Dubya’s Last Stand

This past weekend, we took a trip back home and visited with my wife’s and my families [and, briefly, a few friends].  Altogether a pleasant trip [once we got there, and then again once we got home; the actual travelling... not so much], and welcome after the audit I had last week at work.  On the usually six-hour return trip [now, with Thing 3, more like eight or ten hours], we discovered a radio station carrying the Presidential State of the Union Address, which readers will know is required periodically by the Constitution and annually by convention.

My lovely bride was actually [unusually, for her] interested in what King George II had to say, which made listening to the speech more enjoyable [despite the fact that Bush kept giving it]; she even asked questions and made comments on his more ridiculous claims [she normally just sighs and stares out the window when I subject her to political radio, especially on long trips.  Or takes a nap].

As George the Younger is a “lame duck” President, now officially in his last year in office, I think of this final SoU as Dubya’s Last Stand.  And good riddance.

A few thoughts, in no particular order:

• Channeling the spirits of [Robert] Taft, Goldwater, and Reagan, he pushed his new tax rebate.  At $600 per individual ($1200 per married couple, plus another $300 for each dependant child), it’s no small thing.  [No, really. This rebate will cost us – I mean, cost the government – up to $135,000,000,000 (that's billion, with a "B"), and I'm sure the low-income earners who don't actually pay taxes will get a rebate, too, as well as those who don't earn anything, choosing instead to suckle at the "gummint" teat]  Now, I’m all for getting my money back from the federal highwayman, but how, exactly, are we paying for this rebate, while spending is still outta control?  A coworker last week was absolutely floored when he learned that the national debt was over $9 trillion.  Said he couldn’t believe Congress could allow it to get that high.  Didn’t uber-statist Bill Clinton leave a surplus when he left office? [Two words, Dubya:  CUT SPENDING]

[UPDATE:  Illegals may end up getting some of that cumshaw.  Apparently, an ITINand a valid address are required to recieve your check from good ol' Uncle Sam, but actual legal status is not.  Ain't the welfare state grand?]

[UPDATE II:  Okay, it turns out that only people who earned more than $3k or less than $75k ($150k for couples) get the rebate, in the House version.  And it's supposedly a grand total of $117 billion direct to the consumer, with another $45 billion in rebates to businesses.  Of course, the Senate wants to lift income restrictions, and add a whole lot more graft (err...) handouts (umm...) aid to the bill.  And, predictably in this election year, the pork has bi-partisan support.]

• Bush also scolded the Congress for using earmarks.  This is a very Statist position for the “conservative” president.  A lot of Congressmen use earmarks to allocate spending to their districts.  Earmarks direct the President and his Executive Branch on how to spend the money they have budgeted.  Earmarks do not create new spending, they don’t increase the size of the budget, or the level of spending.  The reason Bush opposes earmarks, and the reason this is a statist [i.e., big government] position is that Bush does not want to have any kind of controls on his actions spending activities.  He doesn’t want to be answerable to anyone.  On his spending, I mean. [Yeah, yeah... that's the ticket.  Just on his spending]  He feels so strongly about this that he threatens vetoes of any budget or other appropriations bills that contain earmarks. [That's certainly his right, according to the Constitution.  But should we fear worry about it?  I mean, he went from January of 2001 to July of 2006 – five-and-a-half years to the day – without ever issuing a veto.  Congress could spend with impunity then, could earmark its black little heart out, could even abridge the Constitution without popular support or consent, without risking a veto.  Now he wants to threaten to take his ball and go home?]
• To quote:  “Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no one can deny its results.“  Mr. President, you said a mouthful.  NCLB is an unqualified disaster.  This schizoid law encourages educators to cheat the system, then penalizes them for doing so.  Like any federal program that seeks to micromanage what states, localities, and private citizens can do better, it – and its larger cousin, the DoE – should be deep-sixed post haste.  Only in Lake Wobegon could all schoolchildren ever hope to perform up to the NCLB standards.  [But I guess that's what you get when you let a drunk Irishman write your policies for you — and I know whereof I speak, having occasionally myself been a drunk Irishman.  But does Chappaquiddick Ted catch any flack for this atrocious law? Not hardly.  If he were smart (I said if), Dubya would distance himself as far as possible from NCLB]

While I’m at it, let me point out that I take offense at the government – city, state, or federal – making me pay for the education of other peoples’ kids.  I don’t see where there’s a right in the Constitution to a free education.  It’s obvious to me that there are a great many parents and children in this country who don’t give a whit about graduating high school — or grade school, for that matter.  And I think it’s unfair of parents to foist upon unsuspecting teachers their miscreant children, either.  I mean, if you want your kids to be idiot losers their whole lives, fine… repeal the child labor laws and put ‘em to work.  If you want your kids to be educated, either do it yourself or pay for the privilege.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Education – like military service – should not be compulsory.

• He blathered on about his Great and Wonderful Advances in Trade.  Selling out to Columbia is first on the docket, followed by Panama and South Korea.  And then, because Big Brother is compassionate, he wants us all to pitch in and help re-educate American citizens who lose their jobs to the “beneficial” trade agreements. [So, if I understand this correctly, we are to approve his hamfisting trade, allow our jobs and our products to be supplanted by foreign workers and suppliers, and then submit to reprogramming in order to be a happy, productive prole.  Hmmm... No.]
• This was followed by various handouts to corporations conducting energy research [if there's a need, there's a demand; if there's a demand, the market will meet it without government meddling], as well as unilaterally subsidizing brazenly pollutive [is that even a real word?] countries to get them to stop with the pollution [who can afford their own "green" technology].
• Of course, to keep the attention of the Conservative Chrisitan Base, he had to throw out a bone or two about the sanctity of life.  Blah, blah, stem cells.  Blah, blah, cloning.  [Gotta keep them evangelicals with their ankles in the air... as long as this guy – and the GOP at large – keep playing the lifecard, all the narcoleptics in the pews will keep pulling that lever the way we want.  Never mind the travesties of justice and human suffering perpetrated by this politician and most of his party (and the other party); never mind that war is monolithically an anti-life affair.  If you can work a reference to Jesus into a speech now and again, or even just make vague mention of faith, you're okay by most Christians.  Lazy idiots.  As Christians, we should be vigilant against false prophets and heretics.  Any politician can claim to be a Christian; true devotion is known by its fruits.  And just in case you're keeping score, preemptive wars of aggression ain't it.]  Bush later said that America opposes genocide [except when executed by the US of A].
• Katrina.  Katrina, Katrina, Katrina. [The storm that has become a euphemism for "direct, massive redistribution of wealth to corporate and special interests while claiming to help rebuild a city that, let's face it, we're probably better off without."]  I’m sorry; my house was fairly demolished by [oh, yeah, and, because that's what responsible grown-ups do, I left the area well in advance of] Hurricane Rita, so you’ll forgive me if I have trouble working up any compassion for a bunch of people who are so institutionalized that they can’t but stand around as the world comes crashing down around their ears, waiting for – it makes me sick to even type this – the government to come and save them.  [Can you say, "Darwinism in action?"  I'm just sayin'...]  Hearing mention of Katrina, the “devastation of the Gulf Coast” by Katrina, and the “rebuilding of New Orleans” in the wake of Katrina, makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth.
• Adding insult to injury, Bush then announces, as if we should be excited about it, that the next meeting of the NAU – I mean, the North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States [NASCMUS?] – will be held in New Orleans.  Because we all need to have direction from the Nanny State to know that Nawlins is again open for business.
• I almost drove off the road when he talked about securing the borders.  Seriously.  Then he said something about “amnesty” “path to citizenship” [not in so many words], and my eyes glazed over again.
• Iraqi Surge.  Not the one you’re thinking of, but a surge of Iraqis.  I know!  I was blown away!  I had previously been under the impression that Iraqis, and maybe Persians in general, were completely incapable of defending themselves without massive involvement of a third party.  [Curious to note, though, that the home-grown surge started before the American one, and I have to wonder how much of this late "success" is attributable to Iraqi defenders, and how much is due to the American presence.  I had honestly not heard of this 80,000-strong "Anbar Awakening" before this speech.  Am I Captain Oblivious, or was same pooh-poohed as irrelevant to the American prosecution of war peace?]  And why is it that what Osama says is important when it supports the Administration’s propaganda, but not when it doesn’t?  I mean, he mentioned bin Laden’s tape, for Pete’s sake.  That bears on the state of the Union how, exactly?
• Bush did expose part of his true agenda, though.  In his prattling about the so-called PATRIOT Act, due to expire the day after tomorrow [That should have brought applause — it was one of the few good things he said all night, and he was against it.  I feel like I need a shower.  I can't believe I voted forthis guy.], the Protect America Act, and numerous other infringements on civil liberties, he said, “we will continue to take every lawful and effective measure to protect our country.“  My read on this is, they’ll take lawful measures, but when those don’t suffice for their agenda, they’ll incorporate more effective measures.  I’m not putting words in his mouth; that’s what he said.  The Bush Administration claims that they’ve stopped many more attacks –or plots – since 9-11, but how do we know, really?  If he hadn’t suspended habeas corpus, we’d know who, what, and where. [And stop with the national security "for your own good" crap.  Camussaid, "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." (And you would think that the neocons would hold fast to one of their fellow Trotskyists)  So hold up the charges and trials to public scrutiny, or admit that we live in a fascist state.  C'mon, which is it?]  Speaking of national security, Dubya called for expanded powers for eavesdropping, and “liability protection for companies believed to have assissted in the efforts to defend America.“  This, of course, means that when AT&T records all of your telephone and electronic communications, you can’t sue them.  Not and win, anyway.  This means your putatively private conversations can now fall into the Cone of Silence with impunity. [Sounds like a chapter out of Running a Police State for Fun and Profit!]
• Was it just me, or [I was listening in on the radio, mind you]did it seem like the audience were marionettes?  I mean, the applause sounded really canned, like Bush could’ve said something like “water is wet” and gotten a 30-second ovation.

Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe I’m the one who’s out of touch with the Will of the People, maybe I’m doing some quixotic tilting of my own.  But do Americans really buy this drivel, this “give up your freedom, and I’ll try to keep you safe” nonsense?  I submit that the surest way to guarantee the safety of all Americans is to vouchsafe their liberty.  History is replete with tyrants rising to power on a wave of adoration, only to turn and crush their people under their bootheels of oppressive governance.

When are Americans – Christian Americans – going to wake up and stop believing the BS that is being fed to them just because it comes with a sugary Christian topping?  Paul told the followers of Christ to compare what even he said to what Scripture says.  Should we apply any less discernment to our government, should we not compare what a politician says to what the Bible, the Constitution, and that politician’s own record say?

Abortion Rate Lowest in Decades: Study

Abortion in the US is at its lowest level in thirty years, touts a study by the Guttmacher Institute, which Knows About These Things.  From the breathless reporting on this story, you might think they mean it’s dropped to a level on the order of zero.

“This study shows that prevention works, and that’s what we provide in our health centers every day,” said Cecile Richard of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “At the end of the day, Americans of all stripes believe that we need to do more to prevent unintended pregnancy and make healthcare [a euphemism for state-sanctioned murder] affordable and accessible.” (The Boston Globe, 17-Jan-08)

You would be wrong.  Legalized infanticide in the US plunged all the way from 1.3 million in 2000, to the unbelievably low level of 1.2 million in 2005.  This is a mere 1.5% decrease per year, in that five-year period, or 8% overall.  But that’s down from 1.6 million deaths in 1990. [And don't get me wrong — I'll take 100,000 fewer dead children any day of the week.  But I'd rather 1.2 million fewer dead children.]

To add to the celebration, use of RU 486 (a.k.a., the ”day after” pill [as in, "I gave it up to someone I don't know and don't like, and now, the day after, I'm afraid I might be knocked up — so my baby gets the death penalty for my immaturity and irresponsibility"], or mifepristone) is up:

Even as the long-term decline in the U.S. abortion rate continued, the new study also found that early medication abortion services expanded substantially between 2000 and 2005, as growing numbers of providers offered the service, including some that previously did not offer surgical abortion services. Fifty-seven percent of all known abortion providers now offer medication abortion services, compared with 33% in early 2001. Medication abortion accounted for 13% (161,000) of all abortions performed in 2005, and 22% of all eligible abortions (those performed prior to nine weeks’ gestation). According to recent government reports, abortions are occurring earlier, when the procedure is safer [For whom?  Certainly not the baby!]; increased access to medication abortion can help accelerate that trend. (Guttmacher Institute website)

So let me spell it out.  Abortions are down nationally.  But use of the abortion pill is up, as are the number of doctors who have forgotten the Hippocratic Oath.  You know, the one that says, “do no harm.”  Or doesn’t killing babies count as “harm?”

When the murder advocates talk about “abortion providers,” what they mean, typically, is “‘doctors’ who perform surgical abortions.”  This does not include the “doctors” who perform “medicinal” abortions, or those helpful, happy OB/GYNs (and others) who offer the abortion pill.  So the groups like Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the UN Family Planning Association Population Fund (UNFPA) all get to act giddy about the drop in abortions while comfortable in the knowledge that pro-life women everywhere may be getting checkups from “doctors” who send pregnant women home with prescriptions for an abortion in a bottle. [Which can only contribute to the idea that abortion isn't murder:  just take a pill and don't worry about it; it's like getting rid of a headache]

So here’s a little problem I have with the whole “abortion rights” movement [aside from the obvious]:  “should be able to” is not the same as “should;” I mean, I have never heard anyone [except the occasional sociopathic misanthrope] recommend abortion in general.  It’s always defended as something along the lines of “I respect a woman’s ‘right to choose’.”  To a man (or woman), abortion advocates say abortion should be avoided, minimized.  I’m sitting here, looking at the Constitution, and wondering what other of our rights should be avoided or minimized.

I’ll admit, government “rights” should be minimized in the extreme, but I couldn’t back the minimization of any individuals’ rights, even if their very means of practicing same were anathema to everything I believe in. [I know, I'm an idealist]  So how can it be that Guttmacher, PPA, NARAL, etc., can so heartily defend this supposed “right,” while at the same time calling it an option of last resort?  (I certainly would never say “practice your religion freely, but only if you must,” or “arm yourself to the teeth if you like, but only after the police state becomes patently obvious and they are coming to get you.”)  It makes one wonder what other “rights” these groups would abridge.

Forgive me for saying so, but it seems to me that the abortion-on-demand position is inherently intellectually dishonest.  To support the proliferation of abortion availability, while at the same time advocating the limiting of its use, is simply indicative of the kind of moral and intellectual gymnastics through which these peddlers of death must go, in order to maintain their positions.  Is this [and, more broadly, modern liberalism], then, a mild and somewhat socially acceptable form of schizophrenia?  Perhaps.

[But in a Ron Paul Presidency, maybe we could see the end to that bad law, bad policy, and worse morality called Roe v Wade, and an end to this suicidal abortion culture]

Ron Paul Revolution (XV): Show Me The Money

From the “Nothing Succeeds Like Success” department:

Barrack raises over $8M in first week of 1Q08 [My headline]

In the 4th Quarter of 2007, our campaign raised $23.5 million — over $22.5 million of which is for the primary election.  In that quarter, we added 111,000 new donors for a total of 475,000 donors in 2007. [Emphasis mine]

In the first 8 days of 2008, we raised over $8 million and gained 35,000 new donors.  Since midnight last night, we have raised another $500,000 online.  We continue to build a grassroots movement that makes us best-positioned to compete financially in the primaries and caucuses coming up.

Hypocrites Punditocrats will all claim that this fund-raising success equates to a mandate from the people, that Obama is ascendant, and that the American electorate is turning the page on the racial strife that characterized much of the previous centuries of American politics.  Oh, and the Republicans are on their way out.  Certainly, the raw numbers support these conclusions:

• Absolute numbers of state voters in both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary greatly favor the Democrats, implying more popular support for the Democrats than for the Republicans
  • Iowa:  239,000 (D); 120,000 (R)
  • New Hampshire:  287,821 (D); 238,850 (R)
  • Michigan:  592,798 (D); 867,136 (R) [This one is an obvious anomoly: between non-participants encouraging Dems to vote for Romney, and the probability that many Dems didn't vote because it doesn't count, these numbers are likely skewed]
• “Money talks,” and you know the rest, so compare the dollars [4Q07], for the ones who have reported to date:
  • Democrats:  Clinton(≈$20M), Edwards (?), Gravel (?), Obama ($23.5M), Kucinich (?), Richardson(?)
  • Republicans:  Giuliani (? — but we know he’s ailing), Huckabee (≈$5M), Hunter (?), McCain (?), Paul ($19.6M), Romney ($20.8M, but you can bet most of it came from him — again), Thompson (?)
• National polls [if, after the NH primary, you're intrepid enough to put stock in them] favor an Obama  or Clinton presidency (as of this writing) over McCain, Huckabee, or Giuliani.

So how could this herald anything other than the Rise of the [admittedly, somewhat racially confused] First Black President?  Or, at least, that of the wife of the original First Black President?

Let’s peel back a layer or two, have a look at the inner workings here.

Obama is the MSM odds-on favorite, to the point that the liberal establishment have largely disavowed any belief in or support for Clinton’s candidacy.  That’s saying a lot for the “smartest woman on the planet.”  It also should say something about who has been appointed to be our next Chief Executive.

So is it really all that impressive that a guy who has all the force of the MSM behind him should be able to rassle up contributions into the high seven figures in a week?  He’s a good-looking guy, he’s a very good public speaker… and don’t forget, he’s the first real contender [I said, real contender] to be the First Black President, so all the multi-culti-diversity-for-the-sake-of-diversity lemmings are rallying behind him. [Word of warning:  people who stand up to the Clintons usually die]  Of course, Clinton does have the name recognition, and all that entails.  But more people use words like “shrill” and “polarizing” to describe her than the freshman Senator from Illinois, to whom the moniker “fresh” or “exciting” may be more liberally applied. [One thing that confounds me:  how do all the PC-or-die nutjobs choose between a black candidate and a female one?  Which one trumps the other?]

Oh, yeah.  And Obama gets a whole friggin’ lot of free advertising from the media, too [while they sweep less savory items under the rug].  Shouldn’t there be a campaign finance reform law passed about that? 

Among the Rich-Fat-Old-White-Men’s party, there is a guy who’s been riding a grassroots movement that has had little, if any, direct input or control from his actual campaign.  Usually, if he gets any media attention, it’s to chase down red herrings or promulgate a ad hominem smear campaign against him.  None of it actually sticks, and they have to keep recycling the same stories and making the same inflammatory claims, but it just doesn’t work.  A man of unassailable character and integrity, he forces the conversation back to the issues.

You can disagree with him on principle:  you may prefer large governmental bureaucracies whittling away at your rights and liberties; you may want to pay high taxes into an inefficient and increasingly unaccountable system, in support of policies with which you do not agree; you may enjoy seeing American sovereignty eroded and being supplanted by international bodies such as the UN, who have little love for American values and American heritage; you may like the idea of America slowly sliding into the dubious distinction of being the first truly international, post-nation-state polity.

But you can’t impeach his consistency; he’s been saying the same thing about smaller government, less intrusiveness and regulation, and more liberty, since he entered public life three decades ago.  That’s a pretty high bar for a Congressman, or any “public servant,” for that matter, most of whom change their core beliefs more often than I change my underwear.

And where is the media coverage of this bastion of liberty, this champion of the American citizen over the special interests, this selfless prince of principle, this tireless Everyman?

[...]

The fact is, [in the minds of the MSM] Ron Paul was a punchline when his campaign collected $5 million for 3Q07, most of it in the last week of September.  He was a back-page story when his “fringe” campaign beat that effort in one day on November 5th.  He gained only passing mention on December 16th, when his campaign took in more in one day than any candidate in US history [which record was previously held by Sen. John Kerry... after he'd won the Democrat nomination].  The $19.6 million referenced above puts Paul squarely in the “big deal” category, since it’s unlikely that and other GOPer will match it. Though the Dems have been soundly defeating the GOPers in donations each quarter, Paul has put himself into the same league as the Dem front-runners.

And Paul has managed this while having to talk over Giuliani and McCain giggling during his debate answers, being pilloried by drive-by commenters who don’t know what Wikipedia is, being asked about whack-job supporters while others were given actual questions to answer, or even being completely cut out of the conversation altogether.

The bitter irony in this race for President is people buying the rhetoric over the records [Dissenters, note:  I challenge anyone to show me a single instance of actual difference between any of the other top GOPers and any of the top Dems.  Not in their campaign promises, the "issues" lists on their websites, but actual, measurable difference in their actions.  It's easy to say you're different.  It's much more difficutlt to establish a long-standing record of actually being different].  All of the GOP candidates (save one) are paying lip service to American security, a stronger economy, conservative values, and more individual liberty.  And they are apparently finding their marks, mostly.  The one guy who actually represents positive change, who has a decades-long public record of anti-establishment, pro-American voting, is being intentionally sidelined. [Props to Hunter and his supporters, but the man is simply not getting traction.  I'll give him that he's right on immigration and most other domestic issues, but he's wrong – like his five companions – on a lot, too.  Like this hegemonic war.  Besides, his treatment is different:  Hunter's simply not mentioned; he's not attacked incessantly for character flaws that just don't exist, he's not painted as a wild-eyed lunatic]

So which is the more admirable achievement?  The media darling who rakes in money simply based on his (or her) notoriety?  The mogul multi-millionaire who pads his accounts with his own money?  Or the dark horse who’s bringing nothing to the office with him but a lifetime of integrity and honesty, and a total committment to serve the cause of liberty?

Wagging the Dog?

In the Strait of Hormuz, a US Navy task force is “harassed” by a handful of Iranian vessels, what amounts to a bunch of speedboats.  This brings us to the brink of a hot war with Iran; video proves that the Iranians had Dastardly Intent, and made Threatening Gestures and radio comments toward our cruiser, destroyer, and frigates:

Ahmadinejad claims that the Navy claim is untrue, that Washington fabricated the threat to justify military aggression.  Of course, this was pooh-poohed by the US government… Dangerous Little Man… Evil Incarnate… Major Threat.  The Republican Guard was testing us, trying to provoke us, and distracting us from what their true intentions.

But last week, the other side aired its own record of the encounter:

Then, it turns out the threatening voice on the original video was recorded separately [possibly spoken by a US sailor] and the Navy can’t promise it goes with their video.  But in the Iranian video, you can actually read the lips of the guy speaking into the radio handset.  The one constant is, the voice of the US sailor making contact with the Iranians is the same in both clips.

Now, I’m far from a milquetoast pacifism-at-any-cost type, but this is illustrative of the threat that Iran poses.  The Iranian patrol boats were – I’ve seen bigger bass boats – they had outboard motors, for Pete’s sake.  This is the threat to the US?

But what about the Cole?  She was blasted by a small craft!

Totally different situation.  The USS Cole was tying up to a refueling buoy in Yemeni territorial waters, where she had reasonable expectation of security; the small craft that exploded against her was mistaken [as per the perpetrators' intent] for the locals who are required to get the refueling evolution started.  Their guard was down, things were going as per usual.  Let me assure any skeptics that that is the only reason the Cole bombing was successful.

The subject cruiser [near as I can tell, the USS Port Royal (CG-73)] was in international waters, in or near a war zone, and probably on alert, as the Persian Gulf is a small, shallow body of water, and the Strait of Hormuz is a very small choke point.  The cruiser and its sister ships were in a defensive stance before the small boats ever approached.

Not to mention which, with a couple shots, any one of our boats – err, I mean “ships” – could’ve taken out any or all of the “threatening” small craft.  [WARNING: intraservice rivalry alert]  I mean, compared to your dumbest submariner, even your dumbest cone [and you're talking really, really dumb, here — relatively speaking], the smartest of surface pukes are pretty stupid, but I’m sure even they could’ve taken out a handful of what amounts to pleasure craft with very little effort.  [I mean, they're still in the Navy, so they gotta have a minimum of usable intelligence... if they were ground-pounding cannon-fodder, I'd wonder, but Navy guys?  No problem.]

Which brings me to my actual point:  how does one characterize a third-world nation with no modern navy, no modern army to speak of, and absolutely no ability to project power beyond its own borders, as a major threat to US security?  Let me reiterate:  Iran has no modern navy, no modern army, and no ability to project power across the Near East, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean, in order to even harass, much less threaten, domestic defenses.

But they have rockets that can go 2,000 miles!

Our smallest, most common weapons systems can be launched from half that distance, with pinpoint accuracy, and wreak utter destruction, without ever putting a single US citizen [or citizen-soldier]in harm’s way.  Six to 10 US fast-attack submarines could easily demolish all of Iran’s government, infrastructure, and logistics for years to come, in a single afternoon, and get away without any hope of counter-detection. [And unless I'm mistaken, most of Iran's big weapons are Soviet-era.  The USSR ain't around anymore, in part because they didn't make stuff that worked right, or didn't make stuff that lasted.  For want of a nail, and so forth.  I wouldn't let their legacy weapons keep me up at night.]

But Israel would be in danger!  What about Israel?!

Israel, last time I checked, was a whole other country, had hundreds of nuclear missiles, and a great, big, modern military.  Why is it that Israel could protect itself in 1967, against not one, but three enemy nations [Egypt, Syria, and Jordan; maybe more], without benefit of modern weapons and tactics, but is completely unable to look to its own defense today, armed to the teeth with American technology?  Because of nuclear weapons?

If war is diplomacy carried on by other means, nuclear war is “other means” writ large.  And though the punditocracy can cow the teeming millions of Americans into mortal terror at the spectre of looming nuclear winter, I ain’t buying it.  All the propaganda in the Cold War doesn’t really obtain anymore.  ICBMs launched from the USSR would have had the potential yield to level entire cities, large cities.  So-called “backpack nukes” would be of tactical strength at best, meaning their direct effects would be felt, at most, within a radius of a few blocks.  Even multiple, simultaneous attacks in several cities mightamount to the equivalent of a mere handful of WTC-like effects; ground-level explosions would not likely yield the EMPs that could take down the power grid and communications systems, either [except on an extremely local scale, at best].

While I’m a big fan of science fiction, dystopian future histories, and all that, let’s try to look at reality.  China and Russia could wage nuclear war on us.  Some of the former Soviet republics could, maybe.  England might could lob some of our nukes back at us.  But for Iran to make a nuclear attack on US soil would take a level of incompetence in the US domestic security practices that is absolutely unheard-of [...or maybe not].  Jericho notwithstanding, it would simply be impossible for a ragtag (or any other) group [aside, perhaps, from the US government itself] to move any appreciable amount of fissile materialsaround the country undetected.  The EPA, DoE, and state regulatory agencies have detection equipment that can pick up minute amounts of decaying radioactive materials at great distances, much less anything that could be made to evaporate whole cities.

When we went into Afghanistan, there was justification – thin justification – for war, because the 19 Saudiswho perpetrated 9-11 could be tied back to the Taliban.  Iraq was a little harder to sell, but once Washington looked past the CIA knowledge of the greatly disputable intel on Iraqi WMD, we all could go along with it.  Besides, Saddam was a Very Bad Man, and good riddance.

Now, the very same defunct and debunked claims made against Iraq are being run up the flag pole by Iran agitators:   WMD, Very Dangerous, Great Threat, Very Bad Man.  Then – chink in the armor! – the NIE comes out and says that Iran doesn’t have a weapons program, hasn’t for years [suggesting that the demands made by Washington and the UN have largely been met, failure of which was the overwhelming rhetorical reason for an Iranian front in the "War on Terror"].  Not to be upstaged by the truth, in a surreal I’m-taking-my-ball-and-going-home moment, the venerable George the Younger announces, “well, they’re [Iran] still the greatest threat to American security and world peace.”

I humbly submit that the greatest extant threat to US security and world peace is a hegemonic administration headquartered at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  I’m far from a “blame America first” type, but, just like I was quick to criticize Clinton, I’ll be quick to criticize the wrong-headed, short-sighted, dangerous, and expensive adventures he and his cronies are pursuing, both in the Middle East and here at home.

Of course, like when Bush turned down Hussein’s offer of self-exile for a pittance of $1 billion on the eve of invading Iraq, I doubt that Bush and the hegocons will be dissuaded from their empire-building by something so inconsequential as total compliance with the Bushite demands.

Democrat Snipe Hunt: Third One Bagged

[Apologies; turns out, there's some language in the last second of this 1:55 clip] 

R.I.P., Bill Richardson’s presidential aspirations:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is shelving his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination after back-to-back fourth-place finishes in the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Richardson, 60, planned to announce his plans Thursday, according to two people close to the governor with knowledge of the decision.  They spoke late Wednesday on condition of anonymity in advance of the governor’s remarks.

Well, bless these two little anonymites’ hearts for breaking this story!  This ain’t what his post-primary speech sounded like Tuesday night.  You know, like how he kept saying things like, “Thanks for all your hard work.  I’ll always admire your efforts on behalf of this campaign, and remember how hard you worked.”

Honestly, I couldn’t hear the audio very well [it was on C-SPAN, and my TV doesn't, strictly speaking, get C-SPAN], but it sounded like [and in saying "sounded like," I of course mean "the spotty captions read like"] a resignation speech.  Until he tacked a weak, “We”ll get ‘em in South Carolina,” or “See ya in Michigan,” or some such onto the end of it.

I have long thought that Richardson (of the Distrito Federal Richardsons) was [aside from the obvious hispandering, which, let's face it, is endemic to the Democrat Party — and Richardson can get a semi-pass, because he's at least of hispanic stock] [Come to think of it, the Republicans are pretty lousy with it, too.  Case in point, the first Mexican President of the United States] arguably the best the Dems had to offer this cycle [not, of course, that that really means squat].  So it makes sense that he,  a contender (with 2% in Iowa and 5% in New Hampshire, not a strong contender; but at least he put points on the board), would drop out while the poster children for lack-of-traction, Kucinich and Gravél stay in it.

One wonders what kind of back-room wheeling and dealing precipitated this move.  He’s already been a Congressman, a UN diplomat, and a Cabinet member. [Ugh... entrenched!]  Vice President, maybe? [A Clinton/Richardson ticket?]

And then there were five….

So what’s next?

• Kucinich [the True Believer] isn’t going anywhere, and I doubt anyone feels a need to buy off Gravél ['cause, what's the point?].
• Will Obama’s ascendant and Edwards’ stalling campaigns unite against the new Billary for a future Obama/Edwards ticket, with a virtual guarantee of an Edwards nomination in ‘12?
• Will Edwards ever tire of playing second fiddle to a better politician, something he’s done since he entered politics?
• Will either party ever pull its head out of its… sand?

Only time will tell.