There is no doubt that Darfur, the western part of Sudan, is in a horrible situation. Members of the Janjaweed milita, a radical Muslim group supported by Sudan's Arab government, roam the land killing, raping, burning and pillaging. About two million people -- blacks, either non-Muslims or not Muslim enough to suit the militias -- have fled their homes for refugee camps, where they are brutalised and terrorised on a daily basis. Approximately two hundred thousand people have been killed since February 2003, according to a study by Dr. John Hagen of Northwestern University. The Sudanese government has refused to allow the United Nations to send international troops. And the UN, tired of the violence (or perhaps unable to wring a dishonest Euro out of the situation) is considering whether to just pull out, taking with them what slim hope the refugees have left.

And so, as in any dire situation, the world turns to America for help. Activists and protesters demand that President Bush stop the genocide. Hollywood actors appear in television and print ads urging action in Darfur. When President Bush mentioned Darfur in his 2007 State of the Union address, Democrats leapt to their feet, clapping wildly. When he spoke of victory in Iraq a few seconds earlier, however, most Democrats sat in stony silence. Those on the Left keep telling us that we're not the world's police. Ideological brothers-in-arms to those who cry, "Save Darfur!" recently marched in Washington DC alongside Vietnam-era traitor Jane Fonda, denounced the President for sending troops to Iraq, spat at an Iraq war veteran on crutches and defaced the Capitol. How dare they demand he send troops to Sudan?

Besides, for what purpose should we send troops -- to simply stand between members of an Islamic militia and their victims? Liberals and their pet Democrats attack the President daily for his proposal to reinforce American troops in Iraq who (as they see things) serve only as targets for the enemy. We are constantly treated to Left-wing hand-wringing over the dangers faced by (again, in their twisted view) the "children" who were "sent by Bush to die" in a "war of choice." Time magazine recently captured the Liberal attitude in a cartoon: rows of soldierly silhouettes wearing targets on their backs, with the caption, "21,500 reasons to oppose Bush's troop surge." Yet the same people want us to send those troops to perform that function in Sudan instead?

Or are we to believe that they want those troops to remove the Arab government behind the genocide? Let us apply the "Iraq test" to the Darfur situation, to help anticipate whether Liberals would consider regime change in Sudan a "good" war or a "bad" war once it reached the limit of their short attention spans. Sudan poses no possible threat to America. Sudan never attacked us. The violence in Sudan is contained. Sudan is not threatening to invade its neighbors, has no weapons of mass destruction, and we already know that Liberals do not generally believe there is an Islamic terrorist threat to the world.

If President Bush sent troops to remove Sudan's president, and if they were true to their professed principles, the anti-war crowd would practically break their necks rushing out to the streets to hold a protest rally. They have shown by opposing the war in Iraq that they do not consider genocide or brutality sufficient reasons to impose change on a "sovereign" government, even one so heinous as that of Saddam Hussein or Sudan's Umar Hasan Ahmad Al-Bashir.

We should not commit troops to a situation in which the Left would once again have the chance to stab them in the back without a pressing national interest -- and there is no such need for American troops to be in Sudan. As much as we should oppose genocide and fanatical Muslim mass murderers, the same Liberals who demand we "do something" there have damned it by their own overblown criticism of our having done something elsewhere.

Hat tip to RightThinkingGirl for the Time magazine cartoon.

Who would ever have imagined that America would be trying so hard to fight a politically-correct war just five years after 9/11 that we'd do the enemy's work for him? In a thousand years of open battle, al-Qaeda's mass-murdering fanatics could not possibly force the United States military to retreat one single inch. Yet some of our own people have been screaming for an all-out flight from Iraq every day of the last four years, and those voices are growing louder now that the Democrats control Congress. Retreat would hand the enemy a huge victory -- psychological, symbolic and very real -- and prevent the US from projecting force anywhere in the world again for at least a generation. And we may be on the verge of giving in to the terrorists.

Those on the Left cite excuses for retreat ranging from the high-sounding "innocents have been killed," to the ignorant, "it's an Iraqi internal problem," to the ridiculous "we should have never removed Saddam from power." Another "reason" we're often given is that Europeans -- the people responsible for more military massacres and imperialist invasions throughout history than the US could ever hope to achieve -- are unhappy with us, and the anti-war crowd insists that surrender would restore their good opinion. Thanks, but I think we can live with their largely impotent disapproval while continuing to fight the enemy.

In post-war Iraq, too many people have been killed while the enemy was either using them as human shields or deliberately blowing them up, and (gasp!) the cowardly thugs have even managed to kill a few of our troops while sacrificing themselves by the tens of thousands. If we're going to consider the deaths of non-combatants -- and we should -- we at least owe it to them to be honest about who is truly responsible for their deaths, and what we're trying to achieve there.

In any war in history prior to forty years ago, Iraq would have been acclaimed as a huge victory for our side, and the post-war insurgency -- fueled largely by al-Qaeda, Iran and Ba'ath party thugs -- put down without a second thought. It's impossible to imagine Americans pulling out of Germany, wringing their hands, if the post-WWII insurgency known as the Werwolves had been funded, supplied and bolstered by an outside force. Sometimes it seems as though "the greatest generation" was the last great generation.

On the other hand, few object to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. Some actually want to send American troops to Darfur, in Sudan, to fight Islamofascist mass murderers there. It's just Iraqis they don't want to help, and for purely political reasons. So the topic of conversation in Washington changes from "how do we win this fight?" to "how fast can we get out of it?" regardless of what will happen after we leave. It seems the only person in the nation's capital still interested in winning the fight in Iraq is President Bush. Democrats plan to hold a vote on a non-binding resolution demanding that Bush send no more troops to Iraq. A non-binding resolution means that it carries no actual force, being useful, therefore, only to our enemies as propaganda. If the Democrats feel so strongly about retreating from Iraq, then let them cut off funding, instead of merely holding symbolic votes.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) accused the President, who has already begun sending additional troops to help clear Baghdad of insurgents, of "moving so quickly to put them in harm's way" because he knew Congress would not cut of funding for them if they were already there. The Democrats want so badly to relive the end of Vietnam, when they forced the US to abandon Vietnam and cut funding to our allies, that they ignore what happened next, and what will surely happen again if they repeat that mistake.

Iraq is not Vietnam, despite the hysterical comparisons made every day in the media and by Democrats such as Ted Kennedy (D-MA). But those on the Left don't seem to mind if it becomes Cambodia, as long as they can use every death as political capital in their perpetual campaign season. If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, Iraq will become first an abattoir, then a client state of a radical rogue nation sworn to destroy us. If the Democrats allow that to happen, they would be at least irresponsible, if not derelict in their duty to the nation.

Well, the Democrats have been screaming for a "change of direction" in Iraq for ages, and it looks as though they're going to get one. The new direction they prefer, of course, is "away, at high speed, with tail tucked firmly between legs." Instead, they're getting a new focus on Baghdad as the center of Iraq's security problems, with special attention reserved for Iran's interference. In fact, it's becoming ever more likely that Iran will soon take its rightful place in the spotlight of the War on Terror.

Several things President Bush mentioned during his "surge" speech of 10 January 2006 were worth noting, aside from his plan to send five brigades -- about 17,500 troops -- to help the Iraqi government secure Baghdad. That alone resulted in howls of impotent outrage from the "cut-and-run" crowd. (Oddly enough, some of the same people upset over Bush's intention to send more troops to Iraq were calling for him to send more troops to Iraq a few short months ago.) The President referred to "too many restrictions on the troops," hinting that -- at last -- our troops will be allowed to fight the enemy, instead of having to contend with contradictory and crippling rules of engagement. He stated that "In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods." Well, it's about time.

The key to securing Baghdad -- and Iraq -- is Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. When he and his band of religious fanatics first formed their own militia and began enforcing their own laws with Iran's backing and support, al-Sadr should have been arrested. When the Iraqi government actually issued a warrant for him in 2004, al-Sadr should have been arrested. Now, al-Sadr controls a large section of Baghdad itself, and has enough followers in his Mahdi Army to pose a serious threat to the Iraqi government. He inserted himself into Iraqi politics, and may control a significant portion of Iraq if the Democrats get their way and we abandon the country. Moqtada al-Sadr is the single greatest threat to Iraqi security and, as such, must be treated like the enemy he is.

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki apparently agrees, in principle. He's offered al-Sadr a choice: disarm the Mahdi Army or face attack. Merely disarming the group, however, may not be enough. Something not mentioned in Bush's speech, but even more critical to the success of Iraq's future, was his promotion of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to the top military position in Iraq. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion of Iraq, literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency techniques. His most important task as overall commander may be dismantling the Mahdi Army one way or the other.

Another major change in the conduct of the war seems to have slipped right past the "mainstream" media. President Bush recently placed Admiral William Fallon in charge of CENTCOM. No one in the media seems to be asking why a Navy admiral would be placed in charge of all US forces in the Middle East. There is, of course, only one answer: Iran. Fallon's expertise in naval air power would be most useful against that country, if the use of force becomes necessary.

The change in tactics to focus on Iran has already begun. A raid on an Iranian "liason office" in Irbil, in northern Iraq, netted five members of a Revolutionary Guard faction "known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the government of Iraq and attack coalition forces," according the the US military. This appears to be only the first of many such actions designed to stop Iran's meddling in Iraq's affairs.

There's no guarantee that reducing Iran's interference in Iraq will lessen the violence and allow the elected government to expand its control. But it's a sure thing that allowing Iran to continue fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq is bad for the Iraqis... and for us. The "new direction" for the US in Iraq might just be towards the east.

The Ballad of Sandy Berger *

Come and listen to my tale about a sneaky little crime,
The perpetrator didn't do a single day of time.
When documents went missing from the Archive in DC,
It turned out they were stolen by a man they call Sandy.

Berger, that is.
Security Advisor.
Democratic star.

The moment that the story broke it went right off the air.
Bill Clinton told the media "hey, move away from there!"
We'll never know just what he tucked inside his pants, you see,
Or what the records would have done to Clinton's legacy.

History, that is.
Covering up mistakes.
Avoiding prosecution.

Now it's time to lay the blame for what ol' Sandy did.
Anyone who steals the past from us should be forbid
From ever getting clearance back for that locality
And should in fact be living in a penitentiary.

Federal, that is.
Stay a spell.
Make some new "friends."
Don't come out now, y'hear?

* sung to the tune of The Ballad of Jed Clampett, from the tv show "The Beverly Hillbillies"

Having taken control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, the Democrats proceeded to surpass even my own worst predictions concerning their domestic policies before they even took their seats. Raising the minimum wage will hurt the small businesses that create the most jobs and slow growth in larger companies. Forcing unions on Wal-Mart will result in America's largest private employer reducing its workforce. Creating State-run "free" healthcare will make Americans (especially those among the swelling ranks of the unemployed) more directly dependent on government benefits and therefore less likely to vote for politicians who promise to reduce those benefits. Refusing to fund border security and granting amnesty as well as government assistance (like Social Security) to illegal immigrants will create a massive new group of solidly Democrat voters. Manipulating the economy and national security to solidify their majority, however, is just an appetiser before the main course: taking the Presidency without the bothersome detail of winning an election.

Many on the Right reacted with glee to the news that professional mourner Cindy Sheehan stopped stalking President Bush long enough to lead a group in shouting down Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) as he held a press conference. The Democrats courted and supported these people in order to gain power, and now it's only fair that they have to put up with the incessant whining, right? But the situation isn't as simple (or as entertaining) as it seems on the surface. I believe Sheehan -- who once deserved sympathy, then pity, and now only scorn for her shameless manipulation of her son's death -- is being used to furnish an excuse for action against President Bush. And Sheehan stands to gain some credibility, too, by attacking someone besides Bush for a change.

Those who remember their Shakespeare (they still teach Shakespeare in schools, don't they?) may recognise in the press conference disruption an echo of Richard III. After having ruthlessly murdered or discredited everyone who stood between himself and the throne, Richard (then Duke of Gloucester) set up a scene in which he would be "forced" to accept the crown against his will by the desperate pleas of London's citizens, led by the mayor. The Duke of Buckingham, who hid his own followers among the crowd to manipulate it, advised him to look busy and refuse at first, but reluctantly acquiesce to the crowd's demand:

The mayor is here at hand: intend [express] some fear;
Be not you spoke with, but by mighty suit:
And look you get a prayer-book in your hand,
And stand betwixt two churchmen, good my lord;
For on that ground I'll build a holy descant:
And be not easily won to our request:
Play the maid's part, still answer nay, and take it.
- Richard III (Act III, scene vii)

Many of the things that seem to be going wrong for America today can be traced to an excess of political correctness -- if, indeed, that's not a redundant phrase. When tempered by confidence in one's self and culture, the desire not to offend others comes out as simple politeness. But when it gets out of control, as it does among Liberals, it becomes a need to prevent oneself from giving any possible hint of offense, combined with a desire to "make up" for any self-perceived racial or cultural advantage one may have, at any cost. Such desires can cause great harm to a person or a culture -- or even kill them.

It's political correctness that's causing us the most harm in the War on Terror, especially in Iraq. How can we win a war in which we're determined not to offend anyone, even the enemy? Political correctness caused us to treat Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr as an equal, back when his group of Iran-backed thugs was small enough to take out of the picture, if we'd had the political will. Now, he's a major player -- and a major problem.

In so many cases, our troops are not allowed to return fire when attacked from mosques, nor even from homes without a careful -- and often deadly -- investigation. Every action they take is dissected in detail, second-guessed by the "mainstream" media and those who seem to actually crave failure... and even used to prosecute them for doing their jobs. 

In Guantanamo Bay and other places, political correctness prevents us from interrogating captured enemy fighters. Instead, our troops feed them "culturally sensitive" meals and put on gloves before handling their Qur'ans -- giving in to their psychotic conviction that we are "unclean" and need to be converted or wiped out. The gloves are an ironic symbol of the delicate manner in which our soldiers are forced to treat the enemy both on and off the battlefield.

Political correctness prevents us from demanding that Iran and Syria stop shoveling funds, weapons and "foreign fighters" across their borders into Iraq as fast as they can move it all. In our zeal to treat international criminals like statesmen and elected leaders, we cripple ourselves. The leaders of Iran, in addition to supporting terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, are openly working on nuclear weapons and have declared their intention to wipe Israel off the map. Iranian clerics regularly call for the destruction of America, to the cheering of crowds. According to MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute):

Responding to the sermons, frenzied crowds of Iranians chant, "Death to America," "Death to England," and "Death to Israel," with the occasional "Death to Saddam." Other popular chants include "America will be annihilated," "Islam will be victorious," "Woe to the enemy if Khamenei commands me to wage jihad," and countless other curses against the West.

The sermons focus on threats against the "Great Satan," America, and the "Little Satan," Israel, and their coming collapse. Other themes are attacks on President Bush, praise for jihad and martyrdom, Iraq, and support for Iran's nuclear program.

The Nativity c.1653 by Jacob Jordaens (1593-1678)

It seems as though the first reaction of many people on both sides of the political fence to the news of Senator Tim Johnson's (D-SD) sudden illness was, "How will this affect the balance of power in the Senate? Oh, and I hope he's alright." The mainstream media ghouls injected the question of Democratic control into every other sentence when covering the story. On one popular Left-wing web site, for instance, "well-wishers" posted such sentiments as, "Nothing is going to take away our victory. Period," and "sd has a repug gov ... the thought of majority leader mcconnell would be a damper on ... our holidays" Frankly, I hope Senator Johnson's soon up and about, and back on duty when the Senate goes into session. 

First and foremost, it's immoral to hope a person suffers in order for one's "team" to make gains, whether we're discussing sports or politics. The Left may see people as pawns in a political game, but we should not sink to their level. Whatever his politics, Tim Johnson is a very sick man with a very worried family. Suffering a stroke, or whatever incapacitating event may have happened to him, is nothing short of a tragedy. I, for one, would not want Republicans gaining control of the Senate at such a price, even if that were to happen.

If Senator Johnson is unable to fulfill his duties, the Republican governor of South Dakota would likely appoint a Republican Senator to take Johnson's place for the remainder of his term. This would change the Senate from a Democratic majority to a 50-50 split, with all ties decided by Vice President Dick Cheney, who is also President of the Senate. All the ardent speculation, however, would be for nothing in the end anyway. Not only would Johnson's stepping down change nothing in reality, but hoping for it is demeaning and detrimental to everyone.

There would be no real gain for Republicans or Conservatives should the Senate be split evenly. The so-called "balance of power" would probably not shift an inch even if Governor Mike Rounds appointed the most fire-breathing Conservative in America (whoever the reader might think would fill that bill) to take Johnson's place. Democrats nearly always vote in lockstep, while too many Republicans vote with them all too often. The term RINO (Republican in Name Only) is familiar to those who follow politics, but there is no corresponding widely-used term like "DINO."

With 55 Republicans, the Senate still passed bills granting de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants, huge Medicare entitlements and massive pork-laden spending bills of all kinds. They failed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, had trouble confirming Federal judges at every level and were unable to even confirm John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations. What makes anyone think that 50 Republicans can do what 55 could not? It would only take one Republican siding with the Democrats to pass (or kill) nearly any bill. The problem is not the number of Republicans in the Senate (and the House, and the White House), it's the number of Conservatives, which is woefully inadequate.

For the next two years, Democratic politicians will be unable to hide behind the myth of "Republican control" when explaining their failures to their far-Left base. The Democrats are now in the open, in control of both Houses, with nowhere to run. They have to switch from the party of obstruction to the party of action... and there are so few actions that will satisfy all the members of the fractured coalitions that vote Democrats into office.

I'll be damned, to make a bad pun, before I sell my soul for mere politics, especially when any gain would be a purely nominal one. I wish Senator Johnson a speedy and full recovery, for human as well as political reasons, and hope you all do the same.

Hat tip to Wuzzadem for the comments from Daily Kos and other sites.

The only conclusion a reasonable person can draw upon reading the report released by the much-touted Iraq Study Group is, "what a colossal waste of time." The last event that failed so miserably to live up to its own hype was Samuel L. Jackson's dismal failure, "Snakes on a Plane" (during which I openly rooted for the snakes). Watching James Baker and Lee Hamilton issuing fatuous, self-congratulatory statements about how their recommendations are the greatest ideas ever put on paper because they represent a consensus makes one wonder who the snakes really are this time.

The group, consisting of five Republicans (including former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) and five Democrats, was sponsored by the United States Institute for Peace. By the nature of its deliberately bipartisan structure, it was not possible for the group to come up with anything but a compromise report-by-committee. When one takes into account the fact that the group was comprised of politicians, Beltway insiders and lawyers -- with not a member of the military or a real expert on Middle East affairs among them -- its real aim becomes clear.

The ISG was formed to come up with a purely political short-term solution to a problem that is neither short-term nor purely political in nature, which ultimately recommended sacrificing Iraq and Israel to save the careers of bureaucrats, administrators and politicians back home. It's an attempt to return to the "realpolitik" of yesteryear, when we weren't supposed to care that America-hating dictators controlled whole countries, as long as they made nice at the United Nations and kept the unrest out of the news. The fact that the members of the ISG agreed on the report's recommendations seems more important than the unfortunate reality that they're self-contradictory, defeatist and -- if implemented -- would affirm that the US is weak, vacillating and unable (or unwilling) to fulfill its commitments. It doesn't take a genius to see that this would have the same effect on our enemies as gasoline on a fire.

The way the ISG danced around the question of US troop withdrawal is typical of "recommendation by committee." The ISG analysis stated that its members are against setting a timetable for US withdrawal, but recommended that US combat troops should be out of Iraq by the first quarter of 2008. However, the ISG conceded that any withdrawal plan would be "subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground." And in order to promote security, the group recommended we "significantly increase" the number of American troops and military personnel in Iraq. So, did the ISG recommend increasing troops, decreasing troops, setting a withdrawal timetable or not? The answer is "E) All of the above."

Iraqi president Jalal Talabani condemned the ISG report, saying it "is not fair, is not just, and it contains some very dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and the constitution." Isn't that the opposite effect from that which the ISG report was supposed to achieve? Or was the future of Iraq and its people not a factor in the group's calculations?

On the other hand, the Iranian government just loved the report. And why not? The ISG recommended that America beg help from Iran and its client state Syria to stop the violence in Iraq... which has been encouraged, funded and supplied by Iran and Syria from the beginning. The PLO also loved the report. What's not to love? In order to stop the violence between Sunni and Shi'a, the ISG stated that Israel must surrender the Golan Heights to Syria and guarantee the "right of return" to Palestinians -- in other words, Israelis must give those who have sworn to destroy their nation and kill them all free access. I'm surprised the ISG didn't recommend that the Israelis must supply Hizballah with better rockets while they were at it. Are there really Iraqis shooting at each other because Syria doesn't own the Golan Heights?

The ISG did offer a detailed, if somewhat pessimistic, analysis of the various problems Iraq faces, but it contained nothing that wasn't already available on the internet. They pointed out that only four of Iraq's eighteen provinces are "highly insecure" -- though they are home to roughly 40% of Iraq's population. The ISG also correctly noted that the violence in Baghdad is largely between Sunni and Shi'a, while the problems elsewhere are mostly attributable to Sunni groups, some of whom are cooperating with al-Qaeda and other terrorist elements. Criminal and gang activity contribute to the violence in both instances. This ought to come as a shock to the "mainstream" media, which usually portrays Iraq as though the entire country were involved in a civil war. One might as well consider racially-motivated violence between Los Angeles street gangs evidence that California is in a state of "civil war."

The ISG suggestions and recommendations generally fell into three categories: those which are already being done, those which would cause more problems than they would solve, and those which are pure fantasy. "The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades," is an example of the first category. In order to accomplish that goal, however, the ISG suggested we "significantly increase" the number of American troops and military personnel in Iraq. That may well fit into the second category of recommendations, as increasing the US footprint is likely to increase the Iraqi government's dependency on American troops.

The third category includes such finger-wagging admonishments to regional powers as, "Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation," and "Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq." Well, of course they should. The ISG members must have imagined Iran's President Ahmadinejad slapping his forehead and exclaiming, "Well, gosh! Why didn't I think of that?" If the rulers of Iran and Syria wanted to respect Iraq's sovereignty and promote national reconciliation, they would have been doing so for the past three years, instead of funding and supplying religious gangsters like Moqtada al-Sadr and his Merry Mahdi Army.

Overall, the report would be a recipe for disaster if its recommendations were implemented. One suggestion reads: "If the Iraqi government demonstrates political will and makes substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should make clear its willingness to continue training, assistance, and support for Iraq's security forces and to continue political, military, and economic support. If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government." So, according to the ISG, all the enemy has to do is keep up the bombing to topple the Iraqi government by causing us to abandon it.

Aside from the ISG's ludicrous belief that what Iraqis are really concerned about is the fate of the Palestinians, its worst recommendation is an insistence on talks with Iran and Syria, forming a "support group" of local countries to help Iraq's democratic government. The members of the ISG seem not to understand that aside from Turkey, none of the countries in Iraq's neighborhood are even close to being democracies, and all have a vested interest in seeing a democratic Iraqi government -- and, by extension, the United States -- fail. The members of the ISG want us to believe a fantasy that the dictators and tyrants of those countries really want to help Iraq, but just don't know how.

Those who favor the sort of policy offered by the Baker-Hamilton commission's report consider themselves the "realists" of foreign affairs. The only real thing is the trouble in which we will find ourselves, should the kind of thinking that turned a blind eye to Saddam and his ilk all those years once again creep into control of our foreign policy.