Blogito

Before the election returns, the New York Times gives us a lick of their own preference about global warming:

I stayed up late examining the latest maneuver in the never-ending tussle between opponents of limits on greenhouse gases who are using holes in climate science as ammunition and those trying to raise public concern about a human influence on climate that an enormous body of research indicates, in the worst case, could greatly disrupt human affairs and ecosystems.

Get it? Admittedly there are "holes" in their "enormous body of research", but polite people overlook them rather than ask for explanations. If there is a hole, why? What might fill it? We are not supposed to ask. An enormous body of research has proved that the sun revolves around the earth, Mr Galileo, so don't bug me any more about your theories. If you persist, I'll put you under house arrest and you'll never leave again.

I have a short piece in Tuesday’s paper on a quirky conference on climate questions organized by the anti-regulatory Heartland Institute. The meeting, which wraps up today, has brought together a variegated assemblage of people who reject the prevailing scientific view as reflected in the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientific statements.

The article probably won’t make anyone immersed in this tussle happy. It describes the meeting for what it is: a gathering of scientists, economists and individuals, some with industry ties but many driven mainly by libertarian passions or a nonconformist streak, who have hugely varied views on what’s up with climate...

As always, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Anyone with a tie to industry is automatically suspect, since they are the ones upon whom we are trying to impose mandatory...mandatory...restrictions. How dare they object!

One of the unavoidable realities attending global warming — a reality that makes it the perfect problem — is that there is plenty of remaining uncertainty, even as the basics have grown ever firmer (my litany: more CO2 = warmer world = less ice = rising seas and lots of climate shifts).

There's only one small problem with his litany. He acknowledges uncertainty even while he denies any, because what if the equation, in fact, read like this?:

In that case, you see, mandatory restrictions on human-created greenhouses would be meaningless in terms of affecting global warming. All they would accomplish would be raising the prices of everything for consumers.

Anybody see the Algore movie? Ask again which side predicts catastrophe. Think again which side seeks to perpetuate a hoax, since what would their hoax be? We know what the global warmers are selling, and it's regulation. Control. We will tell you what you have to do in order to solve a problem we will admit, under pressure, we don't completely understand scientifically. There are these small holes...

...more than 200 rockets have been fired at Israel since Wednesday, according to Israeli military officials, including at least 21 longer-range Katyusha-style rockets, which are manufactured outside Gaza and brought into the strip. ... Hamas has claimed responsibility for most of the rocket fire. Hamas took over Gaza last June after routing forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah.

Would you folks living in Texas and Arizona and California please write and tell me what your reaction would be if Mexico fired 200 rockets into your country?

Some thoughts from Josh Green, who famously had a piece on Hillary staff infighting killed by GQ, which was more interested in preserving a cover story on Bill in Africa:

"What explains the embarrassing episode during the conference call on Friday that was supposed to drive the message in her 'Red Phone' ad, that 'Obama's not ready to handle a crisis'? As Jennifer Skalka expertly delineated over at The Hotline, Clinton's own staff was flummoxed when the question was turned back by Slate's John Dickerson: 'What can you point to in Hillary's career when she's been tested by crisis?'

"To experience the full measure of awkwardness the ensuing silence created, listen for yourself. Then ask yourself how on earth it is that no one thought to answer '9/11,' which is not only the biggest crisis anyone in the government has faced in the last eight years, but is also one that Clinton unquestionably handled with poise and skill. The $20 billion she helped secure for New York City after the attacks was the signature accomplishment of her first term in the Senate!"

This man thinks he is supporting Hillary? Her signature accomplishment response to a terrorist attack on New York City was to send money?

Dear Mayor Giuliani: It was saddening to learn about your loss of several thousand lives, a couple of very large buildings, and many millions of dollars. Hope this contribution will have you feeling better and back on your feet soon. Sincerely, Hillary.

What's really fun about this campaign is watching all of the Democrats--the Democrats!--now saying about Hillary and the Clintons the exact same thing that Republicans have been saying about them for fifteen years now. For fifteen years the Democrats have been telling people the Republicans are wrong, but now, all of a sudden... Listening to the Democrats whack Hillary has made this campaign truly enjoyable.

Listening to all of the people begging/arguing/threatening Hillary to drop out before Obama has won, and in fact doesn't even have a chance of winning the elected-delegate race is also very amusing. Hillary, with 313 uncounted delegates in her back pocket, believes that she is actually ahead of Obama in the count, even if others do not.

The superdelegates are hoping she'll back out, of course, so they don't face the unenviable situation of actually having to perform the duty for which they were created: to make a decision. After all, if the superdelegates were required to vote in proportion with the elected delegates, there'd be no point in having them. None. Actually, it would be worse than that, because it would mean that they have NO choice of their own but must of necessity follow the crowd.

My favorite Liberal, Richard Cohen, notes the plight of so many black men in prison and opines:

It is a challenge Barack Obama, for obvious reasons, is uniquely qualified to meet. This is not just because he can be a role model for young black men, who as a group are in a perilous state. It is because he sees himself playing exactly that role.

"I can say certain truths that might be more difficult for other candidates to say," he said last year. "I've talked about the need for more responsibility among black fathers. I've talked about the need for parents to do more to instill a sense of educational achievement in black kids."

It's rather amusing to think that Richard believes that phenom Obama has or ever will have the stature and role model position of that held for decades by Bill Cosby, and Cosby found out that there wasn't all that much he could do by saying the truths that white people found difficult to say, even though the situation itself is far from amusing.

It goes to show, though, how far the adulation has gone for Obama. He is going to be able to do anything and everything.

Hillary Clinton has a point. This is a dangerous world. But all sorts of creeping crises are coming at our backs. High -- very high -- on that list has to be what has happened to poor and underclass black men. As a segment of society, they have proved impervious to progress -- whether it is the abatement of racism (Obama's success so far cannot be ignored)...

Well, I have to quit before I choke. If racism is defined as the attitude and practice of white people towards black people, which seems to be the current definition, then Obama cannot abate it, only white people can. Perhaps it is not odd that a practitioner of Liberal Logic like Richard can even take note, without seemingly noticing, that most whites aren't really guilty of racism any more, having substituted indifference in many cases.

More than half of the nation's annual homicides of about 15,000 are committed by black men. Not only is a black man much more likely to commit a homicide, but he is much more likely to die by homicide. And the killer is likely -- almost certain, in fact -- to be another black man.

Richard thinks that WE need to do something about that, and Obama is the only one who can persuade us to, well, do something.

Hello? Who is this? Ahmadinejad? You're going to nuke Israel in five minutes? Oh, thank goodness, I thought this might be a young black man with a problem. Listen, can't we just sit down somewhere and talk this over?

Afghanistan, the main battleground in the war on terror, has been shortchanged by the Iraq war and its manpower and equipment priorities.

Al Qaeda got trounced by U.S. forces in Iraq — but Iraq was never the problem. Under Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda was not welcome in Iraq. After the U.S. invasion, Iraq became a force multiplier for would-be unholy warriors from Middle Eastern countries — primarily Saudi Arabia — and Europe's Muslim ghettos.

Several hundred al Qaeda volunteers have been killed, or have gone home. But home base for al Qaeda and Taliban remains the weird-sounding acronym for Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) — some seven fiercely independent tribal "agencies" under nominal Pakistani sovereignty that form, with Baluchistan (one of Pakistan's four provinces), the 1,400-mile border with Afghanistan.

That's really impressive! Al-Qaeda has gone from not being an active participant in 9/11 all the way to not welcome in Iraq. No matter that there were training camps in northern Iraq and an airliner fuselage for training in Salman Pak as well as the fact that notable al-Qaeda figures received medical treatment in Iraq, they were unwelcome.

It is unclear what he means by a "force multiplier" but I suppose he means that Iraq supplied the cannon fodder for the unholy warrior leaders from other countries, although apparently there never were many of them because after only several hundred--several hundred--were killed, or for some unspecified reason decided to just go home, Iraq is now pretty much a non-event for al-Qaeda, he tells us, completely ignoring the fact that the great O himself, bin Laden, declared it to be the central front in the war!

No, de Borchgrave tells us, they've gone home (at least the ones who have not been killed), which turns out now not to have been in Afghanistan, which we invaded and killed no doubt "several hundred" Taliban as a result of Tora Bora being bin Laden's headquarters, but really the Pakistan that they fled into. One wonders, then, if invading Afghanistan was justified at all, and we really should have invaded Pakistan in the first place?

What's scary is that you get the feeling that maybe de Borchgrave is not merely spinning but has actually begun to believe his own story. How many others will, as a result?

The three strongest parties to emerge from Pakistan's relatively free elections are now haggling over what kind of a coalition to put together among ideological opponents. Together, they can impeach Mr. Musharraf and force the election of a powerless civilian president. But the Bush administration wants Mr. Musharraf to stay in the job even with much reduced authority.

More worrisome for U.S. and NATO objectives in Afghanistan, the two victorious politicians — the Pakistan Muslim League's Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistan People's Party's Asif Zardari (Benazir Bhutto's widower) — want to talk and negotiate with Taliban, not fight.

And you wonder why Bush wants to keep Musharraf even with reduced authority? Really?

Replacing U.S. influence topside in Pakistan — or still competing for it — is Saudi Arabia and its protege Nawaz Sharif, the man deposed by Mr. Musharraf in 1999 and exiled to the Saudi kingdom for 10 years. .... Saudi Arabia was one of only three countries (with Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates) to recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The new triumvirate gradually superseding President Bush's "most trusted non-NATO ally" is made up of ISI, Saudi Arabia and Nawaz Sharif. This does not bode well for the future of NATO in Afghanistan. ... NATO could fracture and founder over the Afghan commitment. Violence and terrorism could then quickly escalate across the world.

So what have we learned from de Borchgrave about what to do next? What conclusions would you draw?

.Invading Iraq was wrong, that's a given. Invading Afghanistan may even have been wrong, since that wasn't al-Qaeda's home to begin with, it was always in Pakistan. But with no justification for invading either Iraq or Afghanistan, surely we had none for invading an ally, Pakistan? And what, we should not have supported Musharraf, even if he was the only guy there willing to do anything at all against al-Qaeda?

Beginning last summer, the Pakistani Army in FATA, mostly Punjabis, in effect stood down. Heavy casualties and sympathy for Taliban fighters led to ambushes and surrenders without a fight. This makes the Afghan war unwinnable, unless the United States can strike a new deal with new Pakistani military chief Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani now that Mr. Musharraf is a much weakened civilian president subject to impeachment by political parties victorious in the Feb. 18 elections.

But Gen. Kiyani must tread carefully lest he be seen as another American puppet. He has agreed to closer intel sharing between Pakistani, Afghan and U.S. agents on the mythical Pakistani-Afghan border and quick responses by U.S.-trained Pakistani Special Forces. The United States will continue remote-controlled (from a Nevada cockpit by satellite) Predator drone air strikes on targets in South and North Waziristan and Baijaur generated by agents on the ground — in an area 99.9 percent of Americans could not locate on a world map. Yet this is where an attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction is being planned.

Interesting quote in a column by Bret Stephens about Obama's ranking of terrorism versus that of McCain:

"Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism," wrote Larry Johnson, a former State Department counterterrorism official, in a New York Times op-ed. "They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism. None of these beliefs are based in fact."

Unfortunately for Mr. Johnson, his op-ed appeared in July 2001, two months and a day before 9/11.

This one is also good for a few laughs. As you recall, I reported the other day that Gloria Steinem had said that McCain's war experiences didn't qualify him for anything special. As OpinionJournal recalls her saying earlier, though:

"I'm supporting Kerry, and I'd like to indict Bush. There are many things to recommend Kerry. He has always supported reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right, as well as social programs that women need disproportionately. As a man who knows what war is like, he has tended to be more restrained in his willingness to wage it. -- Gloria Steinem

And let me make a small prediction, may I? I'll wager that after the election is over with, and things are continuing to go well in Iraq, he'll remind us of that vote.