AP Fair and Balanced Report on the Second Amendment

Caught this at SayUncle, and I'm frankly bewildered. It really is a fair article.

SayUncle has a point about this quote should scare you:

Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment’s language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?

“That’s quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary,” Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. “If we decide that it’s no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?”

Though the quote above on the argument strikes me as a bit of relief:

"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.

"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."

Well, it will be interesting.

Iraq Study Group Surrender Monkeys

Funny how the news has pushed the extreme views for the report to the front. The voices calling for complete implementation of the report charged into the press along side those calling Baker and Hamilton "Surrender Monkeys." Here's Baker's reponse in the Washington Times.

Beneath that wartime headline are two shaggy crouched monkeys with the faces of Mr. Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton.

"Lovely," he said as he took the paper in his hands and reviewed it closely.

"If we're getting attacked by this rag, you know we're doing something right," he said.

In any case, the title linked article discusses the Senate's hearing with testimony from Baker and Hamilton.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said he plans to hold a series of hearings on Iraq soon after becoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee next month when Democrats take control of Congress, and he said he is prepared to use subpoenas to get relevant documents from the Pentagon.

Wonderful. Levin is already starting the investigations. Wonder how far he'll push this? Investigate and detail all the mistakes no doubt, and publish them for political purposes. I'd give him more credit for trying to help in making the military better, but he's a politician, and that would only be a tertiary result.

Democrats were guarded in their treatment of the report, especially its call for engaging Syria and Iran in diplomacy. In comments after a hearing yesterday with the co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group, Levin suggested that "there could be some kind of effort to generally support the recommendations."

But Republicans and Democrats alike on the Senate Armed Services panel quizzed former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) about specifics. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was the most dubious, singling out the group's decision not to call for sending more troops to Iraq. "I believe that this is a recipe that will lead to, sooner or later, our defeat in Iraq," he said.

Another leading presidential aspirant, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), was more receptive but expressed doubt that President Bush would act on the report. "We've now heard from the Iraq Study Group, but we need the White House to become the Iraq Results Group," she said. "That is very frustrating for some of us. We don't understand the misjudgments and missteps that have been taken in the last years."

There are two surprises to know one. McCain whining about not getting his way on rushing in 100,000 new troops, and Clinton not understanding. Nice though how she puts the judgments and steps as being misjudgments and missteps. How much should one really trust their analysis? Both posturing for presidential runs and both opinionated asses. Guess I'd have to say "not at all."

Baker and Hamilton proved to be unusual witnesses. They conceded that their 79 recommendations carry a good deal of risk, but they essentially said no one else had a better idea. "We think it is worth a try," said Baker, conveying the sense that the United States is down to its last chance in Iraq, and that the group had prescribed the least bad of several options.

"You don't have much to lose here," Hamilton added in defending the diplomatic recommendations. "Things are not going in a very good direction right now, and why not take some chance here in involving these countries?"

I think they're right. Not that all of the proposals should be used at all, but that they do indicate some tactical changes that could be helpful. No doubt the military analysis that showed up in the Rumsfeld memo also will give further impetus to course corrections.

I've read some analysis on the Surrender Monkey stance and I can agree with a toned down version. The report really does sound like they are proposing a method of getting out while losing minimum skin. I'd have preferred a report suggesting a way to succeed.

Do Nothing Congress

This is RICH.

Majority Leader-Elect Steny H. Hoyer (MD), who represents all of southern Md., made the following remarks today at a press conference with Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Congressman David Obey (D-WI), Chairman-elect of the Appropriations Committee:

"Good morning. Anyone who has attended one of my weekly pen and pad briefings during the last year has probably heard me criticize what I have called the 'Do-Less-Than-Do-Nothing Congress.'

"On paper, there is no dispute that this is true. The fact is that we have not addressed the needs of the American people through legislative action.

"It is only appropriate that the 'Do-Less-Than-Do-Nothing Congress' ends by doing nothing. No minimum wage increase. No immigration reform. No legislation expanding access to health care. We failed to enact the 9/11 commission recommendations. We failed to enact a budget, and Congressional Republicans will boot the remaining nine spending bills into the new year with a continuing resolution.

"The American people sent a message on November 7th. We heard it. And, in the next Congress we are prepared to lead, govern effectively and get results. That is what our 'Six for '06' agenda is all about - and that is what the American people have every right to expect.

"First and foremost, we will change the way things are done in Washington. We will restore civility and integrity to our legislative process, and transparency and accountability to our government. We also will reach across the aisle and seek bipartisan consensus whenever possible. Second, we will work with the president and our Republican colleagues to forge a new direction in Iraq because our strategy is not working. And third, we will address the concerns and issues that affect the lives of working families.

Does Hoyer honestly think that all of the public believes this tripe? The Dems have been in blocking mode for years and to complain now that the congress isn't doing anything is just demented.

As for the restoration of civility, give me a god damn break. The incivility that existed was as much the fault of the Dems as it was the Repubs. I'd even postulate that the Dems were ahead on the slinging of vitriol on most occasions. Corruption? Right, you're all politicians, need I say more?

As for "reaching across the aisle," I'll believe it when I see it. Though they will have to since their numbers aren't sufficient to force legislation through.

Apparently the Dems have again chosen a shrill wind bag for their leadership.

Port Scannig of "Nuclear" Material

I think they mean radioactive material.

More silliness by over kill.

All cargo sent by container ships to the United States from three ports — in Pakistan, Honduras and Southampton, England — will be scanned for hidden nuclear weapons or components starting next year under a federal antiterrorist program that some in Congress want to see mandated worldwide.

The program, called the Secure Freight Initiative, will require United States-bound containers before departure to pass through both a radiation detection machine and an X-ray device, a combination intended to find bomb-making materials that have intentionally been shielded.

It will cost a total of $60 million to set up the system in Pakistan, Honduras and Southampton, as well to begin scanning at least some United States-bound traffic from Korea, Singapore and Oman, officials said. The cost will be split by the Departments of Homeland Security and Energy, they said.

“There’s no weapon of mass destruction that is more formidable than a nuclear or a dirty bomb,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday in announcing the plan.

ALL containers? It would be simpler to do a simple scan and any containers with a high reading get scanned or any container over a certain weight gets scanned. Shielding weighs a lot, so scanning containers over a certain weight would be more selective. And yes, all container cranes have scales, so they can do that.

Seeing that radioactive materials are also quite easy to detect when not shielded, simpler detection techniques could be used to pre-check containers.

The radiation scan and X-ray image of each container will be transmitted electronically to the United States or to customs officials elsewhere, who will then be able to ask foreign officials at the ports to do more comprehensive searches.

“When in doubt, we pull it out and then we open it up and look at it,” Mr. Chertoff said.

Brilliant. Put in place a search procedure, but then take the risk of trusting the foreign agency doing the work. Not like the container couldn't be opened later on ship or even at the dockside and add the WMD. I wonder if they have any procedures for random inspections of the containers that pass through this early vetting?

Democrats in Congress want to mandate that all cargo be screened for radioactive material overseas before departing. Ultimately, Congress ordered that the program be tested at a small number of ports.

Great. Lead with your heart, don't engage the brain. Another one of those feel-good for limited gain security measures.

Silly String Stupidity

That's right. This one is stupid. Not because the Marines/Soldiers figured out a tool to find tripwires but due to the fact that everyone assumes the insurgents and terrorists live under a rock.

Last month TIME wrote about soldiers and Marines in Iraq requesting an unusual life-saving item in their care packages sent from home: Silly String. It seems that the neon plastic party streamers sprayed into an open doorway before a building search or across a darkened room can help detect nearly invisible trip wires attached to bombs and boobytraps. The old methods to detect trip wires — sweeping the space with a metal grappling hook or getting close enough for a visual inspection — just aren't as safe, Marines discovered.

Marcelle Shriver, an office manager and Army mom from Stratford, N.J., first advertised for Silly String donations in her church bulletin after her son called from Ramadi and mentioned how the Marine unit he was working with had passed on their tip to his combat engineers new to Iraq.

Since our item on this latest display of military ingenuity first ran, it's been picked up by everyone from Fox & Friends to Jon Stewart's Daily Show. And Shriver has been inundated with donations and cash for shipping. She's even had a private pilot volunteer his services to fly the stuff to Kuwait where it will be taken by truck to Iraq in January. (Because aerosol cans are considered hazardous materials, they're extremely expensive or impossible to ship by commercial or freight air carriers.)

Great, does anyone even think anymore about consequences of reporting this type of activity? One thing that the terrorists have going for them is that they tend to have a good grasp of information technology and use it. Having read the news on this, now they have a new tool to use against the troops. All they have to do is hand a tripwire somewhere in the building that is near a primary entrance and they have just assured themselves an simplified escape. Troops come in spray the silly string and find a tripwire and don't go in. Now explosive disposal will have to respond to many more false alarms and the troops won't have a clue if it's the real thing or not.

Strike up another loss brought to you by the MSM.

Global Warming Debate and the MSM

Every time I read something in this realm I get the image of two idiots shouting in each others face. They don't convince each other of anything and they don't solve anything. Hell, they don't even bring anything to the table.
Now the discussion on the MSM isn't completely without merit.

Sen. James M. Inhofe, in one of his final actions as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, yesterday held a hearing to investigate whether press accounts have "over-hyped" predictions of global warming.

"The media often fails to distinguish between predictions and what is actually being observed on the Earth today," the Oklahoma Republican said. "Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism."

Mr. Inhofe will lose control of the environmental panel next month when Democrats assume the Senate majority, and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California will assume the gavel. She promises extensive hearings on global warming, and yesterday chastised Mr. Inhofe for scrutinizing global-warming coverage.

"In a free society, in what is the greatest democracy in the world, I do not believe it is proper to put pressure on the media to please a particular Senate committee view, one way or the other," she said.

Boxer is completely missing the point. No surprise there. You can pretty much discount any reasonable debate on this topic. With her taking the chairmanship, it will probably just get worse. The MSM, in its shrillest parties, has been hyping global warming as only a man made event and also has been making it out as having dire consequences in the very near term. I doubt that reasonable scientists support that.

The primary problem with the two sides in the debate is that neither will take a reasonable stand. Al Gore and his panic stricken party are screaming doom is nye and completely ignore any evidence of contributing factors to the climatic changes that are being seen. The solar science explanations are quite good and have substantial empirical data to support them. But they are called crack-pots by Gore's ilk, because they won't jump on the evil-man-cause bandwagon.

The CO2 contributor deniers miss the point as well. There probably is some effect being seen due to CO2 emissions and there is little harm in agreeing that something should be done on that part. Yes, it can have effects on the economy, but it also could be a new scientific field for CO2 remediation.

There is little doubt that getting of the oil-junkie energy system would have multiple benefits. The issue is that it will take time. And without incentive to do so, the major energy companies won't even start. There is also the leveling of the playing field that would force the major energy conglomerates to pay for eco-friendly sources at the same level as regular oil based systems. Most states allow the major controllers to set a slightly lower cost for small providers. Unfortunately, this keeps them out of the market, when they in fact are the ones that provide a distributed infrastructure model that is better than the grid that is presently in use along with the more environmentally friendly power.

Mr. Inhofe, vilified by environmental groups for his position, said yesterday he fears "poorly conceived policy decisions may result from the media's over-hyped reporting."

The hearing was an opportunity for Mr. Inhofe to strike back at his critics, citing "overwhelmingly one-sided" reports on CBS, ABC and CNN and by Time, the Associated Press and Reuters.

He accused reporters, including former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, of failing to interview climate-change skeptics, and of omitting scientific data that contradicts global-warming theories. He also said reporters are motivated by money, quoting a French geophysicist who says alarmism "has become a very lucrative business."

Inhofe has a point here. By reporting only on one side of the issue you force a conclusion. That isn't responsible reporting. The viewer should be given some ability to make decisions on the topic. They wouldn't do that with political campaigns, well, they would if they could. The thing Inhofe misses is that hype sells, and having to think is hard for most of the public.

"In more than 100 years, the major media have warned us of at least four separate climate cataclysms," he said, adding there is a "media obsession" with former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

Australian climate-change researcher Robert M. Carter said the press employs "Frisbee science" that is "invariably alarmist in nature."

Naomi Oreskes, a professor of science studies at the University of California at San Diego, told the panel yesterday that while scientists still argue over the details, "there is a consensus" the climate is changing.

The consensus is that the environment is changing and there is a lesser consensus as to the full details of the cause. From my viewpoint, I don't see the lethargic and complacent public, and therefore their representatives, doing anything to address the issue unless the media hypes the issue. Pathetic isn't it?

Wouldn't be nice if people could at least get all the facts and then get off their dead asses and do something?

Iraq Study Group Report

Not much new here. I've just read it and find very little of consequence beyond what has already been floating around. I do like the report for it's candor in pointing out the issues and complicated environment in Iraq. Something that the nay sayers of the present policies seem to constantly deny. I haven't read any commentary on it yet. I'll do that after writing this.

The political reactions to this are rather telling though. Most of the things I've read indicate that the Dems think this is a complete vindication of their contentions that the Iraq policy is a failure. I don't see that at all. From what I have gleaned it looks like the group pretty much states that both sides of the debate have been off the mark.

“Their report underscores the message the American people sent one month ago: there must be change in Iraq, and there is no time to lose,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who will become the Democratic majority leader in the new Congress. “It is time for the Iraqis to build and secure their nation, and it is time for American combat troops to be redeployed.”

Interesting. The report definitely doesn't say that. This is the classical cut-and-run doctrine or what the report defines as "Precipitate Withdrawal."

Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

The report also addresses the "staying-the-course" method as well.

Current U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation. Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every month. The United States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to respond to other international crises is constrained. A majority of the American people are soured on the war. This level of expense is not sustainable over an extended period, especially when progress is not being made. The longer the United States remains in Iraq without progress, the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who believe they are subjects of a repressive American occupation. As one U.S. official said to us, “Our leaving would make it worse. . . . The current approach without modification will not make it better.”

The major problem with this whole debate has always been the difference between tactics and strategy. Cut-and-Run is an alteration in strategy. Staying-the-Course is another strategy, which to the politicos has been a complete denial that the military has been making tactical changes all along. This report in fact can be viewed as using the Stay-the-Course strategy while specifying desirable alterations in tactics.

The use of the “stay the course” phrase by Mr. Baker, who was secretary of state under President Bush’s father, could hardly have been accidental, given his background in Washington, and critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy were sure to take advantage of it.

“The Iraq Study Group report represents another blow at the policy of ‘stay the course’ that this administration has followed,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee who will become its chairman in the new Congress. “The American people rose up again staying the course in Iraq, because the course is not working.”

That does irritate me. The fact that Stay-the-Course is a quoted term, but they chose to avoid the Cut-and-Run term strikes me as inconsistent with staying out of the politics.

Back to the politicos:

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California called the report “a lifeline of opportunity for this president.”

“If he takes it, there’s a chance we can find a new, bipartisan way forward, a chance that Iraq one day might be a place of stability rather than a failed state with warring factions, a chance that the entire Middle East won’t descent into conflagration and violence, a chance that our troops can be redeployed rather than mired in a civil war,” Ms. Feinstein said.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont said he hoped the president would read the report. “I hope that he will talk to people who are willing to disagree with him and not just those who will say everything he’s doing is right,” Mr. Leahy said.

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island said, “This may be the last, best chance we have to get it right in Iraq.” He added that the replacement of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld with Robert M. Gates could be crucial in carrying out the study group’s recommendations.

This all sounds drastically like the Dems, and probably the Repubs in congress, want to decide the tactics for the theater. As I've stated before, this is a big mistake. Letting politicians make these decisions can have drastic consequences. Strategy is just fine, they can go on about the parts regarding political solutions and economic solutions, but when it comes down to how the military should fight or police, that should be left to those who know what they are doing.

But Democratic reaction was not unanimously favorable. “Unfortunately, the Iraq Study Group report does too little to change the flawed mind-set that led to the misguided war in Iraq,” said Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin. “We need an Iraq policy that is guided by our top national security priority — defeating the terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11 and its allies.”

This guys going to run for President? Jackass. Why would they delve into the the mind-set that initiated the conflict? Has nothing to do with finishing the conflict. And with his obvious failure to realize that Iraq is now truly a theater in the GWOT, I think he's proven himself to be a complete dolt.

Not all talking dolts were from the left:

A prominent Senate Republican praised the study group’s findings. “The report is an acknowledgment that there will be no military solution in Iraq,” said Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees. “It will require a political solution arrived at through sustained Iraqi and regionwide diplomacy and engagement.

“The president and Congress now must work together to frame a new policy that will allow the United States to leave Iraq and the Iraqi people to make their own decisions as to their future,” Mr. Hagel said.

Really? Hmmm. I must of missed where the military policing and combat of terrorist and insurgent groups stopped being part of the solution.

As for the Iraqi people making the decisions, that is true, but the US has to still be present to help them stabilize. John Gibson on Fox tried to pull that argument pushing to the point that if Iraq fails it will be the Iraqi's fault. Completely missing the point that it also will be our fault and that the consequences are substantial. The report goes into a discussion of that as well. See section B "Consequences of Continued Decline in Iraq."

This article has more politicos shooting their mouths off, and my favorite will now be quoted:

"The verdict is in," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "There can no longer be any doubt that the violence and chaos in Iraq are getting worse, that our current strategy is failing, and that we need to work together on a new strategy that will make it possible for us to bring our troops home. The only question is whether the White House will heed this clarion call and agree to change the perilous course we have been on in Iraq since Saddam Hussein fell and the chaos began."

Yep, Teddy-the-Clueless spouts off and shows he's clueless. I'd love to ask him if he thinks we should put Saddam back in power. Juxtapostioning Saddam's regime with the current chaos is astoundingly stupid. They may be killing each other, but in fact far more of Iraq is free and secure than they were under Saddam. The may be messing up their new found freedom in many places, but they have something that they didn't have under Saddam.

The report does have many good changes in tactics for the military, and some for strategic change for political and economic progress. Not much different than was listed by the Rumsfeld memo though. A bit disappointing on that level.

The report does stand against more troops in Iraq. I'm not sure I agree completely with that.

Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile, America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.

I do believe that a temporary surge in some key areas would be helpful. I'm not going to the McCain level of adding another 100,000 troops, but maybe a smaller number to address some of the exceptionally bad sectors and put them under saturation patrols for long enough to get the policing efforts and political efforts into play.

The partitioning of Iraq is also addressed.

The costs associated with devolving Iraq into three semiautonomous regions with loose central control would be too high. Because Iraq’s population is not neatly separated, regional boundaries cannot be easily drawn. All eighteen Iraqi provinces have mixed populations, as do Baghdad and most other major cities in Iraq. A rapid devolution could result in mass population movements, collapse of the Iraqi security forces, strengthening of militias, ethnic cleansing, destabilization of neighboring states, or attempts by neighboring states to dominate Iraqi regions. Iraqis, particularly Sunni Arabs, told us that such a division would confirm wider fears across the Arab world that the United States invaded Iraq to weaken a strong Arab state.

While such devolution is a possible consequence of continued instability in Iraq, we do not believe the United States should support this course as a policy goal or impose this outcome on the Iraqi state. If events were to move irreversibly in this direction, the United States should manage the situation to ameliorate humanitarian consequences, contain the spread of violence, and minimize regional instability. The United States should support as much as - possible central control by governmental authorities in Baghdad, particularly on the question of oil revenues.

Other sections of the report also address the consequences of division including ethnic and sectarian cleansing.

I have to say that I would have thought they would have called for more assistance from Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They go on about Syria and Iran. Iran they seem to write off as not likely to be of any assistance. The interview I saw with Baker and Hamilton seemed to be very enthusiastic about Syria. Though the benefit to Syria to assist the US seems to be mainly getting back the Golan Heights. Seems to me that Israel should have been consulted on the viability of that plan, and I haven't found anything that indicates that they were. I think Saudi Arabia could be a big help with the Sunni factions since there is a large Sunni presence and power in Saudi Arabia. The problem is, I don't know how much of assistance they could be, since they have issues with those Sunni groups being major supporters of terrorism.

Syrian involvement is all over the report. I'm just not sure how that can be worked out. Maybe we can enlist Baker in making a go at that.

Too many talking points in the report overall, so just go read it for yourself.

Paltrow Statements From British Eyes

No link just think.

I work with a Brit presently and I asked him about Paltrow's comments.

To 'I love the English lifestyle, it's not as capitalistic as America. He stated that's because lots of Brits can't afford to be as capitalistic.

To 'I like living here because I don't fit into the bad side of American psychology. The British are much more intelligent and civilised than the Americans.' He definitely disagreed, pointing out that both country has their fair share of idiots, just the US has a tendency to put them on TV. Not to mention that there you can live in parts of England where you never run into the harsher realities of the UK. He pointed out how Madonna lives and the fact that she probably never runs into pakis on a daily basis.

Seems from what he said, most of these wealthy actor types hide from the population in general and so have no idea what England is really like.

Libertarian to Liberal

This noise has started again. I don't really see Libertarians fitting in either political zone as is commonly believed. I do think that in the past the Libertarian has fit more with the conservative side for simple reasons like the desire for limited government and for many gun rights. No doubt it is much more complex in reality.

Most of the present discussions are due to the flint-and-steal of Brink Lindsey, of CATO writing in The New Republic. (The original article is a pay-for.) I linked QandO above for the initial discussion.

So he's right when he says the perception of the GOP in general certainly changed over the last decade, and the cases indicated have certainly unraveled the hoped for libertarian fusion. The "fusionist synthesis" Lindsey identified had indeed come apart and many libertarians refused the GOP the support it needed because of its perceived drift from traditional conservative principles to this new populist form of conservatism which called for more government intrusion.

The Democrats, of course, want the votes (and know they got some of them) of libertarians because, in the evenly split electorate, 2 to 5 percent spells victory.

To date, Democrats have made inroads with libertarian voters primarily by default. Yes, it's true that Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos fame caused something of a stir by proposing the term "Libertarian Democrat" to describe his favored breed of progressive. And the most prominent examples of his would-be movement—first-term Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, fellow Montanan Tester, and Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb—have sounded some libertarian themes by being simultaneously pro-choice and pro-gun rights. At the same time, however, their anti-nafta, Wal-Mart-bashing economic populism is anathema to free-market supporters.

In short, if Democrats hope to continue appealing to libertarian-leaning voters, they are going to have to up their game. They need to ask themselves: Are we content with being a brief rebound fling for jilted libertarians, or do we want to form a lasting relationship? Let me make a case for the second option.

Again, a pretty honest and on-target assessment. They did indeed make inroads with libertarians by default. They, unfortunately, were all that was left, speaking of a viable party, when libertarians began turning their backs on the GOP. Where else to go? And in this case, Democrats were somewhat less objectionable than Republicans.

As is obvious, Lindsey's fantasy, as it is with most conservative Democrats, is to find a way to make a permanent home for libertarians among Democrats. And Lindsey makes a valiant effort.

Today's ideological turmoil, however, has created an opening for ideological renewal—specifically, liberalism's renewal as a vital governing philosophy. A refashioned liberalism that incorporated key libertarian concerns and insights could make possible a truly progressive politics once again—not progressive in the sense of hewing to a particular set of preexisting left-wing commitments, but rather in the sense of attuning itself to the objective dynamics of U.S. social development. In other words, a politics that joins together under one banner the causes of both cultural and economic progress.

In reality, depending on the particulars, the game plan isn't a particularly bad one, and, I'm certain, there are those libertarians among us who would be open to a fusion with "progressives" if indeed the liberalism talked about were the traditional liberalism of Hayek and von Mises, and not that of Chomsky and Pelosi. Of course that's what Lindsey is calling for, but I cannot imagine the modern Democratic party jettisoning its "preexisting left-wing commitments" in favor of a more traditionally liberal agenda. Because a more traditionally liberal agenda would be more focused on liberty than egalitarianism, and egalitarianism is the core of today's progressive agenda.

I suppose there is something in that view. I definitely have been pissed about the out of control spending and increase in government that the GOP has done in recent years. They seem to be in competition with the Dems on who can piss away more money. The problem I'm having is that I can't see the power base of the Dems every coming even moderately closer to the small government or fiscally responsible side. I think the Repubs can be driven back to their traditional stand on these things, but I don't see the Dems moving.

The Volokh Conspiracy has several entries on this topic. Todd Zywiki starts:

Both Mallaby and Lindsey focus on the level of specific policies, but I think there is a more fundamental question here about philosophies.

I often have pondered whether in the post-Cold War era a more natural alignment of American political parties are along the general lines of libertarian v. populist, rather than the traditional conservative v. liberal distinctions.

Many have remarked on the tension in the coalition of religious traditionalists and libertarians on social views. But I've never really understood why religious voters would be partial to free market economic policies. There seems to be an obvious distrust of the amorality of the market there, especially as it often produces what religious voters obviously consider to be immoral entertainment and other products. Nor have I ever seen among religious folks a particular appreciation of the invisible hand process of the market, as their worldview seems much more comfortable with a constructivist rationalism than spontaneous order systems. To the extent that there is a coherent economic philosophy here, it seems to me that it is more naturally communitarian than free market. This is consistent with the more specific policy observations that religious voters seem perfectly content with economic policies like farm subsidies, steel tariffs, immigration limits, and distrust of the WTO and other international trade organizations. Note also that during this past election, support for ballot initiatives that increased the minimum wage drew overwhelming support in the red states on which they were proposed. That doesn't seem very consistent with a free-market worldview.

Then there is Ilya Somin:

In my view, it is important to differentiate the theory of intellectual coherence between liberalism and libertarianism from the much more dubious possibility of a political alliance. In my view, liberal and libertarian ideologies have much in common. But that commonality is unlikely to lead to a political alliance anytime soon.

At the level of ideology and political theory, libertarians and liberals have much in common, probably more than libertarians and most conservatives do. Both groups value individual liberty; both believe that the government should generally stay out of religious and "values" issues, which should be left to individual choice (though there are some countervailing strands of thought on this among some "communitarian" and feminist liberals); both place no special value on tradition; and both want to maximize individual happiness and utility. Some conservatives also share these values, but there are a great many who do not because their version of conservatism stems from either an adherence to traditionalism for its own sake or fundamentalist religious principles.

Liberals believe that they should stay our of religious issues? Since when? Last I saw, and heavily supported by the actions of the ACLU, is that liberals believe in the complete abolition of any religious content in the public realm. Especially if it relates to Christianity. I also think the contention that liberals believe in individual liberty is incorrect. They, like the conservatives, have their zones that they believe in, and other zones that they don't. Look at gun control for a clear example where this generic statement fails catastrophically.

Ilya Somin also has this piece.

All interesting reading. I don't see Libertarians fitting either side cleanly. That is pretty well agreed upon over all. If the Repugs can realign their philosophy back 10 years, and actually adhere to it for a while, I think they'll be able to draw back more of the Libertarians than the Dems will be able to draw in the near term.

If You're Going to Leak, Leak the Whole Thing

Rumsfeld declassified the cover letter to the Iraq actions memo yesterday. I still haven't found a copy, but I'll keep looking. Funny the perspective that it adds to the topic that so many of the talking heads seem to have gotten wrong.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's secret memo to President Bush offering new approaches in Iraq was developed over a period of weeks, according to a newly declassified cover letter.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Monday, also said that Rumsfeld had instructed Gen. John Abizaid, the top commander for U.S. forces in the Middle East, to assemble his own group "some time ago" to consider new approaches in Iraq - "since war plans of this type" are the responsibility of Abizaid's command.

There has been no public disclosure of recommendations from the Abizaid group.

The letter, addressed to Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, was transmitted with the memo and dated Nov. 6, two days before Rumsfeld resigned.

So let's see, it was a memo that is based on suggestions from the military on potential actions to be taken. Not just Rumsfeld "reversing" direction. I'm getting tired of the "reversing" term continuously popping into this. I don't see any indications of any reversal. Wouldn't that technically be to put Saddam back into power? Changing tactics to adapt to reality on the ground isn't a reversal.

This also makes sense as to why most of the options lined out appear to be in line with historical lessons on insurgencies. Getting economic and social assistance to those in need is typical. Awarding those that help and stranding those those that don't is as well. Though I believe that was never a winning scenario.

The stupid political statements seem to be limited to the Senator from Maine:

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Monday she viewed the memo as inconsistent with Rumsfeld's recent congressional testimony, and she said he should have shared these suggestions with Congress many months ago.

"The memo by Secretary Rumsfeld and the leaking of it very much reminded me of a strategy of trying to leave office saying that you actually had a lot of good plans that were different than your public utterances," Collins said.

First, he isn't required to share military information with the Senate. Second he didn't have the results "months ago" which makes her usual shrill statements foolish right from the get go. I also find it fascinating that Rumsfeld can't say one thing publicly while working on alternatives. Seems to me that is the norm in politics and in big business. I can't stand Collins.

Dan Foomkin discusses the leak and what the opinionated are saying on the topic.

Is this the post-election crumbling of the Bush White House's vaunted message discipline? If so, the leaks could simply be embarrassments for a president who has no intention of reversing himself on Iraq.

Alternately, these could be "authorized" leaks -- part of a clever White House PR campaign to give the impression that the president has long been considering significant alternatives, thereby laying the groundwork for the contention that a Bush U-turn on Iraq would be no such thing.

There are, of course, many other plausible explanations.

I'm going to bet on this not being an "authorized" leak. It completely misses the point that most of the memo actions outlined wouldn't need any approval from the C-in-C. They are directly actionable by those purposing them. Some are political actions that the President would have to decide on, but since they were from a study by the military, it strikes me as these are just putting the best options on the table and the memo outlines them for the president.

Froomkin's article is interesting more form what others in the MSM are saying.

Polonium Spy

This came out on the Corner. It's quite strange.

Update: Weirder, still, from a reader:

Here is another really weird thing. Besides the usual suspects, there is also an Italian angle. The Italian security expert who was exposed to Polonium is named Mario Scaramella.

Current Italian PM Romano Prodi has long been accused of haven been on the KGB payroll. This accusation was repeated in the so-called "Mitrokhin Archive". Litvinenko recently made statements that he believed the accusation to be correct, though it is unclear whether he had proof or more likely simply was repeating the earlier accusations and saying he thought they were true. The last Italian government held hearings on the Mitrokhin Archive. One of the consultants to the Italian hearings was Mario Scaramella.

This whole thing is too weird.

Gates Hearing and Iraq

I dislike unqualified responses like this:

Robert M. Gates, nominated to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, acknowledged the U.S. is not winning the war in Iraq and he warned lawmakers that leaving the country in "chaos'' risks a ``regional conflagration.''

Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that, if confirmed, he would consider "a wide range of ideas and proposals'' for stabilizing Iraq that would ultimately lead to a reduction in U.S. forces there.

"Do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?'' Michigan Democrat Carl Levin asked Gates as the panel opened its hearing on Gates' nomination.

"No sir,'' Gates replied. U.S. forces must have "some presence'' in Iraq for "a long time,'' he said later. Supporting and training the Iraqi military "could take quite some time,'' he said. ``But it could be with a dramatically smaller number'' of U.S. troops.

Bold open statements as Gates provides strike me as being far too political. A more detailed response with context on the complete theater would have impressed me. This just reads like more politics as usual. Most of the Iraqi provinces are stable. The Baghdad region is unstable, and there is little doubt in my mind that if we don't succeed there the majority of the country will fall into chaos. That doesn't make it an unequivocal failure.

Levin, who will chair the armed services panel when the new Congress convenes next month, called Gates' acknowledgement of the U.S. military's situation "a necessary fresh breath of reality that is so needed'' to devise a successful strategy.

Yeah, fresh breath as long as it sings the his tune.

Virginia Senator John Warner, the outgoing Republican chairman of the panel, said Bush and the new Democrat-controlled Congress have a "moral obligation'' to "the brave men and women of the armed forces'' to "formulate a bipartisan consensus on the way forward'' in Iraq.

What? Bipartisan consensus isn't how you fight wars. You may want to draw a political agreement on the strategy, but how the fighting is done shouldn't be left to politicians. Another lesson from Vietnam that appears to be being ignored.

Massachusetts Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, voiced skepticism that Bush would accept Gates' advice about changing the course in Iraq, quoting the president as saying a month go the U.S. had a "strategy for victory that will work.''

"Should we believe you or the president on the critical issue whether the administration is really willing to make a change in its policy?'' Kennedy asked.

"I'm willing to commit that, if I'm confirmed, I will be independent, that I will consider all of the options,'' Gates said. He added: "There is still only one president'' and "he will make the final decision.''

Appears Teddy doesn't understand who the C-in-C is and who makes the final decisions in war. What difference does it make if the President accepts them or not? The issue is will the Secretary of Defense be capable of putting forward a realistic plan for success that the President will then accept? The decisions of the President are essentially irrelevant to the purpose of the hearing.

I guess there will be a lot to read this evening in the blogsphere.

UPDATE:
Don't you love when the MSM minimizes or just out right leaves certain information out.

Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir." He later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point."

At the outset of an afternoon session of questions about Iraq and other subjects, Gates began by telling the committee he wanted to amplify on his remark about not winning in Iraq. He did not withdraw the remark but said, "I want to make clear that that pertains to the situation in Iraq as a whole."

He said he did not want U.S. troops to think he believes they are being unsuccessful in their assigned missions.

"Our military wins the battles that we fight," Gates said. "Where we're having our challenges, frankly, are in the areas of stabilization and political developments and so on."

You have to search around to get the real answer. Even the AP article doesn't give a direct quote. To look at the headlines you'd think his statement was an all out condemnation when in fact it wasn't. Looks like the actual "not losing" line came after the first reports as a political dodge for making it sound bad in his first response. Again, looks like he's playing politics. What a shock.

If the tactics and parts of the present running strategy doesn't change, we will no doubt fail, but it's not over until the fat lady sings. Take a good look at historical insurgencies and you'll see that most, if not all of them, showed periods of chaos and uncertainty. The successful ones changed their methods in various ways and strived to succeed. The question I have is does the US public have the fortitude to get this right?

Gates at "Iraq Hearings"

This sounds strange to me. I thought that he was starting his confirmation hearings. All other posts on the Gates say this is his confirmation hearing, but apparently this reporter couldn't figure that out. No doubt the political posturing will give many the desire to see the whole committee destroyed. I'll have to see if it's on CSPAN.

The political calendar may say the first presidential debates are in May, but really they'll begin today and Thursday for three key senators - including Sen. Hillary Clinton - at key Iraq war hearings.

This morning, the Senate Armed Services Committee, with Democratic frontrunner Clinton, GOP favorite Sen. John McCain and Democratic Indiana hopeful Sen. Evan Bayh, will grill Robert Gates on his Pentagon nomination.

On Thursday, the same panel will grill members of the Iraq Study Group on their much-anticipated prescription for dealing with the intractable war.

For Clinton - who added some heavyweight campaign help to her staff yesterday - the hearings will be prime moments in the spotlight to show her potential as commander-in-chief. She'll be sharing that spotlight with her rivals.

"While they are asking their questions, why not craft a sound bite or two, establishing yourself as an attractive candidate?" said GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway.

A "sound byte or two?" I'm going to guess that all those named will be posturing big time. They'll be asking the "difficult questions" no doubt. I'm betting they're going to be about a civil as a pack of hyena.

"This is her chance to regain her stature as the clear front-runner while showing what everyone believes has become one of her strengths - national security," said Julian Zelizer, a Boston University political scientist.

Bayh, who began his presidential exploration yesterday, has similar needs, but is desperate for the limelight, having been eclipsed by Obama mania.

McCain is likely to stick to his maverick line of deploying even more troops to Iraq, reinforcing his independent position.

Conway said all three must get past blaming President Bush and suggest a way forward. She said that's "the difference between presidential timber and presidential woodshed."

Not going to happen. I'll put money that they'll make suggestions, but that they'll take a turn throwing spears at the President.

The LATimes seems to think Gates is "shoo-in."

SO UNPOPULAR IS Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and such is Washington's eagerness to be rid of him, that the Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to take no more than a day to question his anointed successor, Robert M. Gates.

A former CIA director, Gates is a shoo-in. But senators should nevertheless use his confirmation hearings, slated to begin today, to put Gates on notice that he will have to reestablish the trust of Congress and the American people about whether to believe what the military — and other agencies — say about intelligence matters.

I love this line from the article:

The struggle against Islamic terrorism requires intelligence that is not corrupted by politics. Senators should ask Gates questions designed to ensure that the intelligence the nation's leaders will use to make tactical and strategic decisions be as untainted as possible.

What a blindingly naive statement. No matter how the intelligence is written, it will be reanalyzed by some politician to meet their needs. The starting assumption seems to be that Gates isn't trustworthy, which is no real surprise considering his prior political scuffles.

I'm going to bet on "really ugly" for these hearings.

Paltrow Nausea

Love actors.

It's a declaration that has gone down rather badly in America. The 34-year-old Oscar winner, who has lived in London since marrying Coldplay frontman Chris Martin three years ago, said: 'I love the English lifestyle, it's not as capitalistic as America.

'People don’t talk about workand money, they talk about interesting things at dinner.

'I like living here because I don't fit into the bad side of American psychology. The British are much more intelligent and civilised than the Americans.'

Last night, as her comments were reported in her homeland, Americans called chat shows and radio phone-ins to express their disgust at her 'betrayal'.

'If she feels that way we are far better off without her,' said one commentator. A disgruntled caller added: 'She sounds like she thinks she’s better than us.

I don't know why anyone would be irritated by this statement. Don't these American Neanderthals listen to their liberal political masters? John Kerry has repeatedly pointed out that the populace isn't smart enough to understand his nuanced political stands, nor his proposals for governmental changes. Whoopi, Rosie, The Dixie Chicks, Devito, Williams, and many of the rest of the screeching actors must know more than the rest of us poor dolts, because, well, they're actors. With such profound credentials who could possibly doubt that they are more intelligent and civilized than the rest of the American public.

Strange how she seems to be back peddling really hard at the moment.

Following the report, Paltrow issued a statement through People magazine, saying that she was "deeply upset" by the story.

"I never, ever would have said that," she said. "I feel so lucky to be American. I feel so proud to be American."

"This is what I said. I said that Europe is a much older culture, and there's a difference. I always say in America, people live to work, and in Europe, people work to live. There are positives in both."

Paltrow did not give an interview to the newspaper but did speak in Spanish at a recent press conference. She later said: "Obviously, I need to go back to seventh-grade Spanish."

Yeah. I'm guessing that it came through translation just fine.

Warning or Threat

Here we go. I haven't been much surprised by Iran's posture to the US, but now their "warning" the EU not to push sanctions on Iran's nuclear aspirations.

SARI, Iran -- Iran's president warned Washington's European allies on Tuesday that Iran would reconsider its relations with them if they insist on punishing Tehran for its nuclear program, saying that would amount to an act of "hostility."

His comments came ahead of a meeting in Paris of diplomats from the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany to discuss imposing penalties on Iran for refusing to stop uranium enrichment.

"I'm telling you in plain language that as of now on, if you try, whether in your propaganda or at international organizations, to take steps against the rights of the Iranian nation, the Iranian nation will consider it an act of hostility," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech before thousands in northern Iran.

"And if you insist on pursuing this path," he continued, Iran "will reconsider its relations with you."

Sound likes a threat to me. Nothing like starting diplomatic talks off with a threat.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Monday that the six nations were nearing an agreement on a Security Council resolution.

Iran says it is entitled as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The U.S. and its allies suspect it is developing a weapons program in secret. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has criticized Iran for concealing significant aspects of its nuclear work and says it has failed to answer all questions about its program.

No doubt Bolton's crummy performance at the UN is the reason the talks of sanctions is so close to becoming a reality. Russia is even allegedly on board, though I'll remain skeptical on that one until there is actual activity proving they are taking the right side.

Christopher Dodd - Jackass

Connecticut is cheering the ending of John Bolton's nomination as the US Envoy to the UN. Dodd's leading the cheering, and proves he's a partisan jackass in the action.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd on Monday won his long, unusually passionate battle to deny John R. Bolton confirmation as United Nations ambassador - but both he and President Bush remained unforgiving warriors as each continued to insist he was absolutely right about the outspoken diplomat.

A miffed Bush did not name the Connecticut senator, but said he was "deeply disappointed that a handful of United States senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up-or-down vote he deserved in the Senate."

Bush lambasted senators who, he said, "chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time."

Dodd fired back. He recalled how he had reservations about Bolton "from day one," and added, "I don't understand how someone who disdains the U.N. as much as Mr. Bolton did and does, can be an effective representative for U.S. interests in that international organization."

Apparently Dodd hasn't been watching Bolton's activities. If he had he'd have given an honest assessment that he had been extremely effective. No doubt the Hartford Courant has done a masterful job of making Dodd the hero and ignoring the actual work that Bolton did as the UN Envoy. They continue to hype the alleged "skewing" of intelligence by Bolton, still with out anything more than here say and hopes.

Baker's Blue Ribbon Commission on Iraq

This weekend was all a buzz about the Baker commission on Iraq and the results. Results that have been leaking out at such a high rate that they should have been on CSPAN to ensure that they weren't misinterpreted by all the press gossip.

It is funny that so many of the commentators are showing irritation as to the make up of the commission. I have already stated my frustration with that. Let's start with Mark Steyn.

James Baker's "Iraq Study Group" seems to have been cast on the same basis as Liza Minnelli's last wedding. A stellar lineup: Donna Summer, Mickey Rooney, the Doobie Brothers, Gina Lollobrigida, Michael Jackson, Mia Farrow, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Jill St. John. That's Liza's wedding, not the Baker Commission. But at both gatherings everyone who was anyone was there, no matter how long ago it was they were anyone. So the fabulous Baker boy was accompanied by Clinton officials Leon Panetta and Bill Perry, Clinton golfing buddy Vernon Jordan, Clinton's fellow sex fiend Chuck Robb, the quintessential ''moderate'' Republican Alan Simpson, Supreme Court swing vote par excellence Sandra Day O'Connor . . .

God, I can't go on. I'd rather watch Mia Farrow making out with Mickey Rooney to a Doobie Brothers LP. As its piece de resistance, the Baker Commission concluded its deliberations by inviting testimony from -- drumroll, please -- Sen. John F. Kerry. If you're one of those dummies who goofs off in school, you wind up in Iraq. But, if you're sophisticated and nuanced, you wind up on a commission about Iraq. Rounding it all out -- playing David Gest to Jim Baker's Liza -- is, inevitably, co-chairman Lee Hamilton, former congressman from Indiana. As you'll recall, he also co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in accordance with Article II Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Ye monopoly of wisdom on ye foreign policy, national security and other weighty affairs shall be vested in a retired Representative from the 9th District in Indiana, if he be sufficiently venerable of mien. In the event that he becomes incapacitated, his place shall be taken by Jill St. John." I would be calling for a blue-ribbon commission to look into whether we need all these blue-ribbon commissions, but they'd probably get Lee Hamilton to chair that, too.

Don't get me wrong, I like a Friars' Club Roast as much as the next guy and I'm sure Jim Baker kibitzing with John Kerry was the hottest ticket in town. But doesn't it strike you as just a tiny bit parochial? Aside from Senator Kerry, I wonder whether the commission thought to hear from anyone such as Goh Chok Tong, the former prime minister of Singapore. A couple of years back, on a visit to Washington just as the Democrat-media headless-chicken quagmire-frenzy was getting into gear, he summed it up beautifully:

''The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the U.N. The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail.''

That puts it kindly. Talking to Kerry strikes me as absolutely hilarious. Wonder how much of his testimony was a replay of Winter Soldier.

Ralph Peters at the NYPost had this to say:

THE problem here is the com position of the panel headed by former Secretary of State James Baker. Not only does it drag yesteryear's Washington insiders out of the crypt, its make-up reveals the disgraceful extent to which our governing "elite" despises those in uniform.

Why on earth wasn't a single retired military officer appointed to the the Iraq Study Group? We're at war, for Heaven's sake. Briefly interviewing a few generals is no substitute for a steadying military voice amid the committee's naifs.

Washington insiders pretend to respect our troops but continue to believe that those in uniform are second-raters and that any political hack can design better war plans than those who've dedicated their lives to military service. This is arrogance soaring through the clouds - and a disheartening replay of the shut-out-military-advice approach to warfare that got us into such a mess in Iraq.

I stated something like this in an earlier post. He started his piece with this:

THE proposal to embed more American military trainers with Iraqi units makes sense, but creates a grave danger: the pros pect of a coordinated revolt among Shias in uniform who slaughter or take hostage thousands of our dispersed troops.

The best deterrent is the back-up presence of our own Army and Marine combat formations. As long as our cavalry can ride to the rescue, the prospect of a sectarian mutiny to "teach America a lesson" and humiliate us remains low.

Now early word has it that The Fabulous Baker Boys (straight from the political boneyard and known formally as the Iraq Study Group) will recommend withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 2008, while leaving behind our embedded trainers and vulnerable support units.

This is the sort of nonsense that sounds great to civilians with no military experience. To veterans, it's nuts.

I completely agree. You can't embed our troops and leave them no support force in case they get into trouble. I know that the embedding was proposed in the Rumsfeld memo, but I find it improbable that any true military man would propose hanging them out there while the troops are withdrawing otherwise. You can understand his frustration with the commission make up when you hear things like that.

Jeff Jacoby at the BoGlobe is on for massing more troops, since Rumsfeld's light troop level is an obvious failure.

This week, the Baker-led Iraq Study Group formally presents its report to President George W. Bush. Its key recommendations are reportedly that US troops in Iraq be gradually withdrawn and that the United States turn to Iran and Syria for help in reducing the violence. One study group member, speaking to The New York Times, summed up the bottom line : "We had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out."

The president will be urged by many to waste no time implementing the Baker group's ideas. Which is indeed what he should do -- assuming that he has come around to favoring defeat in Iraq, the death of the doctrine that bears his name, and the empowerment of the worst regimes in the world. If, however, Bush prefers success to failure and would rather live up to, not abandon, the principles he has articulated in the war against radical Islam, he should politely accept the ISG report and then do the opposite of what it recommends.

Far from drawing down the number of troops in Iraq, Bush should increase them. The Rumsfeldian "light footprint" theory -- the belief that the US military presence in Iraq must be minimized so that the Iraqis learn to maintain security and stability on their own -- has been tried for more than three years. It hasn't worked. At least in the short term, there is no prospect of restoring order and stopping the bloodshed without many more American boots on the ground.

Sending in significant reinforcements would not only make it possible to kill more of the terrorists, thugs, and assassins who are responsible for Iraq's chaos. It would help reassure Iraqis that the Washington is not planning to leave them in the lurch, as it did so ignominiously in 1991. The violence in Iraq is surging precisely because Iraqis fear that the Americans are getting ready to throw in the towel. That is why "they have turned to their own sectarian armed groups for the protection the Bush administration has failed to provide," Robert Kagan and William Kristol write in The Weekly Standard. "That, and not historical inevitability or the alleged failings of the Iraqi people, is what has brought Iraq closer to civil war."

There is a bad idea. It could be a good implementation is some very limited areas, but just flooding the area with troops doesn't solve anything. The typical insurgency in history has proven that. Any place that has saturated the country with troops has provided more targets for the insurgents while failing to make any additional progress. It's not the size of the hammer, but how you use it. The increase in troops scenario is a vaguism. It doesn't provide any detail on how to use those extra hands. The present "light footprint" allows effective action, but attempts to minimize the alienation of the population in general. Something Jacoby and his ilk fail to understand about winning in a country fighting an insurgency. You certainly can separate the combatants in the sectarian violence, but without providing some political solution, it won't last long after we leave.

Next is Jonathan Last at the Philly Inquirer. He's pushing a distorted version of the "divide Iraq" proposal.

The Baker-Hamilton report will arrive soon. There is little reason to think that the document will contain worthwhile policy advice for fixing Iraq. After all, Messrs. Baker and Hamilton are the type of "realists" who believe in brokering with adversaries such as Syria and Iran. Such "realism" is a recipe for losing friends and emboldening enemies.

But there are "realists," and then there are realists. Swarthmore's James Kurth is the latter. Writing in a recent issue of the New Republic, Kurth proposes a novel plan: Abandon the idea of a single democratic Iraq and split the country into two states, a Kurdish north and a Shiite south. Kurth's proposal - call it "Biden with teeth" - is worth considering.

Kurth understands that a simple withdrawal from Iraq, or a partitioning that rewards Sunni insurgents, would be interpreted as a sign of American weakness - Somalia, writ large. So he suggests: "Before it leaves Iraq, then, the United States must inflict a dramatic and decisive defeat upon the Sunni insurgents - one that will demonstrate the unbearable cost and utter futility of the Islamist dream... . That defeat must be more than military; it must also be political: The United States should divide Iraq into two parts, leaving the Kurds in control of the north, the Shia in control of the south - and the Sunnis stateless in between."

The border would be drawn along the ethnic contours of Iraq, with Kirkuk (and probably Mosul) as part of Kurdistan and Baghdad as part of the much larger southern Shia state. Both territories have enough oil to be economically viable. After the partition, the United States would be free to pursue separate policies with each, using different carrots and sticks as needed.

And what would become of the Sunnis? Kurth is clear-eyed in recognizing that theirs would be a grim fate. They "would have to pay for the sins of the cruel regimes that represented them in the past and the cruel insurgents whom they support today." This is a realism based not on a desire for stability and the status quo, but on an understanding of power and the opportunities inherent in instability.

Right, separating the country in two along ethnic lines will ensure the Kurds are safe, but will leave the sectarian disintegration to continue. At least the three way split originally proposed would have attempted to separate all parties. Leaving the Sunnis to their fate is really a pathetic proposal. It also leaves a really bad impression to the Sunni radical Islamists. The US is really out there to destroy Islam. But, no worries there, they were the primary sect involved with the attacks on the US and their international assets.

The discussion there continues with the likely failure of democracy in the southern state while Kurdistan would likely become a stable democracy. No kidding. The only merit of the proposal is that it would be a partial win for the US in having a secure Kurdish nation who is friendly to the US.

And what about the idea that the Baker commission will propose the US sit down and talk with Iran and Syria? Niall Ferguson, in his piece on the new demagogues has an opinion.

The classic breeding grounds for demagogy are war and revolution. It is no coincidence that Ahmadinejad is a veteran of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and the war between Iran and Iraq. In a new mood of "realism," the United States would now like Iran to help prevent its neighbor Iraq from collapsing into civil war. Fat chance. Ahmadinejad is bidding for Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. The last thing he needs is to be seen bailing out the Great Satan.

Well, I'm glad I have finally found someone stating what I have since this proposal crawled out from under its rock.

Iraq is going to require a very complicated solution. Rumsfeld's memo clearly had multiple proposals that could be effectively utilized and all would assist in stabilization. Many of them have been used historically for successful conclusions to insurgencies. Unfortunately, the one thing that really will be needed is time, and I find it highly unlikely that the US public has the spinal fortitude to allow it the time to succeed.

Rumsfeld Memo

I've read the memo and find it quite interesting for what is proposed. The thing I find even more interesting is the commentary that has floated on this memo. I'm seeing a lot of commenters making rather extreme assumptions on Rumsfeld's intent from this list of prospective actions that I find fascinating.

Andy McCarthy is almost amusing in his contentions. You may be able to make his conclusions from an overall political perspective of the removal of Rumsfeld, but attributing that to this memo is just silly.

The memo itself is extraordinarily interesting, even to us non-military types, especially given (a) how little regard Sec'y Rumsfeld seems to have for a lot of the strategy either currently being employed or likely to be proposed by the Iraq Study Group; and (b) how Rumsfeld seems a lot more interested in quick strike capability against al Qaeda and Iran elements than having U.S. forces enmeshed in Iraq's sectarian infighting. It will be a lot more interesting to get analysis from people like Mac Owens, Jim Robbins and Fred Kagan — who actually know what they're talking about in this regard — than from me.

My strictly non-military observation, based on many years in government, is: We appear to be in for two years of increasing dysfunction.

This strikes me as someone who has never had to do an analysis of a situation and provide a detailed list of actions. If the person doing such a review is a professional, they will provide a complete list of available options and make recommendations. I've done this in the nuclear industry for several situations and if you are responsible, you place all options that will meet the specified goals, even if you don't agree with some of those options. The assumption McCarthy makes, and many others in the Blogsphere, strikes me as being irresponsible. Not to mention that they are promulgating a view that is only supported by those with extreme political vitriol against the present administration.

I do agree with McCarthy's statement of the leaks.

If high officials — in wartime, no less — figure they better not give their best, most candid advice on sensitive, publicly-charged issues because opposing policy factions are going to leak each other's memos to the press, the initiative and creativity of the smart people we want in government is stifled. And the leaks will be used to portray the administration as disintegrating into rancorous chaos, which avalanche feeds on itself.

This is further reason why these leaks need to go into extreme criminal investigations and those found guilty should get the maximum sanction.

UN Human Rights Commission - WTF

This is just pathetic.

A United Nations commission to investigate “flagrant violations” of Human rights by Israel has determined and recommended that Israel should be forced to compensate for damage inflicted in Lebanon during the month-long summer campaign instigated by a Hizballah attack into Israel.

While making no mention of the over 4,000 Hizballah rockets and missiles fired intentionally into Israeli towns to kill Israeli civilians, the commission was mandated to investigate what the UN Human Rights Commission termed the Israelis’ “systematic targeting and killing” of Lebanese civilians.

Commission member Stelios Perrakis attempted to dismiss criticism that the inquiry and resultant report produced was completely one-sided by saying, “Of course it (the report) was not one-sided, it was within the limits imposed by the mandate.” But any report on civilian attacks during the summer war that does not include 4,000 terrorist rockets slamming civilians by design cannot be taken seriously.

But this is the track to be expected of a UN Human Rights Commission has formally condemned and/or made findings against Israel no less than 5 times in 2006, while the whole of the world’s other human rights concerns have netted 0. A nation surrounded by terrorists who incessantly attack it gets the UNHRC’s undivided attention. Somewhere, there are mullahs and brutal dictators of various stripes smiling.

If there were a UN Human Rights Commission scorecard, for 2006 it would look something like the following:

2006 UNHRC Official Scorecard

5 Evil Zionists
0 Sudan
0 Iran
0 China
0 Zimbabwe
0 Remainder, Planet Earth

Yep, the only findings they have come up with have to deal with Israel. Wonder when they will actually start looking somewhere else? Israel has had it's issues no doubt, but can the UN commission honestly make no other findings in all the other conflicts or troubled regions. How should the world view this? You know the Islamic world that hates Israel think it's just wonderful. You'd hope the rest of the world takes note. Though, you have to admit, there isn't anything they can do about it. Wonder how these commissioners come about there jobs. Betting their appointees from countries that approve of their activities.

Bioterrorism Drill - Reality Check

Schneier posted this link with little commentary. I'm thinking this is one of the most moronic plans I've seen.

Thousands of Seattle residents will be a part of an unusual bioterrorism drill this weekend and they're just now finding out about it.

Postal carriers are delivering postcards Thursday and Friday to nearly thousands residents informing them of an emergency preparedness exercise in northeast Seattle.

The boundaries: NE 145th Street to NE 60th Street, and First Avenue NE to Lake Washington.

For postal carriers in Seattle this Saturday, it will be a drill like none other: 41 of them will hit neighborhoods in the northeast part of the city delivering tens of thousands of small boxes along with some eye-popping information.

Consider it another reminder of our ever-changing world.

The unique theory is that during the event of a bioterrorism attack, a lot of people will quickly need medications to keep them from becoming sick and the U.S. Postal Service might be one of the best ways to do that.

"The Postal Service has the unique capability to reach every residence in a large geographic area within one day," said Dr. William Raub, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

As part of the drill, a Seattle Police officer will walk with that postal carrier, but not approach peoples' front doors.

In a real emergency, a law enforcement escort would also happen – ideally to protect the medication delivery.

The little boxes are set to be dropped off at more than 38,000 homes.

Anyone want to take a shot at what's wrong with this scenario? Bueller, Bueller?

Let's start with the number of no-shows at the USPS that will occur during a bioterrorism event. I'm going to be the percentage will be real high.

Then they won't approach the people's doors, which is interesting in the context that they are being provided police escort to prevent theft of the medication. So, where do they leave the medication? Won't get stolen from the mail box now will it.

And the police escort is interesting. Is this conjecturing that every postal delivery person will have a police escort, or is it that they will only be delivering to a limited number of people? I'm pretty certain that the ratio of postal workers to law enforcement officers is quite a variant.

And if they know they are delivering to a sickness sight, what makes you think that they will deliver? Hell, I can't even get my local postal worker to deliver a package when they have to drop it on the door step rather than in the mail box. That requires walking a whole 15 feet from my mail box.

And how do they bypass the logic of the postal worker becoming a delivery agent for the disease or bio-agent? If the bio attack can be done through casual contact, a postman can deliver the disease quite readily by touching the mail boxes. All of them.

I suppose they have the unique capability with the US postal service, I'm just of the opinion that they aren't taking into account human weaknesses and factors on how biological attacks can be spread.

Florida Elections

Haven't heard much about contested losses in the midterm election? Here's one from Florida. Take a wild guess whose complaining.

Democrats whomped Republicans in last month's midterms, but oddly enough they're still calling in the legal cavalry to contest one of the few races they narrowly lost.

That would be Florida's 13th Congressional District, which runs along the Gulf Coast from just south of Tampa to just north of Fort Myers. The certified winner is Republican Vern Buchanan, who beat Democrat Christine Jennings by fewer than 400 votes out of more than 237,000 cast. Two recounts, which were demanded by Democrats and required by law, have reconfirmed Mr. Buchanan's victory and slightly increased the margin.

Unbowed, the Dems are now suggesting that defective voting machines cost them the race. They point to Sarasota County's 18,000 "undervotes," or incidences where voters cast ballots in other races but not the Buchanan-Jennings contest. Ms. Jennings--along with such liberal partisans as People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union--has filed a lawsuit contesting the results based on "statistical and eyewitness evidence of significant machine malfunctions" in Sarasota's iVotronic touch-screen system.

So the state follows the law, does two recounts and now has to fight in court because the local Dems want to use some method that isn't codified in the law to decide the election. Sounds familiar.

This week, Florida election officials began auditing the voting machines, which is the very thorough and transparent process for determining whether they worked properly on Election Day. There is still no evidence that the machines malfunctioned.

But never mind. Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi allowed Ms. Jennings to vote in House leadership elections last month, and Democrats could attempt to disallow the Florida certification and vote to seat Ms. Jennings in January unless a new election is granted. Democrats did precisely that in a contested Indiana House race 20 years ago when they last held Congress.

I can't wait to see the fist fight over the chair. I'm hoping it's on CSPAN. It almost looks like they will refuse anything but what they think is the result.

Funny that I haven't heard anything about Repugs going to court to fight close races. There's been a few of them out there as well.

Polonium Everywhere

What a mess. It makes you wonder about the person or persons that moved the Po-210. They certainly seemed to have had a lack of control with it. I can understand the traces coming from Litvinenko as his body excreted it through the skin, but the detection of the contamination on several planes sounds odd.

Britain is monitoring a Russian plane and three British aircraft in an ever-widening probe into the death from radiation poisoning of a former Russian spy that has heightened tensions with Moscow.

Other planes may need to be tracked, Home Secretary John Reid told parliament as he pledged there would be no political barriers to the police investigation.

Reid said police had found radioactive traces at 12 out of 24 locations being checked in connection with the death of Alexander Litvinenko, an outspoken critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin. But he didn't say whether the element found was polonium-210.

The Russian's contention that you can't by Polonium illegally is also odd.

Russian nuclear energy chief stated officially that a radioactive element of Polonium 210 which had caused death of former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko could not be obtained illegally in Russia, the Reuters news agency reported Friday.

Yeah, I bet you can't buy anything illegally in Russia.

The head of Russia’s state atomic energy agency Rosatom, Sergei Kiriyenko, told the government daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta that Russia produces only 8 grams of Polonium 210 a month. “All this amount goes to U.S. companies through a single authorised supplier, Tekhsnabexport company,” the newspaper quoted Kiriyenko as saying.

Kiriyenko refused to say how polonium was produced, but said nuclear reactors like the Russian RMBK or the Canadian CANDU were needed to make it.

“In Russia all nuclear reactors, including those used for research, are government property tightly controlled by federal authorities,” he said.

Well, I feel relieved that the source wasn't Russia. With those tight controls there can't be any way that the contamination on the planes used between Moscow and London could have come from Russia. Wonder who in Great Britain is producing the stuff?

UPDATE:
Another Russian poisoned:

Scientists probing the death of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko said on Friday a second man had been poisoned by radiation.

Media reports said the man was Mario Scaramella, an Italian contact whom Litvinenko met at a London sushi restaurant on November 1, the same day he fell ill.

"We are confirming that one further person who was in direct contact with Mr Litvinenko has been found to have a significant quantity of polonium 210 in their body. This is being investigated further in hospital," a spokesman for the Health Protection Agency said.

Police and health authorities declined to confirm the man was Scaramella.

Polonium 210 is the same radioactive isotope that poisoned Litvinenko, who died a slow and agonising death in a London hospital last month.

A lawyer representing Scaramella told Reuters he was awaiting for final results before making any comments. He declined to explain Scaramella's earlier statements that he was not contaminated, saying the tests were "complex".

I'm guessing it is Scaramella, but if not, could it be the poisoner?