Fire Abizaid: It's Time For Him to Go

After watching Army General John Abizaid testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I think it's time for him to step down as the head of CentCom, the US Central Command. General Abizaid seems to prefer the status quo, and that, for the US and for Iraqi civilians, is unacceptable.

Abizaid was reluctant to consider any other options to help the military get a handle on the situation there. And that is disappointing. Abizaid said more troops wouldn't help speed a proposed redeployment plan, was reluctant to consider timelines with enforceable benchmarks as an option. Abizaid even insisted that the situation in Iraq was much better than it was in August.

To suggest that commander on the ground be removed is a harsh step. Our strategy for Iraq must change, and we need a new guy to make it happen. Until we bring on someone who is willing to consider every possible option, we are just wasting lives and time.

Read more about it at The Washington Post.

Rahm's Lullaby

Read the full story at The House That Rahm Built from the Chicago Tribune

Rahm Emanuel has supplanted Karl Rove as "the Architect" with the stunning Democratic sweep of House seats in the last week's election. But as the article by Naftali Bendavid in the Chicago Tribune makes clear, central to Emanuel's renovation of the party were a slash and burn, take no prisoners attitude that sometimes rubbed friends and foes the wrong way.

During the long sleepless nights of the campaign, Bendavid's chronicle shows us that Rahm's lullaby was not a tune you could easily sing and was likely to be laced with expletives, epithets and worse. But he got the job done.

Political junkies -- we know who we are -- will liken this up close and personal account to the documentary "War Room" about the Bill Clinton run for the White House in 1992. I hope Mr. Bendavid has enough information for a book. But his article will whet your appetite for now. A simply fascinating read.

Ed Bradley, CBS News

Ed Bradley passed away today. We will miss him.

If you need to ask, "Ed Who?" you must be either very, very young or have never owned a television or radio. Ed Bradley was (and will remain) a pillar of American journalism -- or for that matter of journalists everywhere.

If you watched 60 Minutes, you were rewarded everytime Ed Bradley reported. No matter who he interviewed, no matter what the topic, no matter where the story took him, Ed Bradley delivered quality reporting. Despite his nickname of "Easy Ed," he could be tough, and didn't cotton to being pushed around. Those of us who remember him on the floor of the Chicago Democratic Convention in 1972, remember him bellowing for cops and security guards to "get your @#$%@#$@#$@ hands off of me," as Mayor Richard Daley's (father, not the son) stormtroopers tried to manhandle Bradley out of the building (score: Bradley 1, cops 0). All caught on live TV.

We also remember Ed reporting from Vietnam, in particular a shot of him hunkered down in the jungle as a helicopter was lifting off behind him. And we remember him bringing us intriguing profiles of musicians and actors and sports legends; not the typical celebrity fluff of say, a Barbara Walters, but personal, intimate visits that didn't need to resort to gimmicky questions ("If you could be a tree..."), but painted beautiful portraits and left us feeling that we knew both Ed and his subject better.

And for those of us with brown faces and kinky hair, Ed was a symbol of what we could achieve. He was a hero. He was on CBS, man. CBS network! And if Ed could do it, so could we. We trusted Walter Cronkite, but Ed was one of us. He wore a 'fro when it was in, sported an earring, and facial hair. He could be street-wise and hip, or genteel and elegant. And it never looked contrived or phony. It was just Ed. I know I wanted Ed Bradley to get the anchor chair when Walter Cronkite retired, because he certainly proved he was more than capable. And I never missed an Ed Bradley segment on 60 Minutes. They were -- he was -- the best.

Ed Bradley was a consummate journalist. There will be other good journalists. But there will never be another Ed Bradley.

The Dukes of Haggard

Ted Haggard was fired from his church over the weekend after their investigation -- still on-going -- confirmed that he had committed some "sexually immoral acts." Haggard sent his congregation a letter that was read to them at Sunday services "confessing" his sins. In particular he speaks of his "dark side" and giving in to some "repulsive" behaviors throughout his adulthood.

Reading between the lines, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals seems to be confessing to be gay all of his adult life and trying to suppress it by marrying a woman and having five children.

I wonder if he gets the irony of his situation: this staunch opponent to gays and gay marriage would be leading a much happier life if he was open to his authentic self -- a gay man -- and married to his authentic partner -- another gay man.

I hope his former congregants will look deep inside themselves and ask whether all this vitriol over gay rights is worth it. A gay man led them, convinced them to join his church, ministered to them on Sundays, fellowshipped with them at other times, joined them in matrimony, baptized their children, laughed with them when they were happy, cried with them when they were sad, helped them bury their dead. They liked him, they followed him. If they answer truthfully the answer would be, "No, it's not worth it."

Saddam Verdict Nothing to Celebrate

The verdict in the Saddam Hussein show trial is nothing to celebrate. I know that few will agree with that statement today, but I expect those opinions to change. Perhaps in the coming weeks, we may be able to soberly reflect upon what this verdict means and how it will affect the US.

If we wanted to insure that Saddam Hussein was justly tried for any crimes against humanity he may have committed, he should have been remanded to the Hague, where a world court would have heard his case. He would have been adequately represented by counsel. His accusers and other witnesses could have testified openly. His lawyers and judges would not have been kidnapped and murdered. He would not have been tried by a Shiite court looking for revenge against a deposed Sunni leader.

But that is not what happened. And that mistake, made once again by the Bush administration, will lead to something bad happening here. As retribution for this farce they would like to call a "fair and balanced" trial.

If Saddam Hussein committed war crimes. crimes against humanity, or other grave offenses, he should have been tried like Slobodan Milosevic, the former president of Yugoslavia and Serbia. At the Hague, Hussein could have railed against the system all he wanted, at least the system would have been a fair one.

I know you will not hear me now. But if you are afraid of another terrorist attack on the US in the future, this trial will have been the catalyst. Perhaps Mr. Bush will get smart and have Saddam "renditioned" out of Iraq.