15 December 2006, a fine Friday morning

The weather does appear to have made a major change, hardly any clouds in sight, a balmy breeze, 78 degrees at 8 could get warmer if we don't pick up a few clouds, but little worry that won't happen.  Looks like one of those Costa Rica "paradise" days ahead, though.

The house across the street is starting to take on shape now and it looks like it will be an attractive one.  A nice addition to the view out my front window.  The tree screens much of the rest.

Does the world spin or does it stand still while the NYTimes spins deceptive headlines?  Here's the front page:

U.S. Is Dropping Effort to Track if Visitors Leave

Homeland Security officials have abandoned efforts to develop a system to determine whether foreign visitors leave the country.

Here's the story:

In a major blow to the Bush administration’s efforts to secure borders, domestic security officials have for now given up on plans to develop a facial or fingerprint recognition system to determine whether a vast majority of foreign visitors leave the country, officials say.

Domestic security officials had described the system, known as U.S. Visit, as critical to security and important in efforts to curb illegal immigration. Similarly, one-third of the overall total of illegal immigrants are believed to have overstayed their visas, a Congressional report says.

Tracking visitors took on particular urgency after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when it became clear that some of the hijackers had remained in the country after their visas had expired.

But in recent days, officials at the Homeland Security Department have conceded that they lack the financing and technology to meet their deadline to have exit-monitoring systems at the 50 busiest land border crossings by next December. A vast majority of foreign visitors enter and exit by land from Mexico and Canada, and the policy shift means that officials will remain unable to track the departures.

It's not so much a policy change as it is recognition that Homeland Security has neither the financing nor the technology to do it.  Next move is up to the Democrats in congress...I'm rather enjoying watching them deal with their new powers.

This remains the kind of story that I see serves no value to the public, only to terrorists who might otherwise have expected they would be caught if they tried to overstay their entry visa.  Who "needed to know" this information the most?

I suppose the 'pro' argument is that this public notice will force congress to take action they might otherwise have avoided, but was it really necessary now that we finally have a new and therefore 'responsible' congress?

I said 'responsible', not 'responsive', as poor Senator Johnson's condition remains uncertain.  NYT headline and excerpts inside:

Ill Senator Is Called Responsive; Capital Is Riveted

According to precedent, Mr. Johnson, who will turn 60 on Dec. 28, would lose his seat only if he died or resigned.

Mr. Reid declined to say whether he believed Mr. Johnson looked well enough to be able to return to the Senate.   “To me,” he said, “he looked very good.”

I wish I believed that for Harry Reid that meant anything more than simply 'still alive'.  I feel sorry for Johnson, I hope he has a full recovery even if it does mean the Senate remains in Democrat control (which I'm not at all sure isn't actually a good idea), but I sure think his condition has illustrated the way that politicians actually regard themselves.  Somehow the people of the United States are adequately represented by even a comatose Senator...I mean, besides the ones actually sitting in their chairs in the Senate.

Ah, here's what I said yesterday now appearing in the Washington Post:

Democrats painfully aware that they are one death -- or one party switch -- away from GOP claim.

Yes...I wouldn't be surprised if Lieberman switched.  Now THAT would make me laugh at the Democrats!  Go ahead, stupes, 'dis' your former vice-presidential candidate and see what happens. 

When I take over and start running the country, full attendance of both houses of congress will be mandatory while Congress is in session, Monday through Friday with overtime as necessary.  In other words, just like every other American, since they claim they aren't really superior to us but simply jes' plain folks.

  And every member of congress will be required to vote on every bill presented.  And only 'yea' and 'nay' votes would be allowed, none of this 'present' crap.  And if for some unforeseen reason you couldn't be present that day--like common folks find themselves when they are in the armed forces and away on duty, perhaps--they would be allowed to file an absentee ballot.

New policy for America's leaders: 100% attendance, 100% voting record.

In a case like Johnson's, where the people elected a Democrat then he would be replaced by the Democrat he beat out in their primary.  No political party games allowed.

What's that?  I've just lot any chance of my take-over being approved?  Oh, well, the odds weren't really that good...

Interesting WaPo headline:

Secretary of State Rice says neither country should need incentives to foster stability in Iraq.

Outstanding answer.  After all, the Baker Boys came out saying that we should negotiate with Iran and Syria because a stable was in their interests, after all...so if it is, why should they need us to tell them it is?  And why should they need incentives?  I like her.

Borrowed from Howard Kurtz:

...from London's Independent:

"The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

"A devastating attack on Mr. Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

"In the testimony revealed today Mr. Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr. Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, 'at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests.'

"Mr. Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained."

(Bolding mine.)  Now please tell me where, in these paragraphs of testimony by Mr. Ross, you find revealed that Saddam not only did NOT HAVE any WMD but that Tony Blair somehow KNEW it, which would be essential in order for him to have LIED? 

Doesn't Mr. Ross, in fact, only say that Iraq did not possess a threat to the UK or its interests because the threat of whatever capability they had been effectively contained?

And doesn't that mean that the effectiveness of the containment depended entirely upon the competence and ability of the U.N.?

And, forgive me for thinking that maybe Tony Blair did not think the Brits had elected him to serve the UN rather than the UK?

"He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. 'I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed),' he said.

" 'At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.' "

True enough, this is apparently what the first president Bush thought under the influence of Baker the first time, but it doesn't deal with the underlying question, does it?  Which would be: is an Iraq collapsed into chaos still better off, or, more importantly to the questioner (either from US or UK points of view), are we better off with chaos than if Saddam had remained in power?

As Mr. Ross pointed out, it was only the threat to the UK which was his bailiwick. 

I would say the press report makes it clear that Mr. Ross decided that whether or not Saddam possessed WMD or "any other capability" was not the issue with which he was dealing, only whether or not they posed a threat to the UK.

As written above, and reported by London's Independent, there is nothing at all to indicate any lie by Blair.

I swear, either they are irrational or I am...help me with this David Ignatius column:

What positions would Syria take if it entered a dialogue with the United States about Iraq and other Middle East issues? I put that question Thursday to Walid Moallem, Syria's foreign minister, and he offered surprisingly strong support for the recommendations made last week in the Baker-Hamilton report.

He referred at one point to "the noble cause of peace between Syria and Israel."

(Moallem) said that when they met again in September to discuss the Iraq Study Group, Baker asked him: " 'Walid, how can we return to the Syrian-American situation of the early 1990s, when we succeeded to build mutual trust?'

If they succeeded in the early 1990s, then enjoyed 8 years under Clinton's guidance, and if Syrian peace with Israel was a noble cause held by Syria, then why don't the two of them have a peace treaty now?

Syria has already begun implementing some of the Baker-Hamilton recommendations for Iraq, Moallem said. With this month's restoration of Syrian-Iraqi diplomatic ties, he explained, the two countries are beginning joint efforts to control their border and increase political and economic cooperation, as called for by the Iraq Study Group. "We are not doing this to please the U.S. We are doing what is in the Syrian and Iraqi interest," he said.

Even if I bought that line I'd have to ask then why didn't they begin sooner...much sooner?

On the specific Baker-Hamilton recommendations involving Lebanon, Moallem also expressed general support. He said Syria wasn't shipping arms to Hezbollah, that it would "continue our cooperation" with the U.N. investigation of the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri and that it was "ready" to "achieve a deal on exchanging prisoners" with Israel. He also disclosed what he said was a previously unreported effort by Syria and Qatar to broker a compromise between the radical Palestinian group Hamas and the moderate Fatah faction of President Mahmoud Abbas.

Is this Syrian gambit for real? Is Moallem serious in his offer to talk with America about a comprehensive package of peace with Israel, stability for Iraq and compromise in Lebanon? The answer is that there's really only one way to find out, which is to explore further the ideas the Syrian foreign minister has put on the table.

I shake my head in disbelief.  I can't keep the picture out of my head of Moallem slinking back inside his tent (or whatever) and smirking, once he is safely out of sight.

Mr. Ignatius, isn't there really a way to find out?  Before exploring further his ideas, explore his actions to date?

Remember Mama Docia's comments: why, they'll just tell you anything!

I was tickled by this comment by Charles Krauthammer:

The study group has not just been attacked by left and right, Democrat and Republican. It has invited ridicule. Seventy-nine recommendations. Interdependent, insists Baker. They should be taken as a whole. "I hope we don't treat this like a fruit salad and say, 'I like this but I don't like that.' " On the basis of what grand unifying vision? On the authority of what superior wisdom? A 10-person commission including such Middle East experts as Sandra Day O'Connor, Alan Simpson and Vernon Jordan?

The other 9 people constituted Baker's fruit salad ingredients, the report was unmistakably his.

I admit to a great deal of amusement that the MSM and a few fruitcakes (as distinguished from fruit salad) immediately jumped on this report as the world's salvation, before they had any opportunity to really analyze it or even anticipate the comments of others.  Since then they have remained, amusingly, silent about how good they once thought it was.  Almost anonymous.

Sorry, I find this morbidly humorous:

Florida Officials Say 'Execution Was Botched'

John Kerry said wait a sec, I've copyrighted that line!

Diaz's attorney, Suzanne Myers Keffler, reacted angrily to the findings.  "This is complete negligence on the part of the state," she said. "When he was still moving after the first shot of chemicals, they should have known there was a problem and they shouldn't have continued. This shows a complete disregard for Mr. Diaz. This is disgusting."

Uh, Ms Keffler...their regard for Mr. Diaz was to kill him.

David Elliot, spokesman for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, said "Florida has certainly deservedly earned a reputation for being a state that conducts botched executions, whether its electrocution or lethal injection," Elliot said. "We just think the Florida death penalty system is broken from start to finish."

Florida got rid of the electric chair after two inmates' heads caught fire during executions in the 1990s and another suffered a severe nosebleed in 2000.

Some doctors say people can die from severe nosebleeds if not promptly treated.

Did heads really catch on fire?  I thought they were shaved first?

Well, anyhow, I agree that the whole execution ritual process is ridiculous.  Once the death sentence has been passed and all appeals completed, the killer should be put to death instantly in as close an approximation to the way he killed his victims as is possible. 

If we can't hire people willing to do that then the guilty should be turned over to the survivors for disposition.

Alternatively, a single gunshot to the head was effective in Vietnam.  Too effective.  Lost an entire war, possibly.

Gunmen allied with Hamas and Fatah clashed at a West Bank mosque and in Gaza Strip streets today, deepening factional violence a day after gunmen shot at the convoy of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas.

Send them guns and ammunition.  Send the UN in to broker a cease-fire...that should take long enough to do some good.

The Congressional Black Caucus has asked Democratic leaders to hire more minorities to work for House committees and on lawmakers' staffs, saying the dearth of diversity on Capitol Hill is a problem.

Tell me...well a CBC Democrat is hiring for his staff, are white people considered minorities?

How about teen-aged pages?  Aren't they, by definition, minors?

McCain on visit to Baghdad calls for 15,000 more troops

Does anyone ever read headlines like this and ask themselves what troop unit, division, brigade, or whatever, comes in units of 1000?  Does anyone ever call for 14,673 troops?  Does anyone ever ask how McCain arrived at his number?  Did he walk the streets, count noses, what?

Ah, I enjoy it when the paid big-time writers say what I said, even if not because of my contribution.  Here's Diana West doing it:

The first option is military, but it carries a seemingly insurmountable cultural override. The fact is, the United States has an arsenal that could obliterate any jihad threat in the region once and for all, whether that threat is bands of IED-exploding "insurgents" in Ramadi, the deadly so-called Mahdi Army in Sadr City, or genocidal maniacs in Tehran. In other words, it's a disgrace for military brass to talk about the 21st-century struggle with Islam as necessarily being a 50- to 100-year war. Ridiculous. It could be over in two weeks if we cared enough to blast our way off the list of endangered civilizations.

My point, exactly,  We could end the Iraqi war any time we really WANTED TO badly enough.  Since we do not, however, she says

There's another Middle Eastern strategy to deter expansionist Islam: Get out of the way. Get out of the way of Sunnis and Shi'ites killing each other. As a sectarian conflict more than 1,000 years old, this is not only one fight we didn't start, but it's one we can't end. And why should we? If Iran, the jihad-supporting leader of the Shi'ite world, is being "strangled" by Saudi Arabia, the jihad-supporting leader of the Sunni world, isn't that good for the Sunni-and-Shiite-terrorized West?
    With the two main sects of Islam preoccupied with an internecine battle of epic proportions, the non-Muslim world gets some breathing room. And we sure could use it — to plan for the next round.

The only problem is that the West would do without a lot of oil for the next 1000 years, since history indicates it might take at least that long for a winner to emerge.  Great idea, otherwise.

Daniel Henninger, in OpinionJournal, on the f-word:

One of the great books on language is Eric Partridge's "A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English," first published in 1937. Within it one may find all the famously lettered unconventional words. Usage of the f-word dates to at least the 15th century, suggesting that the f-word is useful. And it is. Or was.

Until Eddie Murphy killed it.

In 1987 Eddie Murphy released a movie version of his comedy act, "Eddie Murphy Raw." Forget George Carlin. Forget David Mamet. "Raw" was the Hiroshima of dirty words. Resistance stopped.

Poor Allan Sherman.  In his poorly-known but all-too-true-to-life book titled The Rape of the A.P.E. (meaning the American Puritan Ethic) in 1973 he proudly devoted several pages to that single word alone, just to show that now it could be done!  I guess his 15 minutes of fame expired by the time Eddie Murphy came along.

I have a warm feeling for George Bush and his trials and tribulations.  I especially feel kinship with him whenever my wife tells me "honey, we have a communication problem".  This is from the Wall St Journal editors, whom I would describe as generally supportive of Bush:

This Iraqi criticism also underscores that the ISG report was less about winning in Baghdad than about splitting political differences in Washington. As Mr. Bush re-examines Iraq policy with an eye toward announcing significant changes early next year, we trust he understands better than the ISG that a partnership with the Iraqi government is essential to any successful outcome.

Bush has to be sitting in the LBJ pose with his head in his hands.  How many times, he whimpers, have I said that the definition of victory will include a partnership with the new Iraqi government?  And now even the WSJ editors are asking me if I understand that?  Sheesh, cutting brush in 110-degree heat is easier than this.

More along that same line on Clifford D. May's column, a guy I generally agree with:

President Bush’s original vision of helping Iraqis build a nation that would provide “an inspiring example to reformers in the region” no longer looks attainable. But there is a middle ground between achieving “victory” thus defined and resigning ourselves to catastrophic failure with ramifications we would feel for decades.

In that middle ground is what both Bush and the ISG agree should now be our modest goal: helping Iraqis build a decent state that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.”

I mean, what is this other than the soft bigotry of lowered expectations?  Look, the original goal was and still is the democratic (not "decent") state that can govern, sustain and defend itself.  Regime change in Iraq, with Saddam replaced by a democratic form of government, was written into Public Law by Clinton in 1998. 

Believe me, if Bush achieves this our dear Hillbilly will be jumping up, elbowing Algore and others out of the way, shouting "y'all remember ah said this first!"  Count on that.  Even Kerry will remember, once again, seared into his memory no doubt better than Christmas in Cambodia, that he voted FOR the war!

Are you trying to tell me now that this is a "middle ground" because it would not be an inspiring example to reformers in the region?  Don't be foolish...of course it would be.

What, does Clifford May now think that by describing it as "a modest goal" that somehow diminishes it, making it therefore more achievable than it otherwise might be?

What foolishness the ISG has spawned, even among otherwise sensible people.

For proof of that, May himself posts this George Orwell quote:

“The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory.”

And yet May begins by telling us Bush's original vision "no longer looks attainable".

Conservative columnist, heal thyself.

(Don't groan...I could have said O ye of little faith.)