MONDAY,  DECEMBER 15,  2008

TOO DARNED HOT - NOT

Posted at 7:21 p.m. ET

The president-elect announced his environmental team today.  He has pledged that fighting global warming will be a priority for his administration.

That's too bad.  The incoming administration appears to have drunk the Gore-Aid.  And yet, day by day, skepticism about the "consensus" surrounding global warming is increasing.  The Australian prints a piece by prominent Danish skeptic and statistician Bjorn Lomborg.  This kind of dissent needs to be heard more often in the U.S. if our debate is to be informed.  The problem is, many people don't want it informed.

According to Obama, "few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change".

Such a statement is now commonplace for most political leaders across the world, even though it neglects to address the question of how much we can do to help America and the world through climate policies v other policies.

Examples:

Consider, for example, hurricanes in America. Clearly, a policy of reducing CO2 emissions would have had zero consequence on Katrina's devastating effect on New Orleans, where such a disaster was long expected...

...Instead, direct policies to address New Orleans' vulnerabilities could have avoided the huge and unnecessary cost in human misery and economic loss. These should have included stricter building codes, smarter evacuation policies and better preservation of wetlands (which could have reduced the ferociousness of the hurricane).

And...

Likewise, consider world hunger. Pleas for action on climate change reflect fears that global warming may undermine agricultural production, especially in the developing world. But global agricultural/economic models indicate that even under the most pessimistic assumptions, global warming would reduce agricultural production by just 1.4p er cent by the end of the century. Because agricultural output will more than double during this period, climate change would at worst cause global food production to double not in 2080 but in 2081.

Do you get the feeling that this man has done his homework?

Every time spending on climate policies saves one person from hunger in 100 years, the same amount could have saved 5000 people now. Arguably, this should be among Obama's top priorities.

What?  And violate the religion of global warming?

Obama went on to say why he wants to prioritise global warming policies: "The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking.  We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."

When someone tells you that "the science is beyond dispute," run in the other direction.  Real research scientists generally don't talk that way.  They're careful, and cautious.

Sea levels are rising, but they have been rising at least since the early 1800s. In the era of satellite measurements, the rise has not accelerated (actually we've seen a sea-level fall during the past two years). The UN expects about a 30cm sea-level rise during this century, about what we saw during the past 150 years.

Do not trust this man.  He believes in facts.

Obama's claim about record droughts similarly fails even on a cursory level: the US has in all academic estimates been getting wetter through the past the century (with the 1930s dust bowl setting the drought high point). This is even true globally during the past half-century, as one of the most recent scientific studies of actual soil moisture shows: "There is an overall small wetting trend in global soil moisture."

And...

Furthermore, famine has declined rapidly in the past half century. The main deviation has been the past two years of record-high food prices, caused not by climate change but by the policies designed to combat it: the dash for ethanol, which put food into cars and thus upward pressure on food prices. The World Bank estimates that this policy has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger. To cite policy-driven famine as an argument for more of the same policy seems unreasonable, to say the least.

No question about it:  This man's last name is Exxon-Mobil. No doubt about it.  I have sources.

Global warming should be tackled, but smartly through research and development of low-carbon alternatives. If we are to get our policies right, it is crucial that we get our facts right.

But it's so much more fun the other way.  And there are those great parties, and posters.  This man is too serious.

December 15, 2008.      Permalink          

POLS, INVESTIGATE THYSELVES - AT 3:14 P.M. ET:  From AP:

WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama's team says an internal review shows his staff "was not involved in inappropriate discussions" with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich over the selection of Obama's Senate successor.

An Obama spokesman says Monday in a statement that Obama's lawyer Gregory Craig has kept federal prosecutors informed of the internal review "in order to ensure our full cooperation with the investigation" into allegations against the governor.

COMMENT:  Let's see how long the in-the-tank media accepts an "internal review."  If this were a Republican scandal the cries of "special prosecutor" would be echoing off the Rocky Mountains.

DYNASTY - AT 2:41 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times: 
Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of an American political dynasty, has decided to pursue the United States Senate seat being vacated by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a person told of her decision said on Monday.

COMMENT:  As a New Yorker, I find this embarrassing.  It seems more like a grudge match between the Kennedys and the Clintons than concern for the residents of New York.  Caroline knifed Hillary in the back by endorsing Obama in the primaries, now she wants Hillary's seat.  But there are other, far more qualified candidates.  Clearly, if she becomes senator, Caroline Kennedy can run for president in 2016.  Hillary, who will only be 68 then, is obviously aware of that.  This can get very raw.  Oh goody. 

MADNESS - AT 2:35 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:  BAGHDAD — An Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President Bush and called him a dog became a huge celebrity in the Arab world and beyond on Monday, with many supporters exalting him for what they called a courageous act in the face of American arrogance about the war.

COMMENT:  I never cease to be amazed at the pathetic ignorance of the Arab world.  It's not the fault of the people.  This is what they're taught - and it's one reason why they're living centuries behind.  This was once a great civilization. 

ILLINOIS UPDATE - AT 2:31 P.M. ET:   Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The Illinois House of Representatives will consider impeaching Governor Rod Blagojevich after he was arrested by the FBI for trying to auction President-elect Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat.  A 21-member panel comprised of 12 Democrats and nine Republicans will begin deliberations tomorrow, House Speaker Michael Madigan said today in a meeting with reporters televised on WGN-TV. Blagojevich, a Chicago Democrat, was arrested and accused on Dec. 9 of trying to sell Obama’s post and pressure the Chicago Tribune to halt critical editorials.

MAYBE THEY CAN PROBE HIM AND BLAGO AT THE SAME TIME - AT 2:26 P.M. ET:  Reader Jean Spik alerts us to this:  Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) -- A federal grand jury is investigating how a company that advised Jefferson County, Alabama, on bond deals that threaten to cause the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, did similar work in New Mexico after making contributions to Governor Bill Richardson’s political action committees.

COMMENT:  He's Obama's secretary of commerce designate.  So much change we can believe in.  I don't know if I can stand any more.

STILL STUCK IN PARK - AT 9:47 A.M. ET:   KABUL (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Monday an announcement on a auto industry rescue was not imminent, leaving the industry's fate clouded in uncertainty for a little longer.  "We're not quite ready to announce that yet," Bush told reporters on Air Force One during a flight from Baghdad on an unannounced visit to Afghanistan.

RIGHTEOUS ANGER IN ILLINOIS - AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  From AP: 

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- Republicans and Democrats alike are calling for Illinois lawmakers to begin impeachment proceedings against Gov. Rod Blagojevich, saying the step is necessary to restore public confidence in state government.

"The General Assembly must move to impeach Rod Blagojevich immediately," said DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett, a potential Republican candidate for governor in 2010.

COMMENT:  Is the first they've heard that their governor is a nut job?  All this sudden righteousness.  The man didn't come to town last week.

REALLY OUTRAGEOUS

Posted at 8:46 a.m. ET

The hatred of President Bush is taking no holiday, even in this season of supposed good will.  We would have hoped that the mainstream media would at least restrain some of its worst instincts, as the Bush administration enters its final five weeks.  That hope would be in vain.

One of the wildest anti-Bush attacks appeared in an editorial yesterday in The San Francisco Chronicle.  What angers us is the casualness with which the Chronicle ignores facts and history.

The Chronicle quotes Mr. Bush's regret, stated recently, that intelligence about Iraq's WMD turned out to be wrong.  The president did not blame anyone.  He simply stated his regret.  To the Chronicle, though, this was perfidy:

The president's attempt to disassociate himself from accountability for the phony pretext for war is simply outrageous.

No, what's outrageous is the Chronicle's attempt to portray Mr. Bush as disassociating himself from accountability.  He neither said nor implied anything of the kind.  Ever.  And the term "phony pretext" is inflammatory and misleading.  Virtually all major intelligence agencies believed Iraq had WMD.

The Bush administration was sounding alarms - such as Rice's January 2003 suggestion that ceding to uncertainty might cause the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" - even though U.N. inspectors were coming up empty.

For the record, the UN believed Iraq had WMD.  Added to the record, even though we didn't find stockpiles of WMD after we entered Iraq, we did find WMD programs in place, to be restarted after the UN sanctions were lifted.  That discovery has been downplayed by the mainstream media, even though it is critical to understanding the Iraq weapons picture.

Most infamously, Bush's 2003 State of the Union address included the 16 words claiming that Hussein had tried to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium, even though red flags had been raised within the State Department about the veracity of the claims.

Most infamously?  The Chronicle had a journalistic obligation to point out that Great Britain, which supplied the information, stands behind it.  There is other evidence, ignored by the Chronicle, suggesting that those 16 words were accurate.  The term "most infamously" is, again, misleading and inflammatory.

The best that can be said of the Bush White House is that it was insufficiently vigilant about scrutinizing the intelligence it presented to the world to justify a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that has cost more than 4,200 American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars a year - and incalculable damage to U.S. stature in the world. At worst, it was a campaign of deceit. Historians will be taking a close look at the substantial evidence that the Bush administration was determined to engage Iraq in war from the day it assumed power - and used the fear and confusion in the aftermath of 9/11 to sell this war to the public.

Wild, wild, wild.  Didn't Colin Powell spend days at the CIA, personally examining the intelligence?  Where is the deceit?  Show it.  The fact is, as Douglas J. Feith points out in his book, "War and Decision," the intelligence hadn't changed since the Clinton administration.  Yet the Chronicle doesn't accuse Mr. Clinton of deceit.  Wonder why. 

And there is no evidence that the Bush administration was determined to go to war in Iraq from its first days.  It knew Iraq was a problem, and war might be an option.  But the Chronicle overstretches.

History will not forget that the rationale for this war - which has brought so much death, debt and misery - was thoroughly discredited.

They just won't give up.  Again, those WMD programs were in place.  Iraq is now a fledgling, if fragile democracy.  Hatred of Bush, though, is a religion that is being pursued, regardless of facts.

Bad journalism.  Another reason why people are turning away from newspapers.

December 15, 2008.      Permalink          

THE PLOT THICKENS

Posted at 7:45 a.m. ET

Ed Rendell, Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, complained last week that Barack Obama didn't have administrative experience, and that this was contributing to his sluggishness of his handling of the Illinois governor saga.

Rendell was right.  The scandal, which involves the governor soliciting favors and funds in exchange for Obama's abandoned Senate seat, continues, with bits of information coming out each day.  The classic way to handle a scandal is to get everything out as quickly as possible, punish those who should be punished, and put it behind you.  Thus far, Obama has been disappointing.

This morning The Wall Street Journal, which has done fine reporting on this story, reveals contacts between Rahm Emanuel, Obama's designated White House chief of staff, and the governor's office, regarding the Senate seat:

Barack Obama had begun thinking about his Senate successor even before the presidential election, and dispatched Rahm Emanuel days after the vote to contact aides of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to begin talking up Mr. Obama's preferred candidates, associates of Mr. Emanuel said this weekend.

Associates?  We can speculate that Emanuel may want some of this information out there, and is going around the Obama information operation to put the best possible spin on the story.  Also, please note that there is nothing improper about holding discussions with a governor's office about filling a Senate seat.

Mr. Emanuel didn't talk to Mr. Blagojevich directly about the matter, by phone or in person, according to people familiar with the matter. He spoke by phone with aides to the governor, those people say.

An aide to Obama speaking with aides to the governor.  Some real spin here, I suspect.  Aides may not know everything.  Aides may not be "authorized" to do certain things.  Lots of deniability in what's leaking out.

The Chicago Tribune reported Saturday that Mr. Emanuel relayed to Mr. Blagojevich's team a list of candidates who would be acceptable to the Obama camp, and that these conversations were captured on a tape possessed by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. There is no evidence that this was part of a deal or quid pro quo.

Correct.  Nothing improper about that, legally or morally.

Now the conversations about the Senate seat may be central to whether Mr. Blagojevich's legal and political problems will spill over and affect the president-elect before he even takes office. The discussions themselves don't suggest anything improper, legal experts say. Obama advisers say it was natural for the president-elect to take an interest in his successor.

But that's not the issue, and all the spin in the world can't protect Emanuel or Obama from the central question:  What did they know about the governor's attempts to extract bribes for the Senate appointment, and when did they know it?

Rahm Emanuel was elected to the House, succeeding Blagojevich, who'd held the seat until his election as governor.  The two have had contact over the years.  The information in this Journal story provides pieces of the puzzle, but the puzzle still has many holes to be filled.  This will go on as long as the president-elect does not or cannot answer basic questions about what was known regarding the bribe attempts.

Suggestion:  The president-elect should appoint a person of impeccable reputation to investigate the actions of his staff and make a full, public report.  But he's got to do something to get this behind him.

December 15, 2008.      Permalink          

SUNDAY,  DECEMBER 14,  2008

NO STRAIN FOR BIDEN - AT 4:22 P.M. ET:  From The Politico: 

Joe Biden is laying plans to significantly shrink the role of the vice presidency in Barack Obama’s White House, according to an official familiar with his thinking.  It’s not just that Biden won’t sit in on Senate Democrats’ weekly caucus meetings – a privilege Republicans afforded outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney. He won’t have an office outside the House floor, as House Speaker Dennis Hastert gave Cheney early on.

Biden will not begin every day with his own intelligence briefing before sitting in on the president’s. He will not always be the last person Obama speaks to before making a decision.  He also will not, as a transition official calls it, operate a “shadow government” within an Obama administration.

COMMENT:  And we've heard that his Secret Service agents will be office temps.

SURPRISE VISIT - AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  FromAP:  BAGHDAD – President George W. Bush on Sunday made a farewell visit to Iraq, a place that defines his presidency for better or worse, just 37 days before he hands the war off to a successor who has pledged to end it.

COMMENT:  No one can say the man hasn't shown up.  Good move to visit Iraq.  This AP report gets in some digs at the president, but what else is new?   

THE LATEST LEDEEN

Posted at 9:45 a.m. ET

We often quote Michael Ledeen, the distinguished foreign-policy analyst, at Urgent Agenda.  Now we are privileged to quote his son, Gabe, a Marine officer who's served two tours in Iraq.  He is eloquent and direct about what he's found there.  He is also director of the Vets for Freedom Educational Institute. 

This is well worth reading:

Today marks the fifth anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s capture by U.S. forces, when he was pulled dirty, afraid, and alone from a hole in Tikrit, Iraq. Five years from that day, Iraqis continue to face a somewhat uncertain future fraught with challenges and perils. Critics of the war complain that there is no certainty that democracy can take root in Iraq, and lament the possibility that this “experiment” will fail. These cynics are correct in asserting that our achievements in Iraq remain fragile and potentially reversible, and they may be justified in their skepticism about an Iraqi democracy’s staying power. One thing is certain though: The Iraqi people, who have never had reason to, are now learning how to hope. They no longer face each day with the certainty that conditions are immutable and inevitable, as they had been forced to do for so many years under Saddam’s regime.

Saddam Hussein, his sons, and his supporters terrorized the people of Iraq and subjected them to violence and maltreatment without reason or restraint. His record of rape, torture, murder, and oppression is well documented but marginalized and deflected by critics who claim that the violence of the war overshadows Hussein’s heinous crimes. This argument does not, and cannot stand. During Saddam Hussein’s reign, Iraqis had no sense that the terror would ever end. The individual citizen had neither the right nor the ability to oppose Saddam’s henchmen, who took what they wanted, killed and raped at will, and tortured (think hooks, blowtorches, and electricity) to intimidate or eliminate potential enemies. The purpose of this evil was solely to maintain Saddam’s power and strengthen his regime by dominating the will of the people. He was held up as something more than human, above all laws and criticism and accountable to no one. Operation Desert Storm did little to give Iraqis lasting hope that Saddam would be defeated, and when he ruthlessly crushed the Shia and Kurds after the war without response from the West, they recognized it as another validation of Saddam’s invincibility.

When U.S. soldiers pulled Saddam Hussein from that hole in Tikrit, the spell that had held Iraqis captive for decades was broken. Suddenly, there was a glimmer of hope for a population who had never had the right to dream of a better life. That hope is what differentiates every day before December 13, 2003, from every day since. It is the hope that things will get better, that the individual life can mean something. That the next generation can live a better life than the current one, and that through effort and will the people can make tomorrow better than today. This hope is fundamental to meaningful human existence, but is often taken for granted by Americans who have never endured a life where its expression is denied by a cruel dictator. Some suggest that Saddam’s dictatorship, though cruel and oppressive, was the only way to effectively control the tribes, maintain order, and govern the country. Day by day the Iraqi people are proving them wrong; this is the legacy of December 13.

Wonderful, wonderful.  Like father, like son.

December 14, 2008.      Permalink          

BRITAIN IN THE CROSSHAIRS

Posted at 8:49 a.m. ET

The British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has made the stunning revelation that more than 20 terror attacks against Britain are being planned in Pakistan.

More than twenty serious terrorist plots to stage attacks in Britain are being planned in Pakistan, Gordon Brown said.

The Prime Minister named Pakistan as a haven for terrorists planning attacks in Britain, revealing that around three quarters of the most advanced plots monitored by MI5 are have Pakistani links.

Officials say that the Security Service is aware of around 30 serious plots at any given moment, suggesting that at least 21 of them are tied to Pakistani groups.

If this is true, how many plots are ongoing against the United States? It appears that the reporting on terror has taken on greater urgency in the UK than here.

On a visit to Islamabad, the Prime Minister delivered a blunt demand to President Ali Asif Zardari to improve his government's work to prevent al-Qaeda and other groups operating in the lawless area that borders Afghanistan.

"The time has come for action not words," Mr Brown told Mr Zardari.

As Renee Nielsen has reported to Urgent Agenda, it is accepted in India that the recent Mumbai terror attacks had their roots in Pakistan.

We have to be on guard here, especially during the transition to a new administration.  Recent articles indicate that we are very vulnerable, in our cities, to a Mumbai-type assault.  Hotels are particularly vulnerable.  Washington will be filled with visitors during the inauguration.  Because of the economic crisis, we have stopped thinking about terror.  Big mistake.

December 14, 2008.      Permalink          

MAYBE GARDENING WOULD BE A BETTER CHOICE - AT 7:53 A.M. ET:  From the New York Post:  Caroline Kennedy continued to contact New York politicians last week - presumably to test the waters about a Senate bid - even as Hillary Clinton allies piled on in fierce opposition.

COMMENT:  This really is an example of New York nerve.  Caroline Kennedy went all out for Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.  Now she wants Hillary's seat in the United States Senate, although all she offers is her name.  Maybe some counseling is in order.  Or a phone call from Hillary.

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT - AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  An Israeli newspaper is reporting that Colin Powell is on the short list of prospects to be special envoy to the Mideast in an Obama administration.

COMMENT:  Very bad move.  First, it would look like a political payoff for his endorsement of Obama.  Second, Powell made it plain as SecState that he doesn't like to travel.  This job involves traveling, but expenses are reimbursed.  Third, there is no evidence that Powell has the detailed knowledge or diplomatic skill for the job.  Fourth, Powell is seen as at best uninterested in the war on terror. 

Other than that, he's a great candidate.