Earmarks Jousting

The House has at least put in the vast majority of the earmarks for the requirement that earmarks specify their sponsor, portion of the bill. Funny that Reid has been resisting rather nastily on that level of reform. Been trying to find his quote from yesterday on his belief that the earmark reform from the house is not well thought out. Couldn't find any quote though. Fortunately a Republican pushed the amendment into the bill.

Sadly it's being blocked by a line item veto amendment, that frankly is foolish.

U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said the Senate should act on ethics legislation that would increase scrutiny of federal spending earmarks.

Enzi supported an amendment offered by Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C., that would enhance disclosure requirements for congressional earmarks, tax benefits and tariff benefits.

“I support ethics reform, but what I believe is even more beneficial to voters and tax payers is increased disclosure of where their tax money is going. We, or rather our children and grandchildren are facing frightening financial times. This amendment would help us see and better gauge when a congressional earmark or other spending project is off the mark so we can correct it,” Enzi said. “Voters want more responsible spending and this amendment would help them more easily judge if they are getting what they want. This legislation discourages wasteful spending.”

The original Senate bill narrowly defined earmarks as targeted funds for “non-federal entities.” DeMint’s amendment requires full disclosure of earmarks, including pork for federal projects (such as earmarks for the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Defense), targeted tax and trade benefits, and all earmarks contained in committee reports, where approximately 95 percent of earmarks are inserted.

The Senate passed the amendment Tuesday after it survived an attempt to table it last week. The move to defeat the amendment was rebuffed by Republicans and 10 Democrats. Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is resisting further fiscal Republican amendments, such as one proposing a line-item veto, but Reid insists the overall ethics bill will be finished before next week.

The line-item veto is sponsored by Judd Gregg. There is some logic to it, but very little when it comes down to the facts that it pretty much will kill any bill. It should be removed to ensure this reform passes.

Scents of the Senate

Scents of the Senate is what I call when the Knee Jerkers need to make a stink over something they have absolutely no power to change.

Senate Democratic leaders, including armed services committee chairman Carl Levin of Michigan and foreign relations committee chairman Joseph Biden of Delaware, are drafting a nonbinding “sense of Congress” resolution opposing the troop increase that Levin said will be designed to gain Republican votes. Dodd will offer his binding legislation to limit funds as an amendment, his aides said.

“The president seems determined to continue his failed policy in Iraq by escalating U.S. military involvement there,” Dodd said. “The president no longer has the luxury of dismissing Congress. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and the time for blank checks is over. Congress needs to act urgently on this matter before we send additional troops into harm’s way.”

Caps similar to what Dodd is proposing have been used in the past to limit deployments when Congress disagreed with executive branch plans for specific military operations, including in Vietnam in 1973, Lebanon in 1983, Europe in 1984 and in Colombia in 2000.

I think I'm on board with McCain, this is a half-assed action. If you want to stop it stand up and prove it. They still see no obligation to provide alternatives, and for the most part, they still are just fuming.

Doomsday Clock

The crackpots, uh, scientists of the world have moved the clock a bit closer to doomsday. Strange how little credit I'm willing to give them for being able to predict anything.

Scientists on Wednesday changed the time on Chicago’s Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight, or the apocalypse, based on what they said is the “most perilous period since Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” during dual announcements in London and Washington, D.C.

"We foresee great peril if governments and societies don’t take action now” to offset climate change, said astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, who has warned that the survival of the human race depends on its ability to colonize space because of the increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth.

“It is now five to midnight,” he said of the clock, which was introduced in 1947 by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to assess the threat of a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War.

The scientists said to avoid disaster, we must reduce the “launch readiness” of the United States and Russia – 2,000 of their 27,000 nuclear weapons are able to launch within minutes — remove nuclear weapons from day-to-day military operations and stop production of nuclear weapons material such as highly enriched plutonium and uranium.

As for global warming, “Through flooding and desertification, climate change threatens the habitats and agricultural resources that societies depend upon for survival. As such, climate change is also likely to contribute to mass migrations and even to wars over arable land, water and other natural resources,” Bulletin scientists said in a statement.

The group specifically singled out Iran and North Korea as examples of the threat posed by countries striving for nuclear technology.

Lately I've become quite cynical about the politicization of many professions. Viewing "historians" take on recent history is a great indicator that a "professional" is as likely to be bent as much as anyone. I don't credit these scientists with any more clear unbiased reasoning than I do historians.

It will be interesting to see where the real tin-foilers go with this.

Power

Well, electricity actually.

Thousands of New Hampshire homes and businesses still were without power Wednesday from Monday's ice storm.

The storm left more than 50,000 homes and businesses without electricity overnight Monday. Line crews worked to reduce the number to about 12,300 by late Tuesday night, even though they faced a tough day.

The area still most affected by Monday's ice storm stretches from the Manchester area in the north, to Nashua in the south, to Keene in the west.

Public Service Company of New Hampshire, the state's largest utility, said as of 5 a.m., Wednesday, 11,000 customers still were in the dark. It expects that the bulk of customers in the southern part of the state will have power restored by mid-evening Wednesday.

It was 6 degrees out this AM when I decided to go into work. I have electricity only due to the fact that I have a generator. That is plugged into the building's power supply to run the oil heat. (My landlord doesn't appear to have a generator for such a task.) I have a little electricity off of that because the generator is mine and I basically dictated that.

No hot water though. That sucks. The gym is just down the street, but who wants to drive to the gym at 5:00 AM to take a shower?

The power company trucks drive up and down the street every couple of hours shining their lights about, but still no electricity. Makes you wonder what they're doing. I followed one as I went to work, and they light up the ice in the trees really nicely. I'd prefer having my electricity on.

Gun Bill Film - New Propaganda

This is bloody pathetic.

Catherine Crowley tried to change a state gun law after her 18-year-old son killed himself with a shotgun he bought at a Wal-Mart.

Her endeavor fell short when lawmakers rejected her idea to require a waiting period for young people to buy guns in Maine. But her effort can now be seen in a new documentary.

The 55-minute film, "There Ought To Be A Law," provides a look at Crowley’s experience navigating the legislative system in hopes of getting a law on the books to make it harder for young people to get their hands on guns.

Crowley is hopeful the film can carry forward her message. If enough people see it, she might ultimately succeed, she said.

"I’m not defeated unless I give up," she said. "If I keep going, eventually I’ll have enough people who’ll say, ‘Enough is enough."’

The film begins with footage of Crowley walking through Woodlawn Cemetery in Auburn with flowers in hand to place on her son’s grave.

Larry Belanger Jr. killed himself in his Lewiston apartment on May 23, 2004, but gave no indication why in a note he left behind.

Crowley and a friend found her son’s body when they went looking for him in his apartment, located in a house next door to Crowley’s home.

When Crowley, a mother of four, learned that her son had bought the shotgun at a Wal-Mart a day and a half before turning it on himself, she went to the store and talked to a manager: How could an 18-year-old, her baby, simply walk in and buy a gun without a waiting period?

She was told that Wal-Mart hadn’t done anything wrong; if she didn’t like the law, she could try to it get changed.

I feel sorry for her in a minor way. On the other hand, blaming an inanimate object for her son's death is foolish. I'm wondering how much retrospective she's taken on why he was broken in the first place. People don't commit suicide because they are functioning properly. I may sound harsh, but the logic of going after gun legislation to fix the problem of suicide is to deny the actual cause of the problem. If she were looking for legislation to assist those who are suicidal, I'd applaud.

It strikes me that people that use guns to commit suicide aren't crying out for help. They really do want an end. A person who wants to die that clearly will find other means to do so. Look at Japan for an example. They have nearly no guns at all, yet have a high suicide rate. Lots of jumpers in Japan. Jumping being another method of assured end.

Now the nice misinformation:

Craven’s bill initially called for a 10-day waiting period for people age 22 and under to buy a gun. It was later watered down to require parental consent for 16- and 17-year-olds to buy firearms. In the end, though, the bill was defeated.

Yep. Apparently they want you to believe that a 16 or 17 year old can buy a gun at this time. They can't, with or without parental consent. Federal law requires you to be a minimum of 18.

(F6) Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee?

Yes. Under the GCA, long guns and long gun ammunition may be sold only to persons 18 years of age or older. Sales of handguns and ammunition for handguns are limited to persons 21 years of age and older. Although some State and local ordinances have lower age requirements, dealers are bound by the minimum age requirements established by the GCA. If State law or local ordinances establish a higher minimum age, the dealer must observe the higher age requirement.

[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), 27 CFR 478.99(b)]

But you wouldn't get that from the article.

But the most moving parts are Crowley’s personal story and the agony of losing her son. The film includes footage that leads viewers up a staircase to Belanger’s apartment — the same stairs Crowley ventured up before finding her dead son.

It also shows the pain she felt when she came across messages on Internet forums that attacked her, questioned her parenting skills and even blamed her for her son’s death.

Even though Crowley favors a waiting period, she says she isn’t opposed to guns in general. Her son was in the National Guard, and she was raised in a hunting family. Her efforts, she said, have been about teen suicide, public safety and families.

Craven, who is featured prominently in the film, said she already has submitted a bill for this legislative session calling for a 10-day waiting period for anybody wanting to purchase firearms. The bill won’t pass, she said, but maybe it’ll keep the debate going.

It's sad she was attacked at the forums, but when you attack the deeply held beliefs of others on the AlgoreNet, you're bound to get kicked. Of course, this will certainly play out as the nasty gun nuts attacking the victim of their stupidity. I just don't follow that it's about teen suicide and public safety. Hell, her kid could have offed himself at the National Guard and it wouldn't have involved a purchase. Then what would she have done?

Another wonderful bit of anti-gun propaganda coming to a theater near you.

Cell Phone Fire

Not that I needed another reason not to get a cell phone, but this one is especially odd.

The man, Luis Picaso, 59, suffered second and third degree burns over 60% of his body, including his upper torso and arms, in the fire late Saturday night, said the investigator, Bill Tweedy at the Vallejo Fire Department in an interview today. The victim was listed in critical condition this morning at the University of California at Davis Medical Center, a spokeswoman said.

And

Tweedy said a thorough investigation showed nothing else in the bathroom could have ignited the fire, such as matches or a lighter. "The only thing that was a power source was the cell phone," Tweedy said.

Tweedy said it was a "pretty new cell phone" that was just a voice device, and not a smart phone. He refused to disclose the brand, saying it was not the kind of accident that would necessitate a manufacturer's recall.

"I think it was just a malfunction," Tweedy explained. "The phone was in his pants pocket and he was leaning against a chair asleep, so one button was depressed. That meant power was going through the phone, and the phone overheated."

It didn't help that the victim's pants were a polyester blend, which caught fire and then ignited his nylon shirt and jacket, Tweedy said. The fire spread from the victim to the plastic chair he was seated on, and the flame and heat from the chair set off the sprinkler.

You'd have thought that someone would have designed the phone not to be able to do such a thing. Especially considering that a cell phone is most commonly carried in a pocket where a key could be depressed for an extended period.

Of course, the polyester clothes sets off alarm bells on this one. Do people really wear that much plastic?

I know the guys at work call me a luddite for not having a cell phone, but if this is the cutting edge of the technology, I guess I'll be avoiding it for a while longer.

Because Average REALLY is Average

And there is really is a below average, not just average and above. This guy makes an excellent point that is grounded in reality and yet either overlooked or unspoken in the talk about education, education reform, and income disparity.

Today's simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon.

****

It's no use to say that IQ scores can be wrong. I am not talking about scores on specific tests, but about a student's underlying intellectual ability, g, whether or not it has been measured with a test. And it's no use to say that there's no such thing as g.

While concepts such as "emotional intelligence" and "multiple intelligences" have their uses, a century of psychometric evidence has been augmented over the last decade by a growing body of neuroscientific evidence. Like it or not, g exists, is grounded in the architecture and neural functioning of the brain, and is the raw material for academic performance. If you do not have a lot of g when you enter kindergarten, you are never going to have a lot of it. No change in the educational system will change that hard fact.

That says nothing about the quality of the lives that should be open to everyone across the range of ability. I am among the most emphatic of those who think that the importance of IQ in living a good life is vastly overrated. My point is just this: It is true that many social and economic problems are disproportionately found among people with little education, but the culprit for their educational deficit is often low intelligence. Refusing to come to grips with that reality has produced policies that have been ineffectual at best and damaging at worst.

More Chemistry Making Life Better

Another indication of how simple it is to use the common chemical infrastructure to cause major health risks. Just imagine if this had been intentional and in a high density population center.

Four runaway rail cars traveled 20 miles before hitting two parked locomotives, causing a chemical fire near Irvine that prompted an evacuation and orders that others stay indoors.

The crash released "a toxic cloud" of butyl acetate, a flammable liquid, from a burning tanker car, authorities said. The fire produced a huge column of black smoke, and a section of the Kentucky River caught fire. No injuries were reported, authorities said.

Terrorists don't need to sneak bombs through the ports, we give them easy tools to cause havoc. But hey, let's enact legislation to spend lots of money on methods terrorists won't use and ignore the simple tools that they could use.

"Warriors" Rally Against Iraq War

Warriors? Last I saw they were Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines. None of those designations refer to "warriors." If you don't know the difference, maybe you should do a little research.

In any case, the article is more propaganda by the anti-war campaigns to bring attention to the fact that some in the military don't like the war.

Sgt. Jabbar Magruder spent 11 months in Iraq and turned into one angry soldier.

No weapons of mass destruction. Shifting rationalizations for a mismanaged war. Now a civil war among Iraqis.

He began speaking out against the war last year. He wants others in uniform to do so as well and wants civilians to support them.

Now a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, he joined other active-duty personnel and peace activists at a Norfolk church Monday to promote an "Appeal for Redress" that asks Congress to bring the war to an end.

Funny how the WMD issue is the only one that ever has any traction. I could have sworn there were a total of 23 resolutions in the AUMF. But beyond that, I suppose these guys have every right to complain. I'm certain that there are always a certain level that complain in every armed conflict.

More than 1,030 soldiers, sailors and airmen have signed the petition, which is to be presented to Congress today.

"We've served in combat, and we've seen the futility of this war," said Magruder, who serves in an Army National Guard unit based in California. "The soldiers want to resist. The soldiers want to come home. We need the citizens to back us up."

More than 100 people attended the protest. Roughly one-third of the crowd were active-duty service members.

While still relatively rare, a growing number of military personnel are coming out against the war, bucking a culture in the armed forces that frowns on public opposition to presidential policies. A recent poll shows that support in the military for the war is diminishing and that only 54 percent of those who wear the uniform now approve of President Bush's handling of the war.

Don't you love unnamed polls? I'd love to see the questions and results as well as who sponsored the poll. Bet there was no bias there. I'd also like to see the proportions polled of active duty compared to the National Guard and Reserves. Polls always seem to be a way of proving ones point, even though anyone with a small amount of intelligence has come to the realization that a poll can be made to say whatever you want it to.

The president says that the war can be won and that more troops are needed to prevent Iraq from being taken over by anti-American insurgents.

One message was repeated at Monday's protest: Dissent is not disloyalty, and those who object to the war are not traitors.

"It is not political, despite how others try to label us," said Liam Madden, a Marine who served seven months in Iraq. "Veterans often say, 'Not one more of my brothers should die for a lie.' This is not political. It is a call to conscience."

Service members are allowed to publicly oppose the war if it is done on their own time and they do not wear their uniforms while doing so.

"This is a movement," said Norfolk-based Seaman Jonathan Hutto, an event organizer. "We're not advocating an abandonment of Iraq, but we don't want to see more troops sent in, and we want a political solution to end this. Right now, Iraq is in virtual chaos, in a civil war."

Peace activists from the region welcomed the active-duty war protesters warmly, promising to support them.

"We have a message for the military brass: Any harassment or retribution of these people ... will be met with the full force of our resistance. These are our brothers and our sisters, and they do not stand alone," said Phil Wilayto, a member of the Virginia Anti-War Network.

The last message is especially interesting. The first assumption is that there will be retribution. I've looked around the AlgoreNet and haven't found any reports of such. Milblogs definitely don't speak to it, though the vast majority of them seem to have a message quite in conflict with this one.

I'm also fascinated by the calls to stop the surge. Seems those calling for this line of reasoning are using Rumsfeld's strategy. Odd that, considering these are the same people who were yelping for his head just a couple of months ago. It's even better when they quote the generals that supported Rumsfeld's methods.

The worst argument that is continually being perpetuated, is that there is only a political solution in Iraq. Fascinatingly myopic. Anyone that has studied any history of insurgencies will tell you that politics alone isn't enough. Just like military alone isn't enough. Iraq is even more complex than most historical insurgencies, so a more complex solution is needed. Politics is the big one, and the Iraqi elected government needs to do more. There also needs to be security for the people in the zones of major conflict. That includes controlling the militias and enforcing stability. There is also economic solutions required for jobs for the unemployed and oil revenue sharing among the factors. Putting onus on a single part of a realistic solution is further proof that the speaker truly hasn't a clue.

Active-duty war objectors face ostracism among their peers and potential retaliation from their superior officers, said Fabian Bouthillette, a former Navy officer who joined Iraq Veterans Against the War.

"Supporting the troops means more than slapping a bumper sticker on a car," he said. "I think it is very difficult for active-duty men and women to protest, to speak out. They have that right. We're all in this together."

Not much you can do about the ostracism from peers. You choose to protest, you choose to stand in the way of dissension. Your choice. As for the command retaliation, I'm betting that is far less than this guy would lead you to believe. There are rules within the military, and if the officers stray outside there bounds they can see legal action. As long as the protester sticks to the requirements of the law they have little to worry about. But note, the repeated contention that they will be ostracized by the command structure is a bit of propaganda to make you believe that this is actively occurring, though there is little evidence to support it.

Summit of the Common Enemy

The countries most profiting from US presence in the world have been meeting to complain about that profit.

Iran's hardline president expanded his courtship of allies in his standoff with Washington on Sunday.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged deeper ties with Nicaragua's leftist leader through the opening of new embassies in each other's capitals.

Ahmadinejad was in Managua as part of a whirlwind series of meetings with Latin America's newly inaugurated leftist leaders.

He visited fellow OPEC member Venezuela on Saturday, vowing with President Hugo Chavez to spend billions of dollars financing projects in other countries to combat the global influence of their common enemy, the United States.

Ahmadinejad's tour comes as he faces rising criticism at home for his handling of the international debate over his country's nuclear program and its alleged meddling in Iraq.

Conservatives and reformists alike have blamed his provocative remarks for increasingly isolating Iran, which now faces sanctions for refusing to halt uranium enrichment.

President of a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy deeply hostile to Washington, Ahmadinejad met with Nicaragua's newly inaugurated leftist President Daniel Ortega.

Ortega's first government faced a U.S.-backed guerrilla insurgency during the 1980s.

The leaders announced they would open embassies in each other's capitals, strengthening ties between two countries that have had little interaction yet share long and troubled histories with the U.S.

It's nice to see that they have a hobby to use that money on. Not that they are doing much to improve the economy or the people's level of living. But hey, why actually benefit the people you represent, when you can get international advertising about how bad the US is.

UN Solution for Iraq?

Niall Ferguson generally has a fairly intelligent stand on the question of solutions. This time he is completely out to lunch.

For these reasons, I see only one credible alternative to Bush's strategy: U.S. forces should hand over responsibility for Iraq's security not to the Iraqis but to a new force provided by the United Nations.

The challenge would certainly be a daunting one for the U.N.'s new secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon. With about 74,000 troops already committed to 18 different peacekeeping operations around the world, the U.N. is far from ready to take on the world's No. 1 trouble spot. And, of course, there are many people who would choke at the very idea of a U.N. bailout of an American undertaking they opposed from the outset. Indeed, Bush himself might find it pretty hard to swallow.

Right. That makes sense. The UN who has been incapable of pulling up sufficient military forces to do anything, who has this habit of hiding in their compounds while the place goes to hell, who perpetually leans very heavily on the US for any actual fighting that must be done, is the solution? Give me a break.

The only reason I find it hard to swallow is that it will end with the US military continuing their presence, but under a bureaucracy that is highly divided on how to get it done correctly that it will ensure that more US troops will die for no increased insurance of success.

The idea is to succeed in Iraq, not pass the failure on.

Political Compass Test

Bit interesting. I fall pretty much neutral economically and on the libertarian side.
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.21

You can see a general mapping of the blogsphere at the title link.

In the Shadow of Vietnam

I wasn't surprised at all at the vitriol lobbed at the Presidents proposals. Though I found it especially entertaining to hear the Dems state that they had no obligation to propose alternatives, which is funny considering their perpetual screeching for phased cut-and-run. I also agree with McCain:

As Sen. John McCain put it, "I believe those who are calling for withdrawal have the obligation to tell us what we do in the region when it descends into chaos..."

But that won't be happening either.

The congressional hearings yesterday were quite interesting with the Vietnam historical floundering that went with Bush's statements regarding Iran and Syria's interference in Iraq.

Sen. Joseph Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Bush did not have the authority to send U.S. troops on cross-border raids.

"I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that," Biden, D-Delaware, said during a Thursday hearing on Iraq. "I just want to set that marker." (Watch heated exchanges between Rice and several senators Video)

Rice did not directly reply to Biden's remark, but she said the country expects Bush "to do what is necessary to protect our forces." Biden sent a follow-up letter to the White House after Thursday's hearing, calling on Bush to explain his position.

In his Wednesday night speech announcing the deployment of more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, Bush blamed Iraq's neighbors for stoking the violence there and accused Iran in particular of "providing material support for attacks on American troops." (Watch how the plan will work Video)

"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," he said.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, said Rice's responses had echoes of the debate over the Vietnam War, when the Nixon administration denied U.S. troops were conducting raids into neighboring Cambodia to stop the flow of weapons to South Vietnam's communist insurgency. Hagel, a veteran of that war, called Bush's plan "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."

"When our government lied to the American people and said we didn't cross the border going into Cambodia, in fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee," he said. "Madame Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous."

Funny the prognosticating that is going on. The immediate assumption has been that US troops will pick a fight with Iran and then cross the border. Though that is a far stretch from what the President said. It's even more entertaining that Hagel postures the Cambodian incursions as being blunders. In that war the military actions into Cambodia weren't a mistake at all. The lying about it most certainly was, but that is a completely different thing.

The comparisons of Vietnam/Cambodia to Iraq/Iran are off the mark. First, the Cambodian incursions were against NVA and Cambodian forces in a fairly limited region. The area was full jungle and very difficult to monitor. Monitoring of the Iraq/Iran border are very spread out, but for the most part wide open. Most of the military supplies would be going to Baghdad, and seeing that the distances between the capital and the border are fairly large, detection and intervention will be somewhat simpler. Additional time and clear lines of site will assist in detection.

Of course, the good Senators don't want to bother looking at the Iranian interference. That was happening in another hearing.

Iran has exploited the war in Iraq and a proxy fight with Israel to emerge as a more powerful and confident foe of the United States and is casting a growing "shadow" of influence across the Middle East, the nation's top intelligence official testified Thursday.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on national security threats, National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte and other officials expressed a new level of concern over Iran's capabilities and intentions, saying the Islamic regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons was only one element of its increasingly aggressive behavior.

"Iran's influence is rising in ways that go beyond the menace of its nuclear program," said Negroponte, ticking off several developments that had emboldened the country in the last year.

Among them, he said, was an increase in oil revenue that allowed greater funding of terrorist activities, and a belief in Iran and Lebanon that Hezbollah — the Tehran-sponsored militant group based in Lebanon — was the victor in heavy fighting with Israel last summer.

Iran "regards its ability to conduct terrorist operations abroad as a key element of its national security strategy," Negroponte said, adding that Hezbollah, which the United States classifies as a terrorist organization, "could decide to conduct attacks against U.S. interests if it feels its survival — or that of Iran — is threatened."

His testimony comes at a crucial juncture in the long-strained relationship between the United States and Iran, as the Bush administration struggles for ways to derail Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and curb its interference in the Iraq war. Iran's Shiite Muslim government is a strong supporter of Iraqi Shiite militias involved in sectarian violence.

Indeed, U.S. forces took six Iranian nationals into custody in Iraq on Thursday, while lawmakers in Washington used three separate Capitol Hill hearings to express their concerns that President Bush's plan to deploy 21,500 more troops to Iraq in an effort to stabilize the country could lead to a military confrontation with Iran.

But I'm sure the Senators still believe we should negotiate with them to stabilize the region. In fact, Sen. Webb proved himself the imbecile very quickly by just such a statement.

Sen. Jim Webb, a freshman Democrat who has urged a broader diplomatic approach to reach a solution in Iraq, gave Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a suggestion for Bush to consider: personal involvement with Tehran.

"It would be a bold act for George W. Bush to get on an airplane and go to Tehran in the same manner that President Nixon did" to China more than 30 years ago, Webb maintained at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

I don't recall China being run by a theocracy that has openly called for the destruction of the west. They were a belligerent in Vietnam, as was the USSR and several other countries. Then again, they weren't supporting terrorism in various diverse locations either. Maybe Webb should go speak with the Mullahs, since he obviously has more sympathy for them than he does the US.

I wonder how much louder the screeching will become.

You can see more details of the Political tantrums on the President's plan here.

Bullet Points on the "New Way Forward in Iraq"

From the White House:

The President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:

1. Let the Iraqis lead;
2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
3. Isolate extremists;
4. Create space for political progress;
5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach.

• Iraq Could Not Be Graver – The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq. Our enemies throughout the Middle East are trying to defeat us in Iraq. If we step back now, the problems in Iraq will become more lethal, and make our troops fight an uglier battle than we are seeing today.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Security

Iraqi:

• Publicly acknowledge all parties are responsible for quelling sectarian violence.
• Work with additional Coalition help to regain control of the capital and protect the Iraqi population.
• Deliver necessary Iraqi forces for Baghdad and protect those forces from political interference.
• Commit to intensify efforts to build balanced security forces throughout the nation that provide security even-handedly for all Iraqis.
• Plan and fund eventual demobilization program for militias.

Coalition:

• Agree that helping Iraqis to provide population security is necessary to enable accelerated transition and political progress.
• Provide additional military and civilian resources to accomplish this mission.
• Increase efforts to support tribes willing to help Iraqis fight Al Qaeda in Anbar.
• Accelerate and expand the embed program while minimizing risk to participants.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

• Continue counter-terror operations against Al Qaeda and insurgent organizations.
• Take more vigorous action against death squad networks.
• Accelerate transition to Iraqi responsibility and increase Iraqi ownership.
• Increase Iraqi security force capacity – both size and effectiveness – from 10 to 13 Army divisions, 36 to 41 Army Brigades, and 112 to 132 Army Battalions.
  • Establish a National Operations Center, National Counterterrorism Force, and National Strike Force.
  • Reform the Ministry of Interior to increase transparency and accountability and transform the National Police.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Political

Iraqi:

• The Government of Iraq commits to:
  • Reform its cabinet to provide even-handed service delivery.
  • Act on promised reconciliation initiatives (oil law, de-Baathification law, Provincial elections).
  • Give Coalition and ISF authority to pursue ALL extremists.

• All Iraqi leaders support reconciliation.
• Moderate coalition emerges as strong base of support for unity government.

Coalition:

• Support political moderates so they can take on the extremists.
  • Build and sustain strategic partnerships with moderate Shi'a, Sunnis, and Kurds.
• Support the national compact and key elements of reconciliation with Iraqis in the lead.
• Diversify U.S. efforts to foster political accommodation outside Baghdad (more flexibility for local commanders and civilian leaders).
  • Expand and increase the flexibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) footprint.
  • Focus U.S. political, security, and economic resources at local level to open space for moderates, with initial priority to Baghdad and Anbar.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

• Partnership between Prime Minister Maliki, Iraqi moderates, and the United States where all parties are clear on expectations and responsibilities.
• Strengthen the rule of law and combat corruption.
• Build on security gains to foster local and national political accommodations.
• Make Iraqi institutions even-handed, serving all of Iraq's communities on an impartial basis.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Economic

Iraqi:

• Deliver economic resources and provide essential services to all areas and communities.
• Enact hydrocarbons law to promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation.
• Capitalize and execute jobs-producing programs.
• Match U.S. efforts to create jobs with longer term sustainable Iraqi programs.
• Focus more economic effort on relatively secure areas as a magnet for employment and growth.

Coalition:

• Refocus efforts to help Iraqis build capacity in areas vital to success of the government (e.g. budget execution, key ministries).
• Decentralize efforts to build Iraqi capacities outside the Green Zone.
  • Double the number of PRTs and civilians serving outside the Green Zone.
  • Establish PRT-capability within maneuver Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs).

• Greater integration of economic strategy with military effort.
  • Joint civil-military plans devised by PRT and BCT.
  • Remove legal and bureaucratic barriers to maximize cooperation and flexibility.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Regional

Iraqi:

• Vigorously engage Arab states.
• Take the lead in establishing a regional forum to give support and help from the neighborhood.
• Counter negative foreign activity in Iraq.
• Increase efforts to counter PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party).

Coalition:

• Intensify efforts to counter Iranian and Syrian influence inside Iraq.
• Increase military presence in the region.
• Strengthen defense ties with partner states in the region.
• Encourage Arab state support to Government of Iraq.
• Continue efforts to help manage relations between Iraq and Turkey.
• Continue to seek the region's full support in the War on Terror.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

• Focus on the International Compact.
• Retain active U.N. engagement in Iraq – particularly for election support and constitutional review.

Iraq Policy

Not that I expected to be surprised. The press has been bellowing everything in the speech for at least a week now. Just once I'd like to be surprised.

So the break down really comes to the surge to enforce security in Baghdad and increase activity in al-Anbar province. The Dems have essentially flipped out on this, as expected. So nothing new there. A lot of analysis in the MSM says that the increase is nothing new and has failed before. That has some accuracy, but in a very limited scope. First, all clear and hold operations have been the US military clearing and the Iraqi military holding. The change is that the US military will be used for prolongation of the holding as embedded units. That is different and should help the Iraqis get more experience and should also help logistics. Not mentioned anywhere that I can find is that this will also help ensure that areas being held aren't abused by sectarian divisions between the police/military and the populations.

Bush didn't mention the militias in his speech. I think this topic needs to be addressed, and it appears that the Iraqi government is starting to give notice. This looks to me like there will be a clash with the Mahdi Army. I question whether the present PM has the political muscle to bring them under control.

Iraq's prime minister has told Shiite militiamen to surrender their weapons or face an all-out assault, part of a commitment U.S. President George W. Bush outlined to bring violence under control with a more aggressive Iraqi Army and 21,500 additional American troops.

Senior Iraqi officials said Wednesday that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, under pressure from the U.S., has agreed to crack down on the fighters even though they are loyal to his most powerful political ally, the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Previously, al-Maliki had resisted the move.

al-Maliki has spoken similarly before, but has never actually backed that up. He has to decide whether he and the Democratically elected government is going to run the country or these rogue clerics. I'm not optimistic.

Other new tactics relate to jobs and the economy:

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

Again, these all are very dependent on the Iraqi government's will. The Sunni areas must be assured at least a fair shake in these plans. Of course, they want the lion's share, but they also need to come to a realization that if this all fails they may be lucky to remain alive. I don't think this has been setting in strongly. It almost would be instructive to have them feel a little of what they could be up against if they don't come into the government. Not that that will happen, but those thinking that they will get anything like what they have had previous for power need to know their choices are fair to horrific.

Outside support from the middle eastern countries is also discussed.

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region, to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

He also discussed Iran and Syria in rather scathing terms. Appropriate in my view. At this point if it isn't clear to everyone that those two countries want US failure for their own hegemony, then no one is looking. I'd even state that talking with them at this point would be used against the US by giving them further propaganda fuel showing the US as weak and begging for help. After the past few president's failures to show any real spine when it comes to conflict, the propaganda value of keeping them out will work for the US. Especially within countries that are sitting on the fence or slightly favoring our stand.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

I don't see much hope of stabilizing the region with Syria and especially Iran actively undermining stabilization processes. Iran's nuclear ambitions don't indicate any sign of any desire to get along with the rest of the countries in the area, not to mention the world.

Syria has already stood up and said there can be no peace.

Peace in the Middle East was an impossibility in light of US President George Bush's announcement to send more troops to Iraq, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara said on Thursday, according to a report on Israel Radio.

"There is no reason to expect that the peace process will be restarted without the clear commitment of the Americans," al-Shara said.

Again, this appears that they refuse to be part of the solution. I'm certain they would love to be a solution on their own terms, but that would completely fail to bring stabilization. It also brings up a question of how Syria and Saudi Arabia are going to deal with the Sunni weakness in Iraq. If the US fails, the sectarian battlefield could be more than just a localized civil war within Iraq. It could be a regional sectarian war within Iraq. This is part of the issue with those calling for withdrawal. They fail to perceive that the spread of instability will have profound regional effects which will then slowly cause global repercussions.

The political jousting started even before the speech. Pelosi and Reid made their ire well known.

Emerging from their afternoon meeting with Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said they felt they were not able to give input to the Bush plan.

Their meeting "was notification, not consultation," said Pelosi.

My visceral reaction to this was that they believed that they should have been giving permission to the President for his plan. Teddy-the-Tick Kennedy also put forward a similar sounding bite previously with expectations that the president should have to get congress' permission to send in more troops. Funny how they all ignore the constitution when it so suits them. It also is striking that the only alternative that the Dem leadership has come up with continues to be phased-cut-and-run.

It was also informative to see how many news hits one found on that quote. I only got three hits on the google-news search. I did see the quote on the TV media more, but the print press seems not to want to show that to the public.

I'm not optimistic. I think the strategic alterations of value, only I don't see it as probable that the US public will have sufficient patients to allow success. With the political screeching going on, I'm going to bet that the troop surge will be especially poorly received. The President really needs to push this plan to the public and counter the Dems whining with resolve. Sadly, this is something that Bush hasn't had much success with in the past.

Mumbles Menino's New Gun Control Agenda

If you can't enforce one law, write some more. Menino just doesn't get it.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino will ask the Legislature to toughen Massachusetts' gun laws.

Menino wants to suspend the driver's licenses and revoke the vehicle registrations of people convicted of firearms violations. The mayor hopes the stricter laws will not only reduce violent crimes, but also warn police pulling over cars that the driver may be carrying guns.

And at the Federal level:

Mayor Thomas Menino says he plans to travel to Washington later this month to personally lobby new House Speaker and fellow Democrat Nancy Pelosi for tougher gun laws.

Menino said the country has to do more to crack down on gun trafficking and gun-related crime. He said in 2006, Boston police took more than 1,800 guns off city streets, twice as many as the previous year.

"We need to convince Congress to pass common sense gun laws," Menino said to an outburst of applause in his annual State of the City Address on Tuesday night. "Laws that punish immoral gun dealers, and protect our citizens."

Menino pointed to an initiative he began with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to combat illegal guns. He said the Mayors Against Illegal Guns initiative began with 15 mayors and has grown to 123 mayors in 44 states.

I love when he points to the need for common sense gun control, and then points to the Bloomberg initiative. I'm still wondering when the BATFE is going to actually state that it was just fine for Bloomberg to violate the law with a conspiracy to commit a felony. I'd say there is more, but I'm betting on the BATFE only going for a slap on the wrist for something the rest of us would spend long amounts of time in jail for doing.

I'm so very glad I don't live in Boston.

Homeland Stupid Security Bill

Has there been any Blue Ribbon Commissions on security? I'd really like to know that. The reason mostly has to do with the legislation like this reported that essentially requires a large amount of highly ineffective and costly security measures.

The House passed a broad homeland-security bill Tuesday that requires all cargo on U.S.-bound ships and on passenger planes to be scanned for explosives, expands programs to track weapons of mass destruction and bolsters intelligence gathering along the border.

The bill, which implements many of the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, is the first in the 100-hour legislative drive spearheaded by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

It passed 299-128, with 68 Republicans joining Democrats. All members of the Washington state delegation voted for the bill.

While it could bolster the Democratic Party's national-security credentials, it also could fall short of its aims. Democrats did not designate funding for most of the costly initiatives, and critics also charge that some are impractical.

Funny that they state it could bolter the Dems on National Security, but only for those people that are completely clueless on security. Sadly the Hollywood scenario solutions are just a vast waste of time. I won't reiterate the stupidity of the Safe Ports act or the extensions that this bill will add. That is quite obvious. But what about the check of all cargo for explosives? Is there any way to do this without opening ever single item and doing a swipe test?

I'm thinking that some of the measures could be good, but the ones listed in this report are basically poor. I'll have to find out just what they mean by "intelligence gathering along the border." I'm thinking there aren't many high level threats along our borders. What intelligence are they looking for exactly?

I'm sure that this bill will look worse and worse as analysis of it comes out.

Barney Frank's Big Mouth

MSM gives another pass to racial comments by a liberal. Surprise surprise surprise.

In a Capitol Hill briefing captured on video by liberal blogger Matt Stoller, Mr. Frank suggested the administration was trying to make Louisiana more Republican by failing to alleviate housing problems for poor blacks displaced by Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005.

"In the year-plus since then ... they have done nothing to rebuild affordable housing" in New Orleans, Mr. Frank said on the video. "And, what I believe is, at this point you're not talking about incompetence, but ... what you're talking about is when you simply, in a calculated way, refuse to do anything for well over a year ... the policy I think here is ethnic cleansing by inaction.

"It's not ethnic cleansing in the sense that they're killing people, ... but what we need to recognize here is that, they're in this happy position for them, where if the federal government does nothing, Louisiana will become whiter and richer. ... They let the hurricane do the ethnic cleansing, and their hands are clean."

Mr. Frank, whose Massachusetts 4th Congressional District is 89 percent white, said the administration was "happy" with the destruction of housing in New Orleans because "as a result ... Louisiana would become more widely Republican" by losing "100,000 black voters."

I guess Frank hasn't bothered getting any control of liberal bloggers. Not that I expect they would fall in line with his reasoning, it's just fun to see a liberal blogger outing a bastion of liberalism.

Anyone else think that this would have been given a pass by the MSM if it had been a Repub? I did a google-new search on "Barney Frank" katrina and "ethnic cleansing" and got a total of 8 reports. Eliminate "ethnic cleansing" and you jump up to 145. I'm sure the numbers will change, but it's disturbing that this got so very little time in the "Fair and Balanced" journalism in the US.

Seems that the Massachusetts politicos are doing a bang up job. Now we just need to find out if Kerry is going to run for president again.

Troop Escalation

Troop Escalation? What, they don't like the word surge? And what happened to all these Dems who were demanding the President follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Looks to me that he's following this recommendation and now they have changed their minds.

Kennedy, being the major windbag that he is pontificated on the need for congressional approval for the President to take further military action. Still think the Dems aren't trying to take constitutional powers away from the president?

Sen. Edward Kennedy, one of President Bush's fiercest anti-war critics, said Tuesday he hopes to throw up a legislative roadblock against Bush's expected call for up to 20,000 more troops in Iraq.

Kennedy, D-Mass., flexing his political muscle in the new Democratic majority, is pushing a bill to deny Bush the billions of dollars in funding needed for a troop buildup unless Congress first approves. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., is filing a similar measure in the House.

"We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq," Kennedy said. "We must act to prevent it."

The legislation is expected to spark broader debate on Capitol Hill over steps lawmakers eager to curb Bush's war strategy should take.

Kennedy warned that Bush's anticipated call for extra troops, to be outlined Wednesday night in a nationally televised address, would "exact a fearsome toll" of American lives.

"Such an escalation would be a policy of desperation built on denial and fantasy," Kennedy said in a speech at the National Press Club. "It is 'stay the course' under another name."

Of course Ed Markey, the other knee jerk from the People's Republic of Massachusetts is on board. I wonder if Kennedy has told Kerry what to think on this subject yet.

Of course, the BoGlobe failed to report the Vietnam quotes. This from The Swamp.

“Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.” Thus said Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, in a speech at the National Press Club today.

Of course, if that’s true, then not only would Iraq be President Bush’s Vietnam, it would be the American people’s Vietnam too, yet another quagmire with no end in sight.

I especially love Kennedy braying about history, ignoring that what he is proposing would in fact violate what he is contending.

This Congress cannot escape history or its own duty. If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are condemned to repeat them. We must act, and act now, before the President sends more troops to Iraq, or else it will be too late.

The legislation that we will introduce today is brief but essential. It requires the President to obtain approval from Congress before he sends even more American soldiers to Iraq. And it prohibits the President from spending taxpayer dollars on such an escalation unless Congress approves it.

Seems to me I recall funding to support Vietnam and the US intervention there in was withdrawn by a Democratic majority. Wonder if Teddy has considered that president since he so clearly wants all the blame for any failure to fall on Bush while he and his ilk are viewed as innocent bystanders. Unfortunately, his actions show that he is ignoring history which he so vehemently points at as a lesson for the public.

Kennedy worked hard to tighten any link in the minds of listeners who were predisposed between Iraq and Vietnam. Said Kennedy:

Listen to this comment from a high-ranking American official: “It became clear that if we were prepared to stay the course, we could help to lay the cornerstone for a diverse and independent Asia…If we faltered, the forces of chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the course.”

That is not President Bush speaking. It is President Lyndon Johnson, forty years ago, ordering a hundred thousand more American soldiers to Vietnam.

You'd also think that he'd have a better grasp of the history of Vietnam considering his brother was the one that escalated the US intervention there. You'd think that JFK wasn't involved with how Teddy lays the blame squarely on LBJ. You have to question his intentions as to the reasoning. [Insert your own smarmy comment on his(teddy's) level of sobriety at the time.]

Reid and Pelosi have been following along with this line of reasoning. Fortunately, It would appear unlikely that this legislation would make it through to meet a veto. Even if it did, it would be unlikely to have sufficient votes to bypass that veto.

Stupid Security in Boston

Caught this linked at SayUncle.

First thing that ran through my mind is that this thing is going to be so simple to screw with. False positive rates are going to have the police ign0ring this thing in short order.

Boston city councilors, law enforcement officials, and community leaders are pressing City Hall to come up with $1.5 million to buy a promising acoustic gunshot-detection system.

The sensor system could blanket a 5.6-square-mile swath of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods -- the source of 80 to 85 percent of calls citywide reporting shots fired -- and give officers a jump on arresting suspects, improve police response time to 911 calls, and possibly reduce firearm violence, proponents say.

Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said he believes the technology would help prosecutors win more gun cases and would require a "relatively modest investment," given the city's $2 billion annual budget.

"Police would be able to get the scene quickly and perhaps apprehend someone fleeing the scene, or identify someone who actually saw something," Conley said in an interview yesterday. "It would also corroborate witness testimony."

This one is just frightening. Let's start with that 5.6 square mile part. That's a huge amount of property. How many police actively patrol this area? Will they be able to respond efficiently? Criminals don't generally fire a gun and then stand around waiting for the police to arrive. If anything this will give them more incentive to act and then run.

Then there is the ways to screw with the machine. I'm going to bet that the machine has some method of telling the difference between a gun shot and fireworks, but how effective is that? I'm certain they'll find out when there is a rash of fireworks use after the installation. Criminals could also easily drive along and fire a couple of quick shots in one area and drive to where they intend to do the crime. The police run to the first reported incident and try to figure out what happened while the real thing is occurring elsewhere.

SayUncle even points to the use of suppressors which could easily be made and utilized. Depends on the intent and drive of the criminal.

It could help in the case of a legal usage of a gun, but if the criminal has attempted to send the police on a goose chase first, then it won't help at all.