Dennis Byrne invokes H.G. Wells to illustrate libs’ foot-dragging in the War on Islamofascism:

In H.G. Wells’ “Time Machine,” the helplessly fattened Eloi spend most of their time waiting around their pleasant surroundings to be snatched away by cannibal Morlocks. Those succulent pinkish Eloi who luckily aren’t invited for dinner this time can only wait their turn, not so much in fear, but–simpletons that they are–in resigned ignorance.

Though he wrote it more than 100 years ago, Wells nonetheless had many of today’s Americans nailed. Today’s Eloi are Americans whose only “strategy” for dealing with the dreadful and grisly terrorist assaults on us is to pull back and wait for the next one.

He also gives a hard-copy hat tip to “blogger Jim Bowman” (me) for putting him on to the liberal Brookings Institution’s “Iraq Index”

to my knowledge, the most comprehensive statistical compilation of Iraqi conditions, tracking economic, public opinion and security data. While partisans make sweeping assumptions about what are factual questions, the periodic report lays out such comparative data as pre-war and current levels of telephone and water service, unemployment, Iraq security forces, troop facilities and coalition strength.

I won’t try to characterize the report one way or another, except to say that those blind to any good news will be surprised.

It’s of course an answer to such attempted rebuttals of an earlier Byrne column as the letter from Mt. Prospect suggesting Chi Trib send Byrne to Iraq and offering to pay his way back, which with its opening faux statement of agreement manages to be snide enough.  But it turns out the Brookings Institution, a liberal organization, has been keeping track and Byrne, who tipped his hat in the earlier column to war correspondents, needn’t go there.  Is that good enough for Mt. Prospect?  We do not know.

Chicken colonels we have heard of — full colonels with big bird insigne, versus Light Colonels, the lieutenant variety — but chicken generals?  This is what Judith Apter Klinghoffer thinks, as she says at George Mason University’s History News Network, and may all my rants be as articulate:

I am writing in the hope of lowering my blood pressure. Islamists around the world are on a rampage and all the media focus is on retired generals who did not dare confront their superiors or even tell the truth to the president when asked to do so in the most direct manner.

I have called for Rumsfeld’s replacement months ago but that is besides the point. For the generals to attack the Secretary of Defense on the issue of troop numbers in Iraq in 2003 is ridiculous. I want to know whether they think we need more troops in Iraq today or tomorrow. To hear two and three star generals whine that Rumsfeld is too intimidating causes one to ask who else can so easily intimidate them? Are we talking perhaps of the insurgents, Ahmadinejad, Assad Fils, the North Korean or China? Imagine being a soldier who has served under the command of so easily intimidated a general. Their retired generals’ contention that they are speaking for their active duty colleagues merely makes matters worse.

On This Week Joe Klein, whom no one can accuse of being a Bush fan, said that Bush repeatedly asked the generals in Iraq if they had everything they needed and they repeatedly assured him they did. But when Jerry Bremer asked them what they would do with an additional division, they said, we’d clear Baghdad. Excuse me? The American army in Iraq does not have a single general with enough guts to respond to the president’s question with “depends on what you want us to do?”

Sorry, guys, civil control of the military is not our problem. Gutless military leadership is.

I will quote and endorse Instapundit, who linked this:

Ouch.

There continues to be plenty of good news to be found in Iraq. The Iraqi army continues to take over responsibility for more battle space, al Qaeda continues to take a beating, and rebuilding of the country is progressing. Moreover, the Iraqi economy is improving, and has doubled in the last three years.

says  Bill Crawford at National Review Online.  This in view of the “enormous publicity” given the dissident generals deserves our attention.  Try a colonel for the other side of the issue, woefully missing as usual from MSM.

Colonel William Grimsley commanded the brigade that first took control of Baghdad Airport. Three years on he remains optimistic about the country’s future:

Grimsley, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Combat Brigade Team during the opening days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, said history — not current events — will tell the true story of Iraq’s metamorphosis.

And that story will show how Iraq ultimately emerged from almost 40 years of a regime that ignored the people’s needs and undermined its potential, Grimsley, now a military assistant to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said during an interview with American Forces Press Service and the Pentagon Channel.

And a major:

Major Kevin Carter just returned from Iraq, and shares this assessment:

Carter believes not enough attention is being paid to the progress being made by Iraqis in taking control of their country. He said the people of Iraq are grateful Saddam Hussein has been overthrown.

“I was told by an Iraqi that only two things could get rid of Saddam, the United States or Allah. I will never forget that,” Charter said. “An Iraqi officer told me that if we just up and left the country would implode. They are so grateful for us being there and toppling Saddam. Even the Sunnis, who benefited under Saddam, thanked us.”

And  a Marine serving with an Iraqi unit:

“Everybody hears about all the car bombs in Baghdad and how many people got shot. Those things are reality — I don’t want to downplay them. But there’s a lot of good things happening,” he said.

And there’s more more more, for 2,800 words in all, for gosh sake.  But alas, how few people talk this way at Billy Goat’s or at parties?  I swear, they’re Gnostics: They just know how things are, that’s all.

It’s how banana republics do it, says Charles Krauthammer on Fox, who thinks civilian control of our military is at issue here (though I remember taking a general’s anti-Clinton comments seriously and being corrected by reader John Kearney).  In any case, here’s something about it that might counter today’s Chi Trib takeout for some of you:

As retired generals peddle their books and their critiques of our war policy, national security correspondent Douglas Hanson and military historian John B. Dwyer confront them with some awkward history.

Hanson, in part:

These criticisms are nothing new.  [General Anthony] Zinni long ago joined the ranks of retired flag officers who voiced opposition* to a war that they felt was based on intelligence manipulated by the administration.  In addition, Zinni and Cold War-era techno-military author Tom Clancy expanded on this notion of flawed pre-war intelligence to proclaim that there was no casus belli for war with Iraq.

Zinni took over CENTCOM in 8/97, pursuing “engagement” with corrupt Middle Eastern rulers as our only alternative because we had no intelligence apparatus there worth diddly-squat.  In 2/2000 he told a Senate committee Iraq was the region’s biggest problem, it was probably doing WMD research and already had stocks of same, peace with Iraq was unlikely, WMD use was a definite problem, bin Laden et al. were in the market for WMD.

How did he know all this?  Handing CENTCOM command over to Gen. Tommy Franks, who asked about enemy threats in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility, he said, “I wish I could tell you.” 

[W]hat changed between Zinni’s Senate testimony and his handover briefing to Gen. Franks?  Why had he been so confident of the enemy situation in February of 2000 and a short while later, complained of a woeful intelligence picture?  In reality, Zinni had been right all along.  Yet, the charge of a lack of a casus belli persists even with the release of the tens of thousands of documents seized in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  These recordings and papers actually confirm Zinni’s earlier warnings about Saddam and his relationship with Al-Qaeda and Iraq’s pursuit of WMD.

Zinni was right, then; but years later, the President’s rationale for going to war was wrong.  Why?

There’s more, as in this about Zinni’s lucrative post-military career that drew on his engagement with Middle East rulers:

ISLAMABAD, Oct 7 [2003]: Former US Centcom chief, General Anthony Zinni, is arriving here on Oct 24 in his capacity as a director of a multinational company which wants to invest in Pakistan’s telecommunication industry.

A Pakistani-American who is a partner in Gen Zinni’s company, claims that the initial investment will be between $120 million to $150 million that might expand to $5 billion over a period of 10 years.

And in Zinni’s citing five Jewish “neocons” in 2004 as goading us to our pro-Israel policy — “key ideologues who caused this war to occur” — on “60 Minutes.”

And that Zinni and the others rose “mostly” in the Clinton era, as noted by the improbably named blogger YARGB (Yet Another Really Great Blog):

“Why is that important? Because, while progression through the rank of Colonel is more or less based upon military performance, elevation to flag rank is by direct presidential appointment. They are, in a sense, Clinton appointees.”

There’s a long history of that, says one comment-writer, recalling Lincoln’s demotion of Gen. McClellan, who then ran against him.  This is politics.  Zinni and the others are making political moves here.

But the Chicago newspaper reader — and WLS-TV news watcher, who heard Ron Magers deliver the mainstream information dispassionately — should wonder why there is nothing in his or her daily papers to indicate any doubts about Zinni’s or other generals’ complaints about Rumsfeld.  There is only reporting what they say and assessing political damage to Bush, who “dug in his heels,” Trib says, in refusing to dump him.

Is that fair and balanced?

“Low circulation can be attributed to opinion piece newspaper stories which function as news stories, which in turn produce negative responses from those of us who are out-of-step with newspaper propaganda,” says reader  NJT, who might have had in mind yesterday’s Chi Trib top-of-page-one article, “Military options against Iran carry big risks: Strategic [sic: Strategy] and policy experts analyze tactics available–and possible retaliation–if the U.S. launches an attack designed to thwart Tehran’s nuclear ambitions,” which typically preaches to the pacifist choir and is wholly one-sided. 

It also assumes we know war on Iran is being planned.  That may be all the buzz in the Washington bureau, but some readers would appreciate more stage-setting.  And this is aimed at readers, we presume.

We read that “analysts suggest” and “analysts describe” and even the flaccid “experts said,” which are standard newspaper thumb-sucking lingo but means analysts and experts the Trib thought worth asking or reading about or some or many or most analysts, or . . . what?  Trib puts us at its mercy, relying on our considering it trustworthy; hence the preaching to choir.  But if there are no or few analysts who contradict what they report, we should be told that.  Part of mainstreamers’ problem is how fuzzy they get in such matters.  Fuzzy writing means fuzzy thinking means who cares?

As for stage-setting, not till paragraph 7 do we read

While President Bush this week dismissed the idea of military action against Iran as “wild speculation,” he did not deny reports that the administration is developing plans for air strikes and has long said all options are on the table.

This belonged farther up, even as the lead, if only for stage-setting purposes.  But wait: “wild speculation” in a subordinate clause, the “while” clause?  This isn’t more important that that as background to Trib’s presumably unwild speculation?

(While we’re at it — during the time — how about dispensing with the all-purpose “while” when we mean “although”?  It’s clearer and more honest.  And make your “while” clause the main clause, and introduce the next clause with “but.”  Two independent clauses, one countering the other.  Readers would appreciate it.)

Here’s another paragraph (12th) that belongs much higher up:

Public pronouncements from the White House have laid the rhetorical groundwork for the use of military force. In January, Bush described a nuclear-armed Iran as “a grave threat to the security of the world,” words reminiscent of the language he used before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

OK.  Now at least we know what this editorial (sorry, news analysis) is driving at.  It’s followed by Cheney saying “meaninful consequences” should follow Iranian refusal to abandon its nuclear program.  Then several ‘graphs that say how all this might be just diplomatic talk, etc. 

Oh boy.  1,500 words and there we are, much ado about what?  And where are the analysts who contradict the editorial (oops, news analysis) thrust?  Trust us, says Chi Trib.  But it gets harder by the day.

Tribune Co.’s first-quarter earnings dropped 28 percent, pulled down by onetime charges as well as the ongoing drag of sagging circulation and weakening advertising revenue

Trib reported 11:37 this morning.  It’s a shame.  No matter how hard the editors try to be relevant to their shrinking readership, as with yesterday’s sushi-connection story about Rev. Moon’s church — a “quirky” story, said one reader, an expose of a “fascist” religion, said another — they can’t keep profits up. 

Wait!  Yesterday’s story has nothing to do with the first quarter, which ended March 31, dummy.  Sorreeeeeeee.  Wait till June 30.  It will show.

Coming up, maybe . . . maybe . . . please . . .  a Chi Trib expose of Islamofascism as shouted from imam pulpits all over this land of ours, including the Chicago metropolitan area.  Now there’s religious fascism for you.

Although few seafood lovers may consider they’re indirectly supporting Moon’s religious movement, they do just that when they eat a buttery slice of tuna or munch on a morsel of eel in many restaurants. True World is so ubiquitous [sic: it’s either ubiquitous or not, you don’t compare “ubiquitous”] that 14 of 17 prominent Chicago sushi restaurants surveyed by the Tribune said they were supplied by the company.  [Oh no!]