenegger? Sure and there’s a damned good reason for it. What we have here, is the realization that star power doesn’t make up for a lack of conservatism.  Perhaps more correctly, it should be said that the republican party thought itself best served by centrists.  Schwarzenegger is perhaps the best example of how untrue that line of non thought is.
• CAPTAIN! ICEBERG AHEAD! All around, there are Democrats telling us their prospects for November are looking up. Things aren’t as bad as Republicans say! Health care is becoming more popular! The country wants financial reform! People still like Barack Obama! Isn’t Joe Barton awful!. They’re fooling themselves, says Byron York.
• BIG GOVERNMENT DYING? I doubt it.   Mark Tapscott says the other day…
  

  “We see this week a remarkable confluence of events signaling the eventual end of Big Government: The bureaucrats and politicians can spend trillions but they can’t plug the Gulf oil spill, agree on a budget in Congress or end the Great Recession’s foreclosures and unemployment.”

  I’m not sure I agree.  After all, one of the worst things that you can do to a big government Liberal is actually solve the problem he proposes to solve by his increases in governmental dependency. The excuse will be pushed that we simply didn’t give enough power to government to solve the problem.  And I still insist this lack of response to the problem is the left trying to push it’s anti-oil polices by creating a worst example…. never let a good crisis go to waste, remember. Bruce gets into it a bit from the angle of “Is Keynesianism finally dead?” To which I offer the same answer since the latter is rooted in the former, in the end. And by the way… as to the gulf oil thing, let’s recall, it was the government… specifically, the Obama Administration, which forced BP to use flawed models in assessing it’s risks there.

• REMEMBER THE ARGUMENT ABOUT WELFARE? Why are welfare entitlements exploding under Democrats? Wellllll.. maybe because they’re… well… Democrats?
• FEE FIE FOH FRUM: Attention David Frum; You’re still an idiot. the core of your dodge of John Hawkins and his charges only works for you because you’re still stupid enough to think that John Mc Cain and George W Bush (for example) are conservatives. Hawkins is correct; you simply don’t measure up.

Good evening Mr. And Mrs. America and to all the ships at sea, and welcome to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the web; The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble

• THE ULTIMATE INSULT? Apparently those who don’t like the tea party movement are getting desperate.  They’re breaking out the ultimate insult; calling it a Christian movement.
• McChrystal : Look; call and how you will, but the bottom line is that Obama canned McChrystal because he dared to tell the truth… that this administration and it’s mismanagement of the situation there is losing the war for us. And yes, I saw Bruce’s commentary. I disagree insofar as the reason for him canning McChrystal . Let’s not kid ourselves… Obama doesn’t give a DAMN about what Bruce calls our Constitutional tradition of civilian control of the military, except insofar as Obama felt he lost control of the narrative.
• CONTROLLING THE MEDIA: I mentioned, yesterday, Dave Wiegel.  Doctor Zero and I are on the same page as to why Wiegel got hired:
  

  Why would an unbiased newspaper be afraid to honestly report news that makes one side of a political debate look appealing, instead assigning a reporter to highlight fringe material to cast them in the most negative light possible?  Of course, they are biased, but it’s even worse than that.  They’re subjective. They pretend to be commentators, but they’re actually players in the game… just like everyone else.  Our fates are all controlled by the immense central government worshipped by the Post. They have a vested interest in ensuring its sustained growth, so they can make their fortune writing epic tales of its heroic deeds.

  He also goes to some length to explain why I have such disdain for so-called “moderates”:

  As I like to point out whenever someone like David Frum gushes over “moderates,” there is no meaningful way to be moderate when a carnivorous super-State is chowing down on huge portions of the private sector, while dismissing bedrock Constitutional rightswith an irritated wave of its hand.  You either resist the onslaught of the State with all your might, or bear passive witness to its expansion.

  At this moment in American history, there is no functional difference between a genuine “centrist” and Dave Weigel’s right-wing “ratf**kers.”  If you think you should be allowed to keep your own medical insurance, and see your own doctor, you’re taking an extreme partisan stance.  If you don’t think the government should be able to revoke the First Amendment or due process rights of private corporations at its convenience, you are a declared enemy of the State.

  For the same reason, journalists can only make the thinnest pretense of objectivity when covering the super-State.  Merely reporting honestly on its past and current activities would qualify a journalist for associate membership in the Ratf**ker Pack.

  Quite so. He goes on to argue that the protests of innocence of trying to manipulate the narrative can be found in smaller quantities on any stable floor.

  As my Green Room colleague Karl points out, some of Weigel’s most intellectually offensive emails concerned the kind of organized narrative manipulation that appears to have been the true purpose of JournoList all along.  In the immense political struggle now under way, there is no room on the sidelines.

  Mainstream media figures want to pose as friendly partners in an intelligent conversation, but the size and power of the government they cover makes it impossible to analyze dispassionately.  In their hearts, journalists really hate the idea of seeing that exciting mega-government torn down, or they believe it’s impossible to do so.  That’s why they see the new breed of aggressive, Tea Party-endorsed Republicans as either enemies or lunatics.  It doesn’t help that they’re well aware of ongoing statist efforts to control or subsidize the media.  Even those reporters who aren’t True Believers are reluctant to earn a spot on the enemies list of an eternally triumphant statist elite.

  The interesting part about this is, at least to me, the similarity between what’s happening with our press in this country and what happened in Germany in the twenties and thirties.  No one’s daring to use the word “totalitarian” yet.  But I fear that’s exactly where we’re headed at this point.  Time was when asking the uncomfortable questions was the job of the press.  These days asking uncomfortable questions, particularly with liberals in power, means the ending of one’s career.  I will say this again; the Washington P hired Wiegel for one reason: they knew he would produce biased writing.  Biased against conservatives.  What concerns me is that he is far from alone.

Welcome to one and all to this most intense nightly read anywhere on the ‘sphere… The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble

• AS REGARDS DAVE WIEGEL...Does anyone not understand that the reason that the Post hired him in the first place was they knew he’d write exactly the way he did? They knew darned well his antagonistic views toward conservatives, and for that matter anybody to the right of, say, Fidel Castro.  Forgive me if I’m unimpressed by his defenders.  This is not intended to pounce on Wiegel… let’s be honest enough to say that he is hardly alone in this.  Indeed; that’s why I’ve held off commenting on all of this, because it is not at all a unique situation.
• THE DIET: Most of you will know that my wife has joined Weight Watchers. I’m rather proud of her, she’s been doing very well indeed.  She’s been losing on the order of a pound and a half a week, which is actually a bit faster than the ideal, according to the Weight Watchers site.  In the meantime, in the same amount of time , which interestingly enough coincides with a new job I’ve been on, I’ve succeeded in losing on the order of 30 and 35lbs. depending on which scale you’re using.  Donna is some kinda pissed about that. This week she reports gaining perhaps a pound and a half.  I keep telling her perspective is in order, here.  A pound and a half can be easily eliminated quite literally in a bathroom visit.  She’s all bummed out about having gained a pound and a half over the previous week.  I’m telling her on the whole, it really doesn’t matter much, and she shouldn’t get discouraged over it.  It comes down to a matter of self confidence, I suppose.
• THE IOWA GOP: I see my old friend Art Smith has been live blogging from Iowa at the GOP dinner, there.
• THE PETITION: I see Roy Blunt is spreading a petition around to put a halt to runaway spending. personally, I’m not foolish enough to figure the petition is going to stop anything.  The only thing that is going to stop the runaway spending is to put room conservatives into Congress.  And, the White House, for that matter.  I want you to consider something; the united states government, and most of its states, have been dominated by liberalism for years.  Yet it’s the liberals who blame conservatives for the financial difficulties we are in.  Does make sense to me there, but there it is.  Seems to be the only, nation that we haven’t tried Israel conservatives in positions of power.  In all three branches of government at the Federal level, and sweeping the state houses as well.  The republicans in my view on their own worst enemy on this score, when they try and push moderates rather than conservatives.  Blunt , in my view, is doing a bit of grandstanding.  It serves his purposes, of course, but I wonder who’s else gets served.

The news events of the last few months have certainly put the Obama Administration in a peculiar position.  The Gulf crisis notwithstanding, most of these events have been created by this president and his staff.

Team Obama went the the G20 Summit in Toronto this weekend to chide the other 19 nations to continue to stimulate their economy through Keynsian economic principles.  “Not so fast”, said the other countries.  “We have to make choices, and right now, we choose fiscal solvency and prudence”.  What a concept!

Passage of the Financial Institutions Reform package was always tenuous, at best, but the death of Senator Robert Byrd over the weekend makes passage more difficult.  One less Democratic vote means that it’s more likely that Republicans can filibuster this package, and this is a good thing.  Here’s why:  Any bill that increases regulation, drives up costs to the consumer, and squeezes financial services companies’ margins will negatively affect the economy.  The costs of increased regulation always get passed along to the consumer in some way, shape or form.  Limiting profits also limit tax revenues to the US Treasury in the form of corporate taxes, as well as limiting the taxes paid on dividends.  Finally, no company will hire if they have to choose between new employees and profitability.  Profits first, then job growth.

Of course, this Administration believes that more government, and more regulation is better than the alternative.  Which brings us back to the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico.  Government could not solve this problem.  President Obama’s unwillingnes to recognize this fact, rather, to pin it on the previous Administration, has convinced me that less Washington is the answer, not more.  Incidentally, government could not solve the Katrina problem either.  It was private philanthropy, including church-based organizations, that had the greatest impact during the Katrina aftermath.

It would seem that if anything, this Administration, and especially the President, is deliberately trying to keep people from focusing their attention on the economy, jobs and the fact that companies continue to shed them.  This is preferable to actually implementing policies that will create jobs, stimulate the economy, and generate revenues back to federal, state and local treasuries.

On Friday, the Labor Department will release the non-farm employment numbers for June.  Consensus estimates suggest that the economy shed 145,000 jobs this month, and if so, that the unemployment rate will rise to 9.8% from 9.7%.  Look for President Obama to do some if not all of the following:

• Create a diversion
• Blame it on the financial crisis and the previous administration
• Express a need for additional stimulus

Do not expect him to take responsibility, or offer any potential solutions other than those expressed above.  This will prove to solidify Republican gains in both houses of Congress in November.  The country wants solutions and for a  responsible President.  It will have to wait another two and a half years.

Attention countrymen. 
This is your fearless leader speaking. 
A couple things in the mechanics of running a web site …

1: I have upgraded the WordPress software to version 3.0.  To most users this won’t change a thing. 

2:I finally found the nasty bug that’s been causing the homepage not to show itself occasionally.  It turns out the optimization routine that I was using occasionally blows up its own cache files.  I’ve disabled that for the moment I will leave it disabled.

Perhaps my not writing is a good thing, since site traffic is up a bit on average. More likely there something else going on here, but darned if I know what. 

As always if you’ve got problems drop feedback and I’ll see what I can do. 

http://www.cio.com/article/595865/LinkedIn_Etiquette_The_Right_Way_to_Request_New_Connections_?source=rss_how_to

As usual, good advice from CIO magazine, especially now that there are more than 70,000,000 business professionals on LinkedIn and a new person joins everry second!

I would add to it that I always mention the number of my first degree connections on LinkedIn (now over 2,650) to help “sell” the idea of connecting. For those people who understand the enormous and increasing value of LinkedIn, they see the benefit of connecting with someone who’s network is large!

None dare all it education, via Sister Toldjah:

Students in Provincetown – from elementary to high school – will be able to get free condoms at school, under a policy passed earlier this month, even though their parents might object.

“We know that sexual experimentation is not limited to an age, so how does one put an age on it?” said Superintendent Beth Singer, who wrote the policy unanimously passed two weeks ago by the Cape Cod town’s School Committee.

Free my butt.  Condoms are commodities.   They don’t grow on trees.   They have to purchased, in this case by the unwilling taxpayers of Provincetown.    Tell you what.   If the Provincetown school board thinks that giving out condoms is such good idea, let the school board pay them.

Education of a Bunny, Lori-Ziganto,  News Real:

I generally ignore the irrelevant bint known as Miss Gloria Steinem, but Katie Couric interviewed her on Tuesday and thrust her back into the mock-worthy spotlight.  Plus, I’m sick fed up with her and “feminists” like her. The emergence of conservative women to the forefront recently has made them particularly unbearable, as they strive to, in every repugnant way possible, diminish said women.  This is just the latest from one of them, Miss Gloria Steinem, who unfortunately resurfaced from whatever Birkenstock-clad, soy latte drinking ivory tower she was hiding in

Note how Hugh Hefner’s idea of disposable women, melds to well with Steinem’s.

Screw candlelight vigils, via Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit:

Nineteen-year-old Rachael Green held her high school diploma in her hands June 15. One week later she died after being shot during a candlelight vigil for a classmate who was killed just days before.

Gunmen opened fire on the group gathered in West Oakland at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, killing Green and wounding five people.

Does any sober person honestly believe that candlelight vigils to the least bit to prevent murder?   Pray that Oakland does not hold another candlelight vigil for the late Miss Green.

Christianity  oppressed in Islamic Republic of Dearbornistan, from Alllah Pundit, Hot Air, video:

Dumbo impresses Dana Milbank, Washington Post:

It was 95 degrees in the Rose Garden. Reporters dripped with sweat. Vice President Biden’s brow glistened. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s face was pink and Gen. David Petraeus’s was red.

[…]

But the sight before them was rare enough to be worth the suffering: The commander in chief was being commanding.

Abraham Lincoln once said of U.S. Grant, I can’t spare him, he fights.  Well Stanley McCrystal was fighting to implement Obama purported Afghanistan policy, and Dumbo spared him in favor of llaceys who do not support the President.

But not Rowan Scarborough, Human Events:

With a national security team [Joe Biden, Jim Jone, Richard Holbrooke and Karl Eikenberry] that seemed to be hoping McChrystal would fail, it is not surprising he chose to vent to a reporter. The White House now knows the military has little regard for key figures on the national security team. Maybe this cold slap in the face will prompt Obama to fire more than a career soldier who hunted down in 2006 Abu Musab Zarqawi, al Qaeda’s deadliest operative in Iraq.

Dumbo is in charge, but so was George Armstrong Custer.

Tech execs wade into the political fray

Got a big callout on the first page of the article!