On July 26, the 172nd Stryker Brigade, based in Fort Richardson, Alaska, learned that they would have their one year tour of Iraq, extended through Thanksgiving, and possibly longer. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld later met with family members of the 172nd back in Alaska. One of the family members in attendance captured the event on video, including the exchange below.

From Newsweek:

In a video obtained by NEWSWEEK, one woman asked him why the 172nd was spending most of its time clearing houses, instead of patrolling the streets in the relative safety of the big armored vehicles. “My husband hasn’t set foot in his Stryker since he arrived in Baghdad,” she said. “Over 90 percent of the house clearings are being handled by the Iraqis,” Rumsfeld responded, whereupon women in the audience began shouting “No!” and “That’s not true!” Flummoxed, Rumsfeld shot back, “No? What do you mean? Don’t say ‘No,’ that’s what I’ve been told. It’s the task of the Iraqis to go through the buildings”

The 4-23’s soldiers say they, not the Iraqis, do 95 percent of the searches. “I’d like to punch [Rumsfeld] in the gut,” says one seasoned NCO on his second Iraq tour. “He treats us like we’re not human. He acts like he’s not destroying families.”

“Don’t say ‘No,’ that’s what I’ve been told.” In other words, “Don’t talk to me about reality. It may contradict what I already believe.” That phrase sums up Rumsfeld’s career as Defense Secretary. Especially in light of this story.

Washington Monthly has a collection of brief essays written by seven bona fide conservatives all arguing for a divided government come November.

Former Nixon and Reagan speechwriter Jeffrey Hart has a very thoughtful piece about politics driven by ideology.

Reagan’s deputy attorney general Bruce Fein suggests that, “The most conservative principle of the Founding Fathers was distrust of unchecked power.”

And Christopher Buckley’s essay is just fun.

I feel like I should break up the political posts with topics less serious. So, here’s the great Cat Power performing “Living Proof” on Letterman.

From the New York Times:

Mr. Kennedy said Mr. Bush “should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning” to justify his Iraq policy, while Mr. Schumer said, “You do not commemorate the tragedy of 9/11 by politicizing it.”

Could they sound like bigger ninnies?  Why are they wasting their time talking about being ashamed and whining about the politicization of 9/11?

There are legitimate failures to be discussed here.  There is accountability to be enforced.  The Democrats need to quit reacting to Republicans and chart their own political course.

(That totally rhymed.)

I’m really hoping we’ll have a return to divided government after the November elections.  Some congressional oversight of the Executive would be nice.  And I feel like a bill that can pass Congress and be signed by the President, when power is shared, is more deserving of being a law.  I’m just afraid the Democrats will blow it this November.

Here are a few of my thoughts about the President’s address last night.

He began with the Republican’s fall campaign strategy:

Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe.

You can interpret that how you like. I translate it into “we’ve done a better job of protecting you than the opposition, but not so much that you should feel safe enough to vote for them.”

Then we see the return of the straw man argument that I’ve blogged about before:

Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone.

Again, nobody thinks that. He may as well say, “The worst mistake would be to think that if we bring Krispy Kremes to Iraq, the terrorists would leave us alone.” Nothing will make these terrorists ignore us.

He continues from the above quote:

They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.

This doesn’t make much sense to me. Our safety in America has much more to do with good intelligence gathering and law enforcement work than the fighting in Baghdad. In fact, the President would state this later in his speech:

Thanks to the hard work of our law enforcement and intelligence professionals, we have broken up terrorist cells in our midst and saved American lives.

And then, another pet peeve; pretending we care what Osama bin Laden thinks about us:

Osama bin Laden calls this fight “the Third World War” — and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America’s “defeat and disgrace forever.”

First, I could give two shits what Osama thinks about America. Second, Islamic extremists think a rainy day in America is a victory for Allah. So I’ll bet their standards for disgracing us are pretty low.

And then towards the end of the speech:

On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to this cause.

Is he serious? His address argued that Iraq is the frontline of the fight of the 21st century. Here I defer to Tom Friedman:

Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism, and let’s have an unprecedented wartime tax cut and shrink our armed forces. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism, but let’s send just enough troops to topple Saddam — and never control Iraq’s borders, its ammo dumps or its looters. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism, but rather than bring Democrats and Republicans together in a national unity war coalition, let’s use the war as a wedge issue to embarrass Democrats, frighten voters and win elections. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism — which is financed by our own oil purchases — but let’s not do one serious thing about ending our oil addiction.

We’re in Iraq now; we can’t undo the invasion, so what are we going to do now? If we’re going to stay, we should be doing everything we can to turn Iraq into a stable ally. But if we’re not going to be more commited, if we won’t sacrifice to finish what we started, then why are we staying this course? At some point in the future, 6 months from now, 2 years from now, 4 years from now, Americans are going to demand that we leave Iraq, and we will. I would hate to think that the only difference in pulling out 6 months from now and pulling out 2 years from now will be the number of dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. So if we’re going to remain in Iraq, I really hope we make it count.