Donald Sensing, on Al Qaeda strategy (such as it is) in Iraq.

[Update about 11 AM EST]

Democrat Orson Scott Card doesn't trust his party with power in war time:

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

That seems unlikely to happen if they're rewarded with a return to power now, something that they haven't earned by their behavior or attitudes. Sadly, neither party deserves to win.

This is where the philosophy meets reality in American politic. We really do have two very different American viewpoints and the path we will ultimately take will be chosen by our elected officials collectively.
I believe these the members of al Qaeda are inherently evil. Not in a religious sense, but in the sense the Nazi party was evil. To try to find middle ground is folly.
We have another approach in American politic. It is predicated on the premise that al Qaeda is not inherently evil, but merely another group politic with an ideal that they hope to reach, but are will to concede some middle ground. It was expressed by Hillary Clinton and applauded by her audience yesterday...

Clinton blasted what she said was the Bush administration's "simplistic division of the world into good and evil. They refuse to talk to anyone on the evil side, as some have called that idealistic. I call it dangerously unrealistic."

We will decide as a nation which path we will follow next week. jjs

TAG sarcasm TAG
Orson Scott Card can claim he's a Democrat, but he really is a neo-con/chicken hawk.

The rest of you need not waste time arguing with me, because you're just a neo-con/chicken hawk too.

LA LA LA LA

TAG /sarcasm TAG

So much for sarcasm... Orson Scott Card's wikipedia entry reads like an indictment.

Card identifies himself as a Democrat but:
watches Fox News
supports Bush's WOT
supports the Patriot Act
pro US support of Israel
supports Tony Blair
supported Bush/Cheney over Kerry/Edwards
opposes same-sex marriage
is a member of the Church of Latter-day Saints

So what if he wants gun control, is critical of free-market capitalism, and thinks the South is racist... He's a neo-con and should wear a scarlet "R".

JJS, I think Hillary would completely agree with you with regard to al Queda. I went back and checked the speech you referred to, and it looks like the "simplistic division" between good and evil she was deriding is in diplomacy, not how we view certified enemies like aQ. She was arguing that talking with countries like Syria might give us more leverage with which to twist their arms.

I will see your Orson Scott Card and raise with Lincoln Chafee:

In Rhode Island on Tuesday, Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Republican struggling against a challenge from Sheldon Whitehouse, an antiwar Democrat, began a new television advertisement reminding Rhode Island voters, “I stood against the Senate and president and voted no” on the war.

Orson Scott Card is a novelist who may or may not be a "real Democrat" but Lincoln Chafee is sitting US Senator who voted for Bill Frist as Senate majority leader. Chafee simply is a Republican.

Lincoln Chafee, based on all available evidence, is also a moron. It's a stiff competition, but in the competition for the dimmest bulb in the Senate, he has to be near the top, if not at it.

So I can see why you'd find him so attractive, Bill.

As another counterpoint to Orson Scott Card I offer John Cole -- "John" NOT "Juan"

I just thought I would go on record stating that the last few weeks and months have really sucked for me. I spent my whole life in the GOP- starting in 1984 with county meetings, going to Teenage Republican camp (my friends called it Hitler Youth Camp, proving that Nazi/Republican quips are no new development), and spending the better part the fall of 1984 going door to door for John Raese in his race against Rockefeller (Raese, as you know, lost). Now, 22 years later, I find myself not only refusing to support Raese against Robert Byrd (the man who for years has embarassed me with his pork), but I have come to the conclusion that the Republicans are so corrupt, so dishonest, so beholden to special interests and fanatical lobbying groups that Byrd not only looks to be the better option, but the entire Democratic party looks better.

Rand, I'd vote against Chafee if I lived in R.I. no argument there. But the GOP chose to dump millions of dollars into his primary campaign.

If Chafee is so very bad, why didn't the national Republicans help defeat him?

If Chafee is so very bad, why didn't the national Republicans help defeat him?

Why ask me? I'm not a Republican.

I'd assume that it's because it's more important to them to have someone who will vote for the Republican caucus, than to have someone who is steadfast on ideological positions. And they figured that Rhode Island was a lost cause if they had to fight it without an incumbent, given how blue it is.

But I'm not a Republican strategist. And more importantly, a Republican strategist (who is the person to make such discussions) is not in charge of party ideology...

The war against the Islamic nut-jobs MUST be won. I concur with that.

What I fail to understand is the fantasy that President Bush has provided good leadership on that front. For example, Sadr telling Maliki to tell the US to end those checkpoint. Why is Sadr still alive?

Given that President Bush as totally alienated people like John Cole (who was a player at RedState for goodness sakes!) perhaps those who understand the Islamic threat need to clean house at the GOP (Hastert & Frist & Abramoff, etc. . .) and come back in 2008 or 2010.

Our conflict with nut-job Islam is a marathon and not a sprint.

What I fail to understand is the fantasy that President Bush has provided good leadership on that front.

I don't think that he's provided good leadership on that front. I only think that he's provided better leadership than any electable Democrat on that front (admittedly a low bar). Are you also falling prey to the idiotic trollish viewpoint here that I'm a Republican, or a "stooge" for them?

I don't think its any surprise to find more Republicans expressing a broader depth of viewpoints then the democrats. The Republicans don't ostracize their members nearly as severely as Democrats do when they express a belief contrary to the party line. For a democrat to come forward and express something like this means they must feel pretty strongly about it. For them the backlash is usually so severe, when expressing a contrarian point of view, they might as well just crawl themselves into a cannon to be shot out into the Atlantic.