Alot of people hate Donald Rumsfeld. I don’t understand why.

He knows we’re at war and acts accordingly. He’s frank, arrogant, bossy, mean. He’s not a politician. He was one of the early few who realized we faced a new kind of threat. He championed a transformation of the military out of its Cold War sumo posture into a lighter, faster, smarter force more suited for global anti-terrorist whack-a-mole. Swift takedowns of the Taliban and Saddam followed. And since then the US military has done an outstanding job policing and rebuilding, helping locals who have known nothing but war and oppression for decades.

Of course the fighting and dying continues. Why? There are many reasons but the jihadis and their bigoted totalitarian ideology surely eclipse the other factors. If you’re going to blame Rumsfeld and not acknowledge the history of Iraq, the goals or actions of the jihadis, or others who are just as much or more to blame, then you’ll get an argument from me.

Rumsfeld asserted strong civilian control over the military, challenging entrenched interests of both the military and the defense industry. It surely made him lots of enemies. In spite of his abrupt departure it’s hard to imagine him ever betraying his president or his country like so many others have.

What motivates a man in his twilight years to endure the kind of stress it takes to serve at such a level? Imagine your job 24/7 is to outthink the Islamofacists, the Norks, the Chicoms, and a zillion lesser threats, given crappy intel, constantly hounded by a host of pacifists and backseat quarterbacks who harp on costs then decry shortages, and who think we should listen to retired Generals but not the current leadership. Most of us would be curled in a fetal position sucking our thumb within a week.

So for what is Rummy to blame? Every stupid thing subordinates many levels down and thousands of miles do? The failure of Iraqi politicians to rise above petty rivalries and appreciate the values of liberty and democracy more quickly? Implacable religious zealotry?

If any part of the US government has blown it over the last few decades it’s intel. From the failure to forsee the Soviet collapse, to Jamie Gorelick’s infamous wall, to George Tenet’s WMD “slam dunk”, to the habitual leaks aimed at undermining their boss. They’re probably doing something right, they just can’t tell us about it.

Then there’s State. Vietnam taught Powell his Doctrine, the key to which is overwhelming force. This surely was a sore point between him and Rumsfeld, whose preference tends toward light and surgical, but Powell’s job was State not Defense. It was Powell’s job to convince Turkey to let the 4th Infantry enter Iraq from the north. He blew it. As swift and decisive as the invasion was it could have been swifter and more decisive. It was Powell’s job to convince Iran and Syria and the Saudis to police their borders.

Powell’s celebrated Pottery Barn wisdom – you break it you buy it – overlooks the fact that Iraq and the most of the Middle East has been broken for a very long time. The US and its allies have sent far too much money there for far too long. Mostly to the wrong people.

If Rumsfeld is accountable for the ongoing insurgency in Iraq then those who continue to hold out the juicy carrot of US capitulation redeployment are even more to blame. The jihadis know they can’t beat Rumsfeld and his military, but they also know they have powerful allies inside the US who can win the war for them given enough time and a steady stream of violence.

Dynamic as he was Rumsfeld just couldn’t transform a well-oiled death-dealing infrastructure-busting machine into a police-training school-building democracy-lifesupport system fast enough. How can any readymix democracy be expected to withstand such an influx of men and money from across the Islamic world intended not to help but to disrupt? Is this Rumsfeld’s fault? Please. If George Tenet rates a Medal of Freedom, Rummy rates five.

It’s pretty clear by now that the Blue Wave was nothing but the leftist media’s code name for this year’s effort to boost Democrats. The pattern has become so predictable it’s painful watching it unfold yet again.

It starts months before with the slow drumbeat of stories portending an inexorable D victory. The pre-election polls show Ds way ahead. The early election day exit polls show Ds way ahead. The networks call it for the Ds, pretty much everywhere, on average of one hour before the polls close. By evening it has, surprise, become too close to call. The next morning they briefly mention an R landslide and move quickly to video of a bombing in Iraq.

Then come the sour grapes. The Leftard blogs light up with conspiracy theories about the exit polls, Diebold, and any Republicans – especially relatives of powerful Rs – who might work in election-related media or government. For two years we’ll hear how the election in <insert random flyover state> was stolen, the pissing and moaning getting more bitter and pathetic right up until the next election, when it’s deja vu all over again.

Until John Kerry put his foot in his mouth the Ds were telling anyone who would listen that this election should be all about Iraq. Then Kerry’s “botched joke” reminded everyone how they see the military. Oooops.

Kerry will forthwith be knifed in the back, thrown under the bus, and quickly forgotten by the media. Watch now for them to turn attention back in desperation to something the Ds were really scoring points on. Mark Foley.

UPDATE, 2 Nov: Seymour Hersh sums up the leftist opinion of the military and the deeply cynical mindset that produces such beliefs:

If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said. “In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation,” he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”

Hersh came out hard against President Bush for his involvement in the Middle East.

“In Washington, you can’t expect any rationality. I don’t know if he’s in Iraq because God told him to, because his father didn’t do it, or because it’s the next step in his 12-step Alcoholics Anonymous program,” he said. Hersh hinted that the responsibility for the invasion of Iraq lies with eight or nine members of the administration who have a “neo-conservative agenda” and dictate the U.S.’s post-September 11 foreign policy. “You have a collapsed Congress, you have a collapsed press. The military is going to do what the President wants,” Hersh said. “How fragile is democracy in America, if a president can come in with an agenda controlled by a few cultists?”

Hersh is apparently fishing for another Pulitzer prize. In front of a foreign audience of course.

If you know nothing of the ongoing Jihad or think it overblown then I can only suggest you make the effort to read a bit more about it. Please.

The Islamic fundamentals of Sharia and Jihad (Islamic law and its universal imposition) are not compatible with the one fundamental of civilization, which is of course Liberty. The 1400 year history of jihad, painfully reinforced by what is unfolding in Europe right now, make it plain enough that the essence of Islam is intolerance. The symptoms are most notable when Muslims near or surpass plurality.

People need to stop looking the other way. Reject the suicidal premises of multicultural political correctness rather than using them to stifle criticism of the principles of Islamic ideology. There are good reasons to believe Islam threatens civilization. Questions must be asked. Lines must be drawn.

In defense of liberty
By Andrew C. McCarthy/Herbert London
October 20, 2006

We believe that being in denial about Islamic militancy profoundly compromises U.S. national security. Our system’s toleration of religious belief does not immunize religions from criticisms of the tenets or practices of those belief systems. This is particularly true when the criticized practices, though rhetorically labeled “religion,” are actually elements of an imperialistic social system antithetical to equality, liberty, separation of church and state, and other core Western values.

Activist efforts to limit America’s free marketplace of ideas — such as the tactic of slandering commonsense criticism as “Islamophobia” — are contrary to the very foundation of democratic governance. The West cannot cure Islam’s propensity to spawn radicalism; this is a matter only Muslims can address. But we must do whatever is necessary to protect our liberty and security.

Since the United States is in the midst of a long war for the survival of our way of life, the following steps should immediately be taken:

• Congress should enact legislation stating forthrightly that our enemy in the ongoing war is radical Islam.

• Immigration from and aid to Muslim countries should be drastically reduced. Upward adjustments should be contingent on measurable reforms that promote liberty while reducing the role of religion in politics. (Provision should be made for asylum for reformers.)

• Any Muslim foreign national who will not concede under oath that American law must be followed in the U.S. when it conflicts with Islamic law should be subject to exclusion or deportation.

• It should be made clear that a person's status as a Muslim (particularly if he is also a male under age 45 who is a citizen of a country with a substantial Islamic population) is palpably relevant to investigations of terrorist threats. To do otherwise wastes finite investigative resources and challenges the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement by treating all Americans as if they were potential Islamic radicals.

• Mosques in the U.S. have been used by Islamic radicals to spread their ideology, as hubs for terror recruitment and paramilitary training, and even for storage and transfer of weapons. While the war ensues, it should be made clear that the FBI and other authorities do not require a criminal predicate to collect intelligence or conduct investigations. Mosques in which violence or unlawful activity is encouraged should be subject to forfeiture and loss of tax-exempt status.

• Rigorous examination should be required for certification of Islamic chaplains in the military and the federal and state prison systems.

• Congress should create a National Security Court with jurisdiction over terrorism and other national security matters. Alleged alien-terrorists should be designated unlawful enemy combatants (apprehended either inside or outside the U.S.) and be accorded the minimal rights required by American due process standards. Removing their cases from the civilian and military courts will increase the quality of justice in those systems.

• With radical Islamic sentiment gaining traction in oil-rich nations, it is imperative that U.S. energy independence become a national priority. Congressional action must be taken to remove the onerous legal and regulatory barriers to the construction and expansion of refineries, production of oil and gas from offshore wells, construction of gas pipelines and other energy transportation infrastructure, and the building of power plants, including alternative generation sources such as solar stations, wind farms, tar sands, nuclear power plants, etc.

• Treaty obligations, alliances with other countries and membership in international organizations need to be consistent with national goals. Where they have become obsolete or harmful, they must be reshaped or eliminated.

The 20th century was filled with massive assaults on liberty by totalitarian aggressors who questioned the resolve of the defenders of liberty. This flawed assumption of weakness led to vast and unprecedented death and destruction. We make this statement in an attempt to diminish the chances of another such bloody miscalculation, and we pray that the rich benefits of the American model of government will gain a new appreciation around the world.

That would be a damn good start.

The Liberals’ War
Why is the left afraid to face up to the threat of radical Islam?
BY BRET STEPHENS
The Wall Street Journal Sunday, September 17, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Here’s a puzzle: Why is it so frequently the case that the people who have the most at stake in the battle against Islamic extremism and the most to lose when Islamism gains–namely, liberals–are typically the most reluctant to fight it?

It is often said, particularly in the “progressive” precincts of the democratic left, that by aiming at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and perhaps the Capitol, Mohamed Atta and his cohorts were registering a broader Muslim objection to what those buildings supposedly represented: capitalism and globalization, U.S. military power, support for Israel, oppression of the Palestinians and so on.

But maybe Ms. Newman intuited that Atta’s real targets weren’t the symbols of American mightiness, but of what that mightiness protected: people like her, bohemian, sexually unorthodox, a minority within a minority. Maybe she understood that those F-16s overhead–likely manned by pilots who went to church on Sunday and voted the straight GOP ticket–were being flown above all for her defense, at the outer cultural perimeter of everything that America’s political order permits.

Hmmm, yes I see. And what does Ayaan Hirsi Ali say?

“Many Europeans feel that a confrontation with Islamism will give the Islamists more opportunities to recruit–that confronting evil is counterproductive,” says Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born, former Dutch parliamentarian whose outspoken opposition to Islamism (and to Islam itself) forced her repeatedly into hiding and now into exile in the United States. “They think that by appeasing them–allowing them their own ghettoes, their own Muslim schools–they will win their friendship.”

A second factor, she says, is the superficial confluence between the bugaboos of the Chomskyite left and modern-day Islamism. “Many social democrats have this stereotype that the corporate world, the U.S. and Israel are the real evil. And [since] Islamists are also against Israel and America, [social democrats] sense an alliance with them.”

But the really “lethal mistake,” she says, “is the confusion of Islam, which is a body of ideas, with ethnicity.” Liberals especially are reluctant to criticize the content of Islam because they fear that it is tantamount to criticizing Muslims as a group, and is therefore almost a species of racism. Yet Muslims, she says, “are responsible for their ideas. If it is written in the Koran that you must kill apostates, kill the unbelievers, kill gays, then it is legitimate and urgent to say, ‘If that is what your God tells you, you have to modify it.’ “

There’s nothing wrong with criticizing an ideology. Like Islam. Or Leftism. If you believe your ideology, then defend it. Responding to criticism with censorship or violence is a sign of either sadism or insecurity, perhaps both.

This poor lady lives in fear for her life because she criticized an ideology. How many bedwetting Bush Police State hallucinators can say that?

Yeah, yeah. More local politics. Stop whining and pay attention. The national media and both major political parties are doing their best to ignore immigration during this election season. Escondido is part of California’s 50th District, where a race between an anti- and pro-illegal immigration candidates is on for control of a seat formerly occupied by bribery convict Duke Cunningham. Have you heard about this anywhere else? Probably not.

Yes Iran, Iraq, the Jihad, and our problems with various overseas strongmen and their nuclear playthings are bigger, longer term problems… if the US can get its immigration problems under control. If it can’t then all those other causes are as good as lost, or at least alot harder to win.

The US won’t be able to effect squat overseas whether it balkanizes into a schizophrenic mixture of wealthy law-abiding and poor lawless communities or simply degenerates into an anarchic bloody mess like Mexico.

We’ve sent thousands and spent billions to fight head-sawing savages halfway around the world. Do you think we could spare a bit to keep the same kind of people from overstaying their visas or walking across our borders? Do you think we could go further than that, but no less called for by our duty to the law, and go house to house to find and deport anyone who isn’t a legal resident? I say yes. And I’m getting old waiting for our government to do what the law and the people say is right.

Marie Waldron on Immigration – Escondido City Council, 18 Oct 2006:

Some people say the cost to defend this is too much. Hogwash! What is the cost of not doing it? Can we afford to sell out the future of our country, sell out the future for our children?

Enough is enough. That’s why we need to take control of our own communities. One city at a time. We want our cities back, we want our country back. Enough is enough.

The only political motivation is that of those unwilling to enforce our laws. When I came into office I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic so help me God. Not to be popular, do nothing, and get re-elected.

There is a moral right and a moral wrong. We as a city have every right to enforce occupancy standards the best way we can. We as a city have every right to enforce Federal law.

The ACLU will say otherwise. Section 8 U.S. Code 1324 Federal Immigration and Nationality Act states that harboring an illegal alien is a violation of federal law. Although the ACLU will say we’re creating new law, we’re not. We’re just enforcing the law that already exists.

We’re dealing with the direct effects of the federal government not doing their job. To look the other way is treasonous. Not supporting this ordinance and I’ve said this before is by de facto supporting sanctuary status plain and simple. Sanctuary laws are illegal in all US states and cities. Not to enforce our Federal immigration laws is purely a political decision that has no legal basis.

Section 8 U.S. Code 1324 says:

(A) Any person who—

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

My emphasis on the paragraph relevent to Escondido’s new ordinance.

Now at least one person argued to the council that because the code is titled “Bringing in and harboring certain aliens” that the “and” means you have to both bring in and harbor aliens in order to be guilty of anything.

This argument, like most others from the pro-illegal side, is absurd. As if we must interpret "1185. Travel control of citizens and aliens" to only apply to people who are both citizen and alien.

Even though 1324’s list is incomplete it obviously tries to be specific about various components of an enormous illegal human trafficing system. It is a shock and disgrace that such a system has been tolerated by our government without debate and without the consent of the governed.

Now the criminals and their co-conspirators want debate and consent – a debate over how they are to be legalized, and consent from them that it is enough. It is disgusting that such a clear wrong, already well addressed in current federal law, has to be reiterated over and over again to morons who ordinarily spend their time clamoring for government to act on things not even enacted into law.

Do listen to Marie’s whole statement. She covers very well much more than I’ve excerpted and extrapolated on above. We need more patriots like her at the State and Federal levels.