Their Sacrifice Helped Us Walk On The Moon

I hadn't realized this until I saw it in the Examiner, but today is the 40th anniversary of the Apollo I fire that took the lives of Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee. The disaster almost derailed the Apollo program, and it took the better part of two years before NASA could make the changes necessary to transform the catastrophe into an improved system that would successfully land men on the moon in 1969:

Exactly 40 years later, the three Apollo astronauts who were killed in that flash fire were remembered Saturday for paving the way for later astronauts to be able to travel to the moon. The deaths of Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee forced NASA to take pause in its space race with the Soviet Union and make design and safety changes that were critical to the agency's later successes.

"I can assure you if we had not had that fire and rebuilt the command module ... we could not have done the Apollo program successfully," said retired astronaut John Young, who flew in Gemini 3 with Grissom in 1965. "So we owe a lot to Gus, and Rog and Ed. They made it possible for the rest of us to do the almost impossible."

The memorial service at the Kennedy Space Center Visitors Complex marked the start of a solemn week for NASA - Sunday is the 21st anniversary of the space shuttle Challenger accident, and Thursday makes four years since the space shuttle Columbia disaster.

Chaffee's widow, Martha, and White's son, Edward III, along with NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier, laid a wreath at the base of the Space Mirror Memorial, a tall granite-finished wall engraved with the names of the Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia astronauts and seven other astronauts killed in accidents.

My father, the Admiral Emeritus, worked on the space program for almost 30 years and met the men on a few occasions. The people at NASA and the contracting companies (where my father worked) took the Apollo disaster very personally. People working on the space program had a strong sense of mission and of being part of history, and the loss of these brave leaders had a terrible impact on everyone involved.

Congress grilled NASA and the astronauts in the program after the disaster, and they put a lot of pressure on the program to end the mission. In the end, Congress relented and all of the agencies and companies involved made significant changes to the equipment and procedures, changes which put Neil Armstrong on the moon and made space flight almost routine for another 17 years, until the Challenger disaster in 1986 almost exactly 19 years after Apollo I.

Not many people know much about the three men, and the most famous -- Grissom -- is mostly known from his portrayal in The Right Stuff, which made him look petty and somewhat cowardly. A much better representation of Grissom can be found in Tom Hanks' miniseries, From The Earth To The Moon, which correctly paints Grissom as a tough-minded, hard-driven perfectionist who put everything he had into the program. Grissom was the first man to get flight status in all three NASA space missions (Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo) at the time of the fire, and he pushed NASA and the contractors hard to build the equipment properly. Petty and weak men did not make it into the space program, at least not as astronauts, and Grissom had made two journeys into space already by the time he died.

There were many reasons the Apollo I accident should not have happened, but Grissom, White, and Chaffee knew that the job was dangerous and did it anyway. They should rightly be remembered as American heroes.

Mitt Romney Interview

Governor Mitt Romney was our guest on today's Northern Alliance Radio Network, and we spoke with him for eighteen minutes as the Presidential candidate made his way between flights. Despite the frantic nature of his schedule today, Romney presented a calm, thoughtful, and unhurried demeanor as we introduced our audience to one of the presumptive Republican front-runners. Here's the entire interview, podcasted for your convenience:

Romney Interview

One of the more intriguing questions Romney answered had little to do with his own campaign. I asked him why the election cycle seems to have started so early in both parties, and instead of giving the usual analysis about the 24-hour news cycle and the rise of the bloggers, he said that the lack of a vice-presidential presumptive nominee seems to have forced everyone to start raising funds earlier.

That got Mitch and I wondering later in the show about when we didn't have a sitting VP running for President. We figured that would be 1952, when the Democrats nominated Adlai Stevenson for the first of two attempts to win the White House (losing both times to Dwight Eisenhower). However, Alben Barkley did run for the nomination in 1952; Stevenson beat him out for the nomination.

So who was it? After a little research, it appears that honor goes to Charles Dawes, the VP of Calvin Coolidge, as I speculated at first on the air. Dawes, it turns out, was a disaster as VP. He started his term of office by insulting Coolidge and the Republican-controlled Senate. He refused to attend Cabinet meetings, and then when he was inaugurated on the Senate floor as was the tradition in those days, he gave a speech that blasted the various traditions of the Senate. Since that speech preceded Coolidge's own inaugural, which followed immediately after, it overshadowed Coolidge's address, infuriating him even more. Dawes wound up botching his job in helping to push a difficult Cabinet appointment through the Senate a short time afterwards, and later convinced the Senate to pass a bill that Coolidge vetoed. He fared no better as an ambassador to the UK after his term of office; he insulted the British by rejecting the traditional dress at the Court of St. James, as well as rebelling against the expectation of introducing American women to the King.

The interview covers a lot of subjects, but does not touch on anything in too much depth. Later, as the Governor visits us during the campaign, we will spend more time drilling down into the various issues that resonate with the Republican base. Enjoy the clip, and let me know what you think.

Kerry Slams US In Davos Summit

There's something about the Davos economic summit that drives American leftists to slam their own country while abroad. Two years ago, Eason Jordan lost his job at CNN over his accusations in Davos that the US military had a policy of assassinating journalists in war zones. Today, John Kerry used the forum to scold the Bush administration for its foreign policy while specifying two issues that predate it:

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry slammed the foreign policy of the Bush administration on Saturday, saying it has caused the United States to become "a sort of international pariah."

The statement came as the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee responded to a question about whether the U.S. government had failed to adequately engage Iran's government before the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.

Kerry said the Bush administration has failed to adequately address a number of foreign policy issues.

"When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy," Kerry said.

"So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East - in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today."

Once again, we have the spectre of Kyoto haunting the Bush administration, when it was the Clinton administration that refused to submit the treaty to the Senate -- and the Senate that unanimously passed a resolution saying they'd never ratify it. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution in 1997 made it clear that the US would not allow itself to be bound by the treaty as long as it exempted India, China, and other developing nations. That's the same position as the Bush Administration has taken -- and the same position that John Kerry himself took in 1997 when he voted in favor of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution.

That's yet another example of the hypocrisy of John Kerry -- but there's more.

He took the time to scold the Bush administration for its lack of effort on AIDS and other diseases in Africa. However, Bush has already spent more on these issues than the last Democratic administration did in eight years. Humanitarian aid to Africa comprised $1.4 billion a year at the end of the Clinton administration, but Bush has tripled that to $4 billion per year -- and wants to more than double it over the next two years:

President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa.

The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion. ...

Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States.

So not only is John Kerry a hypocrite, he's also an ignoramus. However, we have noticed that the Davos forum has become, over the years, a convention of sorts for both. Kerry should feel right at home.

UPDATE: Allahpundit has the video at Hot Air.

UPDATE II: Glenn Reynolds sums Kerry up in his link back to this post: "Like Jimmy Carter, he'll never forgive America for rejecting him, and he'll console himself with the approval of America's enemies."

Another Success For Missile Shield

Early this morning, an American anti-ballistic missile shot down a medium-range target over the Pacific Ocean, another in a string of successful tests aimed at building an umbrella against nuclear attacks on North America:

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency shot down a dummy target missile over the southern Pacific Ocean during a test of the U.S. missile defense shield early Saturday, according to an agency spokeswoman.

First, a dummy ballistic missile was fired from a U.S. mobile launch platform in the Pacific Ocean in a simulated attack.

Moments later, an interceptor missile was fired from the agency's missile range facility on Hawaii's Kekaha Island and struck the dummy warhead over the Pacific Ocean, military footage showed.

The mobile, ground-based system is designed to protect the United States from short to intermediate-range high altitude ballistic missile attacks in the North American region, agency spokeswoman Pam Rogers said.

The system "intercepts missiles that are shorter range and at the end of their flight trajectory. It is part of the ballistic missile defense system, a layered system that is designed to intercept all types of missiles in all phases of flights," Rogers said.

This part of the system, which can target short-range missiles as well as intermediate-range, had been tested at White Sands several times since 2005. The DoD moved it to Hawaii after a successful test in October, and this was the first test since that time. The success shows that the ballistic missile shield can work in field conditions and has demonstrated portability, an important point when building a reliable network of intercept stations.

Once again, the underlying technology of a missile shield has been shown to succeed, despite the dire predictions of expensive futility by critics. If the system can be developed quickly enough, it will render moot any attempt by rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea to build ballistic missiles for the purposes of extortion. It will take them decades to catch up to our defenses and likely would bankrupt them if they tried.

We may have seen the path out of the nuclear standoff in which we have lived for the last 60 years, traced across the sky by a successful intercept. That's a strategy worth pursuing.

Gates, The Anti-Rumsfeld

The appointment of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense pleased many who blamed the long-serving Cabinet officer for the "hard slog" in Iraq, as Rumsfeld himself put it. Among those most pleased are members of the media, who have felt the brunt of Rumsfeld's scorn when they asked questions he deemed ignorant or ill-informed. Julian Barnes of the Los Angeles Times stops just short of writing hosannas to Gates:

If there was any question that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would go to almost any length to demonstrate he was the anti-Rumsfeld, he dispelled it Friday.

In his first-ever Pentagon news conference, Gates' manner and method could not have been more different than those of his controversial predecessor — starting with the room. ...

Stylistically, Gates refrained from scoffing at reporters, from restating their questions on more favorable terms and from challenging the premises of inquiries. He avoided any metaphysical lectures or expositions on the electricity supply of North Korea. Instead, he took the questions as they came, working his way through 32 of them, quickly and concisely.

Well, good Lord, let's not have anyone challenge reporters on the premises of their inquiries! It's not as if journalists ever pose long-winded questions with so many qualify clauses that they begin to resemble legal briefs. Reporters rarely ask brief and unqualified questions at press conferences any more. They're more apt to ask trapping queries along the lines of "Have you stopped beating your wife?", and get snippy when their prey turn the questions and the qualifiers around to avoid their traps.

On the substance, though, Barnes has a point. Gates has moved farther away from Rumsfeld than people may have presumed at the time of his nomination. He supports George Casey for Army Chief of Staff, despite his recent relief as commander in Iraq in favor of David Petraeus, and he strongly implied in his response that Rumsfeld had more to do with the problems in Iraq than Casey. (John McCain has already said he'd vote against the appointment.) He also hinted that despite Rumsfeld's protestations to the contrary, commanders in Iraq did not feel free to request higher troop levels under his administration, and that Gates will be much more receptive to their input.

Gates showed some spark as well. When asked about the competing Senate resolutions scolding Bush for the surge strategy, Gates replied that such efforts "certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries." That got Ted Kennedy sputtering again, calling Gates' comment a "desperate attempt" to prop up Bush's Iraq policies. It also made headlines, and fired up the NRSC Pledge organizers.

Barnes also mentioned that Gates has so far eschewed the Pentagon's briefing room. Hey, if they're not going to use it ....

Democrats Will Push Replacement AUMF

Steny Hoyer announced yesterday that Congress will pursue a new strategy in its opposition to the war in Iraq, one that has the effect of turning back time. Instead of issuing meaningless resolutions or taking the political risk of defunding the troops under fire, Hoyer and the Democrats now want to re-write the original Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in 2002 regarding Iraq:

Democrats may promote a new revised bill authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- to replace the 2002 bill that allowed the Bush administration to proceed with the war, a top Democrat said Friday.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer -- No. 2 in the House behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- said that is one step Democrats might pursue to change conditions in Iraq.

"Frankly, it is time for the president to accept that we are no longer involved in a nation-building exercise. We are involved in conflict resolution," Hoyer said during a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

After a series of congressional hearings on the war, "We will then explore appropriate ways to affect the policy and strategy being pursued in Iraq," Hoyer said.

Some ways include spending bills for military and diplomatic activities in Iraq "and possibly a revised authorization for the use of military force in Iraq that more accurately reflects the mission of our troops on the ground," he said.

Unfortunately, that's a lot like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Issuing an AUMF has traditionally meant that the conduct of the war then transfers completely to the executive. The only method of ending the conflict authorized by the AUMF from the position of the legislature is to end its funding and forcing the withdrawal of troops -- a radical step fraught with peril for the troops involved and the position of the American military around the world.

Congress will set an awful precedent if it decides it can re-jigger its language in the middle of the war they authorized. Wars do not get fought on day-to-day whims; they involve large-scale planning. The movement of our military takes tremendous logistical planning, and when we have other nations working with us within a coalition, it gets even more complex. Having a branch of government with no responsibility for military command suddenly dictate rule changes in the middle of the war will destroy any hope of success and force a collapse that will cost the US dearly in terms of credibility as well as money.

Besides, it's almost certainly unconstitutional. The Constitution has traditionally been interpreted to say that Congress can declare war, but the executive has to declare an end to conflict through the office of Commander-In-Chief once war has been declared. Congress, in attempting to amend or replace the AUMF, wants to usurp that office for themselves, making the C-in-C an executive consisting of a committee of 535 people. Regardless of one's position on this war, it's a horrible precedent to set even if it could pass Constitutional muster, which it almost certainly will not.

The key for a political party to end a war is to win the White House. They had their opportunity in 2004 and lost the election. Short of pulling the funding and taking responsibility for that act, the Democrats have no legal way to do it.

I will give Hoyer his due, however. He addressed the nations that have carped about Iraq in the same statement:

"While the world can and should critically evaluate the administration's flawed execution of this war, we cannot ignore the central argument that our action was, in part, a consequence of the international community's failure to act multilaterally," Hoyer said, citing Saddam Hussein's flouting of U.N. resolutions. "The U.N. only talked in the face of international violations, even though history demonstrates that vacillation only emboldens those who seek to rule through force and terror."

"The international community must embrace its responsibility in Iraq," he added.

Mitt Romney On The NARN

The Northern Alliance Radio Network will be on the air today, with our six-hour-long broadcast schedule starting at 11 am CT. The first two hours features Power Line's John Hinderaker and Chad and Brian from Fraters Libertas. Mitch and I hit the airwaves for the second shift from 1-3 pm CT, and King Banaian and Michael Broadkorb have The Final Word from 3-5. If you're in the Twin Cities, you can hear us on AM 1280 The Patriot, or on the station's Internet stream if you're outside of the broadcast area.

Today, Mitch and I welcome Governor Mitt Romney, one of the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. We believe the interview will take place in our first hour, but it may shift around a bit as the Governor is traveling today and we're catching him in transit. We will also be welcoming Bill Ardolino from INDC Journal, who embedded himself with the US military in Iraq and did some free-lance work for The Examiner.

Be sure to join the conversation with Mitch and me today by calling 651-289-4488!

UPDATE: Macsmind makes its debut on BlogTalkRadio today at noon ET. You should be listening to the NARN at that point, of course, but the great aspect of BTR is that it immediately podcasts the shows -- so you can listen to us live, and then replay the Macsmind show. It's a win-win.

Also, BTR head honcho Alan Levy will be interviewing Congressman and presidential candidate Duncan Hunter this afternoon, so keep checking back at BTR.

Hillary As The New Kerry, Take 2

Two weeks ago, I asked whether Hillary Clinton will be 2008's John Kerry. With polls showing Hillary starting to sink in Iowa and New Hampshire and populists Barack Obama and John Edwards taking advantage, her front-runner status looks suddenly shaky, just as John Kerry's did after Howard Dean caught fire in 2003. Now one of the dextrosphere's most prominent bloggers also draws uncomfortable, and unflattering comparisons between the 2004 nominee and the presumptive favorite for 2008. Arianna Huffington told Der Spiegel that Hillary risks the same fate as Kerry from their shared trait -- disingenuity:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Right now, Sen. Obama appears to be faring better in the blogosphere than Hillary Clinton -- he's getting more mentions in blogs. Why? And how much influence does that blogging have on the general public?

Huffington: Primary elections are always influenced by those who are the most politically engaged. Blogs are just another element of this. To most bloggers, authenticity is an important criterion. There is an allergic reaction to hyper-cautious politicians. Hillary Clinton's problem with the blogosphere is that she has been so calculating that you can smell it. Every thought has been processed through multiple channels in her and her consultants' brains. It's so fabricated!

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In 2004, you and many others did everything you could on the Internet to fiercely campaign against Bush's re-election. But in the end he won.

Huffington: This was partly a problem of our candidate. John Kerry was not authentic. Hillary Clinton has exactly the same problem.

Gerard Baker made much the same point in today's Times of London. Calling her "America's Lady Macbeth", Baker excoriates Clinton for creating perhaps the most complete mask of any mainstream politician in recent memory:

Fifteen years ago there was once a principled, if somewhat rebarbative and unelectable politician called Hillary Rodham Clinton. A woman who aggressively preached abortion on demand and the right of children to sue their own parents, a committed believer in the power of government who tried to create a healthcare system of such bureaucratic complexity it would have made the Soviets blush; a militant feminist who scorned mothers who take time out from work to rear their children as “women who stay home and bake cookies”.

Today we have a different Hillary Rodham Clinton, all soft focus and expensively coiffed, exuding moderation and tolerance.

To grasp the scale of the transfiguration, it is necessary only to consider the very moment it began. The turning point in her political fortunes was the day her husband soiled his office and a certain blue dress. In that Monica Lewinsky moment, all the public outrage and contempt for the sheer tawdriness of it all was brilliantly rerouted and channelled to the direct benefit of Mrs Clinton, who immediately began a campaign for the Senate.

And so you had this irony, a woman who had carved out for herself a role as an icon of the feminist movement, launching her own political career, riding a wave of public sympathy over the fact that she had been treated horridly by her husband.

It seems as though Clinton carries plenty of negatives even among her supposed base. Arianna Huffington may not represent the center, but she has plenty of influence among Democratic Party activists, and her dismissal of Hillary reflects the general unease with her dash to the median among the Left. Taking broadsides from the centrist Times of London and the doyenne of liberal bloggers at the same time portends difficult times ahead for the former First Lady.

And they have a point. Perhaps we've watched it for so long that we've become somewhat inured to Hillary's lack of authenticity, but her reinvention could almost be called epic. Baker has more specifics than Huffington, but most of us could name at least two or three major issues on which she's reversed herself since her initial campaign for the Senate. She has tried to make herself into the same kind of triangulator as her husband, but it comes much less naturally to her -- and the effect is to make her appear phony where Bill seemed genuine.

It's this same quality, a lack of genuineness, that sunk John Kerry in 2004. The Democrats may want to avoid a similar train wreck in 2008.

Canada To Apologize For Arar Deportation

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology today on behalf of the Canadian government for instigating the 2002 deportation of Maher Arar from the United States to Syria on suspicion of connections to terrorism, suspicions that Canada later determined were false. Arar, who claimed he was tortured by Syrian security forces, will alse get a $10 million settlement -- but it's the apology that has the most meaning to Arar (via Newsbeat1 and Memeorandum):

Ottawa has reached a $10-million settlement with Maher Arar over Canada's role in a U.S. decision to deport him to Syria, where he was jailed and tortured.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is scheduled to make the settlement announcement on Friday afternoon, when he will also issue a formal apology to Arar on behalf of Canadians. Sources told the CBC the government will also pick up Arar's legal fees. ...

Ottawa set up a judicial inquiry into the case led by Justice Dennis O'Connor after Arar returned to Canada more than a year later.

O'Connor released his report in September 2006, concluding that Arar had no links to terrorist organizations or militants. He also concluded the RCMP had given misleading information to U.S. authorities, which may have been the reason he was sent to Syria.

Arar apparently can use the money. He has not been able to shake the notoriety of the case, and when he Googles his name, all that comes up are articles about his purported connections to terrorism. He will not travel outside of Canada, mostly because his name still remains on the American watch list, which makes him ineligible for entry to the US.

A year ago, a federal judge dismissed Arar's case, ruling that he had no jurisdiction to question the decision of American security officials, especially since the RCMP had indicated that Arar was a threat. However, American officials have never really answered why Arar got deported to Syria rather than returned to Canada. He is a Syrian native, but emigrated to Canada at 17 with his parents. He holds a Canadian passport, and did at the time of the incident. Apparently because he had a casual relationship with someone under suspicion of terror links, the RCMP drew the conclusion that Arar also had links to terrorists, and added his name to their lists.

When Arar traveled to the US in 2002, that and some supplemental information given by the RCMP convinced the US to deport him -- but to Syria rather than Canada. The incident started the controversy over the practice of "extraordinary rendition", seen as a means by some for the US to send terror suspects to nations whose interrogation techniques had much less legal oversight than in the West.

The Canadians concluded last year that adding him to their watch lists was a mistake and that Arar had indeed suffered torture, which paved the way for his lawsuit and today's settlement and apology. The question still remains about whether Arar belongs on the watch list, and this case will remain high up in Google searches until the US either makes a public case for Arar's inclusion or removes him from their lists. In the meantime, Harper's apology should allow Arar to return to a more normal life -- at least in Canada.

Are We Missing An Opportunity In Turkmenistan?

When Turkmenistan's cult dictator Saparmurat Niyazov died last year, hope for reform in the Central Asian republic rose in the West, as well as the potential for an opening towards loosening Vladimir Putin's grip on the region's energy resources. Simon Tisdall reports for the Guardian that both hopes may be dashed if the West does not take more aggressive action to promote democracy:

Turkmenistan has some of the world's biggest natural gas fields, producing the equivalent of 11% of total EU consumption annually. But its pipeline export routes remain firmly under Russian control, a legacy of the Soviet era. Last September Moscow's state energy giant Gazprom won access to the large Yolotan field and an option on any surpluses until 2009. The deal marked the end of President Saparmurat Niyazov's bid to weaken Russia's grip. And in any case, in December Niyazov, known as Turkmenbashi the Great, died after 21 years running one of the world's most oppressive dictatorships.

Apparently oblivious to concerns about democratic transition, Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, was quick to cement ties with Mr Berdymukhamedov, a Niyazov favourite, who was named interim president. The two men exchanged assurances about a continuing, close energy relationship.

Washington has not been totally inactive, sending two mid-level envoys to Ashgabat. But having tolerated Niyazov's authoritarian personality cult and courted his energy favours, its public statements about the succession have been cautious. The European Commission declared this month that the EU should expand its strategic stake in central Asia, human rights notwithstanding. But exiled Turkmen opposition leaders say that by turning a blind eye to a looming electoral travesty, western countries are passing up "a historic second chance" to advance democratic reform and reverse Moscow's energy dominance to their own advantage.

Berdymukhamedov -- a name I will soon grow tired of typing -- appears poised to seize the mantle left by Niyazov and continue the oppressive, autocratic rule of the man who called himself the Father of All Turkmen. Tisdall's comment regarding Putin's oblivious outreach either qualifies as naiveté or, more likely, typically dry British humor. Putin has never met an oil-rich tyrant he hasn't loved, and having Berdymukhamedov on his side as opposed to the more prickly Niyazov will no doubt delight him.

Tisdall notes that the US has so far taken the same position for Turkmenistan as we did for Azerbaijan last year, which is to subsume the push for democracy in favor of energy and political concerns. Turkmen opposition leaders point out the benefits of having Turkmenistan as a solid ally and a functioning democracy. They border both Iran and Afghanistan, and transforming Niyazov's cultish police state into a self-governing and stable nation would put pressure on both to match its progress. Especially when the US has finally started setting a tougher stance towards Iran, the fate of Turkmenistan's governance outweighs its potential benefits as an oil supplier, at least for the moment.

We need to start insisting on a clean and democratic process for the replacement of Niyazov, and it should be a higher priority that it appears to be at the moment. We need high-level American officials talking about Turkmenistan and our support for those Turkmen who want to bring democracy to their nation. If we don't encourage the democracy activists now, we won't get another chance for years, perhaps decades, and that will do us little good in the war on terror and its sponsors.

Slippery Sadr Triangulates Again

Guess who's endorsing the Bush surge strategy in Iraq now? One of the intended targets of the enforcement effort in Baghdad, Moqtada al-Sadr has issued an endorsement of the new push to rid the capital of sectarian violence as long as Iraqis remain in command of the mission:

Muqtada Sadr, the radical anti-American cleric, has backed away from confrontation with U.S. and Iraqi forces in recent weeks, a move that has surprised U.S. officials who long have characterized his followers as among the greatest threats to Iraq's security.

Thursday, a leader of the Sadr movement in one of its Baghdad strongholds publicly endorsed President Bush's new Iraq security plan, which at least some U.S. officials have touted as a way to combat Sadr's group.

"We will fully cooperate with the government to make the plan successful," said Abdul-Hussein Kaabai, head of the local council in the Shiite Muslim-dominated Sadr City neighborhood. "If it is an Iraqi plan done by the government, we will cooperate."

Over the last several weeks, the Shiite cleric and his followers have dropped their threats to quit Iraq's U.S.-backed government, and after years of shunning the "occupier," they have allowed their emissaries to meet with U.S. officials.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. It recalls what Sadr did in the aftermath of his defeat in Najaf, which was to supposedly renounce sectarian violence and enter political life. Two years later, he heads one of the most virulent private armies, and the US and Iraq have had to attack it frontally in order to end its terrorism, and Sadr has reacted true to form. The US and Iraq need to finish the job this time, regardless of Sadr's political tapdancing.

However useless Sadr's endorsement might be, it does demonstrate that the new strategy has had its intended effect. Sadr would not be backpedaling and trying to cut deals if the new efforts hadn't done significant damage to his operations. He's looking for a political solution precisely because we have attacked the Mahdis as a military problem -- and Sadr knows that the Mahdis can easily be beaten on that basis. Zalmay Khalilzad, the outgoing US ambassador, noted the difference between a change of heart and a change of tactics, and Sadr has proven himself a master of the latter and allergic to the former.

The new surge strategy threatens far more than Sadr's position in Baghdad. His forces have infiltrated local governments in the south, and they have done nothing but destabilize the communities and engage in corruption ever since. Some of them have been in open rebellion against the same Iraqi security forces that Sadr now purports to endorse in Baghdad. If Sadr suffers a political blow, he may well lose his grip on his base, which would mean the end of his political hopes and perhaps the end of his Iranian sponsorship.

We need to keep the pressure on Sadr. Nouri al-Maliki will find a compromise tempting, but we have to make sure we finish the job against Sadr this time. If we don't, we'll either have to start from scratch again at some point or leave Iraq to the Iranians.

Remember When Democrats Insisted On Employer Enforcement?

When conservatives finally moved to bolster border security and debated how to address the millions of illegal immigrants that took advantage of decades of open borders. Critics of tough measures complained that the government should focus its efforts against employers who took advantage of illegal aliens and helped drive down wages for Americans. However, when a Republican offered an amendment to the Senate minimum-wage bill that would address both concerns, the Democrats suddenly couldn't tolerate the thought of employer enforcement:

Senate Democrats quashed a proposal yesterday that would have dramatically increased civil fines on employers who hire illegal aliens.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, offered the amendment to the bill now being debated that would increase the federal minimum wage.

Ridding the economy of illegal aliens, he argued, would do far more to help low-income wage earners than simply raising the minimum wage. Not only do aliens displace U.S. citizens in the work force, he said, they also artificially suppress wages. ...

But Democratic leaders refused to let Mr. Sessions' alien amendment reach the Senate floor yesterday, and they accused him and other Republicans of offering amendments unrelated to the minimum-wage increase in order to stall passage of the bill.

Apparently the Democrats have an aversion to actually trying the options they offered when they were in the minority. Led by Ted Kennedy, they assaulted Sessions' amendment as a "distraction" to the issue of the minimum-wage hike, but it addresses the same concerns that the Democrats have raised in the wage hike debate. Illegal aliens depress wages by flooding the market with off-the-books labor. Forcing employers to hire only eligible workers corrects a market distortion that allows employers to pay less for the same amount of labor, eliminating employment options for legal US residents and citizens. It would also eliminate some of the incentive for border violators and allow enforcement activity to have more impact.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have apparently changed their minds since the election. They would prefer to impose a top-down government edict on wages rather than enforce existing law and disincentivize lawbreakers to allow the market for labor to naturally swing in favor of the workers. That approach would do what a minimum-wage hike does not: provide an increase in real buying power, rather than triggering an inflationary cycle that will once again make the increase in the floor wage irrelevant within five or six years.

In fact, the Sessions amendment doesn't replace the minimum-wage hike, but supplements it with the market corrective -- which should have been a no-brainer for Democrats hoping to sell their supposed bipartisanship. Instead, they showed themselves as hypocrites on immigration and posturers on the welfare of American workers.

Getting Serious With Iran In Iraq

The Bush administration has decided to escalate the response to Iranian infiltration in Iraq by ending a "catch and release" program and operating more aggressively against Iranian agents, especially Revolutionary Guard elements. The new rules of engagement include the use of lethal force, and the White House may even consider naming the Iranian Army a terrorist organization for its connections to Hamas and Hezbollah:

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."

The numbers of Iranians in Iraq, especially in the Shi'ite areas in the south, do not appear to be very large, according to the Washington Post, but they are significant. Estimates put the number of intelligence agents at 150, a hefty commitment for Teheran. No estimates exist for the number of Revolutionary Guard soldiers, but their existence in Iraq at all would constitute an act of war on its own, both against Iraq and against the Coalition nations operating under the UN mandate.

That realization has given the impetus to the more aggressive strategy. The US intended on sending a message with catch-and-release, but the Iranians took a different lesson from it. They knew we knew they were running their own operations in Iraq, and saw us as unwilling to take the kinds of tough action needed to stop it. At the same time, they also saw the amount of pushback we got when pursuing a tough sanctions regime against Teheran at the UN, which resulted in a watered-down resolution with "smart" sanctions that will cost Iran little in the short run. Our subtlety in handling their agents was seen as a further sign of weakness.

The new effort has a focus that extends outside of the Iraqi theater. The US wants Iran on the defensive across the board and to understand that the rules have fundamentally shifted. It's the first time since the war on terror began that we have identified Iran as a hostile entity militarily and acknowledged in an operational way their support for radical Islamist terror groups. The war on terror at some point would have to target the Iranians, as they remain the chief sponsor of terrorists, especially proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, among others.

This new strategy has its risks. By getting more aggressive and applying lethal force against Iranian infiltrators, the White House runs the risk of escalating the conflict with Iran across the region. Mistakes can be made, and any time the scope of a mission gets widened, the risk of error is greatest at the beginning. The mullahcracy could decide they have nothing left to lose and start launching rocket strikes throughout the region, especially on Israel and American positions in Iraq, touching off a wider war.

The latter is most unlikely. Teheran understands that it cannot afford to use offensive action against the Americans and the British, or even Israel, until it possesses a nuclear weapon as a balancing threat. Even if it had one -- which only gets more likely as time goes on -- the Iranians will realize that it has essentially bought them nothing. The less-millenial factions among the Iranian ruling class will understand that a nuclear launch will invite a nuclear response, and the fact is that the US and Britain have a much larger inventory of such weapons, with much more accurate targeting.

Basically, Iran is taking what action we have been willing to allow to this point. We're about to redefine that, and while some will howl about "escalation", any war on terror would eventually have to address Iran. It's better to do it now by blunting their efforts in Iraq than wait until they have a nuke and have to fight them from Israel and Saudi Arabia. If they're stupid enough to continue provoking us in Iraq, then they have to pay the consequences -- and it's about time they did.

Bill Ardolino Completes His Embed

Bill Ardolino of INDC Journal has completed his embed mission in Iraq, free-lancing as a contributor to the Examiner newspaper chain and blogging about his experiences. He plans a series of in-depth posts about his experiences and more reporting from the front when he gains his bearings. It will be a must-read site for the next few weeks.

However, Bill can use your help. I know that this cost him around ten times as much as his free-lancing brought in due to the expenses of the equipment and other needs that he incurred. He has made up about a third of the gap through donations, but he could use more help in covering his costs. If you haven't already done so, consider donating a few dollars to Bill's efforts through his PayPal/credit card link at the end of the post above.

You Knew Darned Well I Was A Snake Before You Took Me In

I often think about the wisdom contained in the classic, "The Snake", about the fatal naiveté of a woman who succoured a snake back to health, only to receive a fatal bite in the end. That parable struck me when I read this story about Lloyds of London balking at paying a £30 million reinsurance judgment to North Korea after agreeing to underwrite under the terms of North Korean law:

North Korea, the last Stalinist dictatorship, is fighting a £30 million legal battle with insurance syndicates at Lloyd’s of London, which accuse it of making fraudulent claims in an attempt to prop up its collapsing economy.

Supporters of North Korea’s claim say that the insurers are trying to renege on a risky contract. It is also suggested that they failed to differentiate between North Korea, one of the most repressive and isolated countries, and South Korea, its rich democratic neighbour, when the contract was signed.

The state-owned Korea National Insurance Corporation (KNIC) is demanding €44 million in a London court from a group of reinsurers, including Lloyd’s syndicates, for damage caused in a catastrophic helicopter crash in 2005.

The North Koreans have supplied exhaustive documentation and their claims have been authenticated by independent loss adjusters and upheld in a North Korean court. But the reinsurers argue that the nature of the regime makes it impossible to trust and that the claim is a fraudulent one intended to bring in desperately needed foreign exchange.

“It’s not possible for the North Korean regime to do anything legitimate,” says Michael Payton, of the law firm Clyde & Co, who is representing a group of reinsurers, including Allianz of Germany. “We are very concerned about the circumstances of the claimed loss.”

To start with, Lloyd's of London is probably correct in its skepticism. A few weeks ago, I blogged on the scam that Kim Jong-Il was running on insurers in order to gain hard currency, now that the US has shut down their counterfeiting fence. Kim has raked in over $150 million already in insurance fraud, primarily life insurance, because he has control of all of the official agencies that would substantiate any claims. At the time, I warned that the reinsurance market would bear the brunt of Kim's fraud and suggested that they declare any claim without independent verification as baseless.

And that's exactly what Lloyd's intends to do, but unfortunately, their contract forces them to accept North Korean courts as the authority having jurisdiction for any dispute. Why they accepted these terms is a question they have yet to answer, but the fact is that they did, and they have been accepting the premiums for nine years on this policy. Until their client insurer filed the claim, they seem to have been satisfied with the arrangement.

The case sounds ludicrous. The North Korean insurer, KNIC, paid a claim for a helicopter transport company that had supposedly suffered an accident. According to the claim, a helicopter carrying a pregnant mother of triplets from an island without proper medical facilities. On the way back, the helicopter crashed into a warehouse of relief goods intended for the poor, creating a fire that destroyed most of it and presumably killed the pregnant woman and her unborn children. All that's missing is a dog, and we could have a Lifetime channel movie, or perhaps a country song had it happened down in San Antone.

However, North Korean courts -- which LoL contractually accepted as the authority in disputes -- upheld the evidence of the loss and demanded Lloyd's pay the bill. Lloyd's cashed the checks for the premiums after doing business with North Korea and accepting its laws despite knowing the nature of the regime and their control of the courts. They had to know that they were embracing a snake for a long time before it finally sunk its fangs into LoL's pocketbook.

This should be an object lesson to any capital firm: deal with dictators at your peril. If for some reason the lure of the business is too much to resist, be sure to write the contract so that your business doesn't rely on the whim of some kleptocrat looking for any hard cash he can find. If businesses can't do that, then don't scold the snake for biting you when the inevitable happens.

Hillary, The Pardon Scam, And Why It Matters

Yesterday, ABC News reported that the court-appointed trustee for a bankruptcy judgment asked the court to schedule a hearing in the case against Hillary Clinton's brother Tony Rodham:

A court-appointed bankruptcy trustee asked a federal judge this week to schedule a new court date in a case against Tony Rodham, the brother of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., accused of failing to repay $109,000 in loans from a carnival company whose owners received controversial pardons issued by President Bill Clinton in the last hours of his presidency.

According to documents filed in the case, Rodham received the loans, before and after the pardons were granted, from United Shows of America, Inc., owned by Edgar Gregory and his wife, who had been convicted of defrauding several banks. ...

With the company now in bankruptcy and Gregory dead, the court-appointed federal trustee for United Shows, Michael Collins, has spent two years trying to get Rodham to repay the outstanding loans.

Rodham received payments and loans from the owners of United Shows, the Gregorys, who had been convicted of banking fraud and whose records kept them from gaining government contracts for their entertainment services. Miraculously, after receiving the loans, Bill Clinton pardoned his brother-in-law's benefactors, who never got or sought a dime in repaying the loans from United. Instead, the company went bankrupt, and the trustee found the unserviced loan on the books -- and won a judgment against Rodham.

People have questioned the news value of this case, which I covered last summer when the Washington Times noted the legal battle. Hillary's backers claim that the entire issue is nothing more than a smear campaign to discredit her candidacy in 2008. They also reject any connection to Hillary or Bill, arguing that they should not be held responsible for her brother's peccadilloes.

The critics could not be more wrong. Rodham got the "loan" in a series of 16 checks paid out from United Shows starting two months after Bill Clinton pardoned both Gregorys, over the objections of the Department of Justice. The money stream continued for 20 months, in small amounts, until Rodham had sucked $107,000 out of the company in cash. Six months later, the Gregorys declared bankruptcy, their pardons secured and their creditors left holding the bag.

Just as in the case of Marc Rich, we have another set of questionable pardons given by Bill Clinton in close proximity to substantial cash outlays to the Clintons and their families. (Denise Rich donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clinton presidential library fund at the time of her ex-husband's pardon.) The proximity of the cash to the pardon, the overruled objections from the DoJ, the lack of any attempt to pay back the loan, and the family relationship all make it seem very likely that the 16 checks amounted to a payoff for the pardon.

Hillary isn't running for President as an outsider, after all. She will use her time in the White House as part of her resumé for the job, and for those who yearn for the Clinton years, it may be a powerful argument. That puts all of the Clinton actions on the table for debate, including crooked pardons that involved payoffs to her brother. She needs to answer for that if she wants to use the legacy of her husband's terms of office as her qualifications for a return to the White House. Voters should consider whether they want to grant the Clintons and their family and friends yet another opportunity to auction off presidential pardons.

The Silliness Of Early Polls

One of the topics we will discuss tonight on my regular-schedule debut of CQ radio at 9 pm CT will be the GOP slate of candidates for the Presidential nomination in 2008. Time Magazine did some early polling, and they see John McCain edging Rudy Giuliani for the ticket. These are early polls, and the numbers will shift widely over the next year, but some things will remain the same ... such as the silly questions pollsters will ask prospective voters:

If the election were held now, Rudy Giuliani appears to have the support of the greatest number of respondents of both parties, with 56% indicating they would "definitely" or "probably" support him — followed by Hillary Clinton (51%) John McCain (50%) and Barack Obama (50%). But Clinton has a strong edge when the question is which presidential candidate people would most like to have over to their homes for dinner. The former First Lady led the dinner-invitation field with 26%, while Obama and McCain tied for second place at 15%. But with the New Hampshire primaries a year away, the the four leading contenders all have some work to do: Obama in making himself better known, Clinton in making herself better liked, McCain in matching Giuliani's appeal to Democratic voters, and Giuliani in landing more invitations to dinner.

I wouldn't mind having any of them over for dinner, but the election isn't Top Dinner Guest. Who writes these questions?

Be sure to tune in, and join the conversation by calling 646-652-4889.

UPDATE: Interesting show, with good callers like Sean Hackbarth, NZ Bear, and Frank Secreto. The RSS feed for CQ radio is here.

When The Germans Call Us Surrender Monkeys ....

... then we should really re-examine our testicular fortitude. Der Spiegel excerpts passages from Henryk Broder's new book on the Western response to radical Islamism, pungently titled, Hurray, We're Capitulating! The book has not yet been published in English, but DS gives us a translation on their English-language site. It cogently and somewhat angrily notes the low points in Western dhimmitude:

Objectively speaking, the cartoon controversy was a tempest in a teacup. But subjectively it was a show of strength and, in the context of the "clash of civilizations," a dress rehearsal for the real thing. The Muslims demonstrated how quickly and effectively they can mobilize the masses, and the free West showed that it has nothing to counter the offensive -- nothing but fear, cowardice and an overriding concern about the balance of trade. Now the Islamists know that they are dealing with a paper tiger whose roar is nothing but a tape recording.

As different as the West's reactions to the Muslim protests were, what they had in common were origins in feelings of powerlessness and helplessness. Critical souls who only yesterday agreed with Marx that religion is the opium of the masses suddenly insisted that religious sensibilities must be taken into account, especially when accompanied by violence. The representatives of open societies reacted like the inhabitants of an island about to be hit by a hurricane. Powerless against the forces of nature, they stocked up on supplies, nailed doors and windows shut and hoped that the storm would soon pass. Of course, whereas such a reaction may be an appropriate response to natural disasters, such a lack of resistance merely encourages fundamentalists. It completely justifies their view of the West as weak, decadent and completely unwilling to defend itself.

Those who react to kidnappings and beheadings, to massacres of people of other faiths, and to eruptions of collective hysteria with a call for "cultural dialogue" don't deserve any better.

Read the entire excerpt -- it's a bracing essay on Western fecklessness. Broder makes the point that the very silliness of the Prophet Cartoon controversy should have alerted us to the power play from the radical Islamists. While the Danish tried to stand up for free speech, most Western nations couldn't wait to scold them for their insensitivity. Instead of scolding the Islamists back over the absolute lunacy of rioting over a few drawings, political leaders in Europe and the US issued worried pronouncements over their respect for Mohammed and the bad manners of those darned Danes.

At least in the US, we mostly realize that we're facing a larger and protracted conflict, even if we're less than united on confronting our enemies. Broder castigates Europe for willfully denying that the conflict exists. Political and cultural leaders insist that they can appease the radical Islamists by apologizing and making demonstrations of sensitivity towards Muslims. In the meantime, they rush to highlight every nuance of statements by terrorist groups like Hamas, and Broder specifically points out the celebration over Hamas' supposed recognition of Israel last year -- when it turned out that they had done no such thing.

Our enemies have learned that we have no stomach for confrontation. We have grown so content within our material success that we view all conflict as economic problems to be solved through concessions and compromise. Broder wonders what Europe and the West will sacrifice next for appeasement. Who will be the next Czechoslovakia -- France?

I'm wondering why Broder's book hasn't been translated into English. It would make for required reading for anyone serious about the war with radical Islamist terror.

CQ Radio On The Air

Don't forget that we will start our regular broadcasts of CQ Radio tonight at 9 pm CT. We'll be discussing some of the topics of this week, but I want to focus on the GOP slate for the Presidential nomination. What do you think about Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain? Will Newt commit to the race? Any dark horses out there worth drafting? We'll also talk about the pushback in the blogosphere to the competing Senate resolutions to oppose the "surge". Be sure to tune in, and join the conversation by calling 646-652-4889.

Minimum Wage Gets The Senate Treatment

Now we know why Nancy Pelosi and the new Democratic majority would not allow debate or amendment on the minimum-wage increase they passed as part of their 100 Hours effort. It turns out that sticking small businesses with a big bill without any effort to cushion the impact with tax breaks doesn't enjoy the kind of popularity that Pelosi & Co claimed:

Prospects for an increase in the minimum wage suffered a setback today in the Senate, where a move fell short, at least for now, to raise the minimum by $2.10 an hour without tax breaks for small businesses

The 54 “yes” votes were six short of the number needed to shut off debate and move on to consideration of the bill, which easily passed in the House two week ago. That bill would increase the wage to $7.25 from the current $5.15 in three steps, but without tax breaks. Today’s vote, while disappointing to those who want to raise the minimum wage at once and with no accompanying tax provisions, was hardly a surprise. A substantial number of senators had indicated they wanted to tie a wage increase to tax breaks for small businesses, to help offset the costs of the increase.

Next, the Senate will debate what kind of tax breaks to attach to a wage increase. Then, the Senate will have to agree with the House. President Bush has signaled that he would sign a bill providing for a wage increase with related tax breaks.

All 43 “no” votes on the motion to end debate were cast by Republicans. Five Republicans joined 47 Democrats and two independents in voting “yes.” They were Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John W. Warner of Virginia and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine. (Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, and Senators Tom Carper of Delaware and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, both Democrats, did not vote.)

Well, that last part was just a little tacky. Tim Johnson didn't vote because he's hospitalized, not because he chose to abstain. One might think the New York Times could have included that piece of information in its reporting.

The Republicans managed to hold 43 of 49 votes together for a de facto filibuster. The five who voted for the bill have long championed a minimum-wage increase, including Norm Coleman in Minnesota. The overall unity of the GOP serves notice that the Democrats will not have the ability to push legislation through Congress without reckoning with the Republicans, Pelosi's efforts notwithstanding.

In the end, both chambers will likely approve an increase with some tax relief attached. The political benefits of doing both, separately or together, are too attractive for politicians to eschew for long. Both parties will claim some measure of victory in the compromise, and the Republic will move onto the next political standoff. The only result will be the inflation that this will cause and the loss of lower-wage jobs that always accompany these minimum-wage increases and the resultant erosion of buying power -- which will prompt the economic meddlers in Washington to insist on another increase in the next three or four years.

Russia Clams Up Again

Georgian officials, with the cooperation of American investigators, managed to snare a man selling weapons-grade uranium last summer, a victory against black-market proliferation. The victory has been fleeting, however, as the combined task force has not been able to trace the source of the material to determine the origin of the uranium. Just as in another, more splashy case of rogue nuclear material, the problem results from Russian intransigence:

"Given the serious consequences of the detonation of an improvised nuclear explosive device, even small numbers of incidents involving HEU (highly enriched uranium) or plutonium are of very high concern," said Melissa Fleming of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency.

Details of the investigation, which also involved the FBI and Energy Department, were provided to The Associated Press by U.S. officials and Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili.

Authorities say they do not know how the man acquired the nuclear material or if his claims of access to much larger quantities were true. He and three Georgian accomplices are in Georgian custody and not cooperating with investigators.

Merabishvili said Georgian attempts to trace the nuclear material since the arrest and confirm whether the man indeed had access to larger quantities have foundered from a lack of cooperation from Russia.

Merabishvili said he was revealing the story out of frustration with Russia's response and the need to illustrate the dangers of a breakdown in security cooperation in the region.

Russia has not covered itself in glory in recent months, even apart from the increasingly autocratic domestic policies of the Vladimir Putin administration. One of its former agents wound up dead through poisoning by polonium after he started criticizing Putin. Now a sample of HEU winds up on the black market, and Russia won't cooperate.

A couple of scenarios could be in play. The first is that Putin has decided to gain hard cash by putting fissile material on the black market, which is not only insane but counterproductive. After all, Putin has his own insurgencies in the Caucasus, and the material could just as easily find its way there rather that against Putin's enemies. The second possibility is even more frightening -- which is that Russia has lost control over its nuclear materials and wants to keep the West from discovering it.

In any event, the lack of cooperation on such a danger speaks volumes about security arrangements in the former Soviet republics. It's no secret that Georgia has angered Russia in its efforts to spin out of Putin's orbit, and if this intransigence is Putin's idea of retribution, then we can pretty much kiss nuclear security in that region good-bye. Apparently, rogue proliferation matters less to Putin than petty squabbles and influence peddling. Such a ruler is no partner for peace and economic stability, and Putin seems intent on proving that in other areas as well, such as energy transport and arms dealings with Iran.

We used to excuse the exceptions to good relations from Russia and Putin. It's difficult to see anything else these days.

Hillary, You're No Bill

Hillary Clinton may have expected a return to the kind of support enjoyed by her husband when he ran for President last decade, but she discovered yesterday that a key source of energy for Bill's campaign may not support her at all. Hollywood seems more taken with Barack Obama than in another triangulist, and they have begin to put their money where their mouths are:

Is Hollywood abandoning Hillary?

On Wednesday morning, hundreds of Hollywood's movers and shakers received an invitation that they may find hard to refuse.

They've been invited to come meet Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's new superstar. He already has the buzz, but can he bring home the prize?

Movie moguls Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg want their Hollywood peers to join them at a Feb. 20 fundraiser the three are throwing for Obama.

This presents a huge problem for Hillary. A large segment of the Left takes their lead from such Hollywood power brokers, and the early support for Obama gives the freshman Senator a significant boost in credibility. The Dreamworks trio do not waste their time flacking for also-rans, and this signals to the entire Democratic Party that Hollywood wants an alternative to Hillary.

Jeff Katzenberg has already endorsed Obama. Spielberg and Geffen prefer to remain uncommitted at the moment, and Spielberg said he may hold fundraisers for more than one primary candidate, including Hillary. That's small comfort to the one candidate who has been running for more than six years for a return to the White House. It also represents a change in thinking for the moguls; after all, they have contributed heavily to Hillary's past Senate campaigns. Given that those have been little more than Trojan horses for the 2008 Presidential race, one could be forgiven for thinking that Spielberg, Katzenberg, and Geffen had already jumped on the bandwagon.

Why have they begun edging away from the presumptive front-runner? It can't be the triangulation. Bill practically invented it, and he spent most of both terms governing from the center, a position that comes less naturally to Hillary. They probably have started to question her electability, and see Obama as the candidate that best represents the collective wisdom of Hollywood.

If I were Obama, I'd sue for defamation.

I should note the end of another Hillary outreach to the center. The Clinton campaign bought blog ads on my site, as well as several other prominent conservative blogs (Power Line, Hugh Hewitt, and so on). Abbi Tatton reported this on Tuesday's Situation Room:

ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, when you're on a conservative blog like this one, Captain's Quarters, it's not unusual to see an advertisement or blog ad, like this one for Republican Rudy Giuliani.

What is unusual is the one directly underneath it, this one for Hillary Clinton, directing people to her Web site, where there is a series of Webcasts this week, where people are invited to send in their questions online.

Now, the adverts are all over the place on Web sites, blogs on the left, in the middle, on the right. But it's those placed on the right that are getting the attention -- a writer at the conservative Town Hall Web site suggesting that it's wasteful, saying none of their readers there are going to be supporting Hillary Clinton.

We spoke to the Internet director at the Hillary Clinton camp. And they said that the blog ad buy was big and it was diverse. They wanted to reach out as widely as possible. It's about starting a conversation with people that might agree and with people that might disagree.

I spoke briefly with Abbi about this topic, and she asked me for my reaction. I told her I briefly considered rejecting the ad, but accepted it. I figured that if the Clinton campaign wanted to throw its money around, they could throw some at me. I also told Abbi that advertisements represent an endorsement of Captain's Quarters, not an endorsement by CQ. I have no intention of going easy on any political candidate just because they buy a blog ad. Believe me, I don't come that cheap.

I don't think it was a waste of her money, at least not altogether. The campaign wanted to make a splash with their video conversations this week, one of them inexplicably scheduled on the same night as the SOTU speech. They were hoping to find the widest possible audience, and that means they need to attract people from the Right as well as the Left.

Now, however, the ad should be gone. The campaign canceled them last night after the final video conversation, and that makes sense. If Hillary or Obama or Kucinich want to buy ad space in the future, I won't object. In their own small way, they're helping to fund the publication of conservative thought, and I'm satisfied with the irony.

The Conservatism Of Rudy Giuliani

Many people have dismissed Rudy Giuliani's run for the presidency, calling the former mayor of New York too liberal to win in the primaries. Critics point to his messy personal life and his centrist positions on abortion and gun control as insurmountable liberalism for a true Republican's vote. Steven Malanga responds with an intriguing portrayal of America's Mayor as an effective, pragmatic conservative during his terms in office running America's largest city:

By the time Giuliani challenged Dinkins for a second time, in 1993 (his first try had failed), the former prosecutor had fashioned a philosophy of local government based on two core conservative principles vastly at odds with New York’s political culture: that government should be accountable for delivering basic services well, and that ordinary citizens should be personally responsible for their actions and their destiny and not expect government to take care of them. Giuliani preached the need to reestablish a “civil society,” where citizens adhered to a “social contract.” “If you have a right,” he observed, “there is a duty that goes along with that right.” Later, when he became mayor, Giuliani would preach about the duties of citizenship, quoting the ancient Athenian Oath of Fealty: “We will revere and obey the city’s laws. . . . We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public sense of civic duty. Thus in all these ways we will transmit this city not only not less, but far greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.”

In New York, where generations of liberal policy had produced a city in which one in seven citizens lived off government benefits, in which lawbreakers whose actions diminished everyone else’s quality of life were routinely ignored or excused, in which the rights of those who broke the law were often defended vigorously over the rights of those who adhered to it, Giuliani’s prescriptions for an urban revival based on shared civic values seemed unrealistic to some and dangerous to others. The head of the local American Civil Liberties Union chapter described Giuliani’s ideas on respect for authority and the law as “frightening” and “scary.” But New Yorkers who had watched their city deteriorate were more frightened of life under an outdated and ineffective liberal agenda. ...

For Giuliani, the revival of New York started with securing public safety, because all other agendas were useless if citizens didn’t feel protected. “The most fundamental of civil rights is the guarantee that government can give you a reasonable degree of safety,” Giuliani said. He aimed to do so by reinstituting respect for the law. As a federal prosecutor in New York in the 1980s, he had vigorously hunted low-level drug dealers—whom other law enforcement agencies ignored—because he thought that the brazen selling of drugs on street corners cultivated disrespect for the law and encouraged criminality. “You have to . . . dispel cynicism about law enforcement by showing we treat everyone alike, whether you are a major criminal or a low-level drug pusher,” Giuliani explained.

I've often thought that conservatives have been too quick to dismiss Giuliani. Among the front-runners for the GOP nomination, he has the most consistent public record of accomplishment. He fought the Mob and won, crippling their once-unlimited power in the Big Apple, at no small personal risk to himself and his family. Giuliani also took on the task of running NYC when it appeared hopelessly lost to decay and a generation of liberal policies that had allowed the streets to fall under the sway of gangsters petty and grand. He also proved that welfare-to-work policies could succeed before Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress bolstered his efforts at the federal level.

Given his history of turnaround in New York, his executive experience outweighs anything offered by Mitt Romney and especially John McCain. Whatever his positions, he has proven himself more consistent in them than both men, although in Romney's case, his vacillations seem a little oversold. Romney has proven his leadership skills in the Olympics and in one term as Governor of Massachussetts, but Giuliani is a man who governed eight million people for two terms and helped rescue the city when hit by the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

That itsn't to say that his positions aren't problematic. He has been consistently pro-choice, and like many prosecutors, supports gun-control legislation. Those positions rightly make conservatives worry about what a President Giuliani would do once in office. However, he has also consistently spoken against judicial activism, and as a former federal prosecutor, knows first-hand the damage it does. Giuliani has promised to appoint judicial constructionists to the federal bench, the kind not likely to impose abortion or gun policy from their unchecked positions.

Conservatives should reconsider Giuliani. Of all the candidates in the race thus far, he has the best track record of implementing conservative governance consistently and successfully. Read the rest of the article for an in-depth history of Rudy's tenure as mayor. (via Power Line)

Trouble In The Mohammedan Paradise?

It's difficult to know just how much one should read into reports of internecine squabbles among Iran's ruling class. Journalists often try to paint Iran as a multifactional government when usually the signs of dissent are little more than show, a way for the mullahs to beguile Westerners into thinking that reform from within is possible with just a little more engagement. However, if this report has any truth to it, it may indeed be a sign that the mullahs now realize they made a mistake when they hand-picked the current president:

Internal pressure on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to abandon his confrontational policies with the West has intensified after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme spiritual leader, snubbed a request for a meeting on the country's controversial nuclear programme.

Iran's president meets regularly with Ayatollah Khamenei, who is regarded as the guardian of the Islamic Revolution, to brief him on international and domestic political issues. But when the president requested a meeting earlier this month, the ayatollah declined.

It is the first time that he has refused to meet Mr Ahmadinejad since the former Revolutionary Guard commander was elected president in 2005 and is a further indication of the growing unrest within Iran at his hard-line policies.

"It is a clear indication that the cracks are starting to appear in the highest echelons of the Iranian regime," said a senior Bush administration official with responsibility for monitoring Iran. "If the country's leading religious figure is not talking to the political leadership then obviously something is going seriously wrong."

Perhaps. It seems that Mahmoud and his relationships with his bestest buddies generates more gossip than Brangelina, some weeks. Let's not forget that the mullahs selected Ahmadinejad and made sure the election made him the winner, and they wanted him over the more cosmopolitan Mohammed Khatami. They knew exactly what they would get from Ahmadinejad, and he has delivered it in spades.

However, even if this is a put-on, it still could indicate some insecurity on the part of Iran's real power brokers. They may have decided that the Bush administration would cave on its tough stance, or that the other Western nations would force him to moderate his position. The Iraq Study Group report may also have given them hope that the US would come hat in hand to Teheran, ready to cut a deal that would allow them much greater hegemony in the Middle East and with better opportunity to pressure its bete noir, Israel.

Bush hasn't blinked -- and the Iranians are slowly realizing that he won't. Having parked two carrier groups off their shores and in position to take action in the Straits of Hormuz, the mullahs are running out of options for threatening gestures, especially since Saudi Arabia announced a spare oil production capacity that exceeds Iran's total exports. They can look around their borders and see the US in almost every single adjacent nation.

That's power, and the Iranians recognize it, even if most Americans do not. Bush has slowly and quietly surrounded the Iranians and threaten every line of communication they have. The US has led the march towards expanding the sanctions we have had on Iran for a generation to most of the West, and even Iranian oil hasn't been able to reverse the momentum.

Given all of that, Khameini may well have snubbed Ahmadinejad. Surely they expected the former mayor of Teheran to do a more dextrous job of antagonizing us while splitting the Western alliance.

Bloggers Have Resolutions, Too

The Senate has two competing resolutions under consideration that intend to criticize President Bush's new "surge" strategy, especially the increase of troops in Baghdad. The Senate Armed Services Committee passed the resolution authored by Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden, while John Warner, Susan Collins, and Ben Nelson will sponsor a "softer" resolution. Hugh Hewitt and NZ Bear held a blogger conference call earlier today, which I wanted to attend but could not, and have offered a resolution of their own:

Yesterday General Petraeus testified that the Biden/Warner resolutions and those like them encourage the enemy.

What does it mean, "to encourage the enemy?"

It means that the enemy gathers will and strength from the prospect of a collapsing political will to seek victory in Iraq and stability in the region.

With that additional strength and will the enemy redoubles and retriples efforts to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

In short, it means that more Americans will die.

If there is ever an issue for which a filibuster is obviously called, it is such a resolution, especially in the aftermath of such testimony.

Either the Republicans believe General Petraeus, or they don't. These are not a "non-binding" resolutions in the sense that they have no consequences. Either of them will have terrible consequences.

Don't believe me. Believe General Petraeus.

I blogged about this earlier today, and while Petraeus wants to stay out of Senatorial politics, it appears that the Senate won't allow it. These efforts to issue finger-wagging resolutions reek of hypocrisy and opportunism. The Senate does not need to pass resolutions of either stripe in order to make their point. With the global media falling over themselves to give dissident politicians all the air time they can handle -- especially Republicans. Issuing "sense of the Senate" resolutions do exactly nothing. They may as well designate February as We Hate The Surge Month for all of the good any of these resolutions will do.

If Congress really wanted to stop the surge, they would defund the war. Congress has that power. However, that would force Representatives and Senators to come up with a different plan for keeping Iraq from collapsing into a failed state where terrorists can establish bases for global attacks. Instead, the Senators involved in these resolutions seem content to indulge in ankle-biting without bothering to provide any useful alternatives other than capitulation and defeat, and studiously ignore the leading American expert on counterinsurgency.

That's why I'm supporting the pledge. I am not going to go as far as some in saying that these resolutions and their sponsors are unpatriotic. I will go so far as to say they're utterly useless and a dangerous waste of time. General Petraeus is correct when he says that these kind of silly protests that refuse to provide constructive alternatives give our enemies hope that we lack the will to fight the war to completion. If the Senate really wants to wave the white flag in Iraq, then let them do it -- but do it honestly and take the responsibility for their actions.

UPDATE: Hugh interviewed Senator Norm Coleman earlier this evening on his show regarding the two resolutions. Coleman believes that the Warner resolution does not send the message that we have lost our will to fight back against the insurgents and foreign terrorists in Iraq. He points out that the Warner resolution includes language that specifies the dire consequences of an American failure of will in Iraq and supporting the continuing efforts in the country. Earlier today, his office sent out a release on this subject:

Sen. Norm Coleman, who has argued against a troop buildup in Baghdad, voted Wednesday against a non-binding resolution expressing disapproval of President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq [Hagel-Biden] ...

"The Iraqis don't have a blank check on American blood and treasure," Coleman said prior to a vote on his amendment. "Our patience is wearing thin, certainly with the public and the Congress. But I'm not prepared to have a resolution which says we will disregard the advice of our commanders on the ground, when they say they need something which may even mean an increase in a given area."

Coleman made the right call in voting against Hagel-Biden. However, he continues to defend the Warner resolution. I know Senator Coleman to be a principled supporter of the war on terror and the mission in Iraq (and a decent man), and so I trust that he firmly believes in what he's doing. However, Senator Coleman has to ask himself two questions: what will this resolution actually accomplish that moves us towards victory in Iraq, and what does the man whom he acknowledges as the most impressive military commander in his experience think about these bills? The answers to both should move Senator Coleman to withdraw his support for either resolution and work towards their defeat.

He did promise Hugh that he would confer with Petraeus before casting his vote.

Nomad Blogging

Earlier today, I mentioned that a plumbing problem at the house had held me up from getting to work on time. Well, it didn't get any better during the day. Our house has polybutylene water pipes instead of copper, and they're unusual enough these days that some plumbers don't service them. We couldn't find one to come to the house today, and so we have to wait until at least tomorrow afternoon to get hot water at the house. Since this is Minnesota, and this is winter, that means the water flowing through the pipes comes in around 35 degrees or so -- and ain't no way I'm standing under that to take a shower.

So, the First Mate and I find ourselves at the Country Inn & Suites nearby our house. We're paying for a room basically to take a shower, which makes this the most expensive warm water I've ever bought. I have an Internet connection in the room (free, too), but I'm not sure how much work I'm going to get done between tonight and tomorrow morning. Posting may be light, depending.

Nifong Faces More Serious Charges

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong may have lawyered up just in time. The North Carolina State Bar amended its complaint against Nifong today to include more serious charges than in their original action, including claims of material misrepresentation to the judge and the willful withholding of exculpatory evidence:

The North Carolina Bar filed an amended complaint today, accusing Nifong of withholding DNA evidence from the defense and making misrepresentations to the presiding judge in the case.

The bar has accused Nifong of conduct that involves "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." Nifong also allegedly violated a rule that "prohibits an attorney from knowingly making false statements of material fact."

Previously, Nifong had been charged with making inappropriate and potentially prejudicial comments about the sexual assault case against Duke lacrosse players. Nifong's comments were made in a series of public interviews early in the case.

These new charges put the NCSB action in an entirely new class. If he had been found guilty of the original complaints, he could easily have escaped with a scolding, or perhaps a short sanction. In fact, many people believed that the NCSB filed its complaint quickly so that it could contain the damage to the association by only addressing the initial complaints.

That strategy clearly did not work, as the outcry only intensified over the past few weeks since the head of the DNA lab revealed Nifong's machinations to keep the defense from learning that the suspects had been excluded by the testing. The NCSB served notice today that it will take all of Nifong's unethical behavior into consideration. In fact, the Bar complaint sounds like an indictment for obstruction of justice -- a charge that the US Attorney in the area should investigate as well. If found guilty of these charges, it's difficult to see how Nifong could possibly hope to keep his license to practice law, which should result in his removal from the office he won on the backs of the three defendants in this case.

The actual sexual assault case has been transferred to the state Attorney General, on Nifong's request. The AG should move expeditiously to have the charges dropped and the arrests expunged. How can anyone go to a jury with these complaints about the initial investigation and prosecution on the record, even apart from the exculpatory DNA evidence and the ever-changing story of the accuser? It's time for North Carolina to see that justice is done, rather than wait for a judge to tell them what they already know: they have no case.

Unrelated personal note: I'm blogging later than usual because we had a plumbing problem here at the house. I'm waiting for the plumber to arrive and taking advantage of the time. It's hard to shower during a Minnesota winter without having any hot water, as I discovered the hard way this morning!

UPDATE: It's the North Carolina State Bar, not the NC Bar Association, two different groups. Thanks to my good friend Xrlq in the comments with the correction.

North Korea Assistance For Iran?

The Iranians may be getting expert assistance on their nuclear program from North Korea and may have begun preparing a device test with their help, the London Telegraph reports:

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.

Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists. ...

A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year.

There were unconfirmed reports at the time of the Korean firing that an Iranian team was present. Iranian military advisers regularly visit North Korea to participate in missile tests.

Now the long-standing military co-operation between the countries has been extended to nuclear issues.

This should come as no surprise. President Bush didn't just make up the Axis of Evil out of thin air. Both countries have pursued nuclear weapons for over a decade, and both managed to hide the extent of their programs until the past few years. Even if cooperation between the two countries had been limited in the past, they both have ample incentive to combine their efforts to build nuclear arsenals to threaten the West together,

Iran got encouragement from the limp response to Kim's nuclear test last fall for expediting their own program. The North Koreans are probably the only nation that would assist Iran on developing nuclear weapons, and to give them the necessary boost that will speed up their development. Earlier estimates put a nuclear device out about 5 years for Teheran, but the Telegraph reports that the timetable has changed. Experts believe Iran could have a test-ready low-yield device within 12 months.

Feckless responses to provocations guarantee more of the same. When we fail to impose tough consequences on nations that engage in the kind of defiance that Kim demonstrated last year, then other nations notice and gain courage for their own intransigence. If we want to put an end to these nuclear programs, we had better come up with something more frightening than a strongly worded letter from the UN.

Howard Hunt Dies At 88

Howard Hunt, the man who masterminded the burglary at the Watergate office complex that eventually destroyed the Nixon presidency, died from a long bout of pneumonia at 88. Hunt had a colorful career that involved him in some of the nation's more questionable activities before landing him in prison for conspiracy:

Howard Hunt, the CIA officer who helped to plan the Watergate break-in that led to the downfall of US President Richard Nixon has died, aged 88. Mr Hunt, who was jailed over the incident, had died after a lengthy bout of pneumonia in Miami, his son said.

The accidental discovery of the Watergate burglary snowballed into the country's biggest political scandal. The conspirators wanted to plant bugs to spy on the Democrats during the Republicans' re-election campaign.

While working for the CIA, Mr Hunt recruited four of the five actual burglars, and always stressed he preferred to be known as the "Watergate conspirator".

Watergate wasn't the extent of Hunt's resumé. He also helped organize the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, which ended disastrously when John Kennedy pulled air support from the mission and led to decades of bitter relations between Fidel Castro and the US. He also worked on the CIA mission to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz as Guatemala's president in 1954, one of a series of coups generalled by Langley in the crucible of the Cold War.

Hunt had to declare bankruptcy ten years ago, and blamed his woes on the ongoing difficulties from the Watergate scandal. His post-release experience stands in stark contrast to that of Richard Nixon, who resigned from office but returned to write several books and to consult with succeeding Presidents. Hunt expressed bitterness over the disparity in treatment, but as a man who engineered the deliberate downfall of other national leaders, he had to understand that they usually set up fall guys -- and it was Hunt's turn. (I'm assuming he didn't join in the lionization of Gerald Ford and the pardon decision last month.)

Don't expect to see fond public reminiscences of Howard Hunt in the aftermath of his death. Most people would like to forget him altogether and bury the scandal of Watergate along with him. Others will attempt to minimize his crimes and excuse them as Washington politics. We should recall Hunt and his crimes, though, and the remarkable and despicable use of a CIA operative by an administration to spy on its political opponents. In our democracy, that's an abuse that should never be forgotten.

Ethiopia Begins Withdrawal From Somalia

As promised, Ethiopia began to withdraw its troops from Mogadishu after it ran off the radical Islamists who seized control of the Somalian capital last year. The withdrawal comes less than a month after their victory, and some question whether they may be a little too quick to honor their commitment to leave:

A column of 200 Ethiopian troops left Mogadishu yesterday less than a month after they helped to rout Islamist militias and deliver the capital to Somalia’s Government.

Ethiopian commanders said that it was the beginning of a withdrawal from the country, but they offered no timetable amid fears that too rapid a departure could hand Somalia back to the warlords who kept it in anarchy for almost 16 years. ...

The Government remains jittery at the prospect of losing Ethiopia’s firepower. Speaking at a press conference in Nairobi, Ali Mohamed Gedi, Somalia’s Prime Minister, insisted that Ethiopian forces would not be leaving until a peacekeeping force from the African Union was deployed.

“We are trying to avoid any vacuum,” he said, referring to the clan-based militias and warlords whose rivalries had made the country ungovernable.

He said that his administration had re-opened police stations but still needed international support.

The Ethiopians want to have the African Union send troops to replace them and help stabilize the city and Somalia as a whole. It's unclear how many troops the Ethiopians will pull out of Mogadishu while the AU pulls together its multinational force, and how many of those troops will be Ethiopians already in place. Sending 200 troops to the rear sounds more like a gesture than a real withdrawal, but it may not stop there, and the Ethiopians will not wait forever for the AU to deploy.

Al-Qaeda issued another empty threat on the occasion of the departure. Ayman al-Zawahiri, who has served as the #2 man for years in AQ, issued a videotaped speech promising that the UIC remnants will "break their [Ethiopians'] back" if they stay, a scenario that seems 180 degrees in opposition to the actual experience of Ethiopia's army in Somalia. The Islamists Zawahiri supports have mostly dissipated, and the real danger in Somalia now is the resurgence of the warlords from the major clans. The UIC only temporarily suppressed them, and the Ethiopian withdrawal could provide them an opening.

Speaking of Zawahiri, has anyone else noticed that Osama bin Laden has gone a long time since his last message to the ummah? Since the 2004 elections, he has been remarkably silent. One might expect Osama himself to weigh in on Somalia, especially since he saw that as such an American disaster and often cited our withdrawal as proof of our weakness and hypocrisy.

In this case, though, the Islamists gave flight, breaking the illusion that they fight to the death for Islam. When faced with an overwhelming military force and the will to use it, the radical Islamists hotfooted it towards Kenya rather than matryr themselves on Ethiopian guns. Perhaps Osama doesn't want to have to explain that.

Petraeus: Baghdad Can Be Secured

General David Petraeus testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday in his confirmation hearing to replace General Casey as the top commander in Iraq, telling the Senators that the situation in Baghdad could be resolved with the extra troops and the new Iraqi commitment to security. He faced skepticism from both sides of the aisle, but insisted that a concerted "clear and hold" strategy with Americans in place to hold neighborhoods could give the Iraqi government the room it needs to turn the corner in the capital:

Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, President Bush’s new choice as the top commander in Iraq, told senators on Tuesday that the new military strategy to secure Baghdad can work, and that he had asked that the additional troops the administration promised be deployed as quickly as possible.

In his first public comments about Mr. Bush’s plan to send some 21,500 troops, the general described the situation in Iraq as “dire” but not hopeless. He asserted that the “persistent presence” of American and Iraqi forces in strife-ridden Baghdad neighborhoods was a necessary step, but also cautioned that the mission would not succeed if the Iraqi government did not carry out its program of political reconciliation.

“The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy, and undoubtedly there will be tough days,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We face a determined, adaptable, barbaric enemy. He will try to wait us out. In fact any such endeavor is a test of wills, and there are no guarantees.”

Petraeus understands insurgencies better than anyone else in the Pentagon. He literally wrote the book on the subject, and even the opponents of the surge acknowledge his exceptional talents as a commander. Senator Norm Coleman called him the most impressive military man he'd ever met, and the nomination of Petraeus to replace Casey brought positive reaction from most of Congress. However, his appearance had less to do with military strategy and more to do with political posturing.

John McCain and Joe Lieberman, supporting the surge, tried to draw Petraeus into the debate on the competing resolutions to express Senatorial disfavor on the new strategy. When Petraeus responded by saying that such a vote in the Senate would not send a "beneficial" message to the troops and might embolden our enemies in the field, Hillary Clinton responded that it would be beneficial in putting the Iraqi government on notice, and John Warner scolded him for interfering with a political debate -- even though he'd been expressly asked to comment on it.

The Senate routinely uses confirmation hearings for posturing on White House policy; that tradition goes back at least several generations, at least. In this case, though, it seemed as though Petraeus got caught in a game of "monkey in the middle", to borrow a phrase from James Boyce, for the upcoming presidential campaign. Instead of listening to an expert explain how the new strategy would work to help win the war against our enemies, the committee used him as a crutch to issue tired campaign slogans on both sides, and made it clear that they really had little interest in what he had to say outside of getting sound bites to support their own bumper-sticker thoughts.

It was not a dignified moment for the Senate, and one that they should regret. Their posturing overshadowed a detailed and expert presentation on the need and use of the troops in Baghdad and how their presence, combined with the Iraqis, could quell the sectarian violence in the capital and go after the al-Qaeda terrorists in Anbar, our overall enemy in the war on terror. They should leave the campaigning for the hustings.

French Socialist Demands Quebec Sovereignty

The political trajectory of Ségolène Royal suffered a little turbulence yesterday, as she managed to insult one of France's allies and inject herself into a long-standing point of contention in Canada. Campaigning for the French presidency, Royal demanded "sovereignty and liberty" for the French-speaking province of Quebec -- a demand met with a diplomatic MYOB from Prime Minister Steohen Harper:

Ségolène Royal was criticised yesterday for the latest in a string of diplomatic gaffes after she appeared to call for independence for Canada's mainly French-speaking Quebec province, provoking an unusually strong rebuke from the Canadian prime minister.

Ms Royal, the Socialist presidential candidate, has been accused of a series of blunders by supporters of her centre-right opponent Nicolas Sarkozy. Recently in Beijing, she praised the speed of the Chinese justice system, while avoiding the question of human rights. But yesterday she told reporters she supported "sovereignty and liberty" for Quebec. Her comments followed a meeting with the head of the minority Parti Québécois, which wants Quebec to secede from Canada.

Canada's prime minister Stephen Harper warned: "Experience teaches that it is highly inappropriate for a foreign leader to interfere in the democratic affairs of another country."

Only a French Socialist could love the Chinese justice system for its speed, so it's easy to dismiss Royal as a nut. However, she has a strong chance to replace Jacques Chirac in the next elections, which would give her a world stage from which to toss flowers at Beijing for their haste in using their courts to jail dissidents.

And, apparently, she can use it to insult France's allies. The Quebec question has been a thorn in Canadian politics for many years, but majorities in Quebec have rejected secession when asked to vote on the proposition. Perhaps Royal believed that Canada allowed less freedom than China and didn't believe the results of the referenda; if so, it shows her unsuitability for high office despite her inexplicable popularity. Her excuse certainly indicated that -- she tried to back out of her demand by saying she just wanted "sovereignty and liberty" for Quebec's citizens as individuals, as if they didn't already have the same rights as all Canadians.

The people of France should be warned. Royal isn't just another flavor of wishy-washy Socialist, she's the kind of true believer who will threaten what liberty they have left. If she takes the time to praise China's government while scolding Canada for its lack of "freedom", she has a seriously deranged set of values.

Premiere Show Of CQ Radio Available On Podcast

Last night, I premiered my latest Internet venture with Blog Talk Radio, CQ Radio. We started with a 90-minute show dissecting the State of the Union speech, and we had some great callers, including Amendment X, Sean Hackbarth, James Boyce from the Huffington Post, and our first caller, Jim from Nashville.

The entire 90-minute show is now available as a podcast at BTR, or you can play it as a stream from my sidebar just above the Blogads strips. We had a pretty good launch, with 140 live listeners and at least a dozen calls. Hopefully, we will be all set to go on Thursday evening for the regular 60-minute shows at 9 PM CT. Let me know what you think, and make sure to listen to our next show!

UPDATE: The show is now playing at AirCongress, Daniel Glover's excellent site.

State Of The Union: Live Blog

Show going live now -- click the icon below to join!

I'll be live-blogging the State of the Union speech at this link, starting shortly before it commences at 8 PM CT. Be sure to keep checking back here for constant updates during the speech.

Also, don't forget that we will launch my new Blog Talk Radio show with a special 90-minute review of the President's speech. You can click the link below to go directly to the host page of CQ Radio at BTR, where you will find the call-in number and the player. Of course, you can listen to the show using the player on my right sidebar (just above the Blogad strip), and call in to talk at 646-652-4889. After this, we will have a weekly show on Thursday nights at 9 pm CT, and Blog Talk Radio archives all of the shows for those who miss the live presentation.

NOTE: Andrew Noyes at Beltway Blogroll will also be live-blogging, at Capitol Hill both during and after the speech.

7:24 pm CT: We'll get started now, as apparently Jim Webb has done. Even in this age of early releases, it's a little strange to get the rebuttal ahead of the speech:

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President’s message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

I'll peruse it and blog my thoughts momentarily ...

7:28 - It's actually not as snotty as one might think, coming from Webb. Mostly it presents the Democratic positions on the economy and national security as they expressed them at the midterms. However, I had to laugh at this passage:

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

Did he? Does anyone really think the Korean War ever came to an end?

7:34 - Another point about this speech -- I see the Democrats are still selling economic doom and gloom:

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

Nowhere do we hear that over 7 million jobs have been created in the last four years, and that we have experienced rapid growth in the GDP as well as 14% growth in federal tax revenues.

7:49 - Mary Katherine is also live-blogging SOTU tonight. Allahpundit is short-selling it.

7:57 - Nancy Pelosi brings the session to order, and assigns House leadership to escort the President. Cheney follows suit as president of the Senate. These are the kind of traditions that remind us that we have a centuries-old tradition of etiquette and protocol that underscore the continuity of our republic. Of course, we also have a tradition of predictable and unremarkable SOTU speeches, too ...

8:07 - These are the kind of interminable traditions, etc etc etc. BTW, Dale Franks is also live-blogging at QandO. So's Drumwaster.

8:10 - I saw Michele Bachmann and Keith Ellison from Minnesota's freshman House contingent among the first to greet the President. Michele looked happy to see him. Ellison -- well, he's happy to be there, I'm sure.

8:14 - A nice, comity-filled opening, with Bush congratulating Pelosi on her historic role, and even mentioned her father. It's a nice touch, as was the prayers for Tim Johnson and Charlie Norwood. He also congratulated the Democrats for winning the majority, and they kept their applause blessedly brief.

8:18 - "Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on ..." Not recently they don't, and that's the GOP's fault.

8:19 - Budgets and deficits lead off, and he talks about the "spending appetite of the federal government". Okay, but let's recall that the GOP had the chance to do that themselves -- and had they done so, he wouldn't have had to greet Nancy Pelosi as Madame Speaker tonight.

8:20 - Cut earmarks in half; Tony Snow mentioned that as a goal. It's a good goal. 100% would be better, but I'll take what progress we can get.

8:21 - Entitlements. Is this the seventh year in a row we've talked about this?

8:22 - On the heels of deficit reduction and belt tightening, we get the extension of No Child Left Behind. Now he's going into the health care initiatives. He's leaving the "tax" off of "income tax", but I know you're following along at home.

8:25 - This is really an exciting proposal, but it does have one flaw. Even though it provides tax incentives for people to buy their own coverage, it will be left to the individuals to actually go out and get it. Those who choose to live without health insurance will probably choose to pocket the extra money. At some point, we have to decide whether we allow people to accept responsibility for their choices, or whether we want to create a European-style nanny state where the government eliminates all choice.

8:29 - Comprehensive immigration reform gets a lot of bipartisan applause. Tom Tancredo didn't look happy, but it's clear that the President can make bipartisan headway on this issue.

8:30 - We're coming into the new energy policy, emphasizing alternative fuels and improved battery technology. The endorsement of ethanol gets plenty of approbation, probably from the Midwestern caucus.

8:32 - The 20 % reduction in gasoline consumption in 10 years should have gotten more of an emphasis on the national-security aspect of oil imports. He didn't even mention it. He did insist on getting more domestic supply, in eco-friendly ways. He may have eco-friendly ways to pull and transport oil, but they won't be Left-friendly. Good luck on this without a Republican majority.

8:34 - 20 minutes or so into the speech, and no mention of national security ....

8:36 - Okay, had I waited one minute, I wouldn't have written that last note.

8:37 - Bush looks much more confident and at ease tonight than he did for his "surge" speech earlier this month. He's relaxed and seems to be in the moment. Normally he does less well on the domestic policy portion of the SOTU, but this time he seems to be enjoying it more.

8:40 - He's just cruising through the terrorist portion -- this is his ouevre, and he knows how to deliver.

8:41 - "We must" remain engaged in the Middle East. He is ticking off the progresses of democracy in the area, noting the bravery of the people who have demanded their liberty. It was two years ago when we had members of Congress holding up purple fingers in solidarity with the Iraqi voters -- and Janeane Garofalo compared it to Nazi salutes. Ah, memories ...

8:46 - He's getting into the details of the surge, explaining the need while agreeing that the Iraqis have to find their own way to stopping the sectarian violence. "Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open-ended." Well, they do now, and so do the terrorists, but we'll just have to hope the Iraqis can handle them after we leave.

8:49 - Tony Snow was right. Bush has spent almost as much time on this as he did on the domestic policy. Bush made a strong point when he told Congress, "Whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure." He's trying bipartisanship by forming an "advisory committee" including members of both parties to help him in the war on terror.

8:52 - A civilian corps? Interesting. It would be like the contractors, I suppose, but under the color of official authority rather than under contract. I'd like to see more details on that proposal.

8:53 - First mention of Iran and nuclear weapons. And, apparently, the last, as he's moved on to Israel and the Palestinians.

8:55 - Africa gets more of a mention than Iran, as he outlines his efforts in combating malaria and HIV/AIDS and arguing for debt relief.

8:57 - Dikembe Mtumbo (sp?) gets a biography in the SOTU. Good Lord, he's twice as tall as Laura Bush.

9:00 - Okay, I may be cynical about all of these biographical sketches of visitors to the SOTU, but I'm completely buying into Wesley Autry.

9:02 - Sgt. Rieman, too. Did you see Bush enjoying that moment?

9:02 - And with that, an abrupt end to the speech, warm greetings from Cheney and Pelosi, and an exit from the chamber.

What do I think? It was an effective speech, probably more so than last year. He gave the Democrats plenty of openings for opportunities for bipartisanship. He stayed within himself, and offered his relaxed and engaging style that he often displays in front of live crowds.

The meat of the speech impresses me less. I'm a little troubled that he only gave Iran and Syria a passing mention. Iran would be one of the issues on which he could demand bipartisanship, since the Democrats spent the last two electoral cycles complaining that he hadn't done enough about Teheran.

What do you think? We'll be starting the show in less than 25 minutes, so be sure to head over to Blog Talk Radio and join us for a 90-minute session on the speech and its rebuttal, as well as other hot topics.

9:10 - Switched to Fox just in time to see Steve Kagan sucking up to Bush as he exited. My, how times have changed.

9:16 - Watching the rebuttal by Webb. He's better than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who tried to tag-team the 2005 SOTU response. He's also better than his Virginia compatriot, Tim Kaine, who delivered last year's rebuttal. It's enough to make one wonder whether Webb may have thoughts of 2012 or 2016.

9:23 - Going to prep for the show. See you there!

A Preview With Tony Snow

Tony Snow met with a group of bloggers this afternoon to give a preview of the State of the Union speech. Joking about the wonkishness of the blogger class, Snow spent over a half-hour reviewing the policy aspects of the SOTU address tonight.

Bush will focus on domestic policies in the first half of the speech. The White House wants to focus on a number of new and existing policy proposals in the hopes of inspiring bipartisanship. Among their proposals will be new efforts on health care, leveraging the market rather than a top-down government approach to win cheaper and more flexible health insurance for self-employed Americans. Bush also wants to push new energy policies that will probably have more appeal to the Democrats, including a hike in CAFE standards and more support for alternative fuels.

Snow insists that the war on terror will get equal time with the domestic policy, but that appears true only if one takes the broadest possible view of the GWOT. It looks like the White House is including a number of other foreign-policy initiatives in that list. He will speak about the proposed expansion of the military by 92,000 uniformed personnel, a request made by Robert Gates in his first few weeks as Secretary of Defense.

Most of this is already well known. Snow indicated that Bush will try to offer an olive branch to Democrats, recognizing Nancy Pelosi's historic role as the first woman to serve as Speaker. The domestic policies appear tailored to fit within the Democrats' own policy initiatives. Most importantly, Bush will shy away from any further justifications of the new surge strategy, sticking with a reminder of the stakes in Iraq and its impact on US security and the global economy.

Will they accept the olive branch? It's hard to say. Snow felt that the Democrats can't risk a do-nothing Congress if they want to extend their majorities in 2008 and will have to work with Bush, at least on the war. I'd say it's more likely they'll work on some aspects of these domestic proposals, but I don't think working with the White House will win them many plaudits from their base. If they do want to meet Bush halfway, it won't be tonight, in any case.

Bush To Focus On Domestic Agenda (Update & Bump)

In his next-to-last State of the Union speech, George Bush will focus more on his domestic agenda, attempting to find some common ground with the Democrat-controlled Congress. The New York Times reports that global warming and expanded health care will get featured status in a venue where national security has dominated the past five years:

Carrying some of the worst public approval ratings of any president in a generation, President Bush is heading into his State of the Union address on Tuesday night seeking to revitalize his domestic agenda but facing stiff resistance over the initiatives the White House has previewed so far.

Administration officials said Monday that among Mr. Bush’s proposals would be a plan to help states provide health care coverage to people who lack insurance by diverting federal aid from hospitals, especially public institutions. The provision is likely to draw loud criticism from municipalities across the nation and will significantly affect the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the nation’s largest municipal health care system.

Officials said Mr. Bush’s speech would include proposals to address the nation’s energy needs and global warming, partly by promoting the use and development of alternative fuels. He is also expected to renew his call for an overhaul of immigration law and to propose altering tax policies to help the uninsured.

The president’s advisers said they hoped Mr. Bush’s address would re-energize his domestic agenda by striking a bipartisan and ambitious tone as he faces further isolation on his Iraq policy.

“The power of the ideas requires people to take notice and take seriously important domestic initiatives,” said Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor. “There will be key signals to the American people that despite disagreements over the war, other work can be done.”

It sounds as though Bush may take a page from the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who reversed his falling approval ratings by stealing the Democratic playbook while they weren't paying attention. Bush has a much higher bar to clear in order to do that, but he wants to emphasize that the White House is open for business.

But will Bush give the store away? That will be a question on the minds of conservatives after looking at the topic list the White House has apparently leaked. Bush apparently wants to move away from national-security topics, especially since his speech on the Iraq surge failed to convince most to support it, even some of his allies in Congress. Moving away from that position of former strength may give the Democrats even more momentum on the subject -- and since Jim Webb will give the rebuttal for the Democrats, we can be assured the topic will receive plenty of coverage.

Bush's health-care proposal has already generated plenty of opposition. He wants to move health-care outlays from the hospitals to buying insurance for the patients. That may make some sense, but the transition will probably be brutal to the providers, and they're not happy about it. Labor unions oppose it already, which means it will get a chilly reception on the Hill when it gets introduced ... if it gets introduced.

Bush may get more traction on energy. He has worked with Tom Harkin on alternative fuels, which means ethanol for the Iowa Senator to give his blessing. Bush also hinted that he may support a boost in CAFE standards, requiring more energy efficiency from new vehicles. This has stirred controversy in the past, as some correlation has been seen between CAFE hikes and increases in vehicle deaths, presumably from vehicles without enough strength to save lives in impact situations.

Tony Snow says the President will remain "bold" in the SOTU speech tonight. We'll see if "bold" means standing up for conservative principles, or if it means a long season of retreat.

NOTE: Don't forget that I will live blog the speech tonight, and follow immediately after with the premier of CQ Radio.

UPDATE: Jules Crittenden will never get hired as a speechwriter for the White House, but perhaps they should consider it.

Also, please note the Blog Talk Radio player on my right sidebar, above the Blogads strip. You can listen to the show live, directly from this page, using that player. We may also talk a little bit about one of my newer advertisers on the show -- Hillary Clinton. She made some interesting ad buys this week, and I'm not the only conservative blog to gain her sponsorship. Tune in and let's discuss it and what it means for the 2008 race.

Public Financing Of Elections, 1976-2006

Hillary Clinton may not have killed it herself, but she delivered the coup de grace to public financing of presidential campaigns by refusing federal matching funds for both the primaries and the general election. The increasingly irrelevant fund had been on life support since the 2004 election, when both candidates eschewed its spending limits for private financing:

The public financing system for presidential campaigns, a post-Watergate initiative hailed for decades as the best way to rid politics of the corrupting influence of money, may have quietly died over the weekend.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York became the first candidate since the program began in 1976 to forgo public financing for both the primary and the general election because of the spending limits that come with the federal money. By declaring her confidence that she could raise far more than the roughly $150 million the system would provide for the 2008 presidential primaries and general election, Mrs. Clinton makes it difficult for other serious candidates to participate in the system without putting themselves at a significant disadvantage.

Officials of the Federal Election Commission and advisers to several campaigns say they expect the two candidates who reach Election Day 2008 will raise more than $500 million apiece. Including money raised by other primary candidates, the total spent on the presidential election could easily exceed $1 billion.

People involved in the Republican primary campaign of Senator John McCain of Arizona say he, too, is beginning to seek private donations for the primary and general elections, albeit with the option of returning them. A longtime proponent of campaign finance change, Mr. McCain has recently removed his name as a co-sponsor of a bill to expand the presidential public financing program.

McCain has backed away from public financing, mindful of the criticism of the BCRA mounted from Republicans he needs to attract to win the primaries. He hasn't backed away from the BCRA itself, but he understands the mood regarding government oversight of political activity.

The end of this fund is nothing to mourn. While the presidential campaign funding was a less egregious form of contribution control -- after all, the candidates could opt out, as they are now -- it still did little towards its presumed goal of eliminating corruption. Candidates who opted into the system still raised money and worked with power brokers to get it. In the end, it only worked as a cap on spending, hardly worth the overlooked problem of forcing taxpayers to fund candidates with whom they disagreed. And let's also not forget the rather objectionable idea of putting the federal government in charge of determining which candidates are acceptable to run it.

Expect to see Congress attempt to give this program a little CPR by raising the cap on spending -- perhaps to as much as the $500 million that this campaign will wind up costing each major-party nominee. That will only temporarily extend the delusion that government programs mean less corruption than private markets. The only real reform will come when Congress demands full, complete, and immediate disclosure of all contributions via the Internet for all national office elections, including the Senate, which is now excused from such disclosures. Eliminate all of the contribution shelters like 527s and end the distinctions between hard and soft money, and force the candidates and the parties to be responsible for their message, donors, and advertising.

If Hillary can end this silly and autocratic program, then perhaps some good will come from her candidacy after all.

GOP Gets Reform Religion ... A Bit Late

The Republicans in Congress have begun to press for more radical reform of the legislative branch, pushing for broader measures than the Democratic majority wants to pass. This includes a wider range of qualifying crimes for which to revoke Congressional pensions, a subject that came up when it was revealed that Randy "Duke" Cunningham would still receive his lucrative retirement despite imprisonment:

The House yesterday started considering a bill by Rep. Nancy Boyda, Kansas Democrat, that denies federal pensions to members of Congress convicted of bribery, perjury and conspiracy offenses related to the lawmaker's office. A vote could come as soon as today.

Separate bills by Mr. Terry and Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican, would have withheld the pension from lawmakers convicted of a longer list of felonies, including some unrelated to abuse of office -- ranging from white-collar embezzlement crimes to political crimes such as securing campaign contributions by intimidation.

The Democratic bill had a shorter list of pension-losing crimes because the leadership promised "this bill can be passed and enacted into law as soon as possible," said Shanan Guinn, spokeswoman for Mrs. Boyda.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats fought to defeat a Republican measure that would authorize the president to remove earmarks -- and send them back to Congress for a second look and another vote. Earmarks, or pork, are provisions in a bill to fund specific projects, often used by members of Congress to pay for pet projects in their home districts or states. Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said through a spokesman that earmark reform was just a ruse to pass a "line-item veto."

"It would be used to attack Social Security, Medicare and other items for those with the greatest need," spokesman Jim Manley said.

Wow -- Republicans get tough on corrupt public officials and push through a line-item veto. Gee, what could they have accomplished if they had the Congressional majorities?

Oh, wait ...

These measures should get enacted, and the Republicans are right in championing them. I'd even like to think that their passion for reform comes from learning the lesson of 2006, when voters gave them the boot after years of earmarks, sellouts, and scandals. However, it is difficult to credit this to a sincere change of heart rather than a desire to outflank the Democrats on reform as a tactic for the Congressional elections of 2008.

Nevertheless, the Republicans need to press for the mechanism of Presidential rejection of earmarks. If that is a line-item veto, it's good to remember that most governors have that power already, and the Republic has not failed as a result. If the Democrats are serious about pork reform, then this measure gives the executive branch the check it needs against legislative gluttony. Whether true converts or cynical manipulators, the Republicans have the right idea -- even if it came too late.

Bill Richardson Revisited

My Examiner column today focuses on Bill Richardson's quest for the Presidency and its threat to both the Republicans and Hillary Clinton. It's a distillation and extension of my thoughts over the past two days since Richardson announced for the race:

The Republican front-runners have better track records than their Democratic counterparts, at least for the moment. Between them, Hillary Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards, and Obama have a total of 14 years of national office and only 21 years of electoral office experience.

By comparison, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has been in the Senate for more than 20 years, Rudy Giuliani served as mayor of New York City for eight years and Mitt Romney has one four-year term as governor of Massachussetts.

Between them, these three GOP candidates have a dozen years just in executive experience, which the Democratic front-runners completely lack. McCain and Giuliani have notable biographies of service to the nation, while Romney has the rescue of the Salt Lake City Olympics to his credit.

The GOP has a significant edge in experience at the moment, but it is an edge that will evaporate if Richardson takes the Democratic nomination. Will the Democrats be smart enough to take advantage of it?

I'm betting that the Democrats won't be smart enough to choose the candidate most likely to win, just as they failed to do in 2004 when they left Joe Lieberman on the bench. However, the Republicans better have a plan that consists of more than hoping their rivals manage to make the big mistake.

Some have speculated that Richardson could wind up being Hillary's VP choice. That's possible, but I don't consider it likely. Richardson's term as governor will last through 2010, giving him plenty of opportunity to run again for 2012 if Hillary doesn't win the general election. Being the VP in a Clinton White House has already proven somewhat problematic for promotion. Besides, why would Richardson give up his current office just to be Hillary's show pony?

Hillary wouldn't select Richardson anyway, unless she had already captured the hard Left in the party. Assuming she wins the nomination, Obama will get the first pick as her running mate. He's Midwestern, black, more well-liked, and personally a better campaigner. Richardson won't win her any votes from the MoveOn crowd, and Obama will shore up some constituencies in both the Left and center.

Enjoy the column, and read it all. I believe we will be talking about Richardson much more than people think over the next year.

UPDATE: Daniel Freedman for President! Except for that whole Article II thing, of course. Should natural US citizens born abroad of at least one American citizen be barred from holding the nation's highest office?

Baader-Meinhof Gangsters Coming Up For Parole

Germany has some tough decisions to make over the next few years regarding their own home-grown terrorists of another age. The Baader-Meinhof Group leaders still alive and in prison have now started becoming eligible for parole, and the Germans have to decide whether to choose mercy or justice:

Now Germany has to decide if it should make its peace with the terrorists of the 1970s. The Baader-Meinhof Gang — later known as the Red Army Faction — killed 34 people, many of them members of the political and business elite.

The State, the police and the judiciary reacted with surprising ferocity, imposing years of solitary confinement on some of the captured terrorists.

It is an issue that still divides German society. Many politicians came to maturity during the 1968 student revolt or the years of ideological terrorism that it spawned. Liberal leaders, such as the Green deputy Antje Vollmer, say that even Nazi war criminals have not had to serve the lengths of the sentences handed down to the Baader-Meinhof followers. Other politicians and relatives of the victims say that there can be no forgiveness.

Mohnhaupt and her fellow killer Christian Klar were hardcore members of the gang. Besides killing Mr Ponto, they also shot dead the West German prosecutor-general Siegfried Buback and abducted, tortured and killed Hanns-Martin Schleyer, head of the West German Employers’ Federation.

Baader-Meinhof always captured a segment of the popular culture that may seem strange to those who did not grow up in that era. Today, we have a much clearer moral picture of terrorists, the criminals who prey on unarmed civilians in order to advance their political agendas. We understand that such people are nothing but craven cowards who killed and tortured people in order to impose a vision of society that most rejected.

Well, at least some of us have learned that lesson. It appears that the same leftists who either became apologists for Baader-Meinhof or active supporters still make excuses for these despicable individuals who spent six weeks torturing a businessman for the crime of making a living, and then shot him in the head at the end. German Justice Minister Klaus Kinkel, who has been somewhat enraptured by these brutal murderers, says that anyone who serves 24 years in prison should have the chance to return to society.

No, they shouldn't. They served that many years in prison because they killed people, quite a few of them, and did it in cold blood. Such terrorists should never see the light of day, let alone be granted a parole hearing. The mere suggestion that old terrorists should be mainstreamed back into society represents a suicide wish. What will happen when they get released? Klar and Mohnhaupt would start making appearances on talk shows and lecture circuits, reliving their glory days when an entire continent lived in fear of their next strike at society. Their release will do more to promote terrorism as a means to a political end than ten tapes from Ayman al-Zawahiri.

If we want to put an end to terrorism, then we have to put an end to terrorists. If we reject the death penalty, as I do, then that means locking them away forever so that they fade from memory. If we allow them to mainstream back into society, they will breed even more terrorism, and the rest of us will pay for the romantic nonsense of a generation that has afflicted Western thought for decades.

Kosovo Quagmire Drags On

The UN has dragged its feet on the final determination of the status of Kosovo ever since the intervention in 1999 that stopped a war between the ethnic Serbs and Albanians in the province. Member nations had pressed for a resolution to the standoff over the last couple of years, and hoped that the recent elections would give an indication of a direction to pursue. However, after Serb nationalists won a significant but not overwhelming victory, it appears that the various European powers will continue the stalemate:

Russia and the West were on a diplomatic collision course yesterday over the future of Kosovo, which will soon take a big step towards declaring its independence from Serbia.

As results from the Serbian election confirmed a strong showing for the ultranationalist Serbian Radical Party, American, British and other Western leaders braced themselves for what is likely to be a bruising showdown with the Kremlin.

The dispute centres on the fate of Kosovo, the largely ethnic-Albanian province of Serbia, which has been under Nato control since its troops seized the region from Serbian forces in 1999. On Friday Martti Ahtisaari, the UN special envoy to Kosovo, will reveal a plan to grant the province “supervised independence” that could lead to it taking responsibility for foreign affairs, defence, and a seat at the UN.

“The independence of Kosovo is a reality, so we demand recognition of Kosovo’s international subjectivity without any delays,” said Agim Ceku, its Prime Minister.

Not so fast. Russia, which has attempted to revive its flagging influence since the collapse of the Soviet Union, will not allow the Serbs to lose Kosovo. Vladimir Putin wants to remind Europe that Russia has always thrown its weight behind the Serbs in the Balkan conflicts. Putin has some scores to settle with Europe after their meddling in Ukraine and Georgia, and Kosovo allows him an opportunity to stick a thumb in the eye of the EU.

The Serbs will no doubt encourage this. They have long ties to Kosovo, and the province has deep significance to the Serbian identity. With the end of Yugoslavia and the Balkan wars that followed, the Serbs have retreated from most of their former regions already. They do not want to lose Kosovo to another independence movement. Albanian Kosovars have a different opinion, of course. However, in this case, it appears that they do not have the political support to carry independence.

In fact, none of the main parties in the election desired independence, according to the Times of London. That calls into question the entire purpose of the UN occupation of the province. If the people do not want independence and the Albanian minority insists on starting wars to get it, that seems to be an internal problem for Serbia, one that does not require outside intervention. If the elections were free and fair and demonstrate that the separatists cannot attract popular support, then it seems strange that the UN would take the position of mandating independence.

In this case, Putin may be right. If so, then the entire eight-year quagmire has been for naught, and will undoubtedly drag on even longer as the UN attempts to impose a solution that most Kosovars apparently don't want.

Tomlin To Helm The Steelers

The Pittsburgh Steelers picked another young replacement for a long-term coach by going outside the organization for Mike Tomlin. The 34-year-old defensive coordinator for the Minnesota Vikings is the same age as Bill Cowher when he got the job 15 years ago:

The Steelers made Tomlin's hiring official Monday morning, but it is unclear whether Childress discussed the job with Spagnuolo before he joined the Giants. Childress, in his first public comments since Pittsburgh named Tomlin a finalist for the job last week, said Tomlin "did a great job for us" in 2006.

"I'm really happy for Mike," Childress said in a statement released by the Vikings. "He is a class guy and a good football coach and deserves to have this opportunity. ... I know he will be successful in Pittsburgh." ...

Dressed in a black suit with a gold tie, Tomlin pledged to "have a first-class, blue-collar work ethic in how we approach our business" in Pittsburgh. At only 34 years old, he said he looks forward to connecting with his new players.

"I don't think it will take them long to realize my goals as a coach are no different than any other coach they've ever had," Tomlin said. "I think mutual respect is required. I have a job to do from a coaching standpoint. They've got a job to do from a playing standpoint. My age is my age. I've never had a problem with [coaching] men. When I broke into the league [in Tampa Bay], I coached John Lynch. John's older than me. I don't anticipate it being a problem, and really, more than anything, I just look forward to getting to know the men and moving forward."

It's a good hire for the Steelers. Tomlin has done excellent work here in Minnesota in bolstering a defense that Denny Green mostly ignored in successive drafts. The Vikings defense this year hearkened back to the Purple People Eaters of the 1970s at times, even if their offense was less than impressive under Brad Childress. Tomlin even made his first good decision, which was to keep Dick LeBeau as the Steelers' defensive genius in place.

The Steelers' Dan Rooney had made minority hiring a priority for the league in head coaching positions, even if they had only hired two head coaches in over 30 years. This time they surprised some by not keeping Ken Whisenhunt or promoting Russ Grimm, but looking outside the organization. In fact, some reports had Grimm already being promised the job, only to have it rescinded when they found Tomlin, a rumor the Rooneys hotly denied.

Tomlin should make a good head coach -- and with enough time, maybe even a great one. Given the Steelers' history, they may not have to make another coaching decision for another generation.

CQ Radio Launch Tomorrow With SOTU Speech Review

Tomorrow, I will be launching another Internet project at BlogTalkRadio -- a weekly Internet "radio" show where CQ readers and everyone else can call in and discuss politics, foreign policy, national security, and any other topic that strikes our fancy. The show will air on Thursday evenings from 9-10 pm CT, but we'll kick it off tomorrow with a special 90-minute review of the President's State of the Union speech at 9:30 pm CT. I'll be live-blogging the speech, and almost immediately afterwards, we'll start the show. Be sure to call in at 646-652-4889 to join me and everyone else.

Can't make it at that time? No worries -- Blog Talk Radio archives the shows as podcasts. Just click to my host page below to tune in live or to listen to the archived podcasts.

Northern Irish Police Protected Unionist Gangs

A devastating report from the police ombudsman in Northern Ireland could derail the peace process in the troubled province of the United Kingdom. Nuala O'Loan has connected the Royal Ulster Constabulary with several Unionist gangs that committed murders and mayhem over the last several years, acting to protect the terrorists while using them as informants:

The Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch protected a paramilitary gang linked to 15 murders while members were run as police informers, a report said today.

One agent, referred to as "Informant 1" in the report but known to be Mark Haddock, a former Ulster Volunteer Force commander, was paid at least £79,840 as an agent while he was involved in the north Belfast loyalist terrorist unit.

The report published today by Nuala O’Loan, Northern Ireland’s police ombudsman, revealed the extent of police and UVF collusion that gave Haddock and his henchmen a form of immunity from the law.

Police agents with the Mount Vernon UVF were linked to 10 murders, 10 attempted murders, 13 punishment attacks, a bomb attack on Sinn Fein offices in Monaghan, drug-dealing, criminal damage, extortion and intimidation.

The three-year £2 million investigation also said there was less reliable evidence to link Informant 1 and his associates to another five murders.

Northern Ireland had just put its self-government process back on a slow track towards restoration. Now, however, the report may convince republicans that the British-backed police forces are too corrupt to trust, The RUC has already been disbanded in favor of a new agency, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but Nationalists will undoubtedly feel that the same impulses will exist in any Union-backed police force.

It's a mess, and one complicated by the existence of terrorists on all sides. Just as in the Palestinian Authority, these groups offer social services on one hand while wielding instruments of terror on the other. And just as with Hamas and Fatah, the Irish gangs have deteriorated into common Mafia-like organizations, extorting money from the frightened populace on both sides.

This report will serve to undermine even further the Unionist argument in Northern Ireland. If the government of the UK cannot administer Ulster without allying itself with terrorists, then it has little moral authority to rule there at all. Unfortunately, there seems to be few rational alternatives.

UPDATE: Good conversation and more background on this from Lexhamfox and Coisty in the comments.

Fox, Insight Pull An AP

The curse of single sourcing has bitten more than just the AP lately. Insight Magazine, a publication of the Washington Times, ran a single-sourced story last Friday about Barack Obama regarding the choice of school his stepfather made while they lived in Indonesia, and Fox News spent all day talking about it. In this case, Fox used the news item to hit at both Obama and Hillary Clinton without ever confirming anything about the sourcing. Howard Kurtz, in his indispensable media-watch column, explains:

Insight, a magazine owned by the Washington Times, cited unnamed sources in saying that young Barack attended a madrassah, or Muslim religious school, in Indonesia. In his 1995 autobiography, Obama said his Indonesian stepfather had sent him to a "predominantly Muslim school" in Jakarta, after two years in a Catholic school -- but Insight goes further in saying it was a madrassah and that Obama was raised as a Muslim.

Fox News picked up the Insight charge on two of its programs, playing up an angle involving Hillary Clinton. The magazine, citing only unnamed sources, said that researchers "connected" to the New York senator were allegedly spreading the information about her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. ...

On the morning show "Fox & Friends" on Friday, co-host Steve Doocy said that madrassahs are financed by Saudis and teach a radical version of Islam known as Wahhabism, though he said there was a question whether that was the curriculum in the late 1960s, when Obama attended the school. Another co-host, Gretchen Carlson, said that those on the show weren't referring to all Muslims, only "the kind that want to blow us up." ...

On Friday afternoon, John Gibson, host of Fox's "The Big Story," began a segment this way: "Hillary Clinton reported to be already digging up the dirt on Barack Obama. The New York senator has reportedly outed Obama's madrassah past. That's right, the Clinton team reported to have pulled out all the stops to reveal something Obama would rather you didn't know -- that he was educated in a Muslim madrassah."

Kurtz reminds readers that reputable news agencies used to refuse to run stories from anonymous sources unless they could get independent confirmation. Those days are apparently over. Instead, we have the dynamic of one news agency running a story, and then other news agencies report on the reporting of that story, until everyone forgets that the basis of the entire issue came from one source, and one who refused to go on the record at that.

Obama included his educational history in his memoirs. It seems more than a little irrelevant what kind of school in which his parents enrolled him when he counted his age in single digits. Obama has not lived his life as a Muslim but as a Christian, and received most of his education in American public schools. (Maybe we should be questioning that.) He isn't a stealth Muslim regardless of his middle name or his two-year attendance in a school in Indonesia. Nor does anyone offer any proof that this information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Granted, it sounds like the kind of character assassination that the Clinton team performed in the past, especially James Carville, but unless Gibson has some proof that it came from Hillary's campaign, then he shouldn't have speculated on it on national TV. (I actually heard both broadcasts on Friday and wondered about the sourcing.)

This is no different than the Jamil Hussein embarrassment at the AP. The news agency used a single source, hiding behind a pseudonym without any notification to the reader that the source was not named, to publish dozens of reports of atrocities in Iraq. The AP made little attempt at corroboration, and then refused to acknowledge the fact that they had violated their own rules for reporting, including the single-sourcing that created the entire problem. Even after Michelle Malkin went to Baghdad and showed that the "destroyed" mosques still stand, the AP has yet to apologize or retract their stories. In the meantime, the Jamil Hussein stories got picked up and published around the world.

Both incidents should serve as reminders that single-sourcing only belongs in gossip columns. If a reputable news agency can't confirm information from an anonymous source, they shouldn't use it. And when they do, other news agencies shouldn't allow that to form the basis of their own reporting without their own independent confirmation. It erodes their credibility and leaves us wondering what their editors actually do for a living.

Is Richardson Hillary's Worst Nightmare?

Early on, it looks like Hillary Clinton's status as front-runner would only get a serious challenge from Barack Obama, the single-term Senator that has the media abuzz with delight. Obama looks to be the only candidate that can draw from the left and center in the Democratic Party enough to threaten HIllarys chances in the primary. However, the advent of Bill Richardson's candidacy may pose much more difficult problems for Hillary, if Richardson chooses to play hardball in the primaries:

Richardson spent 15 years in Congress before being named U.S. ambassador to the United Nations by President Bill Clinton in 1997. A year later he was appointed energy secretary. Richardson returned to elected office in 2002, winning the gubernatorial race. Last fall he cruised to a second term with 69 percent of the vote.

Throughout his career in public life, Richardson has also served as a roving diplomat, dispatched to defuse crises in hot spots including North Korea and Iraq. He spent several days in Sudan last week before making his presidential intentions known. ...

Regardless of the strength of his résumé, Richardson faces a rocky path to the nomination. In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 1 percent of Democratic voters said they would support Richardson in a primary. By contrast, Clinton took 41 percent, Obama 17 percent and Edwards 11 percent.

As an insider in the final term of the Clinton presidency, Richardson certainly has his own perspective as to how the Clintons ran the White House. It has long been rumored that Hillary was a complicating factor in administration politics, and Richardson would have been in a position to know.

Will he start telling stories out of school about Hillary and her actions during those years? Richardson isn't known as a hardball politician despite his prowess on the baseball field in his youth, but he has to know that running against Hillary will require that kind of mindset. So far, he is the only Clinton White House figure running for President, and probably the only one other than Al Gore with the resumé to do it.

Even the fact of his candidacy makes a case for his readiness to dish on Hillary. He's just young enough (60) to have waited for 2012 or 2016 to avoid going against Hillary, and yet he chose to run against his former boss' spouse. That indicates that Richardson doesn't feel especially loyal to either HIllary or Bill, and hints that some fireworks may await us on the primary trail. If so, Richardson may represent the biggest threat to Hillary for the nomination, regardless of whether Richardson ever cracks into the top tier of candidates.

The New York Times Hearts Porkers

The New York Times' Nicholas Confessore really needs a remedial civics lesson -- and so do a few New York politicians. In an article covering the pork-barrel controversies in the state, Confessore reports that some officeholders want to defend earmarks from the state budget for home-district vote-buying as -- get this -- the "purest expression of self-government":

To some people, member items — the grants that lawmakers award, with little debate and much secrecy, to community groups and pet projects back in their home districts — symbolize the worst of New York’s political culture. Member items have gone to fix the roof of a hunting club near Albany, help finance a pro-wrestling hall of fame in Schenectady and, most infamously, open a cheese museum in the city of Rome.

But to Dale M. Volker, a Republican state senator from western New York, member items are nothing less than the Legislature’s purest expression of self-government and a bulwark against power-grubbing governors through the ages. It is a sentiment echoed by other lawmakers, who in interviews offered spirited defenses of such spending.

“I personally believe it is the biggest democratization of the Legislature in all the years that I’ve been there,” Mr. Volker, a 32-year veteran of the Senate, said in an interview. “I contend that the reason we cannot get rid of member items is that it would reduce the power of democracy in the Legislature. The problem we have is, a lot of our people truly believe in democracy.”

Wait -- I have to pick myself up out of a dead faint from the laughter. Self-government? No. Self-government would mean that funding for these district projects would come entirely from the district itself. Self-government means, er, self, not grubbing money from other people to pay for your own vanity projects.

And if anyone doubts the corrosive influence of earmarks and pork-barrel spending, take a look at New York. They have had scandal after scandal regarding the misuse of earmarks for personal purposes. One legislator faces criminal charges for putting earmark money into his own pocket, and another faces charges of skimming from the top of grants he directed to a non-profit in his district.

Confessore spends paragraph after paragraph describing research for Alzheimers, diabetes, and so on. He quotes politicians who claim that only they can comprehend where to direct these grants, rather than having the appropriate government agencies do it with well-established award procedures.

Pork is a drug to politicians, and they will say anything that will continue to feed their addiction. This article contains some of the most ridiculous justifications for legislative pork, made all the more humorous because of the sincerity they try to show. Just like with any other addicts, one can tell they're lying because their lips are moving. What they need is a real show of self-government -- by having the voters of New York toss them out of office. Unfortunately, the politicians aren't the only ones addicted to pork.

A Bigger Mistake By Maliki

The Iraqi government appeared to be taking the fight against the Mahdi Army and Moqtada al-Sadr seriously ... for a week or so. Yesterday, they took one gigantic step backwards when they announced that Sadr would rejoin the government, having cut yet another deal to keep from paying the price for his sectarian warfare:

The Iraqi Government announced a deal to bring Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr back into the political fold yesterday, even as violence spread farther across the country.

The populist Shia cleric’s six Cabinet ministers and 30 MPs ended their boycott of government and parliamentary activities, begun last November, when they protested at a meeting between Nouri alMaliki, the Prime Minister, and President Bush in Jordan. ...

The violence came as more than 3,000 US paratroops arrived in Baghdad to take part in the new Baghdad security plan with which Mr al-Maliki hopes to restore order to the capital. The 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division is the first of five to be deployed alongside nine Iraqi brigades in Baghdad. As the US death toll reached 3,044 an opinion poll by Newsweek magazine found 68 per cent of respondents opposed to the decision by President Bush to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, with 26 per cent in support.

The polling won't improve if the Iraqis keep cutting deals with Sadr. The Shi'ite death squads and the Mahdi Army get their orders from the same person, and as long as he keeps returning to power, his minions will continue doing exactly what they're doing now. Sadr has the Ministry of the Interior infiltrated enough to compromise the Iraqi police in Baghdad, and his continued influence in the national assembly will serve to retain that influence.

The timing of the return does prompt some questions, though. Maliki and the US just launched the "surge" operations and have Sadr's forces on the run or underground. One would not expect to see Sadr cutting deals at this stage, but rather extending his protest and perhaps forcing the collapse of Maliki's government. Instead, while Maliki and the US are attempting to push his forces out of Baghdad, he rejoins Maliki's government.

Why? Could the surge be more of a purge, as one CQ commenter put it recently? Did Sadr lose control of his forces, or at least some of his commanders, and has Maliki cut a deal between the US and Sadr to destroy the Mahdis, or at least certain rogue members of its leadership?

It's apparent that something odd is going on between Maliki and Sadr, but whatever the case, Sadr continues to be the center of Shi'a extremism in Iraq. We tried cutting deals with Sadr twice before, and both times we have had reason to rue the consequences. The only strategy with a promise of success against the violence in Baghdad is to ensure the permanent removal of Sadr from positions of power and to force him back into the role of general -- a role he has retained despite his political veneer.

Maliki's Other Mistake

Nouri al-Maliki rather notoriously allowed the execution of Saddam Hussein to go awry by pressing for a quick hanging, rather than taking American advice to slow down and organize it better. As a result, the opportunity to show that Iraq had moved past its brutal sectarian past was lost in the "Moqtada, Moqtada" chants on a bootleg video. Now it appears that Maliki's arrangement will lead to another mistake, one that could keep the cult of Saddam thriving:

Saddam Hussein’s followers are planning a museum at the former dictator’s grave, amid concern that a Baathist shrine and rumours of a posthumous autobiography will perpetuate a cult of martyr around him.

Saddam’s tribe say that exhibits will include photographs and the coat, white shirt and shoes he wore at his execution, with other documents and belongings returned to the family by the Iraqi Government.

But it is suggestions of a book, which publishers said last night could break sales records, that is most controversial.

One tribal member in Tikrit said that they now held Saddam’s jail writings, in autobiographical form. Separately, Saleh Armouti, a Jordanian member of the former dictator’s defence team, said he was sure that Saddam wrote his memoirs while in jail. “Once I asked him how he spends his day, and he said, ‘I spend it writing my memoirs’.”

Maliki could do little about Saddam's autobiography; after all, confiscating it and destroying it would have caused even more conspiracy theories to abound about its contents. It will probably sell like the Ba'athist equivalent of hotcakes, too. It certainly will outsell Saddam's romance novel.

However, the shrine exists because Maliki acceded to Saddam's family when they demanded his body back after the execution. After the debacle of the hanging, Maliki probably couldn't afford to commit any further provocations, but allowing the body to go back to Tikrit was a mistake. The government basically issued a license for a Saddam Hussein shrine, and that's what the Ba'athists intend to create at the gravesite.

They want to create a legend of Saddam as Saladin, much like Saddam tried to create for himself during his reign of terror. This could work, but probably not for very long. Despite the best efforts of his propagandists, no one in Iraq will forget Saddam's record in wars. Despite a large advantage over the Iranians, the best he could do was a draw against the mullahcracy after eight grinding years of total warfare. After that, he got his ass handed to him twice by the United States and its coalition partners, and both times within a few weeks of actual battle.

Unfortunately, though, the Arab nationalists of the region will still use Saddam and his shrine as a rallying point. Failure has rarely disqualified Arab leaders from becoming heroes, and Saddam's end will no doubt enhance his status. Maliki and the Iraqis will probably rue the refusal to cremate Saddam and throw his ashes to the winds.

Colts Win One For The Ages

Earlier today, I made two predictions for the NFL conference championship games. The Chicago Bears made me eat my words in the first game, dominating the New Orleans Saints in a 39-14 rout. And for the first half of the AFC championship, it looked like I'd have a second helping of crow. However, in the greatest comeback ever in a championship game, the Indianapolis Colts erased a 21-3 deficit to beat Tom Brady and the New England Patriots, 38-34:

Peyton Manning overcame his playoff past, and his biggest nemesis, to march the Indianapolis Colts into the Super Bowl with a 38-34 come-from-behind victory over Tom Brady and the New England Patriots in Sunday's AFC championship game.

Manning and the Colts will head to Miami to take on the Chicago Bears in the NFL title game on Feb. 4. The Bears soundly defeated the New Orleans Saints 39-14 earlier Sunday in the NFC championship game.

I almost turned the game off after the poor start Peyton Manning had. He couldn't move the offense and threw gasoline on the fire by tossing an interception that Assante Samuels easily took to the house for the 21-3 lead. The Patriots looked like they couldn't miss, and the Colts looked to be missing on a few cylinders.

Manning, however, had no quit in him. He started seeing holes in the Patriot defense and exploiting them by playing ball-control offense. The Colts defense stiffened, only giving up 13 points in the second half and keeping Brady off the field. The Patriot defense began to tire, and Dominique Rhodes began blowing through the line for substantial gains on the ground. The Pats started looking spooked and tentative as they tired.

But the big story is Manning. He has had an albatross around his neck with his losses to the Patriots, twice in the AFC championship game, and with the big hole he dug for himself it looked like that albatross would get even heavier. He kept plugging away, even after he apparently injured his thumb, and looked like a man possessed in the second half. The Colts scored 32 points against a good Patriot defense and one of the masters of the sidelines in Belichick.

Manning finally gets his Super Bowl, and so does Tony Dungy. Earlier in the day, Bears coach Lovie Smith ensured that this Super Bowl would have its first African-American head coach, and now we have two. We'll see a brilliant offense squaring off against a brilliant defense -- and I can't wait for Miami and February 4th.

PS: Colts by 7.

Chavez Invites US To Venezuela

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez apparently doesn't like criticism, at home or from abroad. After the US expressed concern over the assignment of dictatorial powers to Chavez, he invited us "gringos" to take a trip south -- way, way way south:

President Hugo Chavez told U.S. officials to "Go to hell, gringos!" and called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "missy" on his weekly radio and TV show Sunday, lashing out at Washington for what he called unacceptable meddling in Venezuelan affairs.

The tirade came after Washington raised concerns about a measure to grant the fiery leftist leader broad lawmaking powers. The National Assembly, which is controlled by the president's political allies, is expected to give final approval this week to what it calls the "enabling law," which would give Chavez the authority to pass a series of laws by decree during an 18-month period.

On Friday, U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said Chavez's plans under the law "have caused us some concern."

Chavez rejected Casey's statement in his broadcast, saying: "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!"

Well, which is it, Hugo? Go to Hell or go home? Sounds like an invitation to visit the Dictatorship of Venezuela to me.

Hanging With The Neo-Libertarians

It's been a busy weekend, with the First Mate home from the hospital. I've been doing a few of the chores around the house today, and ran out for lunch with my son and the Little Admiral. The FM has some normal pain and a bit of insomnia, so she couldn't do lunch or a visit today. I got home in time to join Dale Franks and McQ from one of my favorite blogs, QandO, for a Sunday afternoon podcast. It's a great conversation, and the topics range from the war in Iraq to primary scheduling. I think you'll enjoy it.

Oh, and we all miss having Jon Henke at QandO, but he's doing a great job as the new media liaison for the Senate Minority Leader's office.

Along those same lines, I will be looking into launching an Internet talk show through Blog Talk Radio. I'm in the process of setting up the show and determining the scheduling, and we'll have to see what works best with the family obligations. At this point, Wednesday nights at 9 pm CT looks pretty good. I'll keep you in the loop.

The Penultimate Bowls

For fans of the NFL, this weekend is the second-most anticipated of the season. Both conferences select their champions today, setting the stage for the Super Bowl on February 4th. Kickoff starts at 3 pm ET for the NFC Championship, and the afternoon should feature two closely-fought contests. This seems a propitious moment for predictions, and I don't want to disappoint.

AFC

The Indianapolis Colts will host their nemesis, the New England Patriots, after both teams won improbable victories on the road. The much-maligned Colts defense came up huge against Steve McNair and the Baltimore Ravens, holding them to only two field goals in a 15-6 win. Peyton Manning could not find the end zone, but he was playing against the toughest defense in the league on their home turf. He managed not to lose the game his defense was winning, and last week that was enough.

The Patriots won a game they should have lost last week against a better team. Bill Belichick outcoached Marty Schottenheimer, but the difference was really some foolish playing by the team itself. As Cris Carter put it, "It's not the Xs and Os, its the Willies and the Joes." Tom Brady bounced back from a poor first half to outshoot Philip Rivers, and the San Diego Chargers inexplicably left LaDanian Tomlinson in drydock most of the period.

So both teams have had their seasons extended, a bit surprisingly. Expect the Colts to take advantage of it. Their defense, which played great last week on the road and on grass, plays even better at home and on turf. The Patriots defense, while good, isn't as good as the Ravens, and Peyton will find the end zone more than once today. Brady and Belichick can't be discounted, but they won't be enough today. Final: 28-17 Colts.

NFC

In this case, we have the two teams everyone expected to see in the conference final. The Chicago Bears have done domination a little differently this year; they look as though they would collapse every week from a QB controversy. They still manage to win, but they don't win many style points in doing so. They square off against the New Orleans Saints, who have made this a rebuilding year: rebuilding Drew Brees' shoulder, rebuilding the team in the draft, and rebuilding the city. If any team could be considered the so-called team of destiny, this is the one.

I see the Saints winning this one, even on the road. Brees starred at nearby Purdue and knows how to play in the weather. The team is built more for ball control offense than the Bears, and they have more stability in the leadership positions. They should excel at the run game, short passing, and special teams, and that will be enough to end the Bears' season. Final: Saints 24, Bears 14.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong ... which is why I plan to watch the games.

UPDATE: I'm wrong on the NFC. Rex Grossman is still less than impressive, but New Orleans has turned the ball over 5 times and will lose this by a wide margin. Rick Moran should be cracking open the bubbly about now. Let's see if I get closer with the Colts.

The Joe Lieberman Of 2008?

Another candidate entered the race for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008 today, even if few notice it. The splashy entry of Hillary Clinton yesterday overshadowed the announcement of New Mexico governor Bill Richardson today:

Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., said Sunday he is taking the first step toward an expected White House run in 2008, offering extensive experience in Washington and the world stage as he seeks to become the first Hispanic president.

"I am taking this step because we have to repair the damage that's been done to our country over the last six years," said Richardson, a former congressman, U.N. ambassador and Energy Department secretary.

"Our reputation in the world is diminished, our economy has languished, and civility and common decency in government has perished," he said in a statement.

This should be the candidate that really worries the Republicans in 2008. Hillary sucks up most of the oxygen, and Barack Obama gets most of the headlines, and John Edwards keeps gathering the crumbs left behind. Bill Richardson has more credibility and better credentials than all three put together, and has managed to stay below the radar of the more bitter partisan fights of the last fourteen years.

Richardson has an impressive resumé. He worked in the State Department as a Congressional liaison after college, and afterwards worked as a staffer for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He spent 14 years in Congress representing New Mexico, starting in 1980, mostly focusing on foreign affairs. He moved from that position to the leadership of the Democratic Party, working with Bill Clinton on bolstering the party's credibility with the center. Clinton appointed him as ambassador to the UN, where he served a year, and then as the Secretary of Energy from 1998 until Clinton's term ended. In 2002, he ran for and won office as governor of New Mexico, winning re-election last year.

This gives Richardson an incredible amount of applicable experience for the Presidency. He has extensive foreign-affairs experience; he has plenty of contacts in Congress and a long history of working between the legislative and executive branches; and most of all, he has solid executive experience that all of the other main candidates for the nomination lack. In fact, compared to Richardson, the rest of the pack look like amatuers playing at national politics.

That isn't to say that Richardson will lack for problems in his run. The Wen Ho Lee scandal occurred on his watch at Energy, where the Chinese scientist improperly retained classified material related to nuclear-weapons technology. A federal judge in the summer of 2005 accused Richardson of being the official that leaked Lee's name to the media. Less importantly but still an embarrassment, Richardson claimed for decades to have been selected in the Major League Baseball amateur draft in 1966, a claim that was disproven a few years ago.

However, the Democrats have a candidate with much more credibility than Hillary, Obama, and Edwards on deck, if you'll pardon the pun, and one that could garner considerable votes from centrists -- and perhaps even a few Republicans, depending on who gets the nomination for the GOP. If the Democrats nominate Richardson and the Republicans nominate a colid social conservative, Richardson could be attractive to the more liberal, Giuliani-style Republicans. Like Joe Lieberman in 2004, he is the type of Democrat some Republicans could endorse -- unlike Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.

Like 2004, however, the Democrats will almost certainly throw the opportunity away, and Richardson will get as lost in the shuffle as his announcement did today.

Baghdad Mosques Still Standing

After the Associated Press ran a story of lurid atrocities in Iraq at Thanksgiving, including the destruction of four Baghdad mosques and six deaths by immolation, readers wanted to see confirmation. After all, the AP cited only one source, Captain Jamil Hussein, for the story, and other news agencies never mentioned the story at all. When some tried to confirm the story and could not, including the New York Times (which has reporters in Baghdad as well), bloggers started questioning the credibility of Jamil Hussein. The AP stopped using him as a credited source but stood behind the story, even when they could not show that the mosques had been destroyed. Later, we found out that "Jamil Hussein" was an unacknowledged pseudonym, which violated one of the AP's own ethics rules, and that their single-sourced stories could just as well have been propaganda.

Eason Jordan offered to send Michelle Malkin and Curt from Flopping Aces to Iraq to check on the provenance of "Jamil Hussein" and the story the AP still insists is accurate. Michelle reports today in the New York Post that all five mosques are still standing, and looking none the worse for wear:

Several mosques did, in fact, come under attack by Mahdi Army forces. But the "destroyed" mosques all still stand. Iraqi and U.S. Army officials say that two of them received no fire damage whatsoever. Another, which we filmed, was abandoned and empty when it was attacked.

WE obtained summary reports and photos filed at the time by Iraqi and U.S. Army troops on the scene. They contain no corroborating evidence of Hussein's claim that "Shiite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene."

One of the mosques identified by the AP, the Nidaa Alah mosque, had been abandoned and vacant at the time it was hit with small-arms fire, say Iraqi and U.S. Army officials. Two of its inside rooms were burned out by a lobbed firebomb, according to an Army report.

Three other mosques in the area - the al Muhaymin, al Mushahiba and Ahbab Mustafa mosques - sustained small-arms fire damage to their exteriors; the Mustafa mosque also had two rooms burned out by a firebomb.

Contrary to Hussein and the AP's account, military reports note that Iraqi Army battalion members were on the scene - pursuing attackers, securing the area, calling the fire department, providing support and an outer cordon.

So while the mosques came under attack, which is not unusual, they didn't get destroyed. A couple of rooms in a couple of the mosques took some damage from Molotov cocktails, but the fire brigades responded and the damage was contained. No one burned to death. The entire AP story was rubbish.

It seems rather obvious by now that the AP relied on a source for over 60 stories over a seven-month period that manipulated the wire service in order to get insurgent propaganda broadcast around the world. Instead of following its own rules regarding the identification of sources and acquiring confirmation -- rules expressly intended to avoid getting manipulated in this manner -- the editors at the AP rushed these stories to print, cognizant of their inflammatory nature.

Those are the facts. That's what the AP is supposed to report. They blew it, and they erode their credibility every day they continue to deny it.

UPDATE: Four mosques, not five -- the NY Post has a typo in their caption. Thanks to a special unnamed reader for pointing it out to me.