Newt Gingrich is not dumb, and compared to your average, smug, pseudo-intellectual beltway denizen, he's Albert Einstein. He has ideas, but so what? Everbody has ideas. Newt Gingrich is the type of stupid-smart that got us into Iraq in the first place. Something that's as important or more important than having a blizzard of ideas is being able to pick the ones that make practical sense in the real world. This is something that Mr. Gingrich's ego doesn't allow for.

So basically, if he was president, we would probably have the same type of grandiose, pie-in-the sky aspirations that the current administration had, with similar crash-and-burn results. Gingrich would, at least, not sound as dumb as George Bush when he talked about them.

About 15 years ago, I was watching Newt Gingrich talk on C-span. He was talking about why women should not be allowed in front line combat units, and one of the reasons he gave (maybe the primary reason) was that women's menstrual blood would create an unsanitary condition.

This is a military historian who doesn't realize that war is somewhat less than sanitary. World War I soldiers stood knee-deep or higher in fetid water that contained garbage, urine, feces, and decomposing bodies for hours on end. World War II soldiers in the Pacific resorted to cutting a hole in their pants to avoid having to constanly pull them down to defecate; this was because of rampant dysentary. In combat, soldiers encounter bodily waste, dead bodies, and parts of bodies, all in various stages of decomposition. Compared to this, menstrual blood is like a pina colada.

Perhaps if Mr. Gingrich reflected on this, he might think "Jeez, I guess it is pretty dumb to worry about menstrual blood." I don't know. Gingrich is not so much an "idea" man as a "first thing that pops into my head must be ingenius" man. As I said before, he's probably smarter than most of his beltway buddies, but that ain't saying much.

I hope we see more of Nate the Neoconservative.

...that "[i]t is a common tactic to accuse your opponent of exactly that which you practice..." in the same letter that he identifies "the real threat of violence" as the "loving, tolerant left".

And round and round we go.

I was not surprised to hear President Bush characterize the sectarian violence in Iraq as a recent development last night. To quote:

"When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement."

And later:

"But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made."

What he's whispering loud and clear is that things were going well until 2006. His supporters can draw the logical conclusion that if things were good in 2005 and started to deteriorate in 2006, then those who implement the strategy are impeding it's success. For this to make sense, you have to ignore the steady increase in violence and unrest that has been in evidence since we invaded. You also have to ignore the fact that the neo-conservatives who derided and ridiuled any suggestion that a large force would be nessecary to stabilize Iraq blame the military for not demanding such a force four years too late.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that President Bush continues to ignore what's actually happening in Iraq, nor should we be surprised that punishment will be meted out to people further down the chain of command. It is always someone else who is responsible. First it was the media, war critics and Democrats who were undermining the war effort. Recently it has been implied that the American people in general don't have the stomach for this fight, and now, finally, it is the military's turn to take the blame. It remains to be seen whether President Bush will run out of people to blame for his administration's mistakes before he leaves office.

This war was not the brainchild of congress, nor was it conjured up by State Department beareucrats, nor was it insisted upon by the military, and it was certainly not demanded by the public, who were rightfully focused on Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The decision to invade Iraq was made by the Bush administration. I will not try to argue that we would be better off if people like Clark had been more courageous and forceful in their objections, if Congress had been more dilligent, if the media had done it's job properly, and the citizenry had been less inclined to give themselves over to fear and accept the absurd idea of pre-emptive war. But none of this should distract us from the fact the the Bush adminstration planned this war, pushed this war and lied to make this war happen, all the while sidelining the people who did actually come out against it along the way.

It is correct to recognize that Bush is not solely responsible for this debacle; we are a democracy, and as such, we all bear some measure of responsibility for what is done in our name. But for President Bush to blame the military for following his directives and implementing his policy is absurd.