In general...

I'm very pleased at the outcome of Tuesday's elections, but...

I saw an interview with Pelosi where she commented that the only reason terrorists have to be in Iraq is that we're in Iraq, implying that we should just leave.

Sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Iraq is a mess, but it's OUR mess. Saddam wasn't a nice man, but until we decided to remove him, the average Iraqi had water, power, schools, hospitals, roads, and police. Most of that is gone, and we're responsible. Like it or not, walking away isn't the new direction we need to take in Iraq. Fortunately, I suspect that Ms. Pelosi will have people sit her down and explain this in detail, so I'm not terribly worried, but I am concerned.

Jim Baker is heading up a commision to figure out what to do in Iraq, and he was a very capable and effective Secretary of State and is a very smart guy. Whether you like his politics or not, he's capable.

I just sat down and had a chat with one of our guys here who was an SIS 4 (Senior Intelligence Service, the Senior Executive Service (SES) is the equivalent for the non-intel bits of the .gov) at Langley when he left the govt, and he's rather pleased at seeing Gates up for SecDef. He said Gates is mostly apolitical and unlike Rumsfeld trusts the intel agencies to do their jobs (which makes sense, as Gates was running the CIA for a while). Which is bad for us (meaning this office where I'm working) in the short term, as some of our contracts shifted from various three letter agencies to the DoD over the last six years and those functions will be shifting back. The former SIS in question is a Dem, so he's not just saying things to make Junior look good (and oh my, some of his rants on what Junior's done to the NRO and CIA over the last half decade have been impressive...), but really thinks Gates is a good choice and will do a good job for all of us, not just the half of us that voted for the Republicans.

He also pointed out that for most Americans, a lot of what we inside the Beltway take for granted isn't even on their radar for most of these issues. We look out a window here and have a view of the Pentagon, Arlington National Cemetery, The Capitol, the Whitehouse, and the Jefferson, Lincoln, and Washington Monuments/Memorials. For us, this IS local politics, but it's not for most people, and far too many of them don't really care.

So, I have hope, but until I see a policy and a real plan emerge, I'll remain my usual cynical self and expect things will go badly in absurd ways. Usually reality fails to disappoint, and I often find I wasn't being negative enough.

In general...

I'm very pleased at the outcome of Tuesday's elections, but...

I saw an interview with Pelosi where she commented that the only reason terrorists have to be in Iraq is that we're in Iraq, implying that we should just leave.

Sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Iraq is a mess, but it's OUR mess. Saddam wasn't a nice man, but until we decided to remove him, the average Iraqi had water, power, schools, hospitals, roads, and police. Most of that is gone, and we're responsible. Like it or not, walking away isn't the new direction we need to take in Iraq. Fortunately, I suspect that Ms. Pelosi will have people sit her down and explain this in detail, so I'm not terribly worried, but I am concerned.

Jim Baker is heading up a commision to figure out what to do in Iraq, and he was a very capable and effective Secretary of State and is a very smart guy. Whether you like his politics or not, he's capable.

I just sat down and had a chat with one of our guys here who was an SIS 4 (Senior Intelligence Service, the Senior Executive Service (SES) is the equivalent for the non-intel bits of the .gov) at Langley when he left the govt, and he's rather pleased at seeing Gates up for SecDef. He said Gates is mostly apolitical and unlike Rumsfeld trusts the intel agencies to do their jobs (which makes sense, as Gates was running the CIA for a while). Which is bad for us (meaning this office where I'm working) in the short term, as some of our contracts shifted from various three letter agencies to the DoD over the last six years and those functions will be shifting back. The former SIS in question is a Dem, so he's not just saying things to make Junior look good (and oh my, some of his rants on what Junior's done to the NRO and CIA over the last half decade have been impressive...), but really thinks Gates is a good choice and will do a good job for all of us, not just the half of us that voted for the Republicans.

He also pointed out that for most Americans, a lot of what we inside the Beltway take for granted isn't even on their radar for most of these issues. We look out a window here and have a view of the Pentagon, Arlington National Cemetery, The Capitol, the Whitehouse, and the Jefferson, Lincoln, and Washington Monuments/Memorials. For us, this IS local politics, but it's not for most people, and far too many of them don't really care.

So, I have hope, but until I see a policy and a real plan emerge, I'll remain my usual cynical self and expect things will go badly in absurd ways. Usually reality fails to disappoint, and I often find I wasn't being negative enough.

In general...

I'm very pleased at the outcome of Tuesday's elections, but...

I saw an interview with Pelosi where she commented that the only reason terrorists have to be in Iraq is that we're in Iraq, implying that we should just leave.

Sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Iraq is a mess, but it's OUR mess. Saddam wasn't a nice man, but until we decided to remove him, the average Iraqi had water, power, schools, hospitals, roads, and police. Most of that is gone, and we're responsible. Like it or not, walking away isn't the new direction we need to take in Iraq. Fortunately, I suspect that Ms. Pelosi will have people sit her down and explain this in detail, so I'm not terribly worried, but I am concerned.

Jim Baker is heading up a commision to figure out what to do in Iraq, and he was a very capable and effective Secretary of State and is a very smart guy. Whether you like his politics or not, he's capable.

I just sat down and had a chat with one of our guys here who was an SIS 4 (Senior Intelligence Service, the Senior Executive Service (SES) is the equivalent for the non-intel bits of the .gov) at Langley when he left the govt, and he's rather pleased at seeing Gates up for SecDef. He said Gates is mostly apolitical and unlike Rumsfeld trusts the intel agencies to do their jobs (which makes sense, as Gates was running the CIA for a while). Which is bad for us (meaning this office where I'm working) in the short term, as some of our contracts shifted from various three letter agencies to the DoD over the last six years and those functions will be shifting back. The former SIS in question is a Dem, so he's not just saying things to make Junior look good (and oh my, some of his rants on what Junior's done to the NRO and CIA over the last half decade have been impressive...), but really thinks Gates is a good choice and will do a good job for all of us, not just the half of us that voted for the Republicans.

He also pointed out that for most Americans, a lot of what we inside the Beltway take for granted isn't even on their radar for most of these issues. We look out a window here and have a view of the Pentagon, Arlington National Cemetery, The Capitol, the Whitehouse, and the Jefferson, Lincoln, and Washington Monuments/Memorials. For us, this IS local politics, but it's not for most people, and far too many of them don't really care.

So, I have hope, but until I see a policy and a real plan emerge, I'll remain my usual cynical self and expect things will go badly in absurd ways. Usually reality fails to disappoint, and I often find I wasn't being negative enough.