The war on the global war on terrorism

This post had to be rewritten from its original content. It began as an unhinged outpouring of babbling rant about all of the ludicrous and shameful events of the past few weeks. Upon reflection it was sent to the penalty box (draft directory) to await a cooler head. The following emanated from the cooler head.

Nancy Pelosi. Ah yes, the Speaker. Third in line to the presidency. She promised changes in her first 100 days and we're getting them now. Although swept into power on Iraq war burnout it's becoming clear her strategy regards the overall Global War on Terrorism is to make more nice and people will come around. That's why she has that frozen smile on her face, right?

The Pelosicrats even picked today to announce they'd banned the use of the term 'Global War on Terror' itself. What war? Surely that was designed to isolate the Iraq operation from the greater war (or isolated conflicts) on something other than terrorism, which makes their upcoming funding fight against Bush (and perhaps an eventual nuclear option of defunding the troops) more palatable. Let's not forget--the power will be growing exponentially to "stop the war" before the Democrats have to do anything about it come 2009.

Now, there's absolutely no evidence that Pelosi, Assad and A'jad were in cahoots together with this hostage stunt except this news report. While all have the same enemies and it could be argued there's an "enemy of my enemy" component here the most likely explanation is that Madame Speaker was just grandstanding and power projecting while Assad was trying to jump on the coattails of an Iranian PR victory. He's not smart enough to do that himself.

Speaking of the "hostage crisis" it couldn't have ended much worse. The pictures of them smiling and waving upon notification of release should make everyone in the west nauseous. It's good they're safe but hey, they're military personnel, not civilians. It's pretty bad when the best they could have done was to try not to smile and wave in front of the cameras yet failed. Now the party begins. Yes, that's quite judgmental and we surely might find out a better explanation later, but until then A'jad and Assad couldn't have purchased better PR from a Moveon.org convention.

Get used to it, because that's what victory looks like in our brave new world. Blair's strategy will certainly not put a stop to this kind of behavior. No, the situation didn't warrant a war but let's say there were certain things that could have been done at the time to where this might never have reached the headlines without starting a regional flareup.

There is one benefit from the new Dem direction--it ensures no further terrorist attacks will occur on American soil at least until after Democrats are elected to the White House in 2008. It could go even further depending on the track record of those Democrats. Why attack when the Democrats are doing it for them?