Ho No Ho Chi Minh!

Listened to "Fox News Sunday" this afternoon on the satellite radio while driving home (temporarily home) from the new home in D.C. During Chris Wallace's excellent interview with Secretary of War Crimes Donald Runsaground, I heard a new GOP talking point twice. Rummy said twice that the Iraqi insurgency has no central leader, "no Ho Chi Minh or Mao."

I was wondering how, exactly, we know this, given that U.S. intelligence on the insurgency is so poor, at least, that is my opinion from what is publicly known. Couldn't there be a Mao that we don't know about? I mean, maybe we found this out when our military officers met with insurgency leaders. But Rummy was very reluctant to answer questions about that, that's for sure.

But on an even deeper level, isn't this evidence, yet again, that our leaders being stuck in the Cold War? Does every insurgency need an ideological leader? Maybe a Communist movement does, but . . . maybe local warlords, clerics, and assorted others are enough to start a Lebanon-style civil war? Just thinking in type, there.

BTW, Wallace asked Rummy some hard questions. Even a few follow-ups. It was an excellent interiew. Wallace deserves some kudos. But not Brit Hume. His comments in the panel discussion could have been typed up for him by Scott McClellan. And what's up with Bill Kristol, criticizing the administration twice in one panel discussion? Fault lines showing in the Republican monolith?