Monday, October 31, 2005

Bangalore Torpedo, Part 3...


As it would seem, the Miers section of the President's torpedo pushed the ordinance deep into the judicial entanglements, surrounding SCOTUS nominations. Thanks to bitter opposition from the Right, perhaps it did not penetrate as deeply as expected for the administration's strategery in this matter. Nevertheless, she went as far as could be delivered given the conditions at hand, before withdrawing... likely as expected. And maybe Miers did precisely the job that was expected. Miers nomination bought the President additional time, it concentrated the discourse of the Right while exposing the innanity of the Left's positions, and it certainly whipped up Republican sensibilities into a maelstrom that might thread fear into the 'Republic' chairs of the Senate Star Chamber. Regardless of your position in the matter, Miers certainly supplied another lengthening section of explosives this Administration is placing to clear forty years of Leftist insanity from the Judicial Branch of this Constitutional Republic.

As stated previously,
Bangalore Torpedo Part 1,

Roberts carried the first section of the torpedo directly into the fortifications, and even managed to gain a firm offensive position. Miers is taking the next section and pushing it further. She may or may not go all the way. And it may or may not be the complete objective. There could be more lengths to the torpedo carried behind by Brown, Jones, Owens, McConnel or Luttig. But, the intent of the President and his team may be to destroy as much of the defensive entanglement as possible in order to gain the actual objective firmly and decisively.

Now, after Harriet Miers' sudden withdrawal of her nomination, the President has wasted little time going back to the A-list of nominees. This morning, he has selected Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court. ConfirmThem.Com has a thorough overview of Judge Alito's qualifications, as does Michelle Malkin. And judging by the reaction over at The Corner and from other notable critics of Miers, the selection of Alito has instantaneously mended all fissures and fractures in the Conservative movement; even as it exposes the fatal flaws of the Left's defenses. Like William Wallace riding along the front line of the battle to come, President Bush has pulled the pickets back into formation with stern determination to advance and overcome all opposition; be it Senators, Special Interests... or John McCain and his Gang of Fourteen.

In the midst of the sighs of relief however, there is also tempered inquisition of the President and his motives. Being that he had the willingness to nominate an A-List candidate to fill the second SCOTUS vacancy, why the Miers Debacle? Going back to the second installment of this post, Bangalore Torpedo Part 2...

the President has clearly formulated a strategy for gaining the objective with his own sort of Bangalore Torpedo. By systematically advancing the sections of human ordinance into place, he is successfully undermining the defensive lines of the opposition. Chief Justice John Roberts provides clear proof of the success of the strategy. Now, one may legitimately question how Harriet Miers will serve the objective. But as it looks, her stealthy incursion has clearly taken the defense by surprise. She may yet prove to be an explosive element within the lines of the opposition, reigniting the battle over Congressional procedures. Clearly, she is formidable... and expendable. (emphasis added)

Whether or not Miers would indeed have been an explosive element among the opposition, we will never know. She was afterall, both critical and expendable. But, she was certainly an explosive element among Conservatives who engaged a very polarizing debate regarding politics, philosophy, culture, and the Constitution as they relate to the United States Supreme Court's role in American Government. Perhaps the strategy was to clear the Left's entanglements as was suggested previously. Or just maybe the President and his Counsel used her nomination as a "slap down" to demonstrate once and for all for the sake of his own party detractors and critics, that He is in charge.

Either way, another section of Bush's Torpedo has been fixed. It has been inserted deep into the oppositions fortifications. The explosion is imminent. The Right is unified. And the President has his thumb on the trigger.


Part 1...
Part 2...

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Iago's Dots...

Miers Withdraws Nomination...


Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the the United States Supreme Court.
AP reports this morning...

The White House said Miers had withdrawn her name because of a bipartisan effort in Congress to gain access to internal documents related to her role as counsel to the president.
But, only 15 minutes into the story at time of posting, already the negative spin has begun. The story continues...

But politics played a larger role: Bush's conservative backers had doubts about her ideological purity, and Democrats had little incentive to help the nominee or the embattled GOP president.The withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting potential bad news for the administration on another front — the possible indictments of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case.

Many Conservatives were hoping and even campaigning for this. David Frum of, perhaps her harshest Conservative critic, had even begun efforts to lobby first against Miers nomination and ultimately against her confirmation. The animosity against this woman's nomination, and denigration of her professional character from her fellows on the Right was childlike at least, and borderline reprehensible at worst.

But, it worked. Today Mier's critics have got what they wanted. In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on his Tuesday show, Stanley Kurtz articulated the primary argument against the confirmation of Harriet Miers from the Right. I paraphrase, ”Well, when you connect all of the dots, you get a very troubling picture of Miers.” As usual, Radioblogger has the transcript. I heard many on the Right make the point that Stanley reiterated. And while none could point to any specific bit of chronicled evidence by which to reject this nominee without hearing, many became convinced that she was the wrong choice. Might I remind those critics that, Othello also connected Iago’s dots and gained a troubling picture of Desdemona.

To them we say... YOU HAD BETTER BEEN RIGHT!

Because, this morning the Left thinks it received an early Christmas present, too.

See also...
Hugh Hewitt, Captain's Quarters, Powerline, Michelle Malkin (relief indeed, Emilia!), Anchoress (with many links), and Okie on the Lam (with his usual good synopsis.)



Let's recall my original assessment of the Miers nomination... Bangalore Torpedo.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Casualty Vampires...

Mr. Atos

Yesterday, as the U.S. military death toll in Iraq neared another abstract milestone, the chief spokesman for the American-led multinational force
advised that Western Journalists not treat it as such (HT: Michelle Malkin)

"I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq," Boylan said in an e-mail. "The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives."
But, the casualty vampires of the Old Busted Media, just could not resist the urge to make it so, begging the question... why is it important?

The Oregonian
"US Losses In Iraq reach 2000." Curiously you wont find this story listed at the website as of 8:30am pst.

The Associated Press

AP (Yahooie)

Michelle reports that even the token Grief Whore is planning a celebration.

Little Green Footballs is maintaining a 'Grim Milestone' watch to report on the Left's day of celebration. And I am certain the drumming, marching Anti's will be on the streets of downtown Portland this evening, pilfering the names of men and women far better than they, and spitting them with venom through a bullhorn.

Why is 2000 more or less significant than 1000, 1999, 2001, or 10,000?... if the MSM are simpy objective observers/reporters?

Of course, the answer to that proverbial folly is obvious. To the Left - and their propaganda wing - it IS a very significant milestone. It is a tribute to their efforts and justification (in their minds) of their sensibilities. It is an apparent vindication on the one hand for their protestations against an ignoble effort, as measured by its toll while being a true celebartion on another. It's an exclamation point for the mantra, "Bush lied people died!" It is proof to them of the Iraq conflict as a vietnamesque quagmire, based on some unequivocated qualitifications from the same people who were wrong then. And on some more insidious level, many on the Left are no doubt pleased to see American servicemen killed at the hands of an heroic they see it.

But, do let's be clear. To that insurgency, the Left's periodic casualty milestones are a quota achieved on behalf of their objective - political victory. And while relative to America's real objective of triumph over a malevolent malignacy, 2000 is as meaningless in that regard as 1000, the next big quota is the number of dead in the 9/11 attacks. Because as the number of KIA in the Iraq Theater exceeds ~3000 dead the Left will qualify the Iraq War as a greater atrocity than those brutal terrorist attacks that finally woke a dragon.

To the vampires of casualty, the milestone is a cause for celebration.

To the butchers of Al Qua'ida in Iraq, it is a bounty placed on the heads of American troops. Keep that in mind as you watch the Left celebrate. (HT: Michelle)

(edited and updated 10.26.0513:19)

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly…Oregon Style

Major Mike

The Good…

Great piece on the Establishment Clause found in the Oregonian OpEd section today. It is written by Barry Adamson, an attorney and writer from Lake Oswego, Oregon.

The Miers Nomination


"But some crestfallen media savants insist that the Constitution's Establishment Clause -- "[government] shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" -- erects a "wall of separation between church and state," such that a public profession of faith disqualifies Miers. Actually, the Constitution says no such thing.

The metaphorical "wall" entered the vernacular in 1802, 13 years after Congress wrote the Establishment Clause in 1789. And the person responsible for that colloquialism -- Thomas Jefferson -- had played no role in the genesis of the Establishment Clause; Jefferson lived in France from 1784 to late 1789, and his relationship to the 1789 congressional proceedings consists of exchanges of letters with James Madison and others -- none of which concerned the Establishment Clause. Might the offhand musings of the uninvolved ascribe meaning to someone else's words written years earlier? "

Great piece, worth the entire read.

The Bad…

Portland is considering suspending tax breaks for developers. These tax breaks are designed to bring development into urban renewal areas, and re-vitalize parts of downtown Portland. All of a sudden, the City Council decides to pull the plug on Trammel and Crow. Why? They want more tax revenue. Sound familiar?

City Council Stops To Think On Tax Breaks for Developers


"Since the city began offering tax abatements for multi-unit buildings three decades ago, more than 5,000 apartments have been built through the program. Property owners who qualify for the abatements don't have to pay taxes on new construction downtown and in urban renewal districts for 10 years. They pay full taxes on the land underneath.

But City Council members have plenty of reservations about the discounts, which take about $92 million a year off municipal tax rolls, according to Mayor Tom Potter. Last month, the council voted 3-2 to deny developer Trammell Crow the tax break for a new tower in the South Waterfront area -- even though the builder went through all the proper channels. "

A pretty well done piece. Points out the inconsistencies in the Portland City government, and their action highlight a near insatiable desire for more tax revenue. It has been proven time and again, that these kinds of incentives work, and that the tax revenues eventually come through increased population densities and commerce. By grabbing for the gold in the short term, the city is limiting its eventual income opportunities.

Additionally…what message does this send to businesses, at a time when trust of the City government is sagging? The olde bait-and-switch on Trammel and Crow isn’t going to build a lot of confidence.

Finally…hello…Pearl District!?! Why move away from a cooperative model (and attitude) that has helped make the Pearl a vibrant part of the city…this could be replicated in other city districts with some forward thinking and the right incentives.

The Ugly…

Rules Focus On Owners of Mobile Home Parks

Oregon welfare mentality and property rights denial at its worst. Wilsonville City Council decides that before trailer park owners can close their trailer parks, the must do the following…obtain a permit, find tenants a comparable place to live, pay their tenants’ moving costs, and pay to house and FEED their tenants during the move. Unbelievable. At the very same time we place onerous burdens on a landowner for simply ending his business, we force him to become a welfare agent for the state. What planet did these city councilors parachute in from? Oh, by the way, a similar move in Washington state was found unconstitutional over ten years ago (contained in the article). Any wonder we need good judges on the Supreme Court?

How much more ridiculous can Portland, Oregon, and the United States become with this welfare/entitlement mindset? Citizens are guaranteed legal protections under the law… not moral or “issue” protections sought by special interest groups from all corners. Get used to it.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Political Paralysis in 2005

Major Mike

Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent piece on citizen malaise. Entitled, "Season of Our Discontent," He describes a politically stale state of affairs here in the United States, where Republicans and Democrats alike, find themselves ensconced in bi-polar policy positions that leave most of us scratching our bald pates…
These conservative and liberal fantasies also paralyze solutions to budget deficits.

True, Republican-endorsed tax cuts have led to more net federal revenue in 2005 than in 2001. Yet — even with the unanticipated costs of the 9/11 attack, the ongoing war and Hurricane Katrina — if the Bush administration had kept entitlement spending to Bill Clinton's levels (with small increases for inflation), we would today have a balanced budget and a small surplus.

Instead, 2001-2005 marked the wildest growth in nondiscretionary domestic outlay in our recent history. Even with an expanding economy, vast amounts of new federal income could not keep pace with even more vast expenditures.

So the valid Republican supply-side argument that tax cuts create more revenue meant little in balancing the budget. Equally irrelevant was the “starve the beast” notion that tax cuts would necessitate mandatory budgetary discipline — especially when many so-called conservative legislators proved fond of pork-barrel spending.

Now we are told by some free-marketers that a $400 billion annual budget deficit doesn't matter much — ignoring even the psychological depression that such borrowing does to a once-confident citizenry.

The Democrats, for their part, won't re-examine entitlement programs to ascertain which are not working or even counterproductive, such as agricultural and many education subsidies. Apparently, Democrats' future answer for the mounting debt will be the old calculus of substantial cuts in the military (at a time of war) and new tax hikes (that may cool the economy).
Both parties arrived at these (and vastly more) internally diametrical positions, because American politics has transformed itself into a sophisticated variation of issue dancing, evermore discreet vote buying, and gymnastic “base” management. This is the natural result of “full opposition” politics.

“Full opposition” politics is represented by the current yes/no, black/white, in/out discourse, and platform construction that both parties seem intent on perpetuating. It manifests itself with the idea that the other party is always, completely wrong. These types of definitive, contrarian stances, then force each party to be on the opposite side of an issue once the other party takes a public stand. This brings us to the types of situations that Victor outlines in his piece…incoherent stances on energy, government spending, Iraqi war, national debt, and the economy in general.

All of this can be attributed to the flaws in all democracies…the ever present potential for vote-buying, the distribution of the population along the ideological bell curve, the occasional focus on “single-issue” politics, and the fickleness of voters. As our two main parties vie for votes from election to election they play to all of these elements.

Vote buying can still be found in its pure form in many areas of the country, but it takes on a more sophisticated look when entitlement programs, pork, subsidies and protective tariffs come up to a vote.

The “single issue” focus has the effect of relegating most of the operational issues of the day, behind issues that prove immensely polarizing…further compounding the contrarian effect.

Continuous “base” maintenance of the fickle voting population has the effect of “jury rigging” for short term gains. This eventually proves to be unmanageable as parties are frequently peering at themselves from both sides of the same issue, and incoherency rules the day.

The culmination of these effects results in what VDH describes as “fatalism” and “frustration.” In spades.

VDH suggests it is frozen party leadership. He is partially right. The real problem stems from trying to capture The Far Left, The Left , The Center Left, The Right Left, The Left Right, The Center Right, the Right and the Far Right into two political parties. Without the flexibility of party members, this is an ideological impossibility. When ideology rules over party loyalty, in a two party system, chaos results. The Harriet Miers nomination serves as an illustrative example. In an effort to continuously win the “next” election each party has let 5-10% of their membership dictate their activity on some vital issues, hence causing these bi-polar effects.

Only when the parties come through with clear and coherent messaging, will this “frustration” and “fatalism” be transferred back to the 5-10% of the population where it should usually reside, not within the 80% where it currently is found.

Most of us don’t have to “win” on every issue, we just ask for a clear and vigorous dialog that results in laws and policies that make sense and advance our culture. What we don’t need, or want, is pandering to special interests and the mindless political wandering that results.

Monday, October 17, 2005

A Tale Of Two Headlines...


Here's a tale of two headlines this morning. In the space of one hour, Yahoo's news ticker showed two different titles for the exact same story. They read this way:

ca. 7:00am pst...

Iraq: 70 Insurgents killed in U.S. Airstrikes

Refreshed ca. 8:00am pst...

Iraqis: 39 civilians killed in U.S. bombing

The details of the story never changed,
U.S. warplanes and helicopters bombed two western villages, killing an estimated 70 militants near a site where five American soldiers died in a weekend roadside blast, the military said Monday. Residents said at least 39 of the dead were civilians.
The Associated Press decided who they believed.

In a recent letter to his Al Qa'Ida associate in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Terrorist leader Ayman al-Zawahiri stated,
I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma.
Indeed! The Islamofascist butchers know who their friends are. And Western media has likewise chosen sides. Thank you AP and Yahoo for continuing to let us know that is not US...

... lest we forget who the enemy has become.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

At The Gate...

Mr. Atos

Bird Flu has been confirmed in Romania, bringing this dangerous threat to the gates of Europe and the West.
AP is reporting that the deadly strain H5N1, has been detected in wild birds found dead in the Danube delta.

"Tests confirmed that the virus in Romania was an H5N1 strain, but further tests were required to confirm the link with the strain found in Asia and Turkey," the European Union's executive body said in a statement. "This link has now been confirmed."
Romania has imposed a quarantine on residents in the area where the infected fowl was found and thousands of birds have been slaughtered as a precaution.
Commentary at
Recombinomics, suggests that H5N1 may also have been detected in Bulgaria as well.

Bulgaria has stepped up border controls and increased surveillance over poultry farms along the Danube and Black Sea, chief veterinarian Zheko Baichev told Reuters.

"We have made 500 blood tests on farm birds and checked on 154 domestic and 100 wild birds found dead throughout the country. We have not isolated the bird flu virus," he said.
As one can see on the map below, Bulgaria is located between Romania and Turkey, both of which have reported confirmed H5N1. So, the news of its discovery there could be expected.

The World Health Organization has additional information on the current spread of the virus, as well as information about the H5N1 at its current stage.

In his October article for National Geographic, "The Next Killer Flu," Tim Appenzeller compares the potential of Avian Bird Flu with the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918. He conveys the observations of researcher, Jeffrey Taubenberger of the Armed Forces Institute of Maryland:

Reassortment explains the two lesser flu pandemics of the 20th century, in 1957 and 1968. In each year a new flu subtype appeared, combining genes from the human virus that had been causing mild outbreaks in prior years with new genes from a bird virus. The new pandemic viruses raced around the world, together killing about two million people.

But in 1918, Taubenburger now believes something different happened. "We think it's pretty likely that the virus was not derived from a previously circulating human virus," he says. All of its genes mark it as an animal virus, pure and simple, that somehow crossed to people without the help of genes from a previous human strain.

Now H5N1 is doing the same thing. So far, its steps across the species barrier are tentative, which is why it has caused tens of deaths, not millions. But as in 1918, doctors who have seen its effects close up are shaken.
In the Washington Post on Friday, Charles Krauthammer discussed the laboratory resurrection of the so-called "Spanish Flu" virus that killed upwards of 100 million in 1918. His concerns are valid to be certain. On the one hand, it is curious to wonder at the frankensteinian arrogance of scientists; recreating an old demon for the freezer when another is poised at the gate. But, with the danger of a global pandemic looming on the frontier, knowledge continues to be Man's best defense. What can be learned about this former killer, might well provide critical information about the next.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Screwtape's Letter...


Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently released the translated text of a 13 page letter between two senior al Qa'ida leaders - Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - obtained during counterterrorism operations in Iraq. As the DNI explains, the lengthy document provides a comprehensive view of al Qa'ida's strategy in Iraq and globally. Yet, it might well have read this way...

My Dear Wormwood,

I note what you say about guiding our patient's reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend. But are you not being a trifle naïf? It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy's clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning...
The DNI links to the text of the actual letter, here.

John Hinderaker at Powerline posts a good analysis of the actual contents of this Screwtape's letter to his Al Qa'ida associate in Iraq for those reluctant to, themselves, dredge the bethic layer of human existence.

Fascinatingly enough, the letter's contents don't read that much different than C.S. Lewis' classic depiction of correspondence between a Senior and Junior Demon. For instance, Zawahiri like Screwtape, comprehends the significance of the media as being instrumental to their ends,

I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma.

Screwtape completes the thought,

But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" of "false", but as "academic" or "practical", "outworn" or "contemporary", "conventional" or "ruthless". Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about...
In his novel, the Screwtape Letters, Lewis assembles a collection of letters from the Under Secretary of the Lowerarchy of Hell to his nephew Wormwood; an incompetent and very junior devil. Screwtape's advice to Wormwood comes in the form of lectures on how to secure the ultimate damnation of a humanity...

Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. Of course this has not always been so. We are really faced with a cruel dilemma. When the humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all he pleasing results of direct terrorism and we make no magicians. On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and sceptics. At least, not yet. I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, belief in us, (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy. The "Life Force", the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful. If once we can produce our perfect work—the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls "Forces" while denying the existence of "spirits"—then the end of the war will be in sight. But in the meantime we must obey our orders. I do not think you will have much difficulty in keeping the patient in the dark. The fact that "devils" are predominantly comic figures in the modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you. ( Editorial correction )
Zawahiri puts it this way...

One of the most important factors of success is that you don't let your eyes lose sight of the target, and that it should stand before you always. otherwise you deviate from the general line through a policy of reaction. And this is a lifetime's experience, and I will not conceal from you the fact taht we suffered a lot through following this policy of reaction, then we suffered a lot another time because we tried to return to the original line.
Clearly in both instances, the mentor is conveying a desire to control the impression of the conflict. Screwtape warns of the pitfalls that might undermine the intentions...

The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below. By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient's reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result? Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it "real life" and don't let him ask what he means by "real".

Zawahiri is similarly concerned about method and offers this advice to his associate...

Among the things which the feelings of [ the] populace who love and support you will never find palatable - also - are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages. you shouldn't be deceived by the praise of some of the zealous young men and their description of you as the shaykh of the slaughteres, etc. They do not express the general view of the admirer and the supporter of the resistance...
Zawahiri recognizes the necessity of popular support as a decisive factor between victory and defeat...

In the absense of this popular support, [the] movement would be crushed in the shadows, far from the masses who are distracted or fearful, and the struggle between the Jihadist elite and the arrogant authorities would be confined to prison dungeons far from the public and the light of day. This is precisely what the secular, apostate forces that are controlling our countries are striving for.

Screwtape sees the key to this support as lying in the ability to deceive... must fall back on a subtler misdirection of his intention. Whenever
they are attending to the Enemy Himself we are defeated, but there are ways of
preventing them from doing so. The simplest is to turn their gaze away from Him
towards themselves. Keep them watching their own minds and trying to produce
feelings there by the action of their own wills. When they meant to ask Him for
charity, let them, instead, start trying to manufacture charitable feelings for
themselves and not notice that this is what they are doing. When they meant to
pray for courage, let them really be trying to feel brave. When they say they
are praying for forgiveness, let them be trying to feel forgiven. Teach them to
estimate the value of each prayer by their success in producing the desired
feeling; and never let them suspect how much success or failure of that kind
depends on whether they are well or ill, fresh or tired, at the moment.
And he is careful to manifest all aspects of the effort toward reaching the ultimate goal regardless of obstacles....

The truth is that the Enemy, having oddly destined these mere animals to life in His own eternal world, has guarded them pretty effectively from the danger of feeling at home anywhere else. That is why we must often wish long life to our patients; seventy years is not a day too much for the difficult task of unravelling their souls from Heaven and building up a firm attachment to the earth. While they are young we find them always shooting off at a tangent. Even if we contrive to keep them ignorant of explicit religion, the incalculable winds of fantasy and music and poetry—the mere face of a girl, the song of a bird, or the sight of a horizon—are always blowing our whole structure away. They will not apply themselves steadily to worldly advancement, prudent connections, and the policy of safety first. So inveterate is their appetite for Heaven that our best method, at this stage, of attaching them to earth is to make them believe that earth can be turned into Heaven at some future date by politics or eugenics or "science" or psychology, or what not. Real worldliness is a work of time—assisted, of course, by pride, for we teach them to describe the creeping death as good sense or Maturity or Experience.
We see that it is a goal shared by Zawahiri,

[They] must not have their mission end with the expulsion of [the Enemy] from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us. Instead, their ongoing mission is to establish [Our] state, and defend it, and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it until the Hour of Resurrection.
C.S. Lewis imagined it, because he knew it. And it is important now, that humanity struggle to recognize the wisdom of allegory in the lesson he recorded for Man. Whether celebrated by demons or humans, evil clearly exists among men today, seeking to devour humanity one way or another.

In the name of Lucifer?... or other devils!

Over at OKIE on the LAM, Db also has a good summary of Screwtape's letter, via Citizen Smash and Laer Pierce at Cheat Seeking Missiles, simplifying the correspondence down into its four primary goals. He also makes note of a point that I found curious in reading as well, but failed to mention before. It begs the question? Can Western Union wire funds to Hell? Likely not, but in the end of Lewis' version, Screwtape devours his underling. That being the case, Zarqawi might want to find a way to get him the cash.

Belmont Club and Austin Bay also have a very good analyses of Screwtape's letter, both with extensive and thoughtful commentary discussions.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Branch Mohammedans


Gates of Vienna has an interesting article about an Islamic Group currently operating "Training Camp[s] for Young Muslim-American Men" within the United States (HT: Wretchard). One can’t be definitive here, but I’m gonna guess that the type of “camping” that is taking place there has nothing to do with, say, learning to start campfires. Unless you count the use of jet fuel, ammonium nitrate, C4 or nitrocellulose. The whole piece is definitely worth a read.

Reading the Gates of Vienna piece and contemplating the situation, I couldn’t help but think about the Branch Davidians of Janet Reno/ATF/Waco, TX fame. What’s to stop the Fed’s from taking similar action against Muslim-oriented compounds? Political Correctness. Furthermore, what’s to stop the Fed’s from taking action against any pseudo-isolationist religious group of people that are training in paramilitary operations? Not much, if they call themselves Christian.

Needless to say, the Branch Davidians had some pathologies that shouldn’t go unexcused. However, look at them in a larger political context and consider the reasons why the two extreme sides of the political spectrum arm themselves. To use the Branch Davidians as an example on the theoretical Right: eschatological fantasies not withstanding, they stockpiled weapons in order to protect themselves against those who would persecute them for their beliefs. To use the ELF as an example on the theoretical Left: they arm themselves, albeit primarily with IED’s and other unconventional means, in order to change the behavior and/or beliefs of others.

Given that the American Revolution was not so much a Revolution as it was a War for Independence, i.e. to maintain a status quo of self-determination, which one of the above extremist groups is more in line with the ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence?

My goal here is not to justify extremist views or actions, nor do I advocate FBI/ATF stakeouts at all religious communes. But I do wish to to open a broader discussion regarding armed “revolution” and the use of force vs. projection of force. Which group is more disconcerting: a religious group stockpiling weapons to protect themselves against persecution? or a religious (eco- or otherwise) group stockpiling weapons to affect change in society at large?

Allow me to cut to the chase: in spite of their espoused secularity, militant leftist groups are nearly identical to Islamic Militant groups primarily because of their shared goal to cause change in others by threat of injury, i.e. force of arms.

How far would we be willing to go as a society to abolish a system of belief? For the time being, freedom of belief is protected by the Constitution. But who’s to say what kind of calamity might bring about the unchecked fear and ideological opportunism that would suspend that most important of beliefs, that of self-determination?

At what point does a weapon transpose itself from an instrument of self-preservation to an instrument of oppression?

Quixote Rides Again

Major Mike

In my usual Quixotesque way, I will continue to postulate as to what GWB may have been thinking when he picked Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court. I am well past the delusion that I may actually convince those disappointed souls who continue chum the waters for both the Democrats and those a bit farther to the right of moderate Republicans. So, as usual, I’ll direct my comments to those caught in between. You know, those of us who accept the world as the imperfect place that it is. Those who understand that compromise is a part of everyday life. And, those of us that understand that running headlong into a stubborn fight may not always be the best course of action. So I have developed some new theories that I hope will help throw a net over the wild gyrations now occurring amongst some conservatives.

Thought one. Will the nomination of Miers at this point in time have an effect on the length of service for Justices Ginsberg and Stevens? I suggest that this nomination was made to “encourage” Justices Stevens and Ginsberg to retire prior to the Presidential election of 2008. I think if President Bush had installed an armor clad, “A” list, conservative justice, that Stevens and Ginsberg would cling to their posts like Limnoperna fortunei (Zebra mussels) to the hull of a ship. But, if they perceive (wrongfully in my opinion) that Bush may not flood the court with “A” listers, they may choose to step down, for their very obvious health reasons. This may then give GWB a chance to populate the court with whom he pleases…likely, at that point with “A” listers. The net here would then be three “A” listers and one “A-/B+” lister. Hmmm. Seems pretty good in the real world.

In the end, with the gay marriage issue likely to make it to the court in the near term, with possible challenges to Roe on the horizon, and myriad of other “conservative” issues making their way towards the court, wouldn’t it be wiser to create an environment where Ginsberg and Stevens were more likely to retire in the near term vice the long term. I suggest that a whiff of compromise may be enough to get them to act. Otherwise, I think they would hang around like Klingon clones at a Star Trek convention, and we will continue to suffer, for some time, with Hydra-like opinions from a wildly divided court.

Step one to coherent Supreme Court rulings is getting Ginsberg and Stevens out the door…sooner rather than later…this appointment may well do the trick.

No more lamentations about keeping the process non-political. The Dems forced it here when they claimed the courts as their Little Big Horn. Gang of Fourteen? Bork? Ninth District? Sorry, but the courts exist…not rightly…in a highly political world. Political machinations, maneuverings, and gyrations, while not likely to infest the court’s cases, are very much present around the structure, appointments, and the “business” of running the courts. So it is a bit late to “purify” the process. A process incidentally, has never been a pure as some are espousing at the moment.

Thought two. Who do you trust… GWB or a million-and-one so-called judicial experts, who harbor their own unknown prejudices and preconceived notions…which we are not privy to? HH has a very good email posted today that lays out very specifically why we should trust GWB over George Will, John Fund, Krauthammer, and the rest. Sorry, but GWB has a better track record of picking judges than George Will…oh, I forgot he hasn’t picked one yet. And, I suppose, until you are indeed the one to HAVE to pick, you (and I) will never know what the right formula for the times is. Quit MMQBing.

Final thought. And a bit more difficult to wrap your arms around, but stick with me. Who is more likely to “soften” with age? I believe it is fairly natural for us to mellow a bit as we age. But who would be more likely to mellow, and how far, over time…someone who is a moderate conservative, or someone who is a hard-core conservative? I suggest that the moderate actually moves less from their mark than the conservative. Why? Because it is difficult to be “hard” all the time. Real life injects itself into everyone’s life, including the Justices, everyday. Over time it becomes difficult to be callous to these realities while clinging to the ideal. Most people, as they age, want to be remembered more for being humanists than purists of anything. Purists can be lonely. Moderates are comfortable with the impact that humanity has already had on their being, so they can remain comfortable with their positions longer into their lives. I think, with lifetime appointments, you’ll find a smaller shift among moderate conservatives, than with the very conservative.

Observation…the attacks that GWB has suffered over the past week are the equivalent of a boxer, returning to his corner between the 5th and 6th round, and getting knocked out by his cut man because the cut man didn’t like the way the fight was going. How much sense would that make? This is what is happening…let’s throw in the towel and let the process take the lead over the punditry.

Standing by for the conservative onslaught.

Friday, October 07, 2005

SCOTUS Weaponeering

Major Mike

I guess MOOSEMUSS didn’t still the waters as much as I had hoped, so I’ll try a little fighter tactics analysis for those who prefer the tactical over the strategic. Let’s don’t forget…W is a former fighter jock. Carp all you want, but stoooopid people don’t fly jets…and live.

In today’s Air-to-Air engagement (unclassified version) there are basically four ways to achieve a kill. Guns, Aim-9 Sidewinder (heater), Aim-7 Sparrow (full radar guidance), and Aim-120 AMRAAM (Rammer). Each weapon has its place in the fight, but choosing the right weapon at the right time can make all the difference between living and dying.

Your typical engagement will begin far outside visual range. Ground, sea-based, or airborne radar will play a huge role in setting the opposing forces towards one another. Somewhere inside 80 miles, the aircraft will begin to make contact with the opposing a/c, and each flight will begin jockeying for an offensive advantage. Each flight will also begin to implement their defensive tactics to ensure that, regardless of the missiles launched by the opposition, they will still be alive at the merge…the critical point where the intercept is transformed into a knife fight. Along the way both flights are using a combination of tactics, weapons, and counter-measures to …stay alive, kill the opponent and stay offensive.

Guns. A guns kill is the most dramatic kill to claim. The feat will certainly be captured on tape and the airplane will come apart a mere thousand feet in front of you. It is the finest exhibition of aerial skill…as long as your opponent wasn’t a complete hamburger, and you’ll get to brag for a very long time about it.

BUT, a guns kill has its drawbacks. It is attention centric. It requires the pilot to focus almost exclusively on the target in front of him, and to anyone observing, makes him predictable for significant period of time…in other words, it makes him vulnerable to other threats that he is not immediately aware of. Often, in simulation, the guns killer, soon becomes the missile victim. A guns kill has its advantages, but it has its disadvantages as well…possible death being on of them.

Aim-9 a.k.a. Winder, Heater. Heat seeking missiles also have their place in the fight. Designed to go after an opponent’s heat sources they are a fire and forget weapon. The seeker head guides the missile onto the target after launch. This allows the pilot to assess, fire, and maneuver in a relatively short period of time, and thus reducing his vulnerability to others who may be in the flight a.k.a. interlopers.

BUT, the Winder is a relatively short-range missile, which necessitates getting in close to your bogey…not always a wise choice. Plus, some of the newer models have an off-boresight capability, allowing for shots greater than 90 degrees off wingline. While this can enhance your offensive capability, the bad guy still has the same advantage…so what looks like a good shot to you, may also look like a good shot to him…meaning, while you may appear to be winning, you may still take an off-boresight shot up the pipes. Also, the intensity of this close range fight can degrade airspeed, situational awareness, and lookout doctrine…all things that make the pilot vulnerable to …you guessed it …interlopers.

Aim-7 Sparrow a.k.a. Fox-1. Radar missile from launch to impact. The advantage here is that the target can be acquired, tracked and engaged from and extended distance…at least as far from here to Grandmothers house. So a kill can be achieved well outside the lethal ranges of Guns and Winders.

BUT, the target must be acquired, locked and tracked for the entire flight of the missile. Although the kinematics of the missile can support some defensive maneuvering out of the host airplane, it cannot allow for very aggressive maneuvering…translation…vulnerability. Additionally, while supporting the missile, it cannot scan for other threats…yes…interlopers.

Aim-120 AMRAAM a.k.a. Rammer. The Rammer has at least as long a range as the AIM-7, plus numerous other tactical advantages. It only has to be supported by the a/c radar for a short portion of its flight after launch. After that it goes active on its own, and the launching a/c can go about its business of finding other bogeys to kill. Additionally, inside certain ranges it can be launched on its own without requiring radar support, and it can be surprisingly maneuverable in tight quarters. There are numerous other tactical advantages that I shouldn’t go into, but suffice it to say, it is a great all-around weapon with a host of tactical applications.

So, when weaponeering for SCOTUS, which weapons do you choose…the ones that may get the job done, but make you vulnerable, or the one that makes you the most offensive and allows you to maintain your situational awareness throughout the engagement?

Fighter jocks make these decisions in halves of seconds…I think a former fighter pilot, with a little time on his hands, could make the right choice for SCOTUS. Wait for the debrief to critique the choice of weapon…don’t do it in the ready room…its all theory at that point.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Conservative Talk Radio and Blogging…Success Has Its Price…

Major Mike

I am shocked that all of the carping about the Miers nomination has not yet died down. I tried (poorly) to make this point on the HH show last night.

The near-rabid following of conservatives with their favorite radio talk show hosts and blogs, has begot an unforeseen by-product…an informed audience who now believes that because they are “informed,” that they are somehow, other than by their vote in the general election, entitled to specific input into a process that they are not part of.

I consider myself pretty well informed, but I couldn’t put together a list of qualified SCOTUS nominees, no more than I could immediately assemble a list of qualified brain surgeons. I, like most of the carpers, pundits, and bloggers, got my info from sources I trust…HH, and others, who bring on qualified guests; those who write compelling blog pieces; and others who opine on whom they believe the President…should, might, will… pick to serve in specific vacancies. So, I get drawn into the discussion. I begin to form my opinion. And I actually come to view myself as somewhat of a SCOTUS Nominee Possibility Expert.

Then, I get thrown for a loop. She is not on my list!!! Am I mad about the choice, or by the fact that she is not on my list, and that my last three weeks of ruminations have been for naught? So, rather than accepting that the only person in the country who is entitled to make the pick…the only person elected as President…happened to make a pick I hadn't considered…I decide to complain and bicker about it.

This is about the only way I can explain the near supersonic speed at which the venom was directed at this fairly unknown candidate. It smacks of a knee-jerk reaction. All of the ire was about possibilities and potentials…I still have yet to hear of one, solid, fact-based example that suggests firmly that Harriet Miers will be another Justice Souter. I hear only what-ifs and postulations.

Sorry, my crystal ball broke last week…can I borrow yours?

I have no idea how Harriet Miers will turn out, but do I know that between the President’s track record in selecting judges, the confirmation process itself, and more importantly, the structure of the court, that in the end, Harriet Miers is unlikely to single-handedly undermine conservative efforts to any real degree, regardless of how her eventual voting legacy is analyzed.

Let’s quit fragmenting the Party. Let’s let this work itself out, so that we can make conclusions based on what we get from the process and Harriet Miers, not what is planted in our heads by bloggers and talk show hosts. Geez…seems fair.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Bangalore Torpedo, Part 2...


As the
excoriation continues from all Corners of the Right, I had thought to take the opportunity to reiterate and expand on my observations regarding the President's choice of Harriet Miers for his second SCOTUS nomination, even as Major Mike has provided a profound illustration of the point.

Given the war that is being waged with regard to Presidential nominees, the battle over Supreme Court vacancies was certain to be epic. Liberal Republicans in the Senate have provided shameless Democrats with the power to emasculate a governing popular majority using procedural tricks and legislative
star chambers. Complain as we might, the fact cannot be ignored. It can however be remedied in 2006, given unified devotion on the part of Americans fed up with an elite aristocracy circumventing popular will.

As ready as many might have been for a battle with the reprehensible little men and women on the Left side of the Senate, passion in this case did not beget prudence. Running more good candidates like Pickering, Estrada, and Bolton directly into Democrat guns both diminishes the President's political capital and subjects good people to a murderous barrage of contemptuous abuse. It is not fair to those honorable Americans and discourages them and others from future service. Furthermore, a loss in that event would effectively crush the momentum of the Bush administration in this final term.

But, the President has clearly formulated a strategy for gaining the objective with his own sort of Bangalore Torpedo. By systematically advancing the sections of human ordinance into place, he is successfully undermining the defensive lines of the opposition. Chief Justice John Roberts provides clear proof of the success of the strategy. Now, one may legitimately question how Harriet Miers will serve the objective. But as it looks, her stealthy incursion has clearly taken the defense by surprise. She may yet prove to be an explosive element within the lines of the opposition, reigniting the battle over Congressional procedures. Clearly, she is formidable... and expendable. Acceptable as she seems to be to so many Senators, a fight over her nomination may very well unify Republicans to dispense with the filibuster of judicial nominees once and for all. Yet even if she slides through confirmation, her selection as a unifying candidate subdues the severe partisan environment which might preclude the retirement of one and perhaps two other SCOTUS Justices prior to 2008. The smart Commander knows that he has one and even two more links to fasten along the length of the torpedo before committing the charge.

Republican indignation now threatens the strategy entirely. With the front line pickets breaking ranks, the opposition might be encouraged to charge forward into the chaos; overrunning firm positions and spreading a plague of confusion and disunity among Conservatives just in time for the 2006 election season. With the choice made, what now is the hope for those displeased with the nominee?



Or is this a temper tantrum of sorts? If so, what purpose does it serve except to trade momentum for inertia with the opposition. Deliver an easy defeat of Miers by invitation and the advance stops. There will be no additional opportunity. Is that a noble objective?

The Chief Executive of the United States has made his decision for this nomination as he was elected to do. Republicans like Democrats must be willing to accept that decision, and trust that the choice is a responsible one. Confirmation now is in the hands of the United States Senate to vote accordingly as they were elected to do.

Bangalore Torpedo, Part 1

Applying the Principles of War to Harriet Miers SCOTUS Nomination

Major Mike

MOOSEMUSS. Yes, MOOSEMUSS. That is what came to mind when the discussion amongst the right about the Harriet Miers nomination went into full tilt yesterday…MOOSEMUSS.

Hat tip to Mr. Atos for planting the seed with his Bangalore Torpedo piece, and after all the rancor yesterday, I thought, MOOSEMUSS.

I don’t buy the theory that in an instant, that the President, who incidentally, got the GWOT right, and the John Roberts nomination right, who has Dick Cheney as his VP and Condi Rice as his SOS…blew a gasket and has gotten this completely wrong. I thought…maybe …MOOSEMUSS.

I think that the President had many possible choices here, but I think he chose to be a bit more devious than he is being given credit for. I think he, as Mr. Atos points out, is taking this opportunity to covertly attack the leadership and structure of the Democrat base. Why do I think that? MOOSEMUSS.

MOOSEMUSS is the easily learned acronym that highlights the nine, generally accepted, Principles of War. Notice I didn’t say battle. Battle…a general encounter between armies, ships of war, or airplanes. War…a period of declared and open hostilities. For the uninitiated, fighting wars…protracted periods of combat, and fighting battles…encounters between warring forces, are two entirely different matters and require two entirely different schemes. One, war, requires strategic thinking, and battles, require tactical thinking. These are two entirely different operational levels.

So, when I think MOOSEMUSS, I am not considering the tactical, I am considering the strategic.

Let’s look at the Miers nomination and see if, somehow, the guy who got the GWOT, may also get the Principles of War, when it comes to waging a long term strategic campaign against the Democrats.

M – Mass – Concentrate Combat Power at decisive time and place.

I think the President gets it…this is not the time to force an all out fight with the Democrats…he is not willing to expend all of his political capital in order to push through a more controversial nomination. Let’s chip away until the mid-term election, but let’s don’t give them any additional ammo going into them.

O – Objective – Direct every military operation against a clearly defined, decisive and obtainable objective.

Again, this nomination, while important, is not the final conservative objective…I would view that as the ultimate emasculation of the Democrat Party to the point it is ineffective as an organization. This nomination is an intermediate objective, but not the final objective…no need to expend all of your ammo here.

O – Offensive – Seize, retain and exploit the initiative.

This nomination is a home run here. The Dems were obviously preparing for the worst…basically any other, very conservative judge, they were ready. They would have come out of the box on Monday morning with their canned offensive and dominated the evening news with their media blitz. The President, with this nomination, redefined the fight, put the Dems on defense, and is able to maintain the initiative, against the Democrat party for the foreseeable future. Harry Reid endorsing Miers, is a much a capitulation as it is an endorsement. The President put the Dems on their heels and took away their ammo…

S – Surprise – Strike the enemy at a time, a place and in a manner for which he is unprepared.

See above- Offensive. This move completely disarmed the Dems. They were immediately frozen, and have yet to get any traction on this issue, in any coherent way. This was achieved by coming across with a surprise nomination, not by attacking their prepared defenses.

E - Economy of Force – Allocate minimum combat power to secondary efforts.

This is not to diminish the importance of this nomination, but clearly the President’s nominee will be confirmed with about zero political effort. This allows the President to maintain his momentum without getting bogged down with this nomination. Virtually no expenditure of political capital is required.

M – Maneuver - Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through flexible application of combat power.

Again, suffice it to say that the President did not charge into the Dems main defenses with a nominee that they were anticipating…he went widely around them and gained the offensive advantage as a result. In football terms, he’s off and running on a nifty end-around.

U - Unity of Command – For every objective, ensure unity of effort under on responsible commander.

In the end President Bush will be remembered for a lot of things, this nomination being one of them, but he has demonstrated an overt willingness to accept responsibility for his decisions and stick by them with confidence and certainty. This is what we ask of our leaders, and I see no reason why he should have abdicated responsibility for this choice to the far right, independent legal scholars, or the tooth fairy. In the end this is his choice to make, and all of the MMQBs should sit back and watch the start of the game before predicting gloom and doom. A committee’s choice on this one would have produced slightly different, but equally as contentious commentary.

S – Security – Never permit the enemy to acquire an unexpected advantage.

Without knowing the exact information the Dems had on the “A” list nominees, it would be impossible to know where the fight would head after the nomination was made public. By going to the “A-“ list, the President did not put himself in the position of losing control of the nomination unexpectedly. By surprising the Dems on this one, control of this nomination will remain in the hands of the Republicans.

S – Simplicity – Prepare clear, complicated plans and clear, concise orders to ensure understanding.

An extremely simple plan that out maneuvered and out thought the Dems.

MOOSEMUSS corollary ... perfect can be the enemy of good enough.

In the end, pushing through the “perfect” conservative judge would have likely expended a tremendous amount of political capital…the President’s as well as that of many Senators. Isn’t this plan a bit more palatable in that light. We may still have considerable momentum going into the mid-term elections…remember this is not a single battle.

One last thought…how are the way-Lefties going to respond when the Supreme Court battles they anticipated never materialized, and the mainstream liberal leadership looks ineffective again? Fragmented? Discontented? Disorganized? Inept? I suggest that avoiding a battle here, and out maneuvering the Dems, will cause them more problems than Harriet Miers will ever cause conservative Republicans.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Bangalore Torpedo...

Is the President sliding explosives under the Left's tangled defenses?


Defying all expectations, President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to be his choice to fill O'Connor's seat on the US Supreme Court. After weeks of speculation, even months if you consider the Robert's deliberation on the heals of O'Connor's initial retirement announcement, all the pundits had narrowed the field to a short, firm list of probable nominees to be both celebrated and feared depending on your particular persuasion. Harriet Miers surprises everyone this morning, by having appeared on no such lists. There is guarded (feigned) optimism on the Left and dejected consternation on the Right.

Michelle Malkin regresents a good cross-section of underwhelmed emotion on the Right, even suggesting the administration itself to be stuck on stupid.

John H. at
Powerline in disappointed.

Okieboy expresses a guarded position citing Reuter's overview of Miers and Hugh Hewitt's caution on the subject.

Hugh asks simply,
do you trust him?... regarding Bush.
Because the overwhelming desire of some conservatives to be unhappy is best served by being a Cleveland fan. The stuff that the hand-wringers are scribbling should be collected in one long post for future review.
I am no legal scholar to be sure. But, experience has taught me that patience is one of the cornerstones of wisdom. We may yet be encouraged to express anger and disappointment about the President's nomination in this case. But, other than being the first to pull the trigger, what is the reason to fire your musket into a fog?

The President has demonstrated himself to be a worthy adversary time and again, much to the humiliated chagrin of Liberals and Democrats. And it is no surprise that the Left has assembled a well-fortified defense of traps and snares along the front lines of judicial politics. The only remaining claim to power by the Left rests with the judiciary both in Federal Courts and especially SCOTUS. For the sake of survival and relevance, they will not yield that line without a bloody fight. And the Mainstream American Media is determined to suspend facts and truth in order to help their Liberal Allies, as the years of impass on judicial nominees has reciprocally demonstrated. The President's approach has always been long term progress; whether it be in an extended War on Terror and global fascism, or the outright reclamation of America. Bush advances his agenda yard by yard while the Left consistently crumbles.

But, SCOTUS is a battle unlike any political melee we have yet to see. A glimpse of the skirmish surrounding nominations has been revealed as with John Bolton. But, the onslaught over Senate rules regarding the filibuster is still pending. It will be long, hard and ugly with casualties on all sides... and long enduring scars on the body politic. Strategy will be required as with any battle to limit damage and casualties, and to gain the objective as quickly and effectively as possible. The first consideration in an advance of this nature is how to penetrate the fortified entanglements amassed at the beachhead by Congressional Democrats, the Mainstream Media, Leftwing Special Interests, and wayward Republicans. I submit, in this regard, Miers may be the second section of a
Bangalore Torpedo ...

As described by

The Bangalore was first devised by Captain McClintock, of the British Army Bengal, Bombay and Madras Sappers and Miners at Bangalore, India, in 1912. He invented it as a means of exploding booby traps and barricades left over from the Boer and Russo-Japanese Wars. The Bangalore would be exploded over a mine without the engineer having to approach it by more than about 10 feet (3 meters).

By the time of World War I the Bangalore was primarily used for clearing barbed wire. It was standardized to consist of a number of externally identical 5 foot (1.5 meter) lengths of threaded pipe, one of which contained the explosive charge. The pipes would be screwed together using connecting sleeves to make a longer pipe of the required length, and a smooth nose cone would be screwed on the end so as to not snag on the ground. It would then be pushed forward from a protected spot and detonated, and would clear a 5 foot (1.5 meter) wide hole through barbed wire.

The Bangalore was later adapted by the US Army as well during World War II, as the M1A1 Bangalore Torpedo. It was widely used by both the US and Commonwealth forces, notably during D-Day.

Roberts carried the first section of the torpedo directly into the fortifications, and even managed to gain a firm offensive position. Miers is taking the next section and pushing it further. She may or may not go all the way. And it may or may not be the complete objective. There could be more lengths to the torpedo carried behind by Brown, Jones, Owens, McConnel or Luttig. But, the intent of the President and his team may be to destroy as much of the defensive entanglement as possible in order to gain the actual objective firmly and decisively.

Much more could be gained by a smart relentless assault as with
Normandy, than the suicidal folly of Gallipoli.

Bangalore Torpedo, Part 2