PR wonks take a lesson from the House of Windsor:

So in ten short weeks he who is third in line for the throne goes from party boy to warfighter.  Gotta love that British pluck.  It reminds me of when the Bush twins . . . ah, no . . . this in no way resembles anything the Bush twins have done for their country.  This is the difference between the British approach to national service and total avoidance of it by America’s elite.

Of course Harry is now a force protection risk with the whole world (not to mention al Qaeda and the Taliban) aware of his presence, so he has to go home, but I can’t help wondering if the rest of the unit doesn’t harbor some resentment over his tidy ten-week war tour while they’re stuck there for another nine months or so.

. . . bassists:

 . . . presidential hopeful:

Lindsay Lohan poses as Marilyn Monroe in this month’s New Yorker, and in the process goes from rehab poster child to timeless work of pop culture art.  (Sorry about the noun string.)

 Check out the slideshow here.  (Warning:  Partial nudity.  Or should I say, “Hey, partial nudity!”)

Answering the call of the people to build a society that honours human dignity and affirms the pride and purpose of its citizens,
Committed to confront the painful legacy of the recent past in a spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness,
Dedicated to protecting, promoting and honouring the diversity of our people,
Reaffirming our wish to become fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic family of democracies,
Observing that Kosovo is a special case arising from Yugoslavia’s non-consensual break-up and is not a precedent for any other situation,
Recalling the years of strife and violence in Kosovo, that disturbed the conscience of all civilized people,
Grateful that in 1999 the world intervened, thereby removing Belgrade’s governance over Kosovo and placing Kosovo under United Nations interim administration,
Proud that Kosovo has since developed functional, multiethnic institutions of democracy that express freely the will of our citizens,
Recalling the years of internationally sponsored negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina over the question of our future political status,
Regretting that no mutually acceptable status outcome was possible, in spite of the good-faith engagement of our leaders,
Confirming that the recommendations of U.N. Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari provide Kosovo with a comprehensive framework for its future development and are in line with the highest European standards of human rights and good governance,
Determined to see our status resolved in order to give our people clarity about their future, move beyond the conflicts of the past and realize the full democratic potential of our society,
Honouring all the men and women who made great sacrifices to build a better future for Kosovo,

We, the democratically elected leaders of our people, hereby declare Kosovo to be an independent and sovereign state. This declaration reflects the will of our people and it is in full accordance with the recommendations of U.N. Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari and his Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement.

By Michael Scheuer 

On Feb. 5, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell warned the Senate Intelligence Committee that al-Qaeda is regrouping, not retreating — and boosting its capacities to launch another attack inside the United States. So how does the war on terrorism look these days through our enemies’ eyes? Here’s an informed — albeit fictional — guess.

In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate –

Brothers, I write to give my view of how far we have, with God’s help, traveled since declaring war on the United States in 1996. Al-Qaeda has today become all that we hoped for when we formed it in 1988: a vanguard organization whose main mission is not fighting, but rather inciting and inspiring young Muslims to arm themselves and defend Islam from the American crusaders, their Zionist offspring and their agent regimes in the Muslim world, especially the House of Saud. We must thank God for the steady flow of young Muslims to our ranks, men who now make the forces of al-Qaeda and its allies larger, more intelligent and more pious than ever.

By God’s grace, al-Qaeda’s incitement has met with wondrous success; Western polls show that hundreds of millions of Muslims now believe that U.S. foreign policy aims to undermine or destroy Islam. Ironically, Washington itself has become a major inciter of Muslim hatred for the United States, simply by maintaining policies — slaughtering the innocent in Iraq, propping up the House of Saud and Hosni Mubarak’s tyranny in Egypt, blindly backing the pretender state of the Jews — that drive Muslims into our ranks. Not all these Muslims are ready to take up arms, but even the limited number who are now fighting have proved more than enough to stymie U.S. plans in Afghanistan and Iraq and to support the jihad in Algeria, Lebanon, Thailand, Somalia, Gaza and Europe.

And so, even with limited numbers, al-Qaeda appears to Muslims as a huge, rising and conquering army. Just as important, Americans have been taught by their leaders to see al-Qaeda behind every rock and tree, ready to pounce. American leaders, in effect, now terrorize ordinary Americans, making Washington appear to be the enemy of its own people’s civil liberties.

This all gives us confidence in our plan to defeat America — by bleeding it into bankruptcy and tempting it to spread out its forces.

(more…)

I’m not one to categorically buy into the notion of “liberal bias” on the part of traditional media, but I must admit I was surprised by the - dare I say it - balanced tone in a piece titled “Good Sense on Iraq” in today’s WaPo editorial page:

DEFENSE Secretary Robert M. Gates on Monday exhibited the sort of sensible and pragmatic judgment on Iraq that has been sorely missing in Washington during the past five years. Mr. Gates took office 14 months ago with the goal of reshaping the U.S. mission so that it would be sustainable past the end of the Bush administration; to that end he publicly embraced the goal of reducing the U.S. troop level to 10 brigades, or about 100,000 troops, by the end of this year. That would be a sharp reduction from the peak of 20 combat brigades and more than 170,000 troops after last year’s “surge” — which has succeeded in dramatically reducing violence in greater Baghdad and western Iraq.

After meeting in Baghdad with U.S. commander Gen. David H. Petraeus, Mr. Gates announced a change of tack. He said he agreed with Gen. Petraeus and other U.S. commanders that after the already-announced drawdown to 15 brigades and 130,000 troops by July, there should be “a brief period of consolidation and evaluation” before any further withdrawals are ordered. That means it’s unlikely that the U.S. troop level will reach 100,000 by the time the next president takes office. But it also means that Mr. Gates is listening to his commanders and reacting to the actual situation in Iraq rather than insisting on a preconceived policy.

His judgment looks sound. The progress since last summer has been remarkable: In Baghdad, where a sectarian war seemed to be spiraling out of control a year ago, the number of attacks dropped 75 percent from June to last month. U.S. casualties since Oct. 1 are half the average for 2006, and the lowest for any similar period since the war began. But as Gen. Petraeus repeatedly has emphasized, the gains are fragile. It’s not certain that the relative peace in and around Baghdad will hold as American troop levels come down. A pause to weigh the situation — commanders are reportedly thinking of 30 to 90 days — would help ensure that what now looks like an opportunity to stabilize Iraq would not be squandered, along with the American lives sacrificed for it.

Thanks to Mr. Gates’s readiness to adjust, it’s more likely that President Bush’s successor will inherit an Iraq that is moving slowly toward stability rather than spiraling into chaos. So it’s worth asking why Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton remain so unwilling to alter their outdated and dogmatic views about the war. Both issued statements Monday denouncing Mr. Gates’s statement and the proposed pause in withdrawals; both stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the changed situation in Iraq requires a rethinking of their plans for the rapid withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops. As Mr. Gates has recognized, to mechanically yank U.S. forces from Iraq according to a timetable inspired by American domestic politics, just when the troops appear to be succeeding, would be foolhardy as well as dangerous.

Wow . . .   And this from a vessel that ranks a close second (NYT wins, of course) in terms of consistently drawing the right’s ire?  What’s a pendant to trust any more?

(Ward’s note:  This was written by Capt. Lund last fall but still in play considering the recent dust-up around East Bay regarding the presence of Marine recruiters.) 

While the protest that you staged in front of my office on Wednesday, Sept. 26, was an exercise of your constitutional rights, the messages that you left behind were insulting, untrue, and ultimately misdirected. Additionally, from the comments quoted in the Berkeley Daily Planet article, it is clear that you have no idea what it is that I do here. Given that I was unaware of your planned protest, I was unable to contest your claims in person, so I will therefore address them here.

First, a little bit about who I am: I am a Marine captain with over eight years of service as a commissioned officer. I flew transport helicopters for most of my time in the Marine Corps before requesting orders to come here. Currently, I am the officer selection officer for the northern Bay Area. My job is to recruit, interview, screen, and evaluate college students and college graduates that show an interest in becoming officers in the Marine Corps. Once they’ve committed to pursuing this program, I help them apply, and if selected, I help them prepare for the rigors of Officer Candidate School and for the challenges of life as a Marine officer. To be eligible for my programs, you have to be either a full-time college student or a college graduate. I don’t pull anyone out of school, and high school students are not eligible.

I moved my office to Berkeley in December of last year. Previously, it was located in an old federal building in Alameda. That building was due to be torn down and I had to find a new location. I choose our new site because of its proximity to UC Berkeley and to the BART station. Most of the candidates in my program either go to Cal or to one of the schools in San Francisco, the East Bay, or the North Bay. Logistically, the Shattuck Square location was the most convenient for them.

Next, you claim that I lie. I have never, and will never, lie to any individual that shows an interest in my programs. I am upfront with everything that is involved at every step of the way and I go out of my way to ensure that they know what to expect when they apply. I tell them that this is not an easy path. I tell them that leading Marines requires a great deal of self-sacrifice. I tell them that, should they succeed in their quest to become a Marine officer, they will almost certainly go to Iraq. In the future, if you plan to attack my integrity, please have the courtesy to explain to me specifically the instances in which you think that I lied.

Next, scrawled across the doorway to my office, you wrote, “Recruiters are Traitors.” Please explain this one. How exactly am I a traitor? Was I a traitor when I joined the Marine Corps all those years ago? Is every Marine, therefore, a traitor? Was I a traitor during my two stints in Iraq? Was I a traitor when I was delivering humanitarian aid to the victims of the tsunami in Sumatra? Or do you only consider me a traitor while I am on this job? The fact is, recruitment is and always has been a part of maintaining any military organization. In fact, recruitment is a necessity of any large organization. Large corporations have employees that recruit full-time. Even you, I’m sure, must expend some effort to recruit for Code Pink. So what, exactly, is it that makes me a traitor?

The fact is this: any independent nation must maintain a military (or be allied with those who do) to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. Regardless of what your opinions are of the current administration or the current conflict in Iraq, the U.S. military will be needed again in the future. If your counter-recruitment efforts are ultimately successful, who will defend us if we are directly attacked again as we were at Pearl Harbor? Who would respond if a future terrorist attack targets the Golden Gate Bridge, the BART system, or the UC Berkeley clock tower? And, to address the most hypocritical stance that your organization takes on its website, where would the peace keeping force come from that you advocate sending to Darfur?

Finally, I believe that your efforts in protesting my office are misdirected. I agree that your stated goals of peace and social justice are worthy ones. War is a terrible thing that should only be undertaken in the most dire, extreme, and necessary of circumstances. However, war is made by politicians. The conflict in Iraq was ordered by the president and authorized by Congress. They are the ones who have the power to change the policy in Iraq, not members of the military. We execute policy to the best of our ability and to the best of our human capacity. Protesting in front of my office may be an easy way to get your organization in the headlines of local papers, but it doesn’t further any of your stated goals.

To conclude, I don’t consider myself a “recruiter.” I am a Marine who happens to be on recruiting duty. As such, I conduct myself in accordance with our core values of honor, courage, and commitment. I will never sacrifice my honor by lying to anyone that walks into my office. I will never forsake the courage that it takes to restrain myself in the face of insulting and libelous labels like liar and traitor. And, most importantly, I will never waver from my commitment to helping individuals who desire to serve their country as officers in the Marine Corps.

(Captain Richard Lund is the United States Marine Corps’ officer selection officer for the northern Bay Area.)

I saw a soundbite with Mike Huckabee yesterday and he said:  “If you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything.”

First off:  Bull.  Shit.

This is the rally cry of the conservative movement . . . the new conservative movement, the one that’s freaking out right now because of the mere notion that John McCain might be the Republican nominee.  This is also the same conservative movement that seized control of Washington in the wake of 9-11 and (forgive my oversimplification) fonged it away.

It’s funny - conservatives act as if they haven’t had their day in the sun but they’ve owned the White House for the last seven years.  The people are speaking, folks.  It’s called freedom.  It’s called national will.

Or does that only apply when its aligned with your philosophy?  Oh, that’s right.  We’ve seen how you do foreign policy.

John McCain is anathema to the likes of Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham because he has demonstrated that he is a man of conscience.  Here’s Coulter’s beef (taken from her website):

– He excoriated Samuel Alito as too “conservative.”

– He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

– He abridged citizens’ free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

– He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

– He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

– He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

The only site that would have been more appropriate for Schwarzenegger in endorsing McCain would have been in front of an abortion clinic.

And?  I’m not really seeing a problem here.  All I see are the actions of an open-minded realist, something we desperately need right now.  We tried the arrogance that accompanies the unconditional belief in rightness.  Remember 2003 and 2004?  It didn’t work out so good. 

And I’m not even going to go into how profane it is for a well-kept pundit to accuse Senator McCain of “hyperventilating” on matters of torture.  (I’ve been to SERE school, by the way, and feel quite comfortable suggesting waterboarding is torture.  My own informal polling evinces anyone else who’s been waterboarded feels the same way.)

Gitmo hasn’t made us safer; it’ simply shown nations on the fence what hypocrites we can be.  Fundamental rule of law is for the well-connected not scumbags we we find wandering around the plains of Afghanistan.  They are guilty, dammit, and that’s all there is to it.  And everybody over there is a scumbag, by God.

He said it . . . I believe it . . . that settles it.  (Isn’t that how it goes?)

And let’s be honest about Tom Delay.  He has an axe to grind against McCain because McCain showed him the door in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, plain and simple.  That Delay emerges as an agent for conservative values is . . . well, it makes me wonder about conservatives.

So here’s hoping John McCain remains a man of conscience.