Libertarian Leanings

Global Warming

I've been wondering when somebody would actually try to demonstrate the global warming phenomenon by creating a controlled atmosphere and performing actual measurements on it.  Somebody finally did.

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March...

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

If anybody had done it before we can see why they would have kept quiet about it - more heresy.

Oh that media bias

New York Times editors draw the line against mixing opinion with news.  Well, it might be more accurate to say they draw the line on certain opinion.

Apparently some liberal Times readers complained that Times military reporter Michael Gordon had the bad taste to go on the PBS talk show"Charlie Rose" January 8 and say he wanted the United States to win the war in Iraq.

Calame: "Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper’s chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon.

"The rumored military buildup in Iraq was a hot topic on the Jan. 8 'Charlie Rose' show, and the host asked Mr. Gordon if he believed 'victory is within our grasp.' The transcript of Mr. Gordon’s response, which he stressed was 'purely personal,' includes these comments:

"'So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it’s worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we’ve never really tried to win. We’ve simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it’s done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something.'"

A Charlie Rose watcher complained, and Calame acted.

"I raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon's voicing of personal opinions with top editors, and received a response from Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief. After noting that Mr. Gordon has 'long been mindful and respectful of the line between analysis and opinion in his television appearances,' Mr. Taubman went on to draw the line in this case.

"'I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the ‘Charlie Rose’ show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration. They were a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and unopinionated way. He agrees his comments on the show went too far.'

Heresy!  Stamp it out!  Immediately!

The American Iraq

Fouad Ajami author of "The Foreigner's Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq" teaches at Johns Hopkins.  His column, The American Iraq featured today on Opionion Journal, offers a surprisingly optimistic outlook.

We should not be apologetic, in Arab lands seething with bigotry and rage, about our expedition into Iraq. We shouldn't fall for Arab rulers who tell us that they would have had the ability to call off the furies had we had in place a "process" for resolving the claims of the Palestinians, and had we been able to "deliver" Israel. Those furies have a life of their own: In truth, they are aided and abetted by these same rulers in the hope of tranquilizing their own domains and buying off the embittered in their midst...

The country has been fought over, and a verdict can already be discerned--rough balance between its erstwhile Sunni rulers and its Shia inheritors, and a special, autonomous life for the Kurds. Against all dire expectations, the all-important question of the distribution of oil wealth appears close to a resolution. The design for sharing the bounty is a "federal" one that strikes a balance between central government and regional claimants. The nightmare of the Sunni Arabs that they would be left stranded in regions of sand and gravel has been averted.

This is the country midwifed by American power. We were never meant to stay there long. Iraq will never approximate the expectations we projected onto it in more innocent times. But we should be able to grant it the gift of acceptance, and yet another dose of patience as it works its way out of its current torments.

The press filter

When Joe Wilson wrote his famous column for the New York Times accusing the Bush Administration of twisting the intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, he left out a few bits of information.  The infamous sixteen words in the President's 2003 State of the Union address claiming that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium in Africa, were said by the press to have been refuted by Ambassador Joe when he said he found no such thing. 

But Joe left out the part where he learned that an Iraqi delegation had approached officials from the African country of Niger with a proposal to expand trade between the two countries, and that Nigerian officials took that to be an attempt to open discussions for a uranium deal.  Mainstream press coverage of the flap has followed Wilson's lead.  Their version of events continues to claim intelligence was twisted, and the visit by the Iraqi trade delegation is rarely, if ever, mentioned.

It has been the hope among many on the right side of the blogosphere that these facts would get an airing in perjury trial of former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff, I. Lewis Libby.  Libby, you may recall, is at this very moment on trial for perjury and obstruction of justice as a result of differences between his grand jury testimony and testimony of three reporters - Tim Russert, Matt Cooper, and Judy Miller.  What gets little attention is that there is no underlying crime to the case. 

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was tasked with discovering who broke the law by revealing the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, who happens to be Ambassador Joe's wife, and who is also the one most responsible for getting Joe sent to Africa to discover what he and the press don't want to talk about.  That being that Iraq was really trying to get uranium.  In the course of his investigation Fitzgerald quickly found that Richard Armitage, formerly of the State Department, was the individual who revealed Val's identity, not anybody working in the White House.  He then immediately decided that it was not a crime. 

Still, Fitzgerald has clung to the theory first publicly voiced by lefty David Corn, that the outing of Valerie Plame was an act of revenge by a White House intent on punishing Joe Wilson for "refuting" the President's claim in the 2003 State of the Union.  How inconvenient that the no one in White House outed Valerie Plame.  But in order to preserve the dearly held maxim that the Bush White House is evil, the mainstream press has had to gloss over these inconvenient facts.  Meanwhile Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's case against Libby seems to rest on the theory that there really was a White House plot to punish Joe by outing Val, and that Libby was lying to cover it up.

This case is of immense importance to the American people on a number of levels.  For one thing the facts of it show that the White House was not involved in any plot to destroy the career of a CIA employee.  The case really reveals the emptiness of Wilson's charges.  It's been Joe Wilson and his allies in the press who've been twisting the facts, and we can depend on them to continue doing it.  For example, the President's decision to declassify portions of the National Intelligence Estimate to refute Wilson's charges has been reported in some circles as "leaking the NIE".

At another level, Fitzgerald has as much as said that the charges of perjury and lying are a surrogate case for revealing CIA employee Val's identity - which he has already said is not a crime.  If Libby is convicted of disagreeing with Russert, Cooper, and Miller, the press will be sure convict the Bush Administration in the court of public opinion.

The best place to follow what's going on with the Scooter Libby trial is over at JustOneMinute.  Tom Maguire has been providing detailed analysis of this case since it began.  That in itself is reason enough to rely on his commentary on it, but he has also drawn a circle of readers and commenters, many of whom are attorneys.  D.C. attorney Clarice Feldman is one of them.  In addition to her contribution to the JustOneMinute comment sections, she regularly posts at American Thinker.  Clarice has also had opportunity to "live blog" the trial.  Much as I loath the concept of live blogging, I have to admit her reporting is great. 

While bloggers have been given access to the Libby trial, I don't believe it will make much of a dent in public perception of a scheming nefarious White House.  The press will win out with this one.  They have been too much part of the story to back off now.  Joe's ridiculous claims would never have earned credibility on their own.  Our anti-administration press had to go along with the program for his story have traction.  They have and will continue.  You might say they will be covering their own tracks.

Dear Abby,

My husband is a cheat and liar. He cheated on me from the beginning. When I confront him he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows that he cheats on me. It is so humiliating.

Also, since he lost his job 6 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does is smoke cigars, cruise around and shoot the bull with his buddies while I have to work to pay the bills.

Since our daughter went away to college he doesn't even pretend to like me and hints that I may be a lesbian What should I do?

*Dear Clueless,
Grow up and dump him. Good grief woman, you don't need him anymore. You're a United States Senator from New York.  Act like one.

This one came via email.

Media power

An article by Leslie H. Gelb and Richard K. Betts, originally written for the Washington Post, makes yet another comparison of the Iraq war to Vietnam.  Today it appeared on the front page of today's paper edition of the Nashua Telegraph.  The headline, We're Fighting Not to Lose, may accurately describe Vietnam, but not necessarily Iraq.  It can be boiled down in two quotes.

First quote:

U.S. officials generally had accurate assessments of the difficulties in Vietnam, and they looked hard at the alternatives of winning or getting out.

On Iraq the insider documents are not available, but journalistic accounts suggest that Bush's policy process was much less realistic.

Second quote:

Consensus held longer over Vietnam because few in or out of the government had ever expected a quick and easy resolution of the war. Officials knew what they were up against -- the force of nationalism embodied by Ho Chi Minh, and a succession of corrupt, inefficient and illegitimate South Vietnamese governments. Officials usually put on a brave face, but they understood that Washington was in for the long haul. In the Bush administration, by contrast, a gap opened almost immediately between senior political leaders on one side, and most military and diplomatic professionals as well as the media on the other. The steady optimism of the former in the face of the reporting of the latter quickly undid public confidence in the Pentagon's and White House's leadership.

The real similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is media opposition.  The difference is that with Vietnam it was unthinkable for media luminaries to publicly oppose the war at its outset.  They would have been considered unpatriotic.  But after a couple of years of Vietnam as the lead story every night on the evening news years, opposition gained acceptance, perhaps justifiably so.  In Vietnam there was, in fact, no plan to win the war.  The objective was a Korea-like stalemate. 

In Iraq our troops have not face that particular constraint.  The plan has always been to win in Iraq.  Unfortunately Vietnam set a precedent in adversarial news reporting.  Today's media have been comfortable opposing the war from the beginning, and they have exercised very little restraint in shaping their stories with the objective of shaping public opinions to match their own. 

It's not the bias that's a problem, though.  The problem comes in when biased journalists resort to dishonesty.  The public most often has no way of knowing.

Webb

The new senator from Virginia, Democrat James Webb, doesn't want to anybody to try to compare Iraq to Vietnam.  They're not the same, he says.

No one knows the tragic story of America in Vietnam better than Jim Webb, first as a Marine, then as a writer. So the newly elected Democratic senator from Virginia--a fierce opponent of the war in Iraq--wants to keep Vietnam out of the debate over Iraq. "As much as possible, we need to keep this debate away from Vietnam," Webb said last week. Iraq "is not a parallel situation."

He'd better say that.  At least if you go by what he wrote about Vietnam back in 1995.

Only by comprehending that Vietnam was the first war where a generation's elite not only excused itself from fighting but often openly supported the side that was killing their own countrymen can we understand the persistent defamation of those who served. And only by comprehending that the antiwar movement's dilatory effect was Hanoi's greatest ace in the hole can we understand why the communists had few reasons ever to compromise at the negotiating table.

At least this time the elite seem to have developed the good sense not to defame those who serve.  More likely it's their good strategy not their good sense.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned congress against making resolutions to oppose the troop surge.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday that Congress' push to oppose President Bush's troop increase in Iraq "emboldens the enemy" and undercuts the commanders in the field.

It seems there's too much at stake for Democrats to worry about a little thing like undercutting commanders in the field.  Ted Kennedy homes in on the crucial, life and death situation for the Dems.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, called Mr. Gates' statement "a desperate attempt" to bolster the president's policy. 

Mr. Bush and other administration officials have counted on the fact that all sides in the debate agree that victory is necessary.

Yes, victory is necessary, but over whom?  For the Democrats it's Bush that must be defeated.  A democratic Iraq would be an utter disaster for the Democratic party and they know it. 

Political news from Baghdad

Iraq the Model carries a fascinating description of a volatlie Iraqi parliamentary session.

Away from the streets the biggest battle I saw today was aired live on TV — the latest session of the parliament that witnessed loud arguments between some of the MPs, during which the speaker decided to cut media transmission from the hall.

Before it was cut off, PM Maliki spoke to the parliament to explain the goals and strategy of his new plan and to hear their feedback, suggestions and reservations...

The biggest argument was when a Sunni cleric MP harshly criticized what he called a policy to target only certain parts of Baghdad (apparently referring to Haifa street and Latifiyah), and said the troops were killing civilians. The MP told Maliki that “We’ve lost trust in you as a head of the state….” An uproar began with many shouting from their seats. The cleric continued his verbal attack and the speaker tried to silence him by telling him he exceeded his time limit. He wouldn’t stop. The speaker then shut off the cleric’s microphone. 

Maliki returned fire saying, “You in particular will regain your trust in this government when we send your file to a court of law. You talk about Latifiyah when you know, and everybody knows, that terrorists are right now holding 150 innocent citizens hostages in that city”.  This direct threat was met by applause from the members of the UIA.

The speaker (al-Mashhadani) didn’t like this response from Maliki and turned to the lawmakers and said “You applaud this? The Prime Minister is openly accusing one of your colleagues of being a terrorist and you applaud! This is unacceptable!”

The session descended into chaos with members in white and black turbans shouting at each other. The speaker lost his patience and screamed back “Enough of this sectarian speech making! You will set the streets on fire! How are we going to succeed if we’re divided like this?”

Supporting the troops

Democrats are hard at work figuring out a way to appear to be supportive of the troops in Iraq while at the same time doing everything politically possible to deny them reinforcements.  They get help from NBC.   Here's David Gregory interviewing Chuck Schumer.

Gregory: "The Vice-President is dismissive of this [resolution] effort yesterday saying it's not going to stop the president, and in fact he goes further, saying this will be detrimental to the troops on the ground."

Schumer: "Absolutely not, and I think it's going to be shown, when this resolution comes up, and it is non-binding, my guess is that not only are we going to get a vast majority of Democrats to vote for it in one form or another, but close to a majority of the Republicans. And that is going to shock even Vice-President Cheney."

Gregory: "But how can the public really buy the Democrats support the troops but don't support the mission? How can you do both?"

Schumer: "Well, that's the difficulty. A resolution that says we're against this escalation, that's easy. The next step will be how do you put further pressure on the administration against the escalation but still supporting the troops who are there? And that's what we're figuring out right now."

Well, maybe that's not so helpful.

Do we really want round three?

That would be for another Clinton presidency.  From Captain's Quarters, there's still fallout from the last one:

Rodham got the "loan" in a series of 16 checks paid out from United Shows starting two months after Bill Clinton pardoned both Gregorys, over the objections of the Department of Justice. The money stream continued for 20 months, in small amounts, until Rodham had sucked $107,000 out of the company in cash. Six months later, the Gregorys declared bankruptcy, their pardons secured and their creditors left holding the bag.

Just as in the case of Marc Rich, we have another set of questionable pardons given by Bill Clinton in close proximity to substantial cash outlays to the Clintons and their families. (Denise Rich donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clinton presidential library fund at the time of her ex-husband's pardon.) The proximity of the cash to the pardon, the overruled objections from the DoJ, the lack of any attempt to pay back the loan, and the family relationship all make it seem very likely that the 16 checks amounted to a payoff for the pardon.

Brings back fond memories, does it?  No?  Not really?