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.

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

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.