Terminally Backwards

Leftyblogger Attaturk at Firedoglake is hot and bothered this morning:

The Chinese are apparently taking a supervisory role in overseeing their investment.

U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay allegedly softened up detainees at the request of Chinese intelligence officials who had come to the island facility to interrogate the men -- or they allowed the Chinese to dole out the treatment themselves, according to claims in a new government report.

Buried in a Department of Justice report released Tuesday are new allegations about a 2002 arrangement between the United States and China, which allowed Chinese intelligence to visit Guantanamo and interrogate Chinese Uighurs held there.

According to the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, an FBI agent reported a detainee belonging to China's ethnic Uighur minority and a Uighur translator told him Uighur detainees were kept awake for long periods, deprived of food and forced to endure cold for hours on end, just prior to questioning by Chinese interrogators.

Susan Manning, a lawyer who represents several Uighurs still held at Guantanamo, said Tuesday the allegations are all too familiar.

U.S. personnel "are engaging in abusive tactics on behalf of the Chinese," she said Tuesday. When Uighur detainees refused to talk to Chinese interrogators in 2002, U.S. military personnel put them in solitary confinement as punishment, she said.

"Why are we doing China's dirty work?" Manning said. "Surely we're better than that."

Let's forget for the moment that lawyers for Guantanamo detainees are the worst of the hardcore left and are about as believable as Bill confronting a blue dress. And let's forget that the report is reporting on what it knows little about. Did we soften them up (i.e., keep them awake for a bit) or did we let the Chinese do it? Dunno. And let's forget that what these dolts call torture is just routine interrogation. Just watch an episode of Law and Order.

What rankles me about Attaturk and Manning is this: They are abuse biggots and terror deniers. They never wrote, I'm sure, about similar behavior by Chinese in their interrogations of Christians. Didn't matter to them.

And the Uighurs? They're de facto heroes to these folks, no questions asked. I've written human rights pieces on the Uighurs myself, but let's remember, they're an Islamic people from China's Western frontier.

Some of them are simply an abused minority, just wanting to practice their religion in peace, but prevented by the omnipresent Beijing Thumb all China is under. But some of them are Islamist jihadists intent on stoning adulteresses, beheading homosexuals and apostates, replacing China's rule of law (such as it is) with Sharia, and converting all of China by the sword. In other words, they are one and the same with al-Qaeda and those darlings of the Firedoglake set, Hamas and Hezbollah.

This is the global war on terror and I think it's safe to assume that anyone held in Guantanamo is a soldier on the wrong side of that war, not some hapless Muslim who just wants to pray towards Mecca five times a day. And because they are swine of that nature, it's not just fine but smart to have the Chinese drop by and find out what's up with them.

This is a case where the Uighurs should praise Allah because they're in Guantanamo. If they were captured in China, far from the watchful eyes of American military personnel, they no doubt would have suffered a far worse interrogation. This story could have been written from the "lucky detainees" angle except for one little niggle: That would go against all in the Left's warped worldview.

Do you doubt it? Just check out this comment on Attaturk's post:

Things are going well in bushdom. Now they can say that they are not the only ones that torture use enhanced interrogation techniques “see other people do it to so can it be all that bad”.

Will it ever end? No, not without impeachment so maybe we should impeach that f***ing pelosi madwoman as she is the classic enabler.

I swear that clinton2 is only still mucking about as a distraction from all the bull***t coming out of Washington. She is in the pay of the MIC and is doing their dirty work for them. Business as usual. [Profanity edited by C-SM]

Paranoid, hateful, distrusting. Your American Left has reported for duty in fine form today.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Strutting Through Failure

I recently had a run of exceptionally rude comments from Navigator, a Brit who has a decidedly anti-American POV, which is fine if it's well articulated, but this is the kind of revisionist junk he spewed:

News flash - America didnt [sic] join WW1 and 2 out of any sort of altruistic inclination.

Remember Japan? India and Burma is on the other side of that front. British Indian troops fought on the other front in Indo- China to help rescue you guys or have you forgotten that part of the story?

No, I hadn't really forgotten and I can give credit, not sneering abuse. Neither had I forgotten the truly decisive battles we waged Island-hopping the Pacific. Midway, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima. Rescue us? Interesting way of looking at it.

I answered his claims that America is swill in world opinion by asking why Italy and France moved towards us in their last elections, and he answered in part:

[Y]ou're showing your ignorance and arrogance by thinking the world revolves around the US once again. Naples (thats in Italy) is buried in garbage, unemplyment [sic] is high and economic growth in Italy is restricted to the cities. In short, domestic crisis. Berlesconi is a businessman so for dosmestic interests he has been re-elected.

All I'd said is the Berlesconi is more aligned with Bush than he is with England's pathetic government, which is hardly grounds for accusing me of thinking the world revolves around the US. But tell me a nation it revolves around more. The failure of the Italian economy is emblematic of the failure of the Euro-Socialist mega-state, a government model England has embraced and America, thank God, has thus far been able to reject.

I could go on, but why subject you? I only bring Navigator up because I thought of him when I read this in the Times of London (a name, by the way, he insulted me for using, claiming it was the Times of Great Britain):

Young women are daring to wear jeans, soldiers listen to pop music on their mobile phones and bands are performing at wedding parties again.

All across Iraq’s second city life is improving, a month after Iraqi troops began a surprise crackdown on the black-clad gangs who were allowed to flourish under the British military.

That was not written by an American reporter who thinks the world revolves around the US. It was written by a Brit about a country a big chunk of the world (including us) used to revolve around.

I have a small idea what happened in Basra and why the British command failed to adapt to the situation as well as we did, but I have a much better understanding of why the British crown failed here: arrogance, inflexibility, greed and outmoded military tactics.

I love Great Britain. I have enjoyed my visits there immensely, we love Incredible Wife's Aston, and their culture and history are indelibly intertwined with ours. It's a shame they also have a rude, bull-headed leftist minority full of bile and anger -- but hey, that's just another similarity between our two great nations.

Navigator would do his nation a much greater service if he would redirect his rancor against the EU, because that is the real threat to his country, not us. It threatens to homogenize Europe into a tasteless, over-regulated, PC shell of what it once was.

In closing, the Brits have re-engaged in Basra, and we all thank them for their improved effort and assistance in the recent fighting. But the victory there is the Iraqis' -- and if people like Navigator would remove their blinders and see the results of victory, perhaps they would understand that what we are fighting for is worth it.

(A note to Navigator: As a service to my readers, who prefer discourse to barroom brawls, I have blocked you from posting comments [I think I have, anyway]. You are free to send me any comments via email; my address is near the top of the right column.)

Liberals: Try And Love (Bush) Again?

Patrick farmed some very fine paragraphs yesterday in a post called Avian Chorus, an essay on the unspoken liberal emotion: missing George Bush.

Hard to wrap your mind around that? Yeah ... then mix in themes from The Eagles and five stages of grief popularized by psychiatrist Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, and you've got an essay that's definitely not Wasted Time. Excerpt:

You know I’ve always been a dreamer (spent my life running ‘round), and it’s so hard to change—can’t seem to settle down. But the dreams I’ve seen lately keep turning out the same, perhaps because even Barack Obama’s optimism depends entirely on George W. Bush.

Think about “Change you can believe in.” If that slogan works at all, it works only through implied contrast with the kind of change you can’t believe in even after it happens. The once and future progressive conceit about being part of a “reality-based community” is officially on vacation (or standing on a corner in Winslow, Arizona), because the election year directive is to embrace only what you choose to believe, while ignoring the rest of the real as much as possible. Without the magnifying glass of George W. Bush to focus his sunshine, Obama would simply revert to form as a glib politician of thin experience and questionable judgment. Accordingly, his campaign is little more than a valentine to denial, which of course is stage one in how people grieve.

Patrick's no New Kid in Town, so you can Try and Love Try Again to get your thoughts so nicely organized and well written, but in The Long Run, I Can't Tell You Why, but the Paragraph Farmer's writing gives you that Peaceful Easy Feeling, so you can just Take It Easy and enjoy some fine writing.

Beer-Soaked Politics

The lengths the Left will go to create anti-American drivel ...

Bear with me. A few days back, the blog Gusts of Popular Feeling ran a post The General Sherman Sails Again, that told the story of a US war ship converted to a merchant trader (the namesake of the post), that was sunk in North Korea's Taedonggang River in Pyongyang in 1866, with the loss of all on board.

Current (revisionist to the max) NoKo history marks the start of modern (oxymoron, anyone?) history to the event, and says Li'l Kim's great-granddaddy led the mob that attacked the ship (although that's probably fabricated).

Gusts of Popular Feeling was moved to re-tell this pretty much forgotten story because the cap of Taedonggang Beer supposedly bears the image of the General Sherman, causing the author to ask:

Does Taedonggang have the honor of being the world's only anti-American beer?

Honor?! Sheesh.

Move forward three days to today, when Andrew Leonard, author of Salon's How the World Works Column, captured this little tale to launch a screed about imperialist America and its many sins. He starts with the history, which is more interesting than the thinking of his brain:

But then... While digging around for more details on the General Sherman, I found "The Opening of Korea by Commodore Shufeldt," published in Political Science Quarterly in 1910, in which author Charles Oscar Paullin tells the tale of how Korea was forced out of its cave and into the family of nations. The opening few pages recount the aftermath of the General Sherman incident -- in 1871, Rear-Admiral John Rodgers and the American minister to China, Frederick Low, led "a flotilla of five steamships, carrying 85 guns and 1235 men" for the purpose of establishing "peaceful relations with Korea."

On June 1 a flotilla from the fleet, while engaged in surveying the river, was unexpectedly fired upon by a Korean fort. The fire of the natives was returned, and a fight took place in which the Americans lost two wounded and the Koreans twenty wounded and many more killed. After a careful consideration of this incident, Low and Rodgers decided that the prestige of the United States would be impaired unless the injury to its flag were avenged or an apology tendered by the Korean government. Through one of his secretaries Low explained to an officer of the local prefecture that sufficient time would be allowed for an apology before any further steps were taken. While deeply regretting the firing on the flotilla, the officer defended the action of the forts, on the grounds that the Korean laws prohibited foreigners to pass a barrier of defense. He sent a present of chickens, bullocks and eggs to Rodgers, who declined to accept it.

The king refused to apologize.

It is sufficient to say that the Americans performed their allotted task with great thoroughness. Five forts were captured or destroyed; fifty flags and four hundred and eighty-one pieces of ordnance were taken, and twenty Koreans were made prisoners. In the principal engagement the loss of the natives were three hundred and fifty men killed and wounded, more than half of them being killed; the loss of the Americans was three killed and ten wounded...

And he concludes with ... brace yourself for the inevitable foul stench of America-hatred:

Is the term "imperialist robbers" too strong to describe such behavior? Maybe not. And as a reminder that the terms of trade agreements between nations often depends on who owns the biggest battleships, even a beer bottle-cap can be effective.

America the imperialist ... worked then, works now, right? Forget that we don't have colonies ... doesn't matter. Forget that trade agreements lift up the nations we make them with, improving lives, not enslaving them ... doesn't matter, either.

Well, besides the obvious historical and political errors in Leonard's analysis, there's this little problem:

Here's the now-notorious beer cap:

And here's a NoKo stamp showing a bridge across the Taedonggang River:

Oops. We've got a flawed launching point for the screed -- it's a bridge not a boat. But that's not what makes the screed flawed. Leonard and his lefties will go back in time -- to the Crusades if necessary -- to find a way to paint a dreary, evil picture of America, while ignoring all the good we do today.

Is NoKo a better place for standing up to America? Would the people -- the people, who are supposed to be the concern of the left -- be living longer, healthier, happier lives if Li'l Kim and his father had stopped being Commie-dictators and tried to do for their people what America tries to do for the people for the world?

Don't bother the Left with such questions; let them see bridges as Yankee ships, terrorists as insurgents, and progress as anti-Progressive.

Lefties Line Up For Spitzer

Even those at the peak of leftist commentary, like Glenn Greenwald, can sense that there's something wrong with the hypocrisy of (soon to be ex?) Gov. Eliot Spitzer:

That hypocrisy precludes me from having any real personal sympathy for Spitzer, and no reasonable person could defend him from charges of rank hypocrisy.

But that doesn't mean he shouldn't get a good, secularist, amoralist defense:

But how can his alleged behavior -- paying another adult roughly $1,000 per hour to travel from New York to Washington to meet him for sex -- possibly justify resignation, let alone criminal prosecution, conviction and imprisonment? Independent of the issue of his hypocrisy -- which is an issue meriting attention and political criticism but not criminal prosecution -- what possible business is it of anyone's, let alone the state's, what he or anyone else does in their private lives with other consenting adults?

Indeed, one of Greenwald's commenters, DCLaw1, takes it a step further, with nodding heads all around:

I have always found it very curious that one of the following, but not the other, is illegal:

(a) Two people have sex, one of them gets paid for it;

(b) Two (or more) people have sex, all of them get paid for it, and it is videotaped and sold to third parties as a commodity.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument why this difference makes any actual sense.

In that, DCLaw1 is absolutely right. They ought to throw the porn stars, directors, producers, gaffers, editors and best boys in the slammer, too. There was a day, before Free Speech got naked, when that would have been what people like then-DA Spitzer did to earn their keep.

Whoa. The heads just stopped nodding.

But the Left has much bigger fish to fry than simple morality in the Spitzer case. As Scott Horton writes in Harpers:

It looks like the Bush Justice Department just bagged themselves another Democratic Governor.

Horton has a figure, undocumented, that under Bush's Justice Department, 5.6 times more cases were opened against Dems than Republicans.

He would like us to think that these are all high profile political cases, but he offers us no data to prove it. In fact, he says, "Indeed, a study of the cases out of Alabama shows clearly that even cases opened against Republicans are in fact only part of a broader pattern of going after Democrats."

Let me hazard a guess here. More drug dealers and pimps are Dems than Republicans. Are we being told to elect Clinton or Obama so the purveyors of crack and whores, and crack whores for that matter, will face less prosecution?

And stop me if I'm reaching here, but in watching The Godfather, I never got the sense that anyone in the Corleone circle of influence was a big man in the GOP elite.

Of course, we know from ABC that it was suspicious fund transfers that got Spitzer in trouble, not hooking up with hookers, and we know that it was a bank that initially reported him to the feds, not Karl Rove.

Are we being told to vote for Obama or Hillary so suspicious fund transfers are to be ignored? Hmmm. Maybe.

That seems to be Firedoglake's POV, given the questions asked there:

1. Why would the bank tell the IRS and not Spitzer himself if there was a suspicious transfer?

I believe it's this troubling thing called the law.

2. What is the USA doing prosecuting a prostitution case?

Her point, of course, is that the local DA, not the feds, should be prosecuting it. Certainly that's a harken back to the Clinton admin, whose Justice Department was notoriously soft on sex crimes. But look at the facts: A person from New York was doing business on a large scale with a prostitution ring in DC. Federal jurisdiction, baby.

3. Mike Garcia is a Chertoff crony.

She's following this case a lot closer than I am, but please ... cronyism? Cronyism, thy name is politics. The Dems are all over cronyism during the Bush Admin. It must be because they were exhausted containing their outrage during eight years of Clinton cronyism. This rings of 9/11 Truther Whacko garbage.

4. How did Spitzer's name get leaked to the media, and who did it? Didn't happen to Dave Vitter.

The answer is Karl Rove, of course! Why ask? And if we're so concerned about such questions, Jane, who leaked the FISA surveillance story to the media?

5. Why did Mike Bloomberg suddenly start talking about running for governor recently?

Could it be because he decided not to run for president? Spitzer is 18 months into his term ... about time to fire up an opposition campaign, ya think?

6. The Mann Act? Are you kidding?

People who don't like prostitution being prosecuted don't like the Mann Act and are always harping about it being a political tool more than a prosecuting tool. But it was written to provide the tool for prosecuting interstate prostitution. I kid you not.

7. Spitzer's been in the line of fire of the GOP hit squad for a while.

Technically, that's not a question. But here's one for you, Jane: What high profile, ambitious Republican has not been in the Dems' line of fire for a while?

Eliot Spitzer's fall is a great personal tragedy and his family has the misfortune of it also being a great political spectacle. By turning his crime and fall into a rant against prostitution laws, Bush, old laws, the GOP, Chertoff and goodness knows what else, the Left is doing their man no favors.

But I'd rather watch their ranting than Spitzer himself, any day.

Sunday Scan

Kicking Some Ashcroft

Speaking to a large group of home-state Republicans in Missouri yesterday, former AG John Ashcroft defended the president's surveillance efforts:

"The president of the United States has been among the most respectful of all leaders ever engaged in the responsibility of fighting for freedom,'' Ashcroft said, and has been "most respectful in terms of respecting the civil liberties and rights of individuals while engaged in the important task of fighting for freedom."

Ashcroft said Woodrow Wilson monitored "all calls into and outside the United States'' in World War I, while Franklin Delano Roosevelt had "all traffic coming into and going out of the United States'' monitored in World War II.

Wilson's and Roosevelt's policies are a matter of historical record, and they were more intrusive than the more pin-pointed policies technology allows Bush to pursue. I have no doubt that Wilson and Roosevelt would have done the same, if they had the technologies available to them, because presidents tend to believe in the Constitution.

Nevertheless, that didn't stop the BDS crew at Think Progress:

Dirty Hippy: Down is up. Black is white. The surge is working…… Heckuva job. ****heads…….

Ralph the Wonder Lama: Oh yeah, Hitler

Bullsmith: Ashcroft, like Bush, spits on the Bill of Rights when he spews such obvious falsehoods about such important issues.

The first lefty to post a comment included "the surge is working" as one of Bush's lies. He was corrected a bit later by Frank M, noting that it working. That generated:

Crap, just when I thought we might have some peace a poster like Frank MORON shows up. **** off ******.

Some things never change.

A Little More Lefty Looniness

Surely you've read of Toledo mayor Carty Finkbeiner's action against the Marines -- denying them permission to conduct urban warfare training after the troops had ridden for four hours from their base in Michigan to Toledo. Here's the story, if you haven't.

So what's the lead-off commenter on the link above got to say about this sorry state of events? Here's what Neo Conned opines:

Urban Warfare training in preparation for who, the American populous? Good for the mayor- training s/b on on the bases/facilities.

Just another example to acclimate us to a military dictatorship. Oooooh, Al Qaeda gonna get ya- oh i forgot there is no such animal, just false flags prepping us for Haliburton camps.

Military dictatorship? No al-Qaeda? I guess Dennis Kucinich isn't the only certifiable loon to come out of Northern Ohio.

Microsoft (And Curvy)

Isabel Vogel was hired by Microsoft in Germany a few years back -- surprising her because she was a woman with children. Says Spiegel:

She knew that making it this far was already a victory. Despite her stellar background, she wouldn't have stood at a chance at most other companies.

For all its European enlightenment -- so exalted by the Left -- Germany isn't as enlightened as America, and it takes companies like Microsoft to show them the errors of their way by hiring people like Vogel and letting her:

She has served as a shining example for other young women in the company since then -- and as evidence to her employer that its woman-friendly personnel strategy is working. "If we don't manage to recruit women now, we'll be facing massive problems in less than five years," says Achim Berg, the general manager of Microsoft Germany, referring to the challenges of a shrinking population in Germany.

Ah, enlightened Europe! Stop having babies, resist hiring women, keep up the old face ... and let the Muslims procreate, subject their women to serf-like bondage while mocking America all the while.

Speaking Of Power Women ...

In the last week, not one, not two but three books have been published in France charting the romance of president Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni -- and there's some pretty good scuttlebutt about Carla's butt and how very effectively she's used it, like this:

The authors quote Bruni telling a friend that although she would not vote for him, she had “the hots” for Sarkozy during the election campaign last year. The former top model, whose conquests included Mick Jagger and Eric Clapton, the rock stars, and Donald Trump, the American property billionaire, told another friend before meeting Sarkozy: “I want a man with nuclear power.”

Whoa ... that puts foreign affairs in a whole new light, eh?

The Next Greenie Gotta-Have-It

What could be greener?

Just strap on your own knee-powered power generator, take a walk, and generate the juice for your next cell phone call, GPS query for the locale of the day's global warming demonstration or electronic nose-hair trimming session!

This prototype unit, described in Science Daily, weighs 3.5 pounds and generates a bit more power than it takes to crank it while walking. Figure the units will become lighter and more efficient as good ol' Yankee ingenuity is applied to them, and they may become Greenie as in Army Green.

It's easy to see soldiers being issued these, so after a day of maneuvers, they've got a plug-in device to power their equipment. Pretty cool.

In The Interest Of Accuracy

Here's an actual correction that should help clarify the newspaper's relationship to Mark Steyn:

The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.

Glad we got that all straightened out. (Source)

Left Whines About Surge Success

What is the Left without whining?

So, with the surge showing success, the National Journal has to search for something to whine about and has found it:

But there's a snag. While the military as a whole is ramping down, its most politically sensitive component -- the citizen-soldiers of the Army National Guard -- is ramping up.

Dang it! People who signed up knowing what they were signing up for are getting what they signed up for. Oh, the humanity!

Hat-tip: Real Clear Politics

Those Hated Imperialist Americans

As you may have heard, corporate greed drove America to invade Iraq, where now our troops spill their blood -- and wantonly spill the blood of civilians -- for oil, occupying and repressing a nation in defiance of the U.N. as part of America's imperialist ambitions.

Right. And now this word from our sponsor, Reality:

BAGHDAD - Iraq's government is prepared to offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq and preferential treatment for American investments in return for an American guarantee of long-term security including defense against internal coups, The Associated Press learned Monday.

The proposal, described to the AP by two senior officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like, once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.

As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty.

Iraq has been living under some form of U.N. restriction since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the officials said.

American troops and other foreign forces now operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have have said they want that next renewal -- which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year -- to be the last.

Do you suppose this might be the story most ignored by the Left ... or do you more correctly suppose that they'll simply see it as evidence of "our puppet government in Baghdad" and add it to their collection of false myths and outright lies?

I'm betting on the latter.

Who's Stuck In Iraq's Quagmire?

Jack Kelly is one of my favorite columnists; clear-headed, supportive of our troops and the War on Terror, and a no-BS critic of those who don't understand life in the post-9/11 world. So imagine my surprise at this lead to his column today:

We're floundering in a quagmire in Iraq. Our strategy is flawed, and it's too late to change it. Our resources have been squandered, our best people killed, we're hated by the natives and our reputation around the world is circling the drain. We must withdraw.

Rest assured; it's just evidence of Kelly's skills as a journalist, not of his turning against the mission.

No, I'm not channeling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I'm channeling Osama bin Laden, for whom the war in Iraq has been a catastrophe.

The evidence is clear for the clear-eyed:

Al-Qaida is evacuating populated areas and is trying to establish hideouts in the Hamrin mountains in northern Iraq, with U.S. and Iraqi security forces, and former insurgent allies who have turned on them, in hot pursuit. Forty-five al-Qaida leaders were killed or captured in October alone.

Al-Qaida's support in the Muslim world has plummeted, partly because of the terror group's lack of success in Iraq, more because al-Qaida's attacks have mostly killed Muslim civilians.

Meanwhile, at the mis-named AmericaBlog, we find the D-featist attitude continues unquelled by hard facts and changed circumstances:

Oh how he’s [sic, referring to Bush, not Bush's] loves to beat that drum over and over again… the troops, the troops, the troops. As if the only way to support them is to provide Bush with the sufficient funds to continue getting them killed for his delusional plan for Iraq.

Al-Qaeda and the Muslim world can read the writing on the wall, but the American Left cannot. Delusional? Please explain, and please offer a better alternative.

Of course, the Left cannot explain and cannot offer a viable alternative ... because they are stuck in a Bush-hatred quagmire.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Headline Readers Think Iran Doesn't Seek Bomb

The McClatchy headline and the lead are bold indeed:

Experts: No Evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

WASHINGTON — Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger "World War III," experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

Even his own administration appears divided about the immediacy of the threat. While Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney speak of an Iranian weapons program as a fact, Bush's point man on Iran, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, has attempted to ratchet down the rhetoric.

Leftyblogs were quick to jump on this bandwagon because, after all, there is no evil in the world other than Bush:

If you listen to White House officials, Iran’s nuclear-weapons program is already a reality. There’s no hesitation on the rhetoric — the program, top administration officials say, is an unfortunate reality that demands our immediate attention. As Dick Cheney recently put it, “Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions. We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

With this in mind, it’s probably worth taking a moment, now and again, to point out that there’s no conclusive evidence that such a program actually exists. (The crooks and liars at Crooks and Liars)

Then there's The Newshoggers with this pig-eyed view:

One of the contributing worries of people who believe that there is a significant possibility of overt US military actions against Iran before Jan. 20, 2009 is the roll-out of the propaganda and FUD factors. We have Kyl-Lieberman taking the place of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, we have the unfounded accusations, we have the massive hyping of potential threats built upon gossamar threads of plausibility, we have freakish exile groups stovepiping their 'intel' and we have a coterie of officials who have a long-standing hard-on for 'regime change' with power in the White House.

One of the positive repeats of that entire cycle was the McClatchy/Knight Ridder team. They were the ones who were digging around and pointing out the bullshit on weapons claims, threat assessments and intel 'sources' while the big boys in the national media reprinted official claims without any skepticism on the front page, or in the lede. McClatchy is doing it again today with an analysis of the Iranian nuclear capacity in a great article.

Beware, my friends, it appears the Leftyblogs are content to make news from headlines and leads, and not really probe into the articles they are basing their posts on. The highly suspect and blatantly anti-Bush motivations of McClatchy's headline and lead-writers notwithstanding, let's fisk a bit, shall we?

The gist of the article is that Iran is no doubt pursuing a nuclear program, but there's no evidence they're actually making bombs. Well, duh. There's not much point in making bombs until you have something to put in them, eh? And there's plenty of evidence related in the article about their efforts to do that, including:

• Seized drawings "that indicated that Iranian experts studied mounting a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile."
• Seized plans for a deep-bored shaft "apparently designed to contain an nuclear explosion."
• A document viewed by the IAEA that showed how to produce uranium hemispheres which have no application in nuclear power plants "but form the explosive cores of nuclear weapons."
• Iran's assertions that it only has P1 centrifuges, not P2's, which are much faster, fly in the face of IAEA evidence that they do, indeed, have plans for P2s.
• Iran's assertions that they're not doing anything with their P2 plans flies in the face of proof "that Iran sought to buy thousands of specialized magnets for P2s from European suppliers."

And on and on. The McClatchy article, in totality, is a condemnation of Iran's claims that it seeks nukes only for peaceful purposes, but the Left is content to skim the headline and lead and make their own safe, anti-American conclusions.

hat-tip: memeorandum

A Big Hollywood Tip To Hillary -- Plus A MoveOn Slam

It's a funny political world we live in when one of the nation's top timber processors newspapers leads off the day's coverage with:

Director Rob Reiner, one of liberal Hollywood's most courted presidential fence-sitters, said Wednesday that he has decided to endorse New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. (LA Times)

Yes, Meathead is even going to throw Bill's gal a 60th birthday party/Hollywood fundraiser, the equivalent of giving her his ring. And it's big, big news from Malibu all the way to the Hollywood Hills.

The article is a hoot -- and a piece of one-sided Hillary boosterism -- that's a fun read. We learn of the other Hollywood fence sitters and their response to the news of the Meathead endorsement. You can almost hear paparazzi jostling in the background.

Reiner began telling his friends about his decision last week. He ran into [former studio exec Sherry] Lansing on Friday evening in the valet line at Morton's restaurant, a film industry favorite, where he sprang the news.

"He said, 'Have you made up your mind yet?' " Lansing said. She told him that she was still busy fundraising for all the Democrats and she didn't plan to make a decision until after she holds her own event for Edwards. "He said, 'Well, I'm coming out for Hillary.' I told him that I think it's great. I think she's wonderful," Lansing said in an interview Wednesday.

Reiner also informed [irritating has-been Norman] Lear, considered by many as political Hollywood's elder statesman, about his decision. Lear was supportive, although he said he was not yet ready to pick a candidate.

Brace yourselves Breck Boy fans, because the next paragraph contains some bad, bad news for your boy.

"I certainly support Hillary," Lear said. "I certainly support Obama, and I support Edwards. It will take me a little more time."

Lear, man of nuance.

What's interesting in this Hillaryfest is that the LATimes -- self-professed chronicler of "The Biz" -- failed to mention anywhere in the story of David Geffen's early endorsement of Obama, his bitter comments about the unusually finely honed lying ability of the Clintons, and Hil's subsequent hissy fit.

How can you write about self-effacing, society-debasing Hollywood luminaries and not write about Geffen? You can't, unless you're pretty sharply focused on promoting Hil for prez.

BTW, the story contained this gem:

[Reiner] said Wednesday that he found it "deplorable" that MoveOn.org recently characterized Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, as "General Betray Us" in a controversial New York Times ad. "This is a guy who is a military officer who is working hard to do his job," said Reiner, who has made ads for MoveOn.org in the past but is not sure if he will in the future.

Kudos, man. What a blessed relief to find at least one icon of the Left that is ready to stand up to the despicable anti-Americanism of MoveOn.org. As we all know, Clinton couldn't find it in her to criticize the hardcore left of the party about the ad.

Which goes to show that Rob is a better man than Hillary.

Bush Working With Dems On Iraq Transition

If I could nominate one news article this week as the one most likely to drive MoveOn.org and the Kos-sac into a fine dither, it would be the second excerpt from Bill Sammon's The Evangelical President that ran in the SF Chronicle.

In Sammon's piece, we see a president that is supposedly too stupid to articulate his way to the end of a sentence, and too partisan to ever look beyond the hateful blinders of his GOP cohorts, actually planning for the possible transition of the Iraq war to a Democratic president.

(Not that he thinks that will happen. In the first part of the two-parter, Bush predicts that Clinton will win the primary but lose the general, a statement that's obsessed the leftyblogs.)

Sammon reveals that Bush is "quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president."

Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told Sammon:

“He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out.”

The Left will think the Bush is taking recreational breaks with Marion Barry when they read the president's remarks to Sammon:

The Examiner asked Bush why Democratic candidates such as Clinton and Barack Obama, who routinely lambaste his handling of Iraq, should take his advice.

“First of all, I expect them to criticize me. That’s one way you get elected in the Democratic primary, is to criticize the president,” Bush replied. “I don’t expect them to necessarily take advice from me. I would expect their insiders to at least get a perspective about how we see things.”

He added: “We have an obligation to make sure that whoever is interested, they get our point of view, because you want somebody running for president to at least understand all perspectives, apart from the politics.”

Besides, Bush suggested that Clinton and Obama just might benefit from his advice.

“If I were a candidate running for president in a complex world that we’re in, I would be asking my national security team to touch base with the White House just to at least listen about plans, thoughts,” he said.

And apparently the Clinton campaign, and possibly others, are doing just that -- listening to the thoughts of a man MoveOn et. al. would have us believe is incapable of thinking. Why shouldn't they? Unlike most of us, they've seen Bush up close and bluster as they will in public, they know he's a smart man with a clear, long-term vision.

Of course, his long-term vision could become a short-term vision in the hands of a Dem president, but it looks more and more like we will be able to wrap up Iraq much more successfully than appeared would be the case earlier this year.

Part of the reason for optimism is that Bush has done such a good job of making that possible. He's taken the hits on surveillance and Guantanamo so others won't have to. He's changed tactics and leadership. He's cobbled together his shattered party to stand up to Dem white-flag bullying. And, we now learn, he's reaching out to anyone who may take his chair to help them form a viable ongoing policy for Iraq.

There must be no joy in Kosville.

hat-tip: Jim

Did Bollinger Completely Miss The Point?

Update: The Bollinger transcript is out; view it here. He did quite a good job all in all, as I discuss above ... which I'll post as soon as I'm done.

I'm still waiting for a transcript of Lee Bollinger's reportedly scathing introduction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be posted. Despite the views of some I respect that it was an award-winning intro, I'm holding my opinion until I can see the transcript.

Here's why.

The LAT clip below is indicative of most clips I've read regarding the appearance:

In his scathing introduction to the much-anticipated on-campus event, Bollinger told the leader of Iran that he resembled "a petty and cruel dictator."

Bollinger levied repeated criticisms against Ahmadinejad, calling on him to answer a series of challenges about his leadership, blasting his views about the "myth" of the Holocaust "absurd" and saying that he doubted he "will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

It appears from all the coverage I've read that Bollinger focused on the Holocaust, which certainly wouldn't have been my focus. As appalling has Ahmadinejad's view on the Holocaust is, it is inconsequential in terms of the politics of today. That's not to say the extermination of Jews isn't a critical issue, but Bollinger should have gone after Ahmadinejad for his declarations that Israel should be wiped off the map today. That is much more relevant than his denial that Hitler tried to exterminate them 60 years ago.

I also have seen no mention that Bollinger attacked Ahmadinejad for Iran's supply of munitions, funding and training to terrorists in Iraq, all in a deliberate effort to kill as many American troops as possible.

It would have taken some real courage to bring that up at Columbia, a place where a fair number on the faculty and in the student body probably think killing "imperialist" U.S. soldiers is a fine thing to do. Criticizing holocaust deniers, in contrast, is not risk-taking in an American campus (yet, thank God), so I don't give Bollinger any kudos for that.

Like I say, when I get to read the transcript, I may change my viewpoint.

Meanwhile, I thought David Schizer, the dean of the Columbia Law School did some pretty commendable risk-taking with this statement:

A controversy has developed about the invitation extended to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran by the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. Although Columbia Law School was not involved in arranging this invitation, we have received many inquiries about it.

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak. Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views.

Our university is a pluralistic place, and I recognize that others within our community take a different view in good faith, and that they have the right to extend invitations that I personally would not extend. I know that we will learn from each other in discussing the difficult questions prompted by this invitation. (emphasis added)

That's getting it right.

Meanwhile, over at Kos, we read this:

As an American, I was stunned and embarrassed by Bollinger's harangue of Ahmedinejad. It was a craven and cowardly capitulation to political pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents. I know who and what Ahmedinejad is, but I also know that he was at Columbia at Columbia's invitation. Bollinger's speech was less a challenge to Ahmedinejad than it was an ambush, and it dishonered [sic] all of us as Americans.

Hmm. I wonder what this writer's response would be if Bollinger had been equally pointed in introducing the president of the United States. I'll hazard a guess that he wouldn't think that to be unworthy of Columbia or -- and this is really odd -- dishonoring to Americans.

And speaking of Kos, we also see this on the site, courtesy of LGF:

Obviously, this is not a poll based on reality so a lot of people used it to make political statements that do not reflect what their actual actions would have been if we were suddenly transported to Bizzaro World, where such a vote might in fact take place.

Be that as it may, Kos posed the question, a question no one on the Left in the pre-Bush era would have ever thought about asking. It appears that as the Bush administration is winding down, the demented hatred of Bush is only increasing among the rabid Left.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Voices From Iraq The Left Doesn't Want Us To Hear

Failure in Iraq, failure in Iraq: It's the drum beat of the Left heard loud and repetitiously in DC this weekend, among the puppets and play actors. All the noise and silliness is intended to drown out the emerging truth in Iraq, a truth that's very threatening to the anti-Bush, anti-progress Progressives.

Today's Opinion Journal has news of exactly the sort they Left wants to drown out: the latest column by Fouad Ajami giving us loud and clear the voices from inside Iraq.

Voices that don't say we're winning, but that we've won.

"Little more than two decades ago, in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution and the Lebanon War of 1982, the American position in this region was exposed and endangered. Look around you today: Everyone seeks American protection and patronage. The line was held in Iraq; perhaps America was overly sanguine about the course of things in Iraq. But that initial optimism now behind us, the war has been an American victory. All in the region are romancing the Americans, even Syria and Iran in their own way." -- Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi

"We may differ with our American friends about tactics, I might not see eye to eye with them on all matters. But my message to them is one of appreciation and gratitude. To them I say, you have liberated a people, brought them into the modern world. They used to live in fear and now they live in liberty. Iraqis were cut off from the modern world, and thanks to American intervention we now belong to the world around us. We used to be decimated and killed like locusts in Saddam's endless wars, and we have now come into the light. A teacher used to work for $2 a month, now there is a living wage, and indeed in some sectors of our economy, we are suffering from labor shortages." -- Nouri al-Malaki

And here's an unnamed Iraqi speaking about the recently murdered anti-al Qaeda tribal leader Abu Reisha, a murder the Left gleefully trumpeted as another sign of failure in Iraq:

"No doubt he was shooting at Americans not so long ago, but the tide has turned, and Abu Reisha knew how to reach an accommodation with the real order of power. The truth is that the Sunnis launched this war four years ago, and have been defeated. The tribes never win wars, they only join the winners."

The Left has not yet even recognized that we can win in Iraq, let alone even conceive the idea that we have won and our purpose now is to sustain the victory.

That leaves this holding onto this purpose: To steal defeat from victory.

hat-tip: RCP

The Feminists' Never-Ending Fear

I heard the founder of Code Pink, Medea Benjaminon (shown here with her mouth in its normal position), the radio yesterday, controlling herself, working hard to sound normal. She even said at one point that she encouraged alternative points of view and would invite questioners at rallies to come on up, take the mike and state their views.

What a liar. She is a shrill feminist, and as a feminist, she is really more akin to this:

After a group of UC Davis women faculty began circulating a petition, UC regents rescinded an invitation to Larry Summers, the controversial former president of Harvard University, to speak at a board dinner Wednesday night in Sacramento. The dinner comes during the regents' meeting at UCD next week.

Summers gained notoriety for saying that innate differences between men and women could be a reason for under-representation of women in science, math and engineering. ...

UCD professor Maureen Stanton, one of the petition organizers, was delighted by news of the change this morning, saying it's “a move in the right direction.”

“UC has an enormous historical commitment to diversity within its faculty ranks, but still has a long way to go before our faculty adequately represent the diversity of our constituency, the people of California,” said Stanton, professor and chairwoman of the section of evolution and ecology. (source)

Diversity? The Left has redefined diversity in their clouded minds, so it now means full acceptance of those who they feel good about and unity in rejecting they don't' feel good about. That is not diversity, not by a long shot.

Stanon, by the way, is a professor of evolution and biology. She should understand the evolutionary (God-given) differences between men and women better than most and should have no patience with people who don't accept what Summers said as truth. But truth hasn't got in the way of feminism yet, and it appears unlikely to start any time soon.

hat-tip: memeorandum

More Evidence Dems Root For Failure

Those compassionate Lefties at Democratic Underground are beside themselves with glee:

The largest single home foreclosure auction in Las Vegas history will take place this weekend on Sunday, Aug. 5 at the J.W. Marriott in Summerlin. It starts at 1 p.m.

Drive through any neighborhood in the Las Vegas Valley and you are bound to see evidence of a housing market in a free fall.

"I would say this is a new home someone bought, whether they could not afford it or they decided not to move, whatever the case may be -- obviously unlived in as you can tell. Everything is brand new," said Joe Iuliucci, a Prudential real estate agent.

Eighty homes located near the Northern 215 Beltway and Jones will be auctioned. Last year's auction had only twelve homes.

An upside-down American flag accompanies the brief. Is DU normally a real estate blog? No. Then why the interest?

Because they're anti-greed (other people's greed, that is) and anti-Bush. The presumption is people were too bought-into the materialistic society and spent beyond their means in order to keep up with the Joneses. It's OK to keep up with the Mother Joneses, but not the Joneses. And their hope is that a real estate market in "freefall" (it's not) will be bad for Bush and good for Dems.

And where are the people -- you know, The People -- in all this? Well, let's take a look at some of those conspicuously consumed homes that are on the auction block:
These do not appear to be the homes of greedy people. The Left used to worry about the working man. Shoot, they used to be the working man. Now that they're spoiled brats, college professors and guilty rich folks, they see a home auction and they immediately think people like them ... but not as smart as them ... are going under, and it's Bush's fault and consumerism's fault and America's fault.

But it's just people who are down on their luck, or who bought the hustle on a bad morgage. The Left should be compassionate, concerned, even outraged ... but they're just ugly.

Gonzales Derangement Syndrome

My senator, Dianne Feinstein, she who has never addressed her husband's profiteering from her Senate seat, said today Alberto Gonzales "should be held to the highest ethical standards" and called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether Gonzales perjured himself in Congressional testimony about the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).

Three other Dem Sens joined her: Charles Schumer, Russ Feingold and Sheldon Whitehouse.

In reporting the story, despite mounds of criticism about its careless reporting on the subject, AP continues to mis-report, saying "the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving prior court approval." Of course it did not; it was a program of intercepting foreign communications, not domestic.

That's not terribly relevant to the call for a special prosecutor, but it is extremely relevant to the greater story of the Dems' Gonzales Derangement Syndrome. The parallels with Condi Rice are just amazing. Both are minorities. Both came from working class beginnings. Both worked their way up, realizing the American dream and stand as an example to young blacks and Hispanics of what can be accomplished in this great, remarkably unracist country.

But since they grew up to become conservatives, the Dems must attack them, destroy their reputations and drag their example through the mud -- even if it shatters the American dream for thousands of youngsters and even if it is jeopardizes national security.

Gonzales appears to be deeply trusted by GWB, but does not appear to be a particularly savvy lawyer or competent administrator. Still, let's look at the bare bones of this case:

• TSP had opponents and defenders, and underwent a vigorous internal debate, after which the defenders prevailed,
• Warrantless "wiretaps" were only used when matters were so time-sensitive that normal procedures could not be followed; there is no evidence that time sensitivity was ever wrongly used as an excuse to cover questionable probes,
• The courts issued a gray-area illegality finding and suggested easy remedies; while a defeat for Bush and Gonzales, the decision was hardly a finding of black and white evil-doing by the administration;
• The Dem position ultimately prevailed, even though it probably weakened our intelligence gathering capabilities.

All in all, a victory for the Dems -- but they can't let it rest because they can't recognize victory unless a body is broken and bleeding at their feet; in this case, Gonzales' body.

Their new attack, like the Scooter Libby conviction, is on ribbon-thin grounds, and like their earlier TSP victory, threatens to further weaken our security.

It boils down to Gonzales' testimony vs. the facts at the time, but there's disagreement over what the testimony covered. The Dem Sens say it was about TSP; Gonzales says it was about another program he cannot discuss publicly.

The Dem Sens could have clarified all this during the AG's testimony this week -- he offered to describe in closed session the program he said he was talking about, but they refused. They refused because it could have closed the door on this latest quest for blood.

Rather than seek the easy answer, the Dem Sens want a multi-million dollar special investigation into the AG -- a perfect ploy because it will so hobble the Justice Department that they're assured Gonzales will not be able to accomplish anything positive before the next election. No wonder they weren't interested in learning what program Gonzales was talking about.

Worse, there's the program Gonzales was talking about. Whatever it is, it's top secret and still functioning despite the Dem attacks on TSP. Last week, its existence was unknown to the public. Now the combination of Dem pushing and Gonzales ineptitude as a witness has made the public aware that some program we don't know about exists.

A program we don't know about is a vacuum the media wants at all cost -- including national security costs -- to fill. That means NYT, WaPo, AP and other reporters are hounding their leaky sources looking for someone, anyone, who will spill the beans.

I give it less than a week before we see this program splashed over the front page of one of the majors, no matter what its revealing will do to diminish our security or put at risk our agents in the field -- the agents the media was all concerned about when it was Plame's outing that supposedly put them in jeopardy. Oblivious to this, the Dems will strive to paint the program as illegal, even if it's not, and even if doing so brings it more out into the open, because they have proven they can only put themselves first, never national security.

The Left's desire to trounce Bush and any minorities that align with him is about to damage our country once again. Bush should squelch this phony investigation. If it moves forward, Gonzales should resign in order to do whatever he can to protect the top secret program his testimony has now jeopardized.

Left Praises Hugo For Squelching Free Speech

As Hugo Chavez forced an opposing voice off the air -- it was only the longest-standing broadcast outlet in Venezuela -- so he could impose his views, and only his views on the Venezuelan people, here's how the left met the news, courtesy of Democratic Underground:

Caracas, May 28 (Prensa Latina) The new Venezuelan Social TV Network (Televisora Venezolana Social, TEVES) inundated channel two of Venezuela"s radio-electric spectrum on Monday, marking the beginning of a new era in Latin American media.

With the appearance of its signal in the first minutes of May 28, TEVES switched off the image of private Radio Caracas Television (RCTV channel), which had exploited the frequency for 53 years to benefit only its owners and their families.

At the same time, this was the materialization of a patient effort of the Venezuelan government in its struggle for democratization of the media in this South American country.

RCTV was off the air at the very moment its concession to use radio-electric space expired, as it was not renewed by authorities in order to facilitate the launching of the public service TEVES station.

The left is utterly without honor. It used to stand for something: For the liberal exchange of ideas, for freedom of speech, for government not heavy-handedly imposing its will on others.

That is now long-gone, as the left gleefully welcomes the brutal and total suppression of any thought but Chavez-thought in Venezuela.

As I wondered this morning: NanPo and Kookcinich, are you tracking this? Is it making you feel better than ever about your efforts to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine on America?

Left Would Rather Not Report On Iran Talks

Maybe they're all BBQ'ing their tofu-burgers this Memorial Day, but the leftyblogs, after demeaning the Bush admin for not talking to Iran, are not writing much about the diplomatic talks today with representatives of the Iranian regime.

(The photo shows Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, either showing us that Iranians can't even pick their noses right ... or he's giving us a gesture that we'll soon find out is quite obscene ... we'll have to keep an eye out on MEMRI.)

Despite the near-total news blockout on the left, I did find this:

For much of the Bush administrations tenure, and especially prior to the 2004 election, direct conversations with Iran were off limits ... [All Spin Zone]

Yes, as they have been for nearly 30 years, since the Iranian hostage crisis. Your boy Bill didn't talk to them, either.

It's going to be very difficult for these talks to get anywhere since the Iranians' actions don't follow their policy -- they're officially for a stable Iraq, but they're working hard to destabilize it, and to kill Americans in the process.

So if -- and that's a very little if -- the talks don't produce results, expect the left to follow up on its general ignoring of the talks with loud and unified howls of derision, blaming Bush's "lack of diplomatic skills" on the failure.

One of the controversial and much-trounced points of the Iraq Study Group that I've always agreed with is the need to open talks with Iran. I'm not hopeful that they'll go anywhere, but not talking isn't going anywhere either.

And with the Bush admin at the table instead of Kerry, we can be fairly sure the talks will proceed as they should, with a near-complete lack of trust and a near-fanatical commitment to verification.

Kill A Kid For Carbon

Only an enviro would look at the joyful miracle of a newborn and see nothing but a despicable carbon footprint. It's hard to believe, but it's true -- they really do!

The Optimum Population Trust, a UK group that hangs on to the quaint belief that the world faces a population melt-down, has decided that the UK's already decreasing population is just too much for this poor old world to sustain, and they've got a solution:

A radical form of “offsetting” carbon dioxide emissions to prevent climate change is proposed today – having fewer children.

Each new UK citizen less means a lifetime carbon dioxide saving of nearly 750 tonnes, a climate impact equivalent to 620 return flights between London and New York*, the Optimum Population Trust says in a new report.

Based on a “social cost” of carbon dioxide of $85 a tonne, the report estimates the climate cost of each new Briton over their lifetime at roughly £30,000. The lifetime emission costs of the extra 10 million people projected for the UK by 2074 would therefore be over £300 billion. ...

The report adds: “The most effective personal climate change strategy is limiting the number of children one has. The most effective national and global climate change strategy is limiting the size of the population.

“Population limitation should therefore be seen as the most cost-effective carbon offsetting strategy available to individuals and nations – a strategy that applies with even more force to developed nations such as the UK because of their higher consumption levels.”

These modern-day Shakers (well, that's not a very good comparison since Shakers were celibate and the feel-good Left is anything but that) have a witty ... uh ... climax to their thinking:

A 35-pence condom, which could avert that £30,000 cost from a single use, thus represents a “spectacular” potential return on investment – around nine million per cent.

Yes, but what if you never hold that cute newborn and deeply inhale that sweet new baby smell? What if you miss all the adventures and mind- and soul-expansions that come with raising a child? What if you end up old and lonely, with no children and grandchildren to fill your days? Is the left so materialistic none of that matters to them?

Al Gore must be sitting in his palatial, energy-sucking mansion tonight bemoaning his ungreeness, since he has 4 kids. So far he hasn't offered to off any of them to make up for his and Tipper's bedroom eco-transgressions.

The people at Optimum Population Trust must not be reading their demographics. Most reasonable people now feel that the world population will begin dropping later in this century as the West's spurning of spawning continues, the draconian Chinese population controls hit the next generation with a shortage of women, and India follows in the same footsteps, and globalization brings more wealth and fewer babies to more and more nations.

Ironically, the fastest way to drop the cumulative carbon footprint of newborns is to burn a heck of a lot more carbon. The sooner we can spread energy and the wealth that follows to every flea-bitten corner of the world, the sooner their population rates will drop.

So fire up the coal plants, dam a few rivers, level a forest and replace it with factories.

It's the least we could do to save the planet!

Photo: Courtesy of Linnea Lenkus, where there are many beautiful photos of newborns.