Discretion is the better, safer, most strategic part of valor.

We’ve already begun seeing specific examples of strategic harm from the post-bin Laden leaks. In June, Pakistan arrested several individuals who allegedly provided information to the CIA in advance of the raid. One of those charged with treason was a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi. This Sunday, Mr. Panetta confirmed to “60 Minutes” that Dr. Afridi had provided “very helpful” intelligence to the CIA. That may have condemned Dr. Afridi to death or life imprisonment.

Such disclosures are catastrophic to U.S. intelligence networks, which often take years to develop. Recklessness not only puts lives at risk but could set U.S. intelligence-collection efforts back decades. Our ability to carry out future operations is significantly degraded—something not lost on Pakistan.

If terrorists refuse to abide by the rules of war, I am ok with using drones, but not without a little sickness in my stomach.

David Petraeus is now the head of the CIA and will be going up to testify before congress on some of their complaints. Here are some quotes from the story which is worth a read.

Some also complain that Petraeus has failed to adequately explain why the pace of CIA drone missile attacks in Pakistan has dropped since he took over the spy service in September.

…..

Some officials close to the agency praise major espionage operations he has approved but say he has clashed with senior officers at the counter-terrorism center, a powerful fiefdom inside the agency that helps run the covert drone war.

Those officers are frustrated by the drop-off in drone strikes in Pakistan, including an undeclared two-month moratorium that ended Jan. 11, according to several current and former U.S. officials. In interviews, one member of Congress and four senior aides from the House and Senate committees said they were upset as well.

……

The CIA has launched 17 drone strikes in Pakistan since Petraeus took over last September, including three this month, according to the New America Foundation, a think tank that tracks reported attacks. That was down from an average of two a week under Panetta, who authorized 215 drone attacks in just over two years.

But critics in the CIA’s counter-terrorism center have told allies on Capitol Hill that the fall-off has reduced pressure on Al Qaeda.

1) Shouldn’t drones be used to kill actual targets and not just to “pressure” Al Qaeda?
2) How can Congresspeople complain about the number of drone strikes without knowing the number of enemy sitings by drones?
3) While understanding that I don’t much care about Pakistani feelings, I would be curious if fewer drone strikes equated to more help on the ground, but actual Pakistan experience is not part of the story at all.

My neighbors deal drugs. I know it, the police know it, the rest of the neighborhood knows it. Let’s say that we decided to get serious with the war on drugs and the police started sweeping up all who were involved with these people in mass arrests. No trials, just imprisonment. (no not drone death) I would be a sweepee as I interact with these folks just like with my other neighbors. (ok – in all honesty I’m a hermit, but while taking out the trash or weeding the garden we share pleasantries)

That’s what I feel about drones. The fewer that are needed, the better off we are. They have a place, but just because they have been reduced does not make me question the leadership of someone like David Petraeus.

It’s about anyone but the standard GOP politician. Both Democrats and Republicans think that the Tea Party burned out during the last election with their mistakes. (Dan Maes anyone?) And while back in the majority in half of one house, many have forgotten that the GOP owes their majority to these people and the life they have generated. (Thank you Mr. Boehner for not having forgotten.)

Throughout the primaries the people who led at different times have been those with some life and excitement to them. (Still miss you Mr. Cain…) That’s why Huntsman never got his day in the sun and why Santorum probably won’t either. (Mr. Santorum’s 3 year old daughter is in the hospital today. Prayers/thoughts go out to their family.)

Newt is flawed. Rather, Newt is a loony. But he’s got life. He’s got ideas. He has the ability to use words in ways that show (at this moment) that he’s not ashamed of being a Republican. He’s happy to apologize for his mistakes vs spin them into a blahpoliticalsandwich. (or so it seems now)

I think he will screw up because he is a loon. His go to paradigm is more government, not less. And apparently he’s got a thing against rich people now. But I still like him.

Romney, is starting to finally shows signs of a pulse and I hope that Newt gives him enough palpatations for a long enough time that his muscle memory is in place by the time he has earned a nomination. Until then the GOP should also be scared.

UPDATE:
A Firefly shoutout from the National Review’s Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty:

I’d like to see all agricultural subsidies eliminated, but the votes aren’t there (at least for now) and proposing the policy would make any candidate toxic and unelectable in big chunks of the country. I’d like to see a grade-A candidate in the GOP field, but instead we’ve got a bunch of B minuses, C pluses, and below. I’d like to see Firefly back on the air, but it’s not popular or cost-effective enough.

He’s a Romney guy and ends his jolt with a real jolt:

Then there’s his (Romney’s) inability to emotionally connect with people. Suppose he wins the nomination, and the lousy economy renders Obama’s second term unacceptable to America. Will we be better off with a President Romney who has a lot of irked conservatives not quite behind him, and little if any demonstrated ability to speak from his gut and move the hearts and minds of the people he seeks to lead? The agenda of cutting government, cutting the budget, reducing the debt, entitlement reform — all of these require persuading Americans to make hard choices, and overcome the default “gimme, gimme, gimme” view of government that many voters have. Would a President Romney be capable of leading in that fashion?

Sign up here for these

UPDATE 2: And then there is this.
From the WSJ.

Mr. Santorum was passionate in insisting that Mr. Romney’s defense will collapse in a debate with President Obama, and the candidate would be wide open to attack. “Folks, we can’t give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom,” he said.

(worth a full read)
I was appalled by the mandate back in 2006 when Romney first put it in. Those in the establishment – including Newt – were not. A conservative’s first response should be towards more freedom, always. How is it that I – a clear moderate – can see that, while these presidential candidates do not?

This link has a couple of videos talking about a potential law that came from some viral videos dated 2008 taken at New Iberia research center in Louisiana.

New Iberia of course is insisting that it’s soooo important to do research on chimps even though 80% of the chimps there are not involved in research.

The facility seems to have made some changes concerning chimp care, but what gets me is that care of their chimps in the most natural way possible was NOT their first thought. Other researchers consider chimps to be similar to books in a library. (many aren’t used, but when you need one, you need it handy)

Freedom first should really be the go to attitude concerning all sentient beings. And yes – that would be all living creatures, humans, mice, chimps, even insects. Yes we will have our wars and I am happy to spray deet and eat a deer. To use sentient beings for research is torture for the subjects and should not be allowed. Chimps especially.

This from a commenter over there at WTF of the Day:

So shall we recap the recent “discoveries”?

Fried food: not as bad as they said.

Cholesterol: not as bad as they said.

Salt: not as bad…

Oats: not particularly beneficial.

Second hand smoke: not as bad…

Why are these pronouncements of doom given any creedence by anyone anymore? It’s just like all the Gore-bull warming crap, the CFC scare, DDT, etc., etc., etc.

I’m pretty sure I could live a pretty content life if I didn’t have to hear from another “expert” about anything, least of all one employed and/or empowered by the federal government!

I started reading the Gary Taubs book “Good Calories, Bad Calories” and am amazed at how similar our food warnings/definitions/rules/priorities are like the man made Global Warming warnings. One flawed study back in the way back went mainstream and every study after that just followed from that basic yet potentially flawed premise.

Wired magazine (probably a ht to Maggie’s Farm…I can’t remember) has a very good article on the limits of science as we move from simple systems/answers to completely complex things. (picture moving from the study of an ant to the study of the ant’s entire watershed) Bold is mine:

This assumption—that understanding a system’s constituent parts means we also understand the causes within the system—is not limited to the pharmaceutical industry or even to biology. It defines modern science. In general, we believe that the so-called problem of causation can be cured by more information, by our ceaseless accumulation of facts. Scientists refer to this process as reductionism. ……………
he truth is, our stories about causation are shadowed by all sorts of mental shortcuts. Most of the time, these shortcuts work well enough. They allow us to hit fastballs, discover the law of gravity, and design wondrous technologies. However, when it comes to reasoning about complex systems—say, the human body—these shortcuts go from being slickly efficient to outright misleading.

(no, I haven’t decided)

White House Releases Information to News Outlet Previously Withheld from Congress

January 25, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Leading members of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee are formally requesting that the White House turn over internal memoranda previously kept shrouded from Congress and the public’s view after the information was disclosed to The New Yorker for a January 30, 2012, article entitled, “The Obama Memos.” For more than two years, members of the Energy and Commerce Committee have sought access to this information, which details previously undisclosed tactics the Obama administration employed in conjunction with special interest groups as it was working to pass the controversial health care law. The members wrote yesterday to outgoing White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley and Chief of Staff Designee Jacob Lew reiterating previous requests for information and expressing concern that this information would be shared extensively with a single member of the news media, but that Congress and the American public had been denied the same ability to understand how critical – and controversial – decisions were made in crafting the law.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts (R-PA), Health Subcommittee Vice-Chair Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (R-TX), and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) wrote:

“The White House has consistently refused our legitimate requests for information regarding this important piece of legislation, notwithstanding the fact that the President promised many times during the 2008 presidential campaign that the meetings and debates on any health care legislation would be broadcast to the public, and once in office promised to run the most open and transparent administration in history.

“It is outrageous that despite our multiple efforts to obtain information about the negotiations and deals entered into by the White House, Congress has only been provided with material previously made publicly available, while the administration selectively provides such information to The New Yorker.

“Finally, while the White House has so far studiously avoided asserting executive privilege and has simply refused to provide the requested information, by voluntarily providing this information to a reporter the White House has waived any right to refuse production of these materials based on claims of privilege. The White House should provide these documents to Congress immediately.”

The members requested the White House provide these memoranda by February 1.