Listening to the confirmation hearing for General Lute this past thursday (replayed on C-Span), one comes away with two strong impressions:

First, Lute's hiring is being advertised as an 'augmentation' of Hadley's job. He is not Hadley's deputy. He is equal to Hadley. He is a second Security Advisor to the President. This seems to be clear evidence that Hadley is not up to the job. It also indicates that, for whatever reason, DOD and State Dept. are either not being run correctly, or are not articulated with the White House correctly--as they should already be providing the function that Lute is being hired to fill.

Second, as Senator Webb pointed out, this is a career military man, Lute, who will now be making policy within the Executive Branch while still serving as a three star general. When his role is completed, he intends to return to the military, re-enter the chain of command.

Each of these aspects of Lute's new job are troubling. First, that the job is even nessessary. Second, that it creates a connection between the military and those who set policy, which the military has never done, and should never do.

Yet another move by this inept and suspect government that has long-term adverse onsequences for the country.

WT, I will look for that. I believe the translation would be "Night of Saint Lawrence" or just "St. Lawrence's Night". The saint was, of course, named for the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Another good film on a kind-of related topic is "Dogville", but that film is much more abstract.

Not that there haven't been military officers serving as policy advisors to the president previously. Perhaps the most notable (or notorious) of these was Admiral John Poindexter, serving as NSA (and chief arms smuggler) to Reagan.

Frankly, True, and perhaps I'm not expressing this well, but it seems to me that Lute is a different type of critter. He's a three star, plucked from the chain of command at the Pentagon, imbedded in the White House, working up policy issues and reporting directly to the President. He is no longer under the Sec. of Def., or the Joint Chiefs, although he remains an active serving general. With a staff of 12 or so, he appears to be yet another new stovepipe attached to the White House (as is the OVP, as you say). So aside from the redundancy aspect of it, I'm actually more concerned about this yanking of a general out of the Pentagon and imbedding him in the White House to work on policy along with Hadley and Rove for God's Sake. This has led to some unsavory Executive behavior in the past as you say (at the level of Colonel, for example). This administration has been so clean and noble to date--I'd hate for them to get unsavory at this point.

The annual appearance in August of "Saint Laurence's Tears" -- the Perseid Meteor Shower -- is what "Notte di San Lorenzo" refers to.

That's a beautiful custom (and phrase)--thanks. Apologies for going all literal on WT. There are certainly some things to wish for, come August.

both wishes and tears have an especially poignant significance this year as summer gives way to fall.

Yep--occurs to me that it will be (more or less) the end of another in the long string of Friedman Units that have been trotted out for the american public to be disappointed in.

Makes one wonder if Friedman Units are measures of circular or linear time. I'm beginning to think circular.

The 'bomb Iran' volume may ebb and flow, but it never ceases. Critical to the Hawks is their argument is this supposed equipment and training reputedly being supplied by Iran. The Hawks are aided and assisted by an equally insane Iranian president, who, even though he has no control over Iranian armed forces, keeps the pot simmering with his own brand of hawkish bullshit.

But what is the actual evidence that EFPs are constructed in Iran, or that Iran is training and smuggling bombers into Iraq? Iran equipping and training Al Qaida? Would the media care to do their job this time? Anyone?

The claim from our hawks is problematic when we are asked to believe that Al Qaida in Mesopotamia is the main enemy and accounts for the overwhelming share of American deaths in Iraq--as stated by Lieberman himself at the Lute hearing just this week. We know that Al Qaida is overwhelmingly Sunni--an extreme perversion of the Sunni that views the Shia with disdain--to the point of believing that Shias are not Muslim. This of course makes it much easier to kill them.

Our hawks claim that only Iran has the capability of manufacturing the copper disks needed to produce EFPs. Others claim that any competent Iraqi machine shop can turn these out. What is the truth?

These are the kinds of issues that need to be deeply scrutinized--as does the totally unnessesary 'missile shield' for europe (to protect helpless europe from Iranian missiles), and the reported offer from the US to buzz certain Iranian military assets with our aircraft during the recent hostage crisis between Britain and Iran.