Former war supporter William Buckley made a surprising admission in his most recent National Review column:

One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed . . . And the administration has, now, to cope with failure.

This follows up on another recent statement Buckley made, where he explained that “If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.”

John Marshall has an interesting column that deals with Buckley’s change of mind.

Back in October of last year, I published an article in Virtue Magazine titled “Why They Hate Us.” In the article, I stated:

. . . government meddling in the political affairs of other nations can come to no good. The current invasion and regime change in Iraq is no exception: war supporters are loathe to admit it, but the possibility of Iraq deteriorating into a full-scale civil war is becoming more likely day by day.

Someone didn’t like that statement too much, and in a “Letter to the Editor” the following issue, this person claimed that the above statement was purely “opinion.” Furthermore, he stated:

It is the media’s view, not eyewitness, objective observations from Iraq. What we’re seeing is an attempt to get those insurgents to find that they can have a voice in a democratic nation. In that way, they will decrease in number, and violence will decrease.”

Obviously violence hasn’t decreased, so that’s strike one. Strikes two and three are the latest news reports coming out of Iraq that indicate the country is nearing the brink of civil war:

The negotiations had been mired in sectarian differences, prompting the U.S. ambassador to warn that Washington had spent too much tax-payers’ money in Iraq to tolerate sectarianism and militias in government.

Talabani summoned leaders of all sides to a summit Thursday morning to calm sectarian tension after the bombing.

“This new ugly crime comes as a warning that there is a conspiracy against the Iraqi people to spark a war among brothers,” Talabani said. “We must cooperate and work together against this danger, the danger of civil war. This is the fiercest danger because it threatens our unity and our country with a devastating civil war.”

Read the news reports. It’s becoming painfully clear that events are not going well, and all the spin and whitewashing war supporters will undoubtedly try to engage in won’t change what’s actually happening in Iraq.

From the U.K. Independent:

In a number of respects civil war in Iraq has already begun. Many of the thousand bodies a month arriving in the morgues in Baghdad are of people killed for sectarian reasons. It is no longer safe for members of the three main communities ­ the Sunni and Shia Arabs and the Kurds ­ to visit each other’s parts of the country.

“Iraq is in a Weimar period like Germany in the 1920s which will either end with the country disintegrating or in an authoritarian government taking power,” said Ghassan Atiyyah, an Iraqi political commentator.

The following is a letter to the editor that appeared in my town’s newspaper today:

I am weary of hearing every Tom, Dick and Harry criticize the president of the United States and trying to convict him of lies and other dastardly deeds. Most of the Democrats ought to be convicted of lying or misrepresenting the laws and what the president is doing. They are traitors to our country and should be treated like traitors. How can the president conduct a war successfully if he has no authority to find out what the enemy is planning? All other presidents beginning with George Washington have had these powers by virtue of being commander-in-chief and president. The USA cannot take these constitutional rights away.

I think many or all people of our country should rise up and demand that the president should be allowed all the powers and privileges he needs to conduct the war, and all people in the media or Congress be convicted of treason if they try to take these powers away. All through our history eavesdropping and other devices were used. If our privacy is hamstrung, so be it.

During World War II people couldn’t say or write one word against the war without being punished or investigated. Let us go back to that.

Unbelievable. The sad thing is, I have a feeling a lot of war supporters would agree with this sentiment, even while they have the audacity to call themselves “conservatives.” I don’t think this woman deserves to live in America; she seems better suited to living in the Soviet Union—circa 1945.

It’s difficult to keep up with all the updates about the confrontation between Iran, the U.S., and the rest of the world over Iran’s decision to go ahead with a nuclear program, but by all accounts it appears as though the situation is quickly deteriorating. The latest Associate Press article reports that Iran’s president has “denounced” Western nations for threatening to refer Iran to the United Nations’ Security Council for possible sanctions:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iran’s president said his country has not violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which allows signatories to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.

“There is no evidence to prove Iran’s diversion (toward nuclear weapons),” Ahmadinejad said at a news conference.

His comments came a day after Iran threatened to end surprise inspections and other cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency if it is referred to the Security Council. Europe and the United States have been trying to build support for such a move, saying more two years of acrimonious negotiations have reached a dead end. But they faced resistance from China, which warned the move could only escalate the confrontation.

Iran insists its program is peaceful, intended only to produce electricity, but the U.S. and others believe it is seeking to develop atomic weapons…

It is interesting to note Iran’s brazen—bordering on downright stupid?—defiance of U.S. demands. We know that one result of the war in Iraq has been to further unify Muslims against the U.S., and as one friend suggested to me, it almost appears as though Iran is trying to goad America into attacking for perhaps the same purpose.

The U.S. Senate is opening confirmation hearings for one Samuel Alito today:

From Yahoo.com:

President Bush urged senators on Monday to give Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito a fair vote, while Democrats told Bush on the opening day of Alito’s confirmation hearings that neither Congress nor the high court should follow the president in lockstep. Executive authority is certain to be a critical issue. The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on Bush’s choice of Alito to be the 110th justice in U.S. history amid a debate over the president’s secret authorization of wiretaps in the terror war.

Hear that? That’s the sound of senators sharpening their swords!

In all seriousness, these hearings will be very interesting to follow. It sounds like issues like abortion may even take a backseat to the recent spying scandal, which is really quite amazing.

Dean Velvel at LewRockwell.com has put together a list of questions he believes Alito should be asked:

Do you believe that the Commander-in-Chief power, contrary to Justice Jackson’s view, gives the President the power to ignore a Congressional statute? If so, in what circumstances?

Do you believe the Commander-in-Chief power gives the President the power to override Constitutional rights? If so, in what circumstances and to what extent?

In regard to questions one and two above: Can the President authorize kidnapping at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?

Can the President order torture at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?
Can the President order warrantless electronic surveillance at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?
Can the President order American citizens to be jailed indefinitely if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?

a. If the President chooses to say that a war on terrorism is continuing, how long can he exercise power that is granted to him by Congressional statute for the purpose of fighting that war? If there are no attacks against us for two years, can he continue exercising the power? What if there are no attacks for five years? Ten years?
Can he continue exercising the power granted by Congress until and unless Congress enacts a bill to withdraw it, even if this takes 20 or 30 years?
(c). What if Congress votes to withdraw it, but the President successfully vetoes the bill withdrawing it and Congress cannot muster the necessary two-thirds in each house to override? Or, what if one house overrides but one-third plus one successfully oppose an override in the other house?

a. Can a President’s intent when signing a law detract from, counterbalance or override Congress’ intent when passing the law?

Does the President’s intent when signing the law have any effect whatever?

More updates will follow as the hearings progress.

Where do you draw the line? That’s what Matt Welch at ReasonOnline wants to know.

In his “Pro-war Libertarian quiz,” Welch asks the question: How far are you willing to go to win the war on terror?

Writes Welch:

By now, we all know the pattern:

1) A new revelation is published or broadcast about a controversial new policy or by-product of the War on Terror. (Abu Ghraib/torture, extraordinary rendition, the outing of Valerie Plame, an alleged plan to attack Iran, secret propaganda in Iraq, FISA-free NSA surveillance of Americans, and so on.)

2) Some supporters of Washington’s foreign policy wonder whether the reporter or news organization or leaker who revealed the information might be guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy.

3) The media, Democrats, and anti-war activists are criticized for piling on, for ignoring worse crimes committed by the enemy, and for hysterically exaggerating the underlying issue.

4) Think-pieces are written about how this controversial or possibly illegal policy should actually be legalized and embraced.

5) Some self-described small-government conservatives and libertarians exasperatedly ask if critics of the policy understand that we’re at war, and explain how this latest kerfuffle illustrates why libertarians should never be invited to the grown-ups’ table when discussing foreign policy.

So Welch has come up with 10 questions to ask the pro-war pundits, since he wants to know “how far is too far on the war in terror.” (Welch’s answer to every question is “no”).

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?

2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?

7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?

8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?

9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?

10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?

Welch concludes:

My belief, crudely summarized, is not only that you do not need to imitate totalitarians to beat them, but that it doesn’t actually help.

But that’s just me; before the next scandal cycle of bloggery bickering begins, I’d love to know where my pro-war friends draw the line.

I’d love to know.

After signing a bill last week that outlaws the torture of detainees, President Bush quietly stated that under his powers as commander in chief, he has the ability to bypass the law whenever he deems appropiate.

Well, that didn’t sit so well with Congress, and yesterday an article appeared in the Boston Globe about three GOP senators who have condemned the president’s recent assertion.

John W. Warner Jr., a Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a joint statement rejecting Bush’s assertion that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against detainees to protect national security.

‘’We believe the president understands Congress’s intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees,” the senators said. ‘’The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration’s implementation of the new law.”

Separately, the third primary sponsor of the detainee treatment law, Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told the Globe in a phone interview that he agreed with everything McCain and Warner said ‘’and would go a little bit further.”

‘’I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified,” Graham said. ‘’If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations’ leaders from doing the same.”

One has to wonder . . . . is there any action Bush believes he can’t exercise under his “powers as commander in chief”? The answer seems to be “apparently not.” The current situation boils down to:

Congress: We’re going to pass a law that outlaws torture and closes every loophole: no torture no matter what the circumstances.

Bush: I’m signing this law but I can ignore it whenever I want.

Anyway, you can read the rest of the Globe article here/

From the United Press International website:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 (UPI)—The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media.

The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week quoted “NATO intelligence sources” who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This “all options are open” line has been President George W Bush’s publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months.

But the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes “What is new here is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.”

You can read the rest of the article here.

Not sure how accurate this is, but after seeing what happened with Iraq, I have no trouble believing that we will now be taking serious military action against Iran as well.

Well, that’s what Ann Coulter wants to know. She’s very envious about her being excluded from the arrest-a-thon that’s happened to most conservatives, and she wants to be in on the loop, as she said in her latest column. One of the best paragraphs of said column is this one:

I’ve done a lot for my country. I think I deserve to be indicted, too. How am I supposed to show my face around Washington if I haven’t been “frog-marched” out of my office by some liberal D.A. looking to move to D.C. for the next Democratic administration? What’s a girl have to do to become a “person of interest” around here? Mr. Krischer, where do I go to get rid of my reputation?

Where indeed?!

However, that’s far less important than the Iraqi election that have been taking place over the last few days. The turnout, according to this report, was over 70 percent. That’s right. 11 million out of 15 million registered voters came out to dip their fingers in purple ink yesterday. Lazy, spoiled Americans…here these people are in threat of being shot in the back while they wait in line for hours to vote, and Americans won’t go vote for the stupidest excuses…like it’s raining or something. We could learn a few things from these people, or we could just be allowed to look at our own history and not brush it off as a collection of dates. coughs in the direction of public schools

The Shiites, of course, are expected to take the majority of the seats in the 275-member parliament, but the Sunni’s are expected to gain enough seats to become a thorn in the sides of the Shiites and the Kurds.

A successful election followed by an effective, broad-based government would also give the Bush administration a significant victory in its campaign to spread democracy through the Middle East. But many Shiite politicians have little interest in concessions to Sunnis on their key demands, including a greater share of power and allowing a role for Saddam loyalists in public life.

As a result, negotiations to create a new government – including a prime minister – could drag on for weeks just as they did following January’s election, when many Sunnis stayed away from the polls because of threats of violence or to honor boycott calls. Another prolonged political struggle might worsen sectarian tensions.

Well, good for the Shiites. Though I still view these elections with caution and suspicion, as they progress it becomes more and more clear to me that Iraqis, and pretty much all Muslim people in general, are like everybody else. It’s something we seem to forget, viewing the people in the Middle-East and elsewhere in the light of their strange culture, history, and religion. (No offense to anyone meant) They have all the same desires, vices, and virtues that we do. It seems to me that Muslims are capable of republicanism and ruling themselves, but we’ll have to wait and see.

A very good day in Iraqi history, bolstered by the surprising lack of violence from the terrorists in the face of the election. Note that last line in the column.

But before we go, here’s a friendly liberal reminder not to be positive about these elections: We are losing in Iraq. Remember that. Loooooooooooosing. We’re getting out butts kicked. We need to out of there and ‘strategically redeploy’ our troops. Now.

Have a good day. Remember to send to Ann Coulter all the manners of getting arrested you can find. wink

It was announced today that NBC News has obtained a secret 400-page Defense Department document that records more than 1,500 alleged “suspicious incidents” over a recent ten month period.

Some of these “suspicious incidents” include things like a small group of people gathering together at a Quaker Meeting House to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools.

“This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible,” says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.

“This is incredible,” adds group member Rich Hersh. “It’s an example of paranoia by our government,” he says. “We’re not doing anything illegal.”

The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.

You can read the rest of the article here.

This is the type of thing conservatives should be concerned about, but most will ignore because they’re too busy justifying the war in Iraq and defending the Republican administration that helped give us the Patriot Act.

————————————————————
UPDATE: Readers who are familiar with columnist Ann Coulter will probably be interested in checking out the comments made in response to my post “The AP Weighs In On Ann Coulter.”