Let the posting resume.

I'm sure many of you caught Bill Clinton's explosive interview on Fox News sunday, or have heard about it. I applaud Clinton's candor and his anger, and the subsequent coverage this interview has been getting on Fox, CNN, or other news outlets is annoying me.

The dialogue in this country surrounding the "war on terrorism" has been farcical. I am constantly surprised and angered at the simple inability of our current adminstration to make good decisions or to admit to mistakes, while at the same time they continue to have an uncanny dexterity at shifting the course of public dialogue.

First, it's not a "war on terrorism". It should be called a "fight against violent extremism". I know that's not as catchy of a phrase, but the whole idea of a war on terrorism is completely bogus - a political fiction derived from focus groups and used to create an embattled mental state of US citizens in which they must stand by the President. There is no 'war on terrorism' because you cannot fight a war against terrorism. Wars are fought against other countries or within a country, with opposing armies, battle lines, etc. You don't fight wars against transnational organizations with little to no cohesion - and this is for a very good reason. You will lose.

This not a war - it's a massive law enforcement operation on an interational scale, and that difference is crucial. Wars are fought with overwhlming force, shock and awe, and almost always a territorial target. Law enforcement, on the other hand, is done through intelligence gathering and sharing, surgical strikes, and almost always a personell or infrastructure target. By turning this into a war the adminstration has made the world less safe.

Okay, sorry for the tangent. My other point here is that Clinton gave most Americans who watch the whole interview a good wake up call. He clearly and candidly points out how much harder he tried to safeguard the American public from Osama and other related threats to our national security, and how clearly Bush brushed these aside as irrelevant. His points are supported by authorities too numerous to count, from fomer Bush cabinet ministers to 4 star generals and even, most recently, Bob Woodward's new book (conveniently called "State of Denial").

I'm annoyed that Rumsfeld is still in office even after the debacle he's presided over. I'm annoyed that Bush, despite having what I'm sure are great intentions, continues to decieve the American public in the political interests of his party, and I'm annoyed that nobody is pushing back hard against all of this because they fear the Republican attack machine.

Which is why I very much enjoyed seeing Clinton do what he did. Good for him.

The Emperor Has No Clothes

A recent secret report from the Marine Corp Chief of Intelligence, issued last month, states that the Anbar province in Iraq is facing almost insurmountable trouble and that the US has politically lost the war in that region. In other words, it's lost the battle for hearts and minds.

This report has apparently made the rounds in the Pentagon, Army, and National Security circles. While it's impossible to say without seeing the report, it appears that it has credibility because it takes a very balanced look at the situation and comes to some very bleak conclusions. As a result, there is evidence that it might be serving as a needed wake up call to the 'powers that be' that simply staying the course is insufficient to winning the war. If this is simply a war of attrition, the US will lose. We have to make it something more, and so far we've failed at that.

Of course, anyone who saw Dick Cheney on Meet the Press the other day has no doubt that whatever changes, if any, are happening behind the scene, the word from the top is to toe the party line. Stay the course. I wonder when somebody will hit upon the just the right argument and phrasing that will strike home with the American people, and let them know the Emperor has no clothes.

One Class Down

Well, just hours ago I finished my first Law School class - Legal Methods. The course purports to teach us, well, legal methods. How to read a case, how to determine what facts apply, the basics of reading and applying statutes, precedents, etc. Although I did enjoy it, I'm looking forward to learning some substantive law, although not so excited about the actual laws (torts and contracts).

My teacher for the past 3 weeks, incidentally, was Jane Ginsburg. Her mother happens to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I have to admit that if I was the progeny of a USSC justice, I'd probably choose another field of study. Talk about living in a shadow - it takes guts to do that. But hey, who knows, maybe the daughter will make it there one day too. She's clearly very smart and knows her shit. I liked her class.

So what're y'all doing for the long weekend? I have no real plans, except doing a ton of homework for Tuesday's classes and getting settled into my new place. I'm hoping to go see the US Open on Monday, which would be amazing. I caught last night's match on television (Agassi v Baghdatis) - it was a classic match. An amazing feat of endurance and tennis skill on both sides....today some news stories are calling it one of the best matches in years.