31 Comments

1. byrd:

Not everyone believes Clinton would be as tough on the WOT as she makes out, but she’s been talking this line for a while in an environment where that’s a risky position (New York, of course).

As a New Yorker, I’ve been watching her for several years and, while I still may not like her as a person, she has my respect as a politician. And when it comes to terror, I think she’s for real.

Jul 27, 2005 - 7:28 am 2. markus:

Beware, Roger’s link to the temptations lyrics automatically downloads some nasty spyware that, according to my McAfee anti-Spyware set-up, cannot be deleted.

Jul 27, 2005 - 7:37 am 3. Keith_Indy:

gee.. ya mean like this strategy…

Read the whole article yesterday, it’s quite interesting.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050801/1terror.htm

The initial result was a 70-page draft report, which subsequently went through over 40 revisions as it was shared with Rumsfeld’s inner circle, then a larger group, called the senior-level review group (”Slurg,” in Pentagon-speak), and then regional commanders and other agencies. The president was briefed on the report last January and presented with recommendations for presidential-level initiatives to be included in a government wide review of counterterrorism policy, which is still being conducted by the National Security Council. In March, the final 25-page report, plus 13 annexes, was signed and became formal Pentagon policy. Key features of the new plan:

The terrorist threat against the United States is now defined as “Islamist extremism” –not just al Qaeda. The Pentagon document identifies the “primary enemy” as “extremist Sunni and Shia movements that exploit Islam for political ends” and that form part of a “global web of enemy networks.” Recognizing that al Qaeda’s influence has spread, the United States is now targeting some two dozen groups–a significant change from the early focus on just al Qaeda and its leadership.

The new approach emphasizes “encouraging” and “enabling” foreign partners, especially in countries where the United States is not at war. Concluding that the conflict cannot be fought by military means alone–or by the United States acting alone–the new Pentagon plan outlines a multipronged strategy that targets eight pressure points and outlines six methods for attacking terrorist networks.

The Pentagon will use a new set of metrics twice a year to measure its progress in the war against terrorism. Commanders are to report, for example, on successes in locating and dismantling terrorist safe havens, financial assets, communications networks, and planning cells for each of the target groups.

The Pentagon’s Special Operations Command is designated in the new plan as the global “synchronizer” in the war on terrorism for all the military commands and is responsible for designing a new global counterterrorism campaign plan and conducting preparatory reconnaissance missions against terrorist organizations around the world.

Under a draft national security presidential decision directive, expected to be approved next month, the White House would have greater flexibility to resolve turf battles in the government’s overall counterterrorism effort.

The new Pentagon directive, General Caslen told U.S. News , has unified the military behind one counterterrorism plan for the first time: “Prior to the release of this document, everybody had their own idea of what the enemy was. Therefore, everybody had their own idea of how to fight it. We had different ideas among the services, among the commands, among the different agencies. Heck, we even had different ideas among the different organizations within this building.”

Defining the enemy in precise terms was one of the first big hurdles in producing the new strategy document. “Since 9/11,” Caslen said, “the relationships and interdependencies among like-minded terrorist groups have become clearer, and we assess [that] there are nearly two dozen terrorist groups with varying degrees of interaction with and/or interdependency on al Qaeda.” But some officials were leery of painting the adversary with too broad a brush for fear of alienating the mainstream Muslims the new strategy defines as pivotal allies. “It’s important that we point out that it’s not a religious or cultural clash,” Caslen says. “It is a war to preserve ordinary people’s ability to live as they choose.”

The final product reflects changes of profound significance, Pentagon officials say. First, the enemy is now defined more broadly than just al Qaeda. Second, the Pentagon has now officially moved away from what has been widely seen as a unilateral American approach. “It’s not a military project alone,” Feith explained, “and the United States cannot do it by itself alone.”

Jul 27, 2005 - 7:42 am 4. Keith_Indy:

BTW this new plan has been in the works for 18 months, but I can’t wait for Mrs Clinton to take credit for moving the administration in a new direction…

Jul 27, 2005 - 7:47 am 5. Roger:

Thanks to markus above for alerting me to the spyware problem. Link removed. We will try to keep this epidemic off the Pajamas site once it’s up.

Jul 27, 2005 - 7:47 am 6. Jamie Irons:

Roger

[Mrs.] Clinton made it clear in her speech that Democrats should take a tough stand on combatting terrorism, calling for a “unified coherent strategy focused on eliminating terrorists wherever we find them.”

Well, as the great hypnotherapist Milton. H. Erickson, M.D. once said,

Pretend a thing to master it.

Jamie Irons

Jul 27, 2005 - 7:53 am 7. Keith_Indy:

You can dress up a pig and call her your girl, but that doesn’t change it from being a pig…

Senator Clinton can dress herself up however she wants, she still a Clinton, a lawyer and a liberal (and not a classic liberal.) I don’t want to see any of those three as President ever again.

She comes unhinged far to easily in her rhetoric.

Jul 27, 2005 - 7:56 am 8. erp:

The other loser, and it coulnd’t have happened to a nicer guy.

Jul 27, 2005 - 7:58 am 9. Roger:

Keith_Indy, excuse me if I am not wildly impressed by the Pentagon report of eighteen months ago. Anyone with an IQ in triple digits realized that Al Qaeda was just one name for an ideology with a thousand faces almost from the outset. In fact, if you go back and study the Muslim Brotherhood, which I imagine you may know, you willsee this all goes back for decades. The Pentagon Strategy is not exactly rocket science. The point with Hillary is that we have to get as many Americans on our side in this matter as possible. Playing “Who got there first” is a sideshow.

Jul 27, 2005 - 8:03 am 10. richard mcenroe:

Markus ó While I am not above taken a certain mean-spirited pleasure in your troubles, try downloading sdinstall if you are on a PC– it scrubbed a lot of spyware off our work systems. I think you can get it through tucows.com

Rogeró I don’t know where Dean is about to shove that fish, but I’m pretty sure it’s procscribed in Leviticus…

Jul 27, 2005 - 8:07 am 11. wxjames:

From the report: “It doesn’t surprise me that she’s becoming more moderate,” said Leroy Comrie, a city councilman in the New York borough of Queens. “I think the country is becoming more and more moderate, more and more conservative.”

Well, which is it ? I guess in new speak, Progressive = Liberal, and Moderate = Conservative.

Let’s go back to old speak.

Jul 27, 2005 - 8:43 am 12. erp:

Sorry, here’s the link, loser

Jul 27, 2005 - 8:47 am 13. erp:

Here’s the URL for the comment above loser.

Anyway, those interested in New York senatorial frisson will enjoy this: http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=2713

I have no idea what a 404 is, my links have worked in the past. Does anyone have a non technical explanation?

Jul 27, 2005 - 8:55 am 14. flenser:

I agree that it would be helpful if the “moderate” Democrats would at least pretend to go along, but to date I have seen no signs that such a thing will ever happen.

It is all well and good for Sen Clinton to propose things which she cannot deliver, but meanwhile, she continues to tacitly endorse the extremist elements in the Democratic party by not repudiating them. She also continues to play along with the Democrats policy of automatic opposition to and filibustering of everything the administration tries to do.

I’d like to see Hillary vote to break cloture on Bolton, and show some interest in Oil-For-Food, before saying that she is tacking to the center. So far, she is simply feinting to the center. More action, less talk, please.

Full transcripts of all the DLC speeches are not available yet. However, what is available on the DLC site looks rather underwhelming. Even the DLC types continue to talk as if the biggest problem facing America is the GOP. As long as the “moderates” feel free to throw out baseless and incendiary charges, the MoveOn wing of the party will not be marginalized.

Example: She also called for Democratic unity: “Let us acknowledge that what separates us on occasion is but a tiny sliver in comparison to the Grand Canyon gap between us and the Republican Party.”

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253479

Even the “moderate” Democrats sound like they are more interested in civil war than in national unity.

Jul 27, 2005 - 9:45 am 15. flenser:

erp

Your first links were empty. Do you create them with a text editor or are you using some fancy tool to embed links?

More or less on topic, the following is a list of general polocy proposals from the DLC. It looks less offensive here than if you go to the site, since I’m ommiting all the references to the Republicans as being the spawn of Satan.

I think these range from worthy of discussion to outright silly and incoherent, but to the extent they are attempting to interact with the real world it shows signs of hope for the Democratic party.

Increase U.S. Armed forces by 100,000 troops.

Require colleges to allow military recruiters on campus.

Reduce dependance on foreign oil 25% by 2025 to stop funding terrorism.

Adapt a uniform ratings system for all media.

Ban the marketing of violence to children.

Enact a voluntary system of universal service.

Create hign-wage jobs by making the Unied Sataes the top exporter of energy efficient products.

Cut $300 billion in subsidies and invest it in innovation, education, and growth.

Pass tax reform to replace 68 tax breaks with four; college, homes, kids, universal pensions.

Pass lobbying reform to close the revolving door.

Ban partisan gerrymandering and require states to offer voters a real choice.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253473&kaid=127&subid=173

Jul 27, 2005 - 9:58 am 16. ricpic:

She’s humorless. To me, that’s the scariest thing about her.

Jul 27, 2005 - 9:59 am 17. reel cobra:

Here’s why I believe that Hillary, in addition to being phony, is actually dangerous.

http://reelcobra.blogspot.com/2005/07/jihad-dhimmitude-and-hillary-rodham.html

Jul 27, 2005 - 10:11 am 18. Fresh Air:

This is the definitive take on Hillary’s political acumen, or lack thereof, by the Horserace Blogger, Jay Cost.

Jul 27, 2005 - 10:44 am 19. Patricia:

I’ve read two books on Hillary … Barbara Olson’s and Edward Klein’s recent “The Truth about Hillary”. One point brought out in Klein’s is how good an actress Hillary is, and she can charm the socks off you if she so desires. That’s a good thing to keep in mind.

And don’t forget the threatening approach she made to Juanita Broderick after hubby had just done his thing to Broderick. I am not the only one to use the adjective “evil” with reference to Hillary Clinton.

I can’t help think of all the money, time and goodwill that have been squandered since she and her sexual-predator husband came on the American political scene. Good riddance to both of them, the sooner the better.

Jul 27, 2005 - 10:45 am 20. Kevin P:

Roger:

I am no fan of HRC but she can read the tea leaves and she knows that the Dean, Move on, Kos Kids, Air America platform is a loser and she has been edging herself away from the radical fringe. What is going to be interesting to watch is if she can run to the middle without sparking a revolt among the “we bought it, we own it” Dean Soros wing. They have a zealots passion over the notion that the problem with the Democratic party is that it was not revolutionary enough and that the DLC approach is just republican lite. After the ABB attempt of 2004 and the swallowing of kerry who they never were very passionate about they may want a true believer and not a Practical(or cynical,take your pick) tactical pol like HRC. Her feints to the middle are already pissing off some of the bretheren and it could be a bruising primary. I think Clinton will win but if she is forced to tack left for the primary she won’t have a easy win. I think if she is allowed to run a DLC campaign in the primary’s she will be hard for the republicans to beat. Unless Condi runs.

Kevin Peters

Jul 27, 2005 - 10:59 am 21. Luther McLeod:

Regardless of her personal attributes, HRC is smart, and she has smart people behind her. If she runs, she will win, unless:

“I think if she is allowed to run a DLC campaign in the primary’s she will be hard for the republicans to beat. Unless Condi runs.”

I don’t mean to turn this into a Condi thread, but I do not see anyone on the Republican side who can win against HRC, other than Condi. I think Condi and the RNC need to get used to the idea.

Jul 27, 2005 - 11:11 am 22. erp:

flenser, I create links following the instructions at Click Here For HTML Goodies.

I’ve linked successfully dozens if not hundreds of times and suddenly up came a message about lacking 404?

Rather than go nuts, I just restored to yesterday and presto, everything’s working again.

The senior senator from New York is also a loser.

Jul 27, 2005 - 12:18 pm 23. Keith_Indy:

I don’t think my point was adequately made…

The report wasn’t from 18 months ago, the work was started 18 months ago. And is already starting to be implemented. Yes, some of it is common sense, which should over-joy us since the Pentagon is actualy behind this plan. And exactly how many average voters are in the triple-digit IQ range? The “new” definition of the enemy isn’t the most important part of this plan, the global coordination of effort (both military and non-military) it proposes will be central to defeating the “root causes” of terror.

My point is that to say after the fact, “this is what needs done,” when the Pentagon has already started doing it, is kinda like saying we need to get this train moving, as it’s started out of the station. It is just a point that needs to be kept in the back of peoples minds for when the report and HRC get more airplay.

Cheerleading for change that’s already happening, while welcome, isn’t necessarily a sign of “new thinking,” especially when practiced by politicians. To me it smacks of triangulation.

Becoming a cheerleader for a team that’s already winning isn’t a sign of faith in a cause or originality.

And me thinks she talks with forked tongue. If she really wants to see us win this, she would not add to the negative perceptions of the war and the handling of it. And she would be getting the rest of the liberal Washington establishment to change its tune too. Peoples perception of our chances of winning in Iraq are very important to their support of the effort. Politicians saying we are in a quagmire, aren’t helping us win the war. Politicians comparing our soldiers to Nazis and Communists, aren’t helping us win the war. Airheads comparing the terrorists to our founding fathers, aren’t helping us win this war.

http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/05.29.html

“The main implication for the Army,” concludes the report, “is that Americans have proved themselves far more willing to use ground troops – to put boots on the ground – and to accept casualties in operations conducted under the global war on terror than in any of the military operations” during the 1990s.

Americans’ opinions went on a war footing following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States, often matching levels of support for military action seen during World War II, according to the study that synthesizes findings from about 100 public opinion surveys.

“The perceived importance of the stakes was the key belief predicting support for the operation,” said RAND analyst Eric Larson, the report’s lead author.

Other major factors influencing a person’s likelihood of backing a military operation include: identifying with the same political party as the president of the United States, the occurrence of battle casualties, and beliefs about the prospects for an operation’s success, according to the study.

Jul 27, 2005 - 12:34 pm 24. Kyda Sylvester:

It’s one thing to pretend to be a hawk on the WoT when one’s title is Junior Senator from the State of New York; it’s quite another when the title is Commander-in-Chief. I want no pretenders there please. Hillary has a long way to go to convince me she’s sincere on this score.

Count me among those who scoff at the idea that Hillary is both genius and political genius. But then, I scoffed at the idea that Bill Clinton is The Best Politican The Universe Has Ever Known. When Bill entered the White House, Democrats had a 14-seat majority in the Senate and a 82-seat majority in the House. When he left, Senate Democrats had a 4-seat majority and House Democrats were a 9-seat minority. Bill Clinton was expert at promoting Bill Clinton and highly skilled at playing to the crowd, whatever crowd that might be. And even so, he never did convince as many as half of the country’s voters. The consummate politician? I don’t think so.

The public Hillary is humorless, shrill and pedestrian. She has but one political victory to her credit and that was beating Rick Lazio–Rick Lazio for pity’s sake–and with only 55% of the vote in one of the most liberal states in the Union where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2 million and while riding high atop a wave of public sympathy. She may aspire to Machiavelli, but her reality is more Lady Macbeth.

Jul 27, 2005 - 2:27 pm 25. halley:

No one in this country could have done more to refute the bad faith meme on WMD’s than Bill and/or Hill – yet they decided to let our war effort be smeared for two years rather than be thought of as insufficiently anti-Bush. Anyone with integrity would have put the national interest above partisanship, but looking for integrity in Bill Clinton is like looking for tits on a bull.

Jul 27, 2005 - 3:02 pm 26. ahem:

Look, Hillary can’t possibly outflank BushHitler on the Right: according to the Dems there is no further right. It just doesn’t exist. She’d fall off the edge of the earth.

As for Bubba’s manly steps to confront evil in Bosnia, Somalia and elsewhere, let me quote Osama, from his ‘96 fatwa: [The cowardice of the United States] “[is] enough to make a grieving mother laugh.”

Jul 27, 2005 - 3:48 pm 27. Terrye:

I think this move of Hillary’s tells us two things: the American people believe this war on Terror thing is real and this particular Dem has decided that if you can’t beat them join them… and… Hillary thinks she can actually win.

I still have my doubts that she will make it to the White House. Her negatives are awfully high already. And I think that John F. Kerry is under the impression he has earned it. He might fight dirty to get it.

Jul 27, 2005 - 4:43 pm 28. J_Crater:

The call for an incresed military always seems to ring as hollow as the calls for a draft. With recriutment level barely making the grade now, with an increased military there would be further strain on recruitment goals. Hiliary et al will be waiting with baited breath to hear that recruitment level weren’t met and then the calls for a draft will begin in ernest as a bipartisan yelling, moaning and gnashing of teeth.

The bottom line is that anything that triggers a draft is bad for Bush, so the DLC thinks we should go for it.

Jul 27, 2005 - 6:15 pm 29. richard mcenroe:

Politics is only skin deep… but “liberalism” is ugly right to the bone…

Jul 27, 2005 - 6:50 pm 30. Keith_Indy:

I’ve yet to see the military calling for an increase in troop strength, so until I see a study from them, I’ll leave such things to the professionals.

We could solve part of our recruitment problem by allowing gays to openly serve. I support that, as long as everyone is held to the same standard. No fraternization means, NONE, NADA, NIL.

We could also allow women to volunteer for combat units. I’m for that to, and with the same caveat. Hold everyone to the same standards.

But the underreported recruitment story is the troops IN IRAQ who are reenlisting. 250% over target if I’m recalling my numbers right.

Jul 27, 2005 - 8:13 pm 31. Kyda Sylvester:

Byron York thinks that Hillary’s “cease-fire” is, like, so not going to happen. Link…

Jul 28, 2005 - 9:52 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: