Freedom's Truth

Steyn hits nail on head, decrying Hamas the terrorist organization, while welcoming the clarity the election provides. Worth a read.

The Senate readies for the Alito vote, and as the GOP presses for a final vote, the question of the day is: Will Democrats attempt a filibuster? Now, news reports say Kerry is returning from Europe to lead a filibuster against the Alito nomination.

The answer to my question of "Are the Democrat's nuts?" is that, yes, apparently some of them are. This is a pre-doomed effort given statements of other Democrats that they won't support a filibuster. Predoomed yet an apparently necessary sop to the moonbat base of the Democrat party, who have a phobia of highly qualified Judicial nominees of Catholic Italian heritage. So the Senate top CINOs (figure it out) will lead the charge.

The final act of this Democrat clown show on Alito's confirmation should end with the line: "That's another fine mess you've got me into!"

Do they really want to filibuster the well-qualified Judge Alito, who did an excellent job in the hearings, defending his record, showing excellent judicial temperance and deep knowledge, and deflating every charge the Democrats tried to throw at him? Red State thinks so. If the Dems want to wake up and fire up the currently demoralized GOP base and create our own DC-based "nuclear option" battle - make my day.

Senator Ted Kennedy, killer of Mary Jo Kopechne, father of 20-year-secret love-child, who was embroiled in the famous rape case of his nephew, who has gone through several marriages and many a bottle, and who managed to saddle America with our most expensive welfare-state policies, our current broken immigration system, and host of other ills spawned by his Liberal agenda, has spoken out on the Alito nomination.

It comes as a relief that the dangerous, duplicitous and depraved Ted Kennedy finds nothing to endear himself to Judge Sam Alito, as NRO notes:

The character assassins of the Left have the perfect spokesman in Senator Kennedy. Not content with his embarrassing display of intemperance, ignorance and generally boorish behavior during hearing week, Senator Kennedy summarized his opposition to Judge Alito by claiming Judge Alito was not “committed to equal justice under law.” This is a despicable charge to level at a sitting federal judge. And it's obvious to anyone who watched the hearings that in the case of Judge Alito, nothing could be more false.

Not embarrassed enough with his smears in the hearings, Kennedy smeared Alito further in declaring his oppostion. Kennedy, the original Borker of Robert Bork, has run out of credibility, out of ideas, and out of gas. Congrats, Judge Alito. Wear the scorn of this national embarrassment as a true endorsement of your fitness for the high post of Supreme Court Justice!

Chris Matthews calls bin Laden an "over the top Michael Moore". Wow, what a slam against ... Bin Laden.

Yet another Bin Laden audio recording with sound quality of $20 Radio Shack tape recorder comes out. Yet another attempt to tell Americans what to think and to 'advise' us on our foreign policy. Hasn't Bin Laden 'jumped the shark' long ago with these recordings? His Al Qaeda minions are beheading westerners, blowing up buildings, and doing the real work of terrorism. where is this slacker? Stuck in a cave? Too scared of the US to show a video? I have a suspicion that this is Osama's current disguise:

Come on out, Osama ... We have a Predator UAV that wants to play with you.

There is a poll that shows Americans support the President on wiretapping terrorist communications:

Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush's decision to wiretap suspected terrorists operating inside the U.S. without first obtaining a court order - and a solid plurality believe those who leaked news of the secret operation are "traitors,"

It is also likely that wuch communications are exactly how we managed to kill four senior Al Qaeda operatives in the borderland between Pakistan and Afghanistan. That operation, which tried but failed to kill Al Qaeda #2 Zawahiri, has been called a disaster by the media (e.g., Chris Dickey in Newsweek) before all the facts were in.

The attempt to make this limited program against terrorists out to be 'spying on America' has collapsed as the real facts have come out. Liberals, the New York Times, and Democrats are selling a bill of goods, and America isn't buying.

Media spins it as negatively as possible by insisting that senior Iraqi politician al-Hakim is saying "Cleric Sees No End to Insurgency in Iraq." Actually, he said nothing of the kind. What al-Hakim did say was that Sunni participation in the Government, while vital and necessary, alone won't end the fight, and that Iraqis needed to take the lead (and be given latitude by the coalition) and fight the insurgents. He is of course right:

U.S. officials hope the new leadership will win the trust of the Sunnis and defuse the insurgency so that American and other international troops can begin to go home. "We are convinced of the necessity that the Sunnis should participate along with us in the government because they are an important component in Iraq," al-Hakim said. "As for who is going to join the government with us, this matter is related to who is closer to us regarding the principles we believe in."

But al-Hakim added: "The important thing is that (Sunnis) believe that there is a new reality in Iraq. The important thing that is they believe in the necessity of the participation and shouldering responsibility in the (parliament) and government."

"Every day we are getting closer to accepting this reality. But there are some groups that will not accept this," al-Hakim said, citing religious extremists and Saddam loyalists. "Those people will continue confronting the government. ... Those people should be confronted firmly by the government."

To do that, al-Hakim said the Iraqis and their coalition partners must agree on a greater counterinsurgency role for Iraqi forces and "allow the Interior and Defense ministries to operate and to allow the leaderships in those two ministries to make decisions and move to achieve their goals."

This is a realistic but not pessimistic message. Iraqi leaders need to include Sunnis in the Government, but Sunnis need to understand the new reality - their share of power is proportional to their voting strength. Terrorists, Zraqawi and Al Qaeda, and isolated extremists will never accept democracy and there will be no choice but to destroy their organizations root and branch. It will take a long time, but it will have an end ... and end ina victroy that denies the terrorists a base in Iraq.

The Iraqi vote was 99% valid says the electoral commission:

"These boxes will not have an affect on the preliminary results that we issued last month," said Adel al-Lami, general director of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq.

Hendawi said election officials annulled some ballot boxes because fake ballots were used, while the votes of about 53 boxes were thrown out because too many votes were cast.

Iraqis voted at about 6,200 centers across the country Dec. 15, and there were an average of five ballot boxes at each. So 227 ballot boxes would be about two-thirds of 1 percent of the total vote, which was estimated at about 11 million ballots.

Iraq is becoming a functioning democracy. Now, the challenge of making a functioning Government for it awaits.

Swanky Conservative relays the blogging appeal from the center-right blogerati - Truth Laid Bear, Hugh Hewitt and many others - an appeal for the Republicans in Congress to shape up and for bloggers to support a reform agenda:

We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

Yes and yes! To get the GOP in Congress on a new track, I also join Rep Jeb Hensarling and National Review in endorsing Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) for Majority Leader.

Republicans have the wake up call, and are going to have to shape up before they get shipped out. When Rep DeLay looks to be in trouble in his own backyard, you know the issue is serious and deserves attention.

The whole universe can be considered as consisting of two fundamental concepts - ideas and energy. Our economy likewise is built on twin pillars of the world of ideas and information, and the world of energy and physical resources. In the late 1990s, the world of ideas was riding high, and energy (like oil) and commodities were, literally, dirt cheap.

Things change. John Tamny at NRO notes that since 2000, Earth Profits Up, Stock Prices Down:

The Nasdaq index is still 55 percent below its 2000 high. One effect of this can be seen as a greater share of worldwide capital moves from the metaphysical economy (what the late Warren Brookes called “the economy of the mind”) to the physical. Though it’s not spoken of much in the major media, this capital shift towards tangible resources would logically impact stocks negatively. Canadian economist Reuven Brenner explained the phenomenon in his 2001 book, The Force of Finance. Brenner opined that a saving grace for Hong Kong has to do with it having nothing in the way of natural resources. Because it lacks resources such as oil, copper, and gold, the government there has no territorial claim (think taxation) on what makes it prosper. If the government ever did try to redistribute wealth in Hong Kong, the skilled workers would simply disappear. Applying Brenner’s logic to today’s rising commodity profits, assets “of the earth” can more easily be taxed and regulated precisely because they’re stationary and can’t escape the greedy hands of legislators. In the extreme, stationary assets can be nationalized, and there are numerous instances of this over the last 100 years.

In other words, there are political ramifications to the rise of physical assets relative to informational assets. Ideas and information technology only prospers in certain economic environments, which requires freedom - economic, political and cultural. But any tinpot dictator (viz Chavez) can nationalize a physical asset, and use Government force to extract a 'rent' on that asset. In Nigeria, oil wealth created envy, which create extortion and violence; if a local thug can extort money from oil companies, it doesn't take much for a Government to do the same. The Goverment nationalization racket is just a bigger form of extortion and theft of assets.

As the NRO article notes, this 'political risk premium' leads to naturally lower stock prices. Exxon is not trading like Ebay or Google simply because no Goverment would Let them extend their earnings and pass it on to shareholders like, say, Microsoft or Intel have been able to. The ramifications therefore of the shift to higher commodity prices and a reallocation towards energy and physical goods over informational goods are bad for investors. The ramifications are also bad politically - mostly bad for freedom, low taxation, and pro-growth economic policies. Physical assets can not just be boldly seized, they can be regulated more strictly, and abused for a variety of political purposes (witness the Russia-Ukraine tussle over natural gas).

This lends another imperative to creating policies that make commodities once again, dirt cheap. Consider the impotence of Iran should oil be in surplus and the price of a barrel of crude back under $10. Consider how countries like Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia, Venezuala, Iran, Nigeria and other hotspots would be less powerful, and countries like EU, USA, Japan, and high-teck countries (eg Israel) would have more leverage.

Put it in these terms: We won't have world peace without energy independece; we won't have won the war on terror without seeing Nasdaq over 3000 and oil under $30/barrel; ideas need to become more central than energy to economies if we are to replace autocracy with democracy around the world.

Ahmedinajad denies wanting nuclear weapons:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad clarified they oppose the production of nuclear weapons and want to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only. During a weekly press meeting, the president said the United Nations Security Council, which is assembled to provide security for the entire world, is used like a cane against Iran.

One can only wish. The fear from me is more that the UNSC will only give a wet noodle whipping to 'punish' Iran for abrogating commitments, breaking IAEA seals and developing enriched uranium.

The Gaza strip under PA rule has slipped into violent anarchy, as Faction fights make mockery of peace. One example of the gangland-style Fatah versus Hamas violence now wrecking Gaza:

Death comes quickly, and on the slightest of pretexts. On January 4 in Gaza City Rami al-Dalo, a 26-year-old member of Hamas’s military wing, ran out from celebrations of his wedding to resolve a dispute.

Fatah election bill-stickers had put up their bills inside a Hamas area, and trouble flared when Hamas did the same. Mr al-Dalo’s brother was beaten and guns came out. Even as mediators assembled, gunfire broke out and the young Hamas activist fell dead, his hands still in his pockets.

The al-Dalos blame a local Fatah family. They deny it. Both have now retreated to armed camps.

“This is blood. We know who did it. He lives 100 yards away,” said Mr al-Dalo’s father, Talal, glowering behind a phalanx of AK47s inside the family’s Gaza City sewing factory. Outside the dead man’s distraught mother wails: “The Jews were better. At least they didn’t shoot us in cold blood.”

As the victim’s father fulminates a far more composed figure begins to speak with the remorseless, unhurried rhetoric of the committed Islamist.

“This is not personal, it is Hamas business,” says Dr Jawad al-Dalo, the ghost of Michael Corleone suddenly entering unbidden from Sicily. “Rami is the son of Hamas and Qassam. He was not killed because he stole or harmed anyone from that family. He was killed because he was one of the most active members of Hamas. That is why we consider this an assault from Fatah. Hamas has taken it on itself to gain revenge by killing his killer."

As with our recently linked Iraq stories of blood feuds between nationalist/Sunni Iraqi insurgents and the Al Qaeda / Zarqawi terror groups, the dynamics of tribal loyalty, mafia-style violent leadership, and blood feuds combine to make cycles of violence almost inevitable. Last comment in the article says it all: “If the Authority doesn’t get its act together then the Jews will be right in what they say about us, that we don’t deserve a state,” sighs Abu Sameh, in Rafah.

After 26 Days Stright of Rain in Seattle, you need a sense of humor to stay sunny about it:

A newcomer arrives in Seattle on a rainy day. He gets up the next day and it's raining. He gets up the next day and it's still raining. Day after day, it's the same. Despair sets in. One afternoon, he goes out to lunch and asks the first person he meets, a young boy, "Hey kid, does it ever stop raining around here?"

The kid says, "How do I know? I'm only 6."

NRO on a possible Shadegg candidacy:

Symbolically, Shadegg has a powerful appeal for Republicans who feel the party has become too comfortable with the perks of power and who hope this leadership race will lead to a renewal of conservative values. He grew up in Arizona, where his father worked as a campaign manager for conservative icon Barry Goldwater. He was elected in the historic 1994 congressional elections that gave Republicans a majority in the House for the first time since 1954. And despite making principled votes against some of the last leadership's legislative priorities — like the budget-busting Medicare prescription drug plan — he has retained enough goodwill in the conference to attain the chairmanship of the House Republican Policy Committee — the fifth-ranking position in the House Leadership.

Shadegg is the Republican's best hope for shedding the skin of earmark-and-pork-barrel politics that have undermined the Republican cause and corrupted Republican leaders. Some Congressional Republicans are calling for all leadership positions to be voted on. That's another good idea. A clean sweep now is better for Republicans than a clean sweep from the voters in November.

Ledeen prints a reminder of Who we are fighting against and what we are fighting for, a letter recounting the bravery of Robert Dean Stethem:

Date: January 8, 2006 4:15:57 PM PST
To: president@whitehouse.gov
Cc: vicepresident@whitehouse.gov
Subject: ROBERT DEAN STETHEM
Mr. President,

I would like to provide you with an explanation as to why Muhammed Ali Hammadi's recent release by Germany, and your Administration's lack of any attempt to prevent it, is so upsetting to our family and to Americans everywhere. I am not writing you out of grief or anger but out of a hope that his example will inspire you to follow act on your own words and the dictates of your conscious in this War on Terror.

Robert Dean Stethem was singled out, beaten beyond recognition and tortured in order to make him scream into a transmitter (so that the tower would send a fuel truck). Not a cry was heard to come from him, despite the brutal beating he endured. Instead he chose to remain silent and endure the beatings because he knew that the only way a rescue attempt could be conducted by U.S. forces was if the aircraft remained on the ground.

After Robert was beaten and tortured and bleeding from puncture wounds all over his body, he was placed next to a 16-year old Australian girl. As bad as Robert was beaten, he had the courage and strength to comfort and console her. He told her that, "She would be okay and that she would get out of here alive." When she tried to return the comfort, he said, "No, I don't think so. I am the only one in my group that is not married and some of the guys have children, too." Some time later, Robert was again taken up to the cockpit and tortured in order to get the fuel. But it didn't work, he would not give in to them.

One of the hijackers, Muhammed Ali Hammadi, was so enraged that he dragged Robert to the door, pulled a trigger and shot Robert in the head. Then he dumped Robert's body onto the tarmac. While Robert was being dragged to the door, he knew that all he had to do in order to live was to cry into that transmitter, but he wouldn't do it. He would not give in to the demands of the terrorists. He would not allow the honor and dignity of America to be intimidated by the fear and pain that Hammadi and terrorists everywhere represent. Robert sacrificed his life in order to protect our liberty and defend our way of life.

You have rightly said, "Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." You have truly said that "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Robert lived by them. Robert also died by them. The motto of the USS SSTETHEM (DDG-63), named in Robert's honor, is "Steadfast and Courageous." I hope that his example, and the example of other heroes like him can inspire you to understand why allowing Germany to release Hammadi was a wrong. Justice was not done, Robert was not honored and Americans are not safer by allowing Hammadi to return to Lebanon and Hezbollah.

You know this, we know this and the American people know this.

The Stethem family

Via NRO a TIME Magazine piece by Joe Klein talks of the bad fruits of exposing intelligence:

"But these concerns pale before the importance of the program. It would have been a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys. There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations.

There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them—but also, on the plus side, hampering their ability to communicate with one another."

Well, it's settled, Kennedy Voted 'Biggest Windbag' at Alito Hearings. But ... Which liberal asked the dumbest question at Tuesday's hearing for Samuel Alito? The Democrat Senators tried but failed to tar Alito with various alleged theories, that Alito, stunningly, would deflect with such ugly rhetorical techniques as facts, citations and data.

"I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly" - Senator Alito, talking about Princeton ... or maybe the Senate?

Sen Leahy can't wait for Sen Biden to shut the h*ll up.

Zarqawi lashes out at Sunnis, accusing the Islamic Party and Sunnis of collaborating with the US and said those who voted in the parliamentary elections were "hypocrites":

"God, curse the leaders of the Islamic Party and those who collaborated with them."

Bremer has a book on his role in Liberating Iraq:

Lopez: What's the biggest myth about your time in Iraq you want to set people straight about in this book?

Bremer: I suppose the myth that we made a mistake “disbanding” the Iraqi army. The facts are these: There was not a single Iraqi army unit intact in the country at Liberation. There was no army to “disband.” It had “self-demobilized,” in the Pentagon’s phrase. Hundreds of thousand of Shia draftees, seeing which way the war was going, had simply gone home. They were not going to come back into a hated army. The army and intelligence services had been vital instruments of Saddam’s brutal regime. He had used the army in a years’ long campaign against the Kurds, killing tens of thousands of them, culminating in the use of chemical weapons against men, women, and children in 1988. The army had brutally suppressed the Shia uprising after the first Gulf war, machine gunning tens of thousands of Shia civilians into mass graves in the south. Together these two groups make up about 80 percent of the population.

So recalling the Iraqi army (which would have meant sending American soldiers into Shia homes, farms, and villages and forcing them back into the army under their Sunni officers) would have had dire political consequences. The Kurds told me clearly that they would not have accepted it, and would have seceded from Iraq. Such a move would probably have ended Shia cooperation with the Coalition and perhaps even led to a Shia uprising, initially against such an Iraqi army, and eventually against the Coalition.

But we knew we had to find a place in Iraqi society for the former army men. So we welcomed them back into the new army, including officers up to the level of colonel. And we started paying the other officers a monthly stipend, which continued right to the end of the occupation.

Speculation here that Democrat Senator Rockefeller Leaked the NSA Story to the New York Times!

Powerline is confused about Brzezinski's equivocation, where he discounts popular fears about Iraq yet insists on an early withdrawal in Iraq.

Powerline puts it: "This means they must acknowledge that the current situation in Iraq is not dire, but rather has improved. At the same time, they must make sure to give the administration no credit for making progress."

Zbigniew Brzezinski's column puts it that staying is not 'winning' and leaving is not 'losing':

"Victory or defeat" is, in fact, a false strategic choice. In using this formulation, the president would have the American people believe that their only options are either "hang in and win" or "quit and lose." But the real, practical choice is this: "persist but not win" or "desist but not lose."

There is an absurdity to leaving a field of battle at the time of an enemy's choosing and calling it 'victory' or even "not lose", but it is fair to consider if that is the best strategic choice now. Is it? First, he has to discount the possibility of 'victory':

"Victory, as defined by the administration and its supporters -- i.e., a stable and secular democracy in a unified Iraqi state, with the insurgency crushed by the American military assisted by a disciplined, U.S.-trained Iraqi national army -- is unlikely. The U.S. force required to achieve it would have to be significantly larger than the present one, and the Iraqi support for a U.S.-led counterinsurgency would have to be more motivated."

Current events certainly disprove several elements of this statement: First, the motivations for a successful counterinsurgency are certainly high among those Iraqis who called on the U.S. to let the Shiite-led Government act tougher on them. Second, while Iraq is by no means stable, it is now the most democratic Government in the region, having been formed on the basis of 11 million votes, and it is forming in all likelihood the kind of coalition Government that Iraq needs at this time. Nor should we consider ourselves defeated merely by religious-oriented and sectarian parties winning elections; so long as Iraq's Constitution and human rights are preserved, and the freedom and democratic trend is positive, then this outcome of the democratic process is normal. By throwing in "secular" and "unified" is highlighting aspects of Iraq's current political configuration - its Federalism and the dominance of SCIRI - that we might not want. I certainly would prefer Talibani or Allawi to a SCIRI Prime Minister, but if we are geniune about democratic principles, we have to acknowledge that it was the choice of the Shiite majority to vote the UIA slate. The question is, what to think of these groups - the kurds and Shiites - that now dominate Iraq. For Brzezinski (hereafter called ZB), it seems, not much:

Moreover, neither the Shiites nor the Kurds are likely to subordinate their specific interests to a unified Iraq with a genuine, single national army. As the haggling over the new government has already shown, the two dominant forces in Iraq -- the religious Shiite alliance and the separatist Kurds -- share a common interest in preventing a restoration of Sunni domination, with each determined to retain a separate military capacity for asserting its own specific interests, largely at the cost of the Sunnis. A truly national army in that context is a delusion.

ZB seems to have missed out on the fact that the national army of Iraq exists now and is stronger than it has ever been. The 'haggling' over the Government has shown that political forces don't give up prerogotives of power, but he fails to mention that all parties - Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites - are talking and are in basic agreement that a Unity Government is needed. All parties will have a share, but the Sunni share is no longer dominant, reflecting the demographics of the election. Another falsehood is centered around differences between sectarian allegiances. Kurds and Shiites have their sectarian and partisan views, but are contributing and support a national security system and national army. This goes back to August 2004 and the Najaf crisis, when SCIRI leaders called on al-Sadr and his "Mahdi Army" to disarm, and declared that there should be no militias. In some cases the militias have evolved or signed up as security forces, but is it a problem, so long as the alegiance of the unit is to Iraq?

The real fault line has been the degree to which ex-Baathists and Sunnis participate in that, and Iraq is better served by avoiding retribution-style politics and working towards unity. ZB implies that there is no such motivation for unity, and that is simply false. He also implies that 'a truly national army' would require all such ethnic groups, which based on historical experience is not actually true.

As for " intensifying Muslim hostility and massive erosion of America's international legitimacy, credibility and moral reputation." One has to answer a few questions: Is Muslim hostility greater now or 18 months ago? Is America gotten more credibility now or 18 months ago? Consider the possibility of the US withdrawing back in 2004 prior to the three successful elections. There would have been a clear-cut victory for terrorists and baathists, who would have carved up their part of Iraq. Iraq well and truly could have fractured into mini-states and the whole project collapsed had we withdrawn then. Further, we had a year of occupation and Muslims calling US an occupier. ... Now, after the elections in Iraq, how well does the 'occupier' lie play? Maybe some Arabs can talk of 'puppet Governments' but the ironic silver-lining in having a far-from-westernized Iraqi Government is the silliness of thinking it is a U.S. puppet. Indeed, the claims (false, as ZB points out) of Iran being the puppetmaster now becomes the Sunni conspiracy-theory du jour.

Now ZB hits his stride ...

An acceptance of the complex post-Hussein Iraqi realities through a relatively prompt military disengagement -- which would include a period of transitional and initially even intensified political strife as the dust settled and as authentic Iraqi majorities fashioned their own political arrangements.

you see, no matter what happens, Iraq will be facing "complex post-Hussein Iraqi realities", as they go throw the growing pains of a new democracy. As for "authentic Iraqi majorities fashioned their own political arrangements." Those 'authentic Iraqi majorities' were elected in elections secured by coalition efforts, who staved off terrorist threats and attacks and put forces at hundreds of polling places to make three elections happen successfully. Now, Iraq is fashioning the key political arrangements for the next four crucial years RIGHT NOW, while U.S. forces and Iraqi forces work together to weed out the terrorists and grind down the insurgency. Since this is happening already, it begs a question as to why is withdrawal necessary for the Iraqi majorities to "fashion their political arrangements"? The answer is: It is not!

In fact the opposite is true. Iraq has thus far evolved democratically only because of coalition support; a fact no different from how our post-World War II domination of Japan and Germany led to their current stable Governments. So, one of the key reasons for the United States to stay at this point, until Iraq is internally secure, is to make sure that ongoing transition to democracy, which has been successful so far, continues to the point at which it is internally stabilized and self-supporting. Then and only then we can 'declare victory' and go home. We are in fact, further along than almost all commentators and pundits think, because the key part to fall in place, the political accomodation of the Sunnis, is as likely to happen now as ever.

But ZB has managed to twist reality around so that dark days turn sunny just by having the U.S. leave the neighborhood. To wit:

In contrast, a military disengagement by the end of 2006, derived from a more realistic definition of an adequate outcome, could ensure that desisting is not tantamount to losing. In an Iraq dominated by the Shiites and the Kurds -- who together account for close to 75 percent of the population -- the two peoples would share a common interest in Iraq's independence as a state.

Wait a second - while we are in Iraq, they don't care about Iraq as a state, but once we leave, they do? What kind of tortured logic is that? In fact, ZB knows that the US is one of the centralizing forces in place, both in terms of how we are supporting the central Government financially and militarily, and how we have jawboned the Kurds and Shiites to give Sunnis more of a place at the table. So his claims are completely upside down!

Then he says:

In addition, it is likely that both Kuwait and the Kurdish regions of Iraq would be amenable to some residual U.S. military presence as a guarantee against a sudden upheaval.

This begs an obvious question of - if they don't all want us to leave, and it's a good thing, then why must we leave? Is this another "Carter doctrine" thing - where we stay as long as we aren't really needed, but if a war heats up, we bug out?

ZB lobs another absurdity:

Once the United States terminated its military occupation, some form of participation by Muslim states in peacekeeping in Iraq would be easier to contrive, and their involvement could also help to cool anti-American passions in the region.

This has been run up the flagpole and each time it was proposed it went nowhere. Two problems: First, Iraq didnt want them for the obvious reason that they don't want neighbors dominating them. Second, Terrorists killed UN workers, Nepalese cooks, Egyptian diplomats, Jordanians, Iranian pilgrims. Would they stop at killing Arab soldiers if it helped their cause? No, and that leaves you to look at the commitment of the countries involved. There was a chance for UN peacekeepers and other kinds of forces to get involved - in 2004. The international community missed their chance to help. Now is the time for Iraq to help themselves, and their 200,000 strong army and security forces plus the 130,000 U.S. forces are the backbone of the needed security forces.

ZB knows the math: We have 130,000 of the best fighters in the world in Iraq and there is no comparable Arab force to keep peace in Iraq.

In any case, as Iraqi politics gradually become more competitive, it is almost certain that the more authentic Iraqi leaders (not handpicked by the United States) -- to legitimate their claim to power -- will begin to demand publicly a firm date for U.S. withdrawal.

This is a gratuitous insult to all the Iraqi leaders of today and an insult of the worst kind towards the U.S. Government. How dare he call Iraq's current leaders not 'authentic'. SCIRI, Dawa, the Kurdish parties, Sunni Accord, Allawi, Jafaari, al-Hakim, Chalabi, Talibani, and all the rest are competitive. ZB conocts nothing better than an excuse for anti-Americans to run with yet another lie about 'handpicked' Governments. Jafaari would not be a U.S. 'handpicked' PM, and SCIRI and Dawa wouldn't even meet with the earliest occupation meetings. But their list did get a near-majority vote!

This too is absurd: "they should be quietly encouraged to do so, because that would increase their popular support while allowing the United States to claim a soberly redefined "Mission Accomplished." Jafaari and other ministers have talked about the possibility of lower U.S. involvement, but only in the context of "standing up Iraqi forces too". For ZB to welcome a bad strategic blunder like a fixed timetable (open invitation to terrorists) and invite Iraqi leaders to join in that blunder is, well, shameful.

Then ZB gets caught up in his own PR:

The requisite first step to that end is for the president to break out of his political cocoon. His policymaking and his speeches are the products of the true believers around him who are largely responsible for the mess in Iraq. They have a special stake in their definition of victory, and they reinforce his convictions instead of refining his judgments. The president badly needs to widen his circle of advisers.

This is quite humorous because ZB himself was invited to the White House, along with such stellar minds as Maddie Albright (who managed to get her own war started by sabre-rattling the Serbian Milosovic back in 1999). Bush did ask a broad group of people advice. If the advice he got was as bad as this, one can understand why he sticks with his own crowd.

ZB and the Democrats are desperate to paint the situation in Iraq as a bleak one, and to further make even possibility of a perception of victory impossible. They have to project the continued occupation as futile, but to prove that, ZB has had to ignore and distort facts, ignore the progress and realities in Iraq, and basically mis-state the current state of Iraqi politics. To support his conclusion, we have to define 'victory' as an impossible goal and declare (wrongly) that it is that impossibility that only leaving can meet.

Why go through all that trouble? If you read between the lines, you realize that ZB is actually predicting a 'tolerable' outcome in Iraq anyway! And that is the key to understanding his line of thinking here. If leaving would not lead to a terrible outcome, then staying would be better, as the main difference is the level of security. The reality of Iraqi politics is already developed past the point that he is calling for in his 'not too bad' exit scenario, and the only possible plus to leaving with respect to Iraqi politics is Sunni motivation (which misunderstand their position, which is solely one of hating to lose power). Whether we are there or not, Sunnis will be disgruntled unless part of the political equation. Thus, one has to conclude that ZB, in his heart of hearts, knows that the 'tolerable' conclusion will occur anyway.

The only element missing in this whole discussion? Terrorism! ZB's whole column missed that word, and he has no answer for reason #2 to stay in Iraq, which is to defeat the Al Qaeda operatives and cells that are there, and kill and capture all we can. If we leave Iraq, we miss that golden opportunity to take out AQ networks, and give AQ a huge propoganda victory. We also possibly leave western Iraq as the next "Afghanistan". That is not tolerable.

ZB wants the US to leave Iraq without being able to declare victory before, sigh, the US can declare victory and then leave Iraq. They seems to fear victory far more than they fear the consequences of retreat, showing again that they learned all the wrong lessons from their favorite war, Vietnam. ZB is guilty of torturing logic in the process.

Smash asks Congressman Bob Filner at an "Out of Iraq" forum: Are you committed to the success of our military in Iraq, or are you resigned to failure? and gets gibberish in reply such as ... "And, you know, if we shouldn't have been in there to begin with, then it should not be incumbent on me to try to define getting out." ... finally ending in ...

"And, we -- we wouldn't even care what happened in Iraq. Like we don't care what's going on in Africa, and we don't care what's going on in Saudi Arabia, we don't care what's going on in all these other nations... "

There you have it, the Democratic Party now stands for not giving a damn what happens in other parts of the world.

Some day in the next 3 years, the United States will have to take out Iran's Nuclear program. Iran knows this and so has scattered their program to a number of different sites. Worse, the clock is ticking and within 5 years Iran may have nukes. So -- why not worry? Why say "Don't Worry about Iran?" For a few simple reasons ...

There's been a lot of brow beating over Iran lately, especially in the neo-con circles. Krauthammer, Ledeen, and others rightfully are pointing out the dangers. And now, The Crisis Has Begun says Kenneth Timmerman breathlessly:

The massive stroke that cut down Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon late Wednesday night not only throws Israeli politics into turmoil. It marks the likely starting point of the coming nuclear showdown that will pit the Jewish state and the Free World against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Later he says:"Unilateral Israeli action, without provocation from Iran, could unleash a diplomatic, economic and military backlash such as the Jewish state had never witnessed since 1948, Mr. Sharon argued." "After meeting with President Bush at his Texas ranch last April, Mr. Sharon made a strategic decision -- against the advice of his own generals and intelligence staff -- to place his bets on U.S.-backed nuclear negotiations with Iran led by the European Union."

Sharon, was of course, correct. It is precisely because such an attack would provoke a huge backlash that would send Israel back many decades, that IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Israel hasnt the military and intelligence capability to take out all of Iran's nuclear program. It's not a single site.

But that is okay. IT WON'T HAVE TO. The United States will see to it. And we will do it before Iran has nuclear weapons capabilities which is 4-7 years away. Israel has and will defer to the US. There is good reason to. Nothing would be worse for Israel than to make a unilateral unprovoked attack on Iran - and have it fail. Even a 'successful' operation would make Israel's current Pariah situation in the Arab world a far far worse chasm of distrust.

But is the US doing enough to stop Iran? The US has been deferring to the EU since 2004 by letting the 'negotiations' track move along and stumble. In turn, the EU deferred to Russia on a proposal to have Russia handle nuclear fuel processing. Bad news? NOT AT ALL. You see, EU depends on the US being the 'bad cop' in international relations, but now suddenly their hand at bringing them to the table has played out; now they are faced with a nutball Iranian govt buying missiles that can reach Europe. And Russia, promising help on Iran's 'civilian nuclear program' offered and got spurned to be the partner to do nuclear reprocessing.

America's patience with our partners have brought them to the point that we were at back in 2004 - recognizing that Iran was too recalcitrant negotiate away from their nuclear desires. Now even Russia has to admit that Iran is stringing everyone along.

But how can that be good news? Here's what everyone misses: Iran's missiles (when they get them) may hit Tel Aviv, but they can reach Moscow, or Berlin, or Rome. THIS MEANS WE NOW HAVE A UNITED FRONT THAT DOES NOT WANT IRAN TO HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND RECOGNIZES THAT IRAN IS TRYING TO DEVELOP THEM. For several years, Russia was denying the obvious and EU wanted to pursue talking. Our patience was necessary anyway in order to avoid a 2-front war while Iraq is ongoing, and while the 'neo-cons' in the US are right to raise alarm bells, they are wrong about the timeline, which can be measured in years not months. IAEA estimates that Iran has another 5 years to be one their way to weapons.

Timmerman notes: "The same day Mr. Larijani made those remarks, the Islamic Republic authorities sent an official letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, announcing their intention to resume enrichment at various nuclear sites across Iran Jan. 9."

Yes, this is even more good news, ironically. Iran could have been more sneaky and subtle, but by being in your face, they are enabling the US to enlist UN support and get IAEA to confirm Iran's intentions. Again, this makes unilateral action by Israel both unwise and unnecessary (at this time). The only country that would veto UN action is China, based on economic ties. But even China is a covetous nuclear power. None of them want a new nuclear power on the block, again, all within missile distance of Tehran. The only power not in striking distance is ironically the United States.

Hence sometime soon, this will get referred to the UN security council via IAEA. Condi Rice said that the U.S. is already lining up the votes to support statements and actions to stop Iran. Don't expect action soon. The way these things work it will be 1-3 years. First, sanctions will be imposed and wont work, and the US will get a figleaf resolution of concerns that get ratcheted up to finally cover the military option.

At some point the resolution will be strong enough that the U.S. will be able to take out the facilities - with international approval. It won't happen this year. Guessing the timetable it would be in 2007 or 2008. Since the facilities are so spread out, you can expect a rather major operation, where dozens of sites get hit. That in turn would require a Gulf-War type air campaign - a single night raid of hundreds of sorties, which in turn means an aircraft carrier or two - and maybe using our Iraq-based air bases (proving the utility of our presence there to force projection). It will be over in 12 hours and Iran's nuclear program will be set back another 10 years ...

Some in the Arab world will be outraged (but Sunni Governments like the Saudis will be quietly pleased), and it may help consolidate Iranian Government at home (then again, it may destabilize the unpopular Government and show how dangerous their actions are). Iran can't and won't use the 'oil weapon' to retaliate since they (a) need the revenues for their state budget and (b) are pumping below their quota anyway and (c) have as their customers China and India. In other words, the U.S. will be covered by the U.N. and by the fact that we live in a global market for oil. Tehran's only response that is effective would be via Iraq - which is why we shouldn't expect action against Iran until Iraq stabilizes and why Tehran has a vested interest in continued instability in Iraq.

Now Iran can avoid that fate by at some point crying "Uncle" and giving up the nuclear ambition. We shall see. The current Iranian regime is highly irrational and has shown signs of being diplomatically clueless, so I anticipate the military option will have to be pulled eventually. But it won't be a crisis, it will be a resolution. One can hope that it sets Iran's nuclear program back far enough so that Iran has the long-awaiting reawakening of Iranian freedom and democracy before the threat arises anew. rinse, recycle, repeat.

So don't worry about Iran. Condi has the portfolio and it will be quite a while before it will need to be handed over to Rummy.

Via FR, report that NBC's Tim Russert boxed liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) into a corner over Schumer's opposition to Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito

"And now we have this from the ABA: 'Samuel A. Alito Jr. (nominated 11/10/05), to be an associate justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Rating: `Well qualified' by unanimous vote of the standing committee' of the ABA. It's the gold standard. He's rated well qualified. Game, set, match."

"Not quite, Tim. Don't push it. Not that fast," Schumer replied. "Let me say this: The bar association is the gold standard for the two things they measure, competence -- in other words, their qualifications -- and their judicial temperament. Judge Alito certainly has a judicial temperament. He went to I think it is Princeton -- Right? -- Yale Law School. Very bright man. That's all the bar association judges. The most important qualification for a judge--and I made this argument in 2001 as well -- and that is their judicial philosophy. ... "The big outstanding question about Judge Alito is the third question. So no one disputes his legal education, the experience he's had. It's been very good. No one disputes that he has judicial temperament. There's a great deal of question on his judicial philosophy. He has said some very, very, very extreme things throughout his career, both when he worked for Ronald Reagan and as a judge."

Well done, Tim Russert, for exposing the Liberal opposition to Alito for exactly what it is: Opposition to Alito solely because he is not a liberal activist Judge. They may huff and puff about 'extremism' but most Americans don't think allowing laws on parental consent on abortion is 'extreme', or giving police some leeway on search-and-seizure,

Russert asked: "But here's the situation, as many people see it. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was put forward by Bill Clinton, she had been general counsel for the ACLU. Steven Breyer has worked for Ted Kennedy, and yet they were overwhelmingly confirmed because they had competence and temperament, as you say.

"And even though they had a more liberal, judicial philosophy than many members of the Senate, it was a Democratic president who had the right to make that nomination. If, in fact, Republicans supported Ginsburg and Breyer, why shouldn't Democrats support Alito, who has been rated well qualified, the gold standard of the ABA, and whose philosophy may be conservative, but is no more conservative than Ginsburg and Breyer were liberal?"

Schumer's reply: "Well, that's the $64,000 question. If Alito is within the judicial mainstream, as everyone conceded that Breyer and Ginsburg were -- most people didn't think Breyer was much of a liberal. They thought he was a moderate. If he is within the mainstream, even if he's a conservative, he will be approved. Some people may vote against him, because they say 'He's not my philosophy,' but there will be no attempt to block him."

Here Schumer is disembling totally. Ruth Bader Ginzburg was and is outside the American mainstream. She was a feminist lawyer for NOW and for the ACLU and her views on many Constitutional issues are opposed by majorities of Americans, and Breyer also was seen and is a Liberal Justice. That was known, Alito has no such extreme views. Schumer has it upside-down. Alito is a well-qualified excellent mainstream Conservative Judge, and the Democratic opposition to him is based on their desire to prefer anyone who is not a conservative.

Schumer's opposition is no surprise, but the leaden-ness and hollowness of his complaints and his rhetoric show his side won't have a leg to stand on here - they have had to take a few minor cases and distort the court records completely out of context to even claim some 'concerns'.

SEN. CORNYN'S RETORT : "Everything we know about Sam Alito is that he is not an ideologue. He’s not a judicial revolutionary. There’ve been 33 years pass since Roe v. Wade decided, notably the Casey decision, which sort of created additional precedent for that decision. But here again, this is a man of integrity as—one thing Chuck left out when he talked about the ABA gold standard in terms of finding him highly qualified, they also look at integrity."

Cornyn points out the key thing that takes wind out of Liberal sails: Alito may be right-of-center, but he's been 13 years as a Federal Judge and he is not an extremist. As Russert put it - Game, Set, Match. Just as the Liberal special-interests failed to stop the well-qualified Roberts, Alito will pass as well.

When presented with a well-qualified and gifted Judge like Alito, who is also a Conservative, the Senate will have Republicans and some of the less partisan Democrats support him, and the bitter partisans like Schumer will vote 'no' anyway, since their real desire is a liberal-lockstep judiciary. Tough, that's what elections are for, and the Democrats' support for judicial activist has and MUST cost them elections, because Judicial tyranny is a serious problem that must be corrected. Bush did us a good service in recorevy from the Miers mistake with Alito; well done. Expect an Alito confirmation vote at the end of the month, passing by 60-70 votes.

Al-Jazeera reports on indications Al Anbar Sunnis are tiring of Al Qaeda:

Iraqi and US forces have been witnessing increasing signs of citizens tipping-off al-Qaida members within Anbar governorate, which used to be al-Qaida's safe heaven for the past 31 months. US troops detained a senior al-Qaida operative in Iraq on December 9 with the help of local citizens in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar, the marines said.

Amir Khalaf Fanus, known locally as The Butcher, was handed in by Iraqi civilians at an Iraqi and US military base in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, a statement said. "He is the highest ranking member of al-Qaida in Iraq member to be turned over by local citizens," the US military said.

It then goes on to speculate pro and con as to whether there is a shift of sentiment in Al Anbar province of Iraq.

British FM Jack Straw met with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad today, members of all Iraqi parties, including Sunnis, and had this to say:

"[The politicians] expressed their determination to see the Iraqi security forces continue to be strengthened to fight... terrorism themselves and to establish this broad-based coalition government of national unity which all Iraqi politicians know in their head, if not in their heart yet, has to be the future for Iraq," he said.

Mr Straw said there had been a "dramatic" increase in the number of Iraqi security forces being trained over recent months. "What is more there is now very great day-to-day, hour-to-hour, co-operation between the coalition commanders and Iraqi commanders in very many of provinces," he said. "The Iraqi politicians I meet are not pressing the coalition for less action against the terrorists and insurgents but for more action and tougher action."

We can be guardedly optimistic here are about three things: 1. The handover of security to Iraqi forces is working as planned.
2. The Iraqi Government will be even more relentless in quashing the insurgency than we are.
3. Most importantly, the new government will be a 'national unity Government', which Iraq needs.

Iraqi leaders are affirming that last point: "Mr Jaafari reaffirmed that the next government would be enlarged to include all the main parties." It was affirmed by President Talibani: "Talabani said Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political groups had agreed in principle on a national unity government that could be formed within a few weeks. Western diplomats in Baghdad have speculated that a government could be in place by the second half of February. "In principle we are agreed to have a national unity government. Everyone is expecting to have it as soon as possible, but you know the devil is in the details," Talabani said."

Checking to see this optimistic assessment was validated by ITM, I find Omar is reporting The sunnis choose Allawi as their leader!

The new bloc was announced today in Baghdad after the largest three blocs of Maram-the Iraqi list, the Accord Front and al-Mutlaq’s Dialogue Front-signed an agreement to form one unified political body. This agreement will grant the new political body a significant political weight with a total of approximately 80 seats in the parliament and with good prospects for reaching something close to 100 seats if a few other smaller lists like Mishaan al-Juboori’s list, the Islamic union of Kurdistan, Turkmen and Christians chose joining it. Of course these numbers are not final until the election commission gives the final count and the international investigation team verifies those results and finishes studying claims of fraud. Anyway, now the equation seems easier to read with only three variables instead of four or five! ... Adnan al-Dulaimi and Salih al-Mutlaq were standing behind Allawi during the press conference which means that the two men have given Allawi the leadership of the new alliance.

The Sunni united bloc of 80 seats, the Kurd united bloc of 55 seats and the UIA bloc of 120 seats are still in the dealmaking stage, but the news on the Sunni front indicates that, fortunately, the Sunnis are settling down to make a unified front, and doing it behind one of the best leaders from the American perspective.

So it is further good news to see more signs that insurgency is fracturing, as NY Times reports Americans exploiting rift in the insurgency between the Sunni baathists and Al Qaeda terrorists:

In interviews, Iraqi insurgents say there is widespread hatred for Al Qaeda among ordinary Iraqis. The insurgents blame Al Qaeda for the bloody car bombs and suicide attacks that have killed thousands of civilians. While Al Qaeda's rank and file includes mostly Iraqis, the leadership is believed to contain many foreigners. "We are Iraqis, and Al Qaeda came from outside our borders," said Abu Omar, the nom de guerre of a member of the Islamic Army in Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad. "They defame the name of the noble resistance inside Iraq."

There has been increased "red-on-red" fighting in Al Anbar. One of my concerns has been the continued recalcitrance of the Sunni leaders to 'come in from the cold'. If however they are choosing Allawi as their leader, perhaps the American proposals to give Allawi the Security file may come to fruition in the unity Government. This would be a vast step forward in allaying Sunni fears of a Shiite-focussed Government. There have been storm clouds, but they are lifting. As they say - Unity is Strength.

Events in the global marketplace are so intertwined that surprising and often counterintuitive results ensue. The lesson of "for want of a nail" and the butterfly effect come to mind. Back in the 1980s, an operator error in a technologically obsolete Soviet nuclear power plant created the one and only fatal nuclear power accident, that sent radiation over Europe. We live with the aftereffects - not medical, for the danger was solely to those in the vicinity of Chernobyl, but political. Chernobyl gave nuclear power a black mark (albeit undeserved, since western civilian nuclear power has always had safeguards and safety track record far superior to the Soviet experience). Chernobyl gave European Green Parties a boost in their quest to oppose nuclear power, and it stunted the growth of nuclear power to such an extent that OECD nations have remained more hooked on fossil fuels than we needed to be.

Now another event, the Ukraine-Russia power dispute, has woken Europe up. Europe is now rethinking nuclear power. Germany's SPD Government, at the behest of anti-nuclear Green Party alliance members, had a plan (foolish and short-sighted) to close down all their nuclear power plants. Germany will now rethink those plans:

Germany will review plans to close nuclear power plants at a national summit after a dispute between Russia and Ukraine cut gas shipments to Europe, Economics Minister Michael Glos said. ``Russian gas supplies were reliable in the past,'' the lawmaker from the Christian Social Union said in a faxed statement. `Yet we need a fundamental rethink how we can exploit energy available in Germany in the longer term.'' Chancellor Angela Merkel had already planned meetings with energy industry chiefs and a summit on energy policy in February or March.

Nuclear power has economic advantages and environmental benefits. High fossil fuel prices, and the desire to cut greenhouse gases makes nuclear the cost-effective, environmentally-friendly, solution. But the Russian gas dispute threw a grenade into the mix - and shakes up the populace in countries that may have been apathetic to it previously. Britain is realizing being hostage to energy imports has both a political as well as economic cost:

A Russian gas supply crisis triggered warnings last night that UK householders will face further significant price increases in 2006. Growing unease over future energy security in Britain also led to calls for a quick decision on a new generation of nuclear power stations. Analysts predict that, as things stand, by 2020 almost 70% of Britain's electricity generation will be reliant on gas imported from countries such as Russia.

Not to be outdone, France will run trains fossil-free and is crowing its nuclear commitments as a commitment to fight against fossil-fuel induced global warming.

I entitled this "The World Goes Nuclear", as the energy complex is driving towards nuclear energy globally, in response to the increasing cost of fossil fuels. This is happening in China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Lithuania, Latvia, India, possibly Australia, and other countries. Finland ended the no-build streak in Europe last year by starting construction of a third-generation pressurized water reactor.

High energy prices is casting a shadow over decisions we need to make soon. We need energy independence and energy security, and we need to face up to the many costs of fossil fuels. This includes the cost of sending money to dictatorships, the impact long-term of global warming, and the cost of energy dependence to our economy. Nuclear power is becoming more popular and People are making the case for nuclear power here. Good, because the case for nuclear power now is a very good one: Operating costs are lowest of any form of power generation, and with natural gas and coal at current prices, no form of electricity generation is cheaper overall than nuclear; US nuclear power has had a 40 year track record of safe operation, including the 3-mile island incident in which there were no fatalities; nuclear power has no greenhouse emissions, and we could meet the "Kyoto targets" and more, reducing CO2 emissions by 50% by replace every coal-based power plant in operation with a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power is a scientific necessity says Sir David King, U.K. government's chief scientific adviser. He's embraced nuclear power for the obvious reason that it is the only economically viable energy solution for CO2 emmission-free electrical generation; in other words, if you want to prevent human-induced global warming, Nuclear Power has to be a part of the solution. Any environmentalist informed of this yet still opposed to nuclear power is not being serious.

America is finally talking about building more nuclear power plants, to augment the 104 that now supply 20% of our electricity. Claims that nuclear power is too unpopular are simply false; Nuclear Power Plant Neighbors Accept Potential for New Reactor Near Them by Margin of 3 to 1. There are plans for perhaps half a dozen nuclear power plants, NuStart consortium is one such planner, many plants expansions being considered, and most will come online between 2010 and 2015. Thanks to the 2005 Energy Bill, roadblocks to building new nuclear power plants were cleared, so the regulation obstacle course is streamlined (somewhat) and the liability insurance (Price-Anderson) guarantee was carried forward. This will mean America will start building new generation and new technology based nuclear power plants.

While I have forecast oil prices declining from current lofty levels, based in part on CERA's estimates of continued oil producing capacity increases, it is clear that two years into an oil price boom we will not see cheap oil again (hope for $30/barrel and be satisfied if we get under $45/barrel). Oil is a seller's market, and some of the sellers are trying to squeeze the customers (they also happen to be my least favorite OPEC members: Iran and Venezuala. Venezuala's Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said fellow OPEC-member nations "have to take every measure to defend the price" of oil at the organization's Jan. 31 meeting in Vienna.) Econbrowser takes on 2006 oil price question and we are left with the knowledge that on supply-demand alone, oil should be lower, so it's the political instability premium that is a key component to current high oil price (curiously benefitting those very sources of instability! Iran!). Also, don't be so sure the economy, which is strong now, won't get the wind knocked out of its sails by high oil prices, which are impacting consumer sentiment; at a time when housing is softening, leading indicators are softening, it is possible we may go from 4% to 2% growth rate in 2006. Econ-browser links to a tradespot bet, that puts the odds of a US or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities at 25% this year. This all adds up to one thing: Our oil dependence is a weakness both politically and economically.

America will have to face the music in both the short term and the long term, in redressing the costs of our dependence on foreign oil: Economic, political, environmental. Our nuclear powe plant additions will help, but what America is doing, though, is not enough. If we were to think this through thoroughly and ask: "How is it possible to reduce CO2 emissions by 60%, end oil imports, and thereby reduce costs of imported energy?" We could have one simple answer - nuclear power. Add 400 nuclear power plants, so nuclear generates 80% instead of 20% of our electricity (not unrealistic, as France gets 77% of their electrical generation from nuclear power), then both coal and natural gas can be reduced in electrical generation. For transportation, the solution in reducing oil use is to replace it with electricity as the source of energy. Replacing our fleet of cars with plug-in hybrids would do it, turning 20 mpg cars into effectively 100mpg cars. To get consumers to accept the switchover would require creating a system where electricity is cheaper than gas, which could be achieved via cost-effective nuclear power and enough gas taxes to keep gas at $3.00/gallon or more; a plug-in hybrid would use electricity instead of gas for short/medium trips. Taken together, this would: End our dependence on foreign oil, by cutting oil use by 2/3rds; reduce our CO2 emissions by almost 2/3rds as well. The end result would be a more economically stable energy complex able to sustain economic growth without economic and political dangers of energy shocks, with the benefits of drastically reducing how much CO2 the put in the air and how many dollars we send to unstable and unfriendly governments. All it takes is building 20 nuclear power plants every year for the next 20 years.

If the world is going nuclear, why aren't we?

BBC reports: "Former Syrian Vice-President Abdul Halim Khaddam wants to oust President Bashar al-Assad through a popular uprising, he told an Arabic newspaper. ... On Thursday, he said Mr Assad should go to prison for complicity in the murder of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri."

Meanwhile, in the most westernized of UAE states, Dubai, The city-state's leader died Wednesday, leaving a legacy of economic growth but political inflexibility.

the real fears of John Murtha are exposed in a Byron York piece:

"Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has come to national prominence since his call for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, said Thursday night that he worries about "a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory.""

Now, why wouldn't A Congressman want it to look like victory? Surely he knows that the difference between (even the perception of) victory or defeat will mean the difference between our enemies scatttered and disoriented and potential enemies emboldened. It's crystal clear that, again, partisanship is trumping patriotism, and the Democrats are rooting for defeat because the blood of Americans in Iraq translates to a bloodied GOP in the fall polls. <

The post-election cycle of Governmental paralysis and jawboning and insurgent violence begins again ... ITM is very frustrated: "Everyone I meet says he feels betrayed by the politicians who keep frustrating us with their incompetence and internal fighting over power." ITM's optimism was always contagious and alas he current pessimism is as well. After 3 successful elections, the result is --- what exactly? Continued violence and a Government yet to take shape, with news daily in Iraq of corruption and possible election fraud. The best news in this mixed bag is the openness and the light of truth on things, unlike so many Arab dictatorships where the dirty laundry is hidden.

But it's far from pretty. An Oil Minister was canned a few weeks back, the parties cannot agree, and it looks that the extent of the agreement will be a Kurd-Shiite axis that will Federalize and dispossess the Sunnis, tinder for more insurgent violence. TIME has an article also disparaging of the political leadership in Iraq:

As before, the terrorists' goal is to violently undo any gains from Iraq's tortured political process. Whether or not they succceed depends on the response from Iraq's elected leaders. After nearly three years of violence, the country desperately needs its politicians to come up with new ideas for dealing with the raging insurgency. Alas, there's litttle room for optimism on that a score. As the race to be Iraq's prime minister rounds the final bend, the leaders are exactly the same group that jockeyed for the post after the first post-Saddam election: the incumbent, Ibrahim al-Jafaari; Iran's preferred candidate, Adil Abdul-Mahdi; current American favorite Iyad Allawi; and, the darkest of dark horses, one-time Pentagon favorite Ahmed Chalabi. ... Nadhmi was gloomy because he knew that all four were lacking in vision and political skills. “None of them is a statesman—a Mandela or a Gandhi,” he told me. “They are all small, ordinary men.”

.... Coming on three years since the fall of Saddam, the country is deeply and violently divided along sectarian lines. This week's bombings are a terrible reminder that without a unifying, healing political figure, Iraq's problems will only deepen, disrupting the stability of the Middle East and complicating any White House plans for military disengagement.

One of my favorite sayings is: "The only crisis is a crisis in leadership." Iraq's problems of violence are rooted in sectarianism and the desire to derail the natural progression of a Government based on non-violent changes in power. Iraqis need a unifying figure to overcome the sectarian tendencies, but no such figure has arrived and unfortunately, the style of Government chosen, parliamentary with a figurehead President, rather than a strong President like the U.S., will leave the country in the hands of the leaders of the winning political parties. Currently, that gives us Ja'faari, the same man who has led Iraq for the past year.

The United States will becoming less and less relevent to political dynamic, as reconstruction aid slows down and as we look to hand off security to Iraqis. One troubling sign is the finger-pointing, with the Iraqi Govt now blaming coalition for looking over the shoulders of the Iraqi ministries (i.e., the interior ministry). Conversely, U.S. Generals have warned and Iraq the Model mentions questions of sectarian divisions in security ministries. The Sunni-based insurgency has now for the past 18 months, since Iraq gained sovereignty and even before, targetted Shiite victims (along with Christians). The U.S. and leaders like Sistani were insistent to avoid responding to the provocation, but alas the UIA itself and its sectarian agenda, its staffing decisions that exclude Sunnis, is a sign that where the UIA to take full control instead of a national unity Government, the insurgency would continue. Sunni extremists would have 'nothing to lose'. Were the US to stand back, at this point, the response might well be the crushing of the revolt by the new Shiite masters, utilizing Shiite militias putting the Sunnis under the heel. That in effect is what some Sunnis claim is happening already, and it is a missed opportunity indeed that a broader Government wasnt able earlier to bring the insurgency to heel, so that consensus Government could be formed.

One may well throw up one's hands at this - the Iraqi people have chosen (and don't believe the fraud allegations amount to much; 65% of Iraq is shiite and the UIA list, the sectarian Shiite list, got under 50%.) The problems was not the voters but who they voted for. Will those leaders be sectarian and corrupt, or will they be patriots? Many of the leaders have been found wanting.

And yet, in Iraq, there is still the stirring of what Iraq needs most of all - Patriotism and democratic idealism - in the students:

At the nearby Mutamizat girls' secondary school, one teacher asks her pupils, "Are we Sunni and Shiite, all different one from the other?" The girls respond "NO!" What do they mean, the teacher asks?

Fatima Ahmed Sabri stands. "We are one country, one people despite all the attempts to separate us. We will be one people with one future," she says. "Christians, Sunnis, Shiites. Democracy will push us to be one and give us a better future."

Nice ideals - if only Iraq's leaders can live up to it.

An answer to "Why?"

Iraq's Crude Oil Exports Fell to 1.39m bpd in 2005. "The fall in exports reflects rising production and logistics problems since the invasion that removed Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, plus sabotage attacks that have relentlessly targeted the oil infrastructure, especially in the north."

Even though others are predicting lower oil prices, Iran is wanting higher oil prices. They are also, coincidently, sabre-rattling over nukes and sending IEDs to Iraq to destabilize the country. All these actions have the indirect benefit to Iran of keeping the oil markets on edge, oil supplies tighter and therefore prices higher, Which they need to fund their Government.

So the vicious cycle plays into the hands of the oil-rich autocrats and despots. Will someone stand up and accuse Iran ... "It's all about the oil"?

THEN: 2003

"After an egregiously long delay, Attorney General John Ashcroft finally did the right thing yesterday when he recused himself from the investigation into who gave the name of a CIA operative to the columnist Robert Novak. Mr. Ashcroft turned the inquiry over to his deputy, who quickly appointed a special counsel." --New York Times editorial, "The Right Thing, At Last," December 31, 2003

NOW: 2005

"A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials. Reporters need to be able to protect these sources, regardless of whether the sources are motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences. This is doubly important with an administration as dedicated as this one is to extreme secrecy." - New York Times editorial, "On the Subject of Leaks," January 4, 2006

Just remember kiddies, there are 'good' leaks and 'bad' leaks. How can you tell a 'good leak'? Well, if it harms a Republican administration, that's a start ...

Power Corrupts.

Risen, the auther who the NYTimes waited a year to get a book out before they would let us all know that - gasp - The Bush Administration had a post 9/11 NSA operation for wiretapping American citizens (who just happen to make international calls to suspected terrorists, but let's not pay any attention to petty details), got on to TODAY show today, and got some blogging attention for it. About your sources, Mr Risen notes that Risen got a previous Bush-bashing hit-piece wrong ... it was about a supposed lack of links between Al Qaeda and Saddam:

"Lest we forget, someone leaked a bogus account of Abu Zubaydah's interrogation to Mr. Risen on June 9, 2003. ... What Risen's sources did not tell him - and we did not learn until more than a year later when the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its report on prewar intelligence - was that Zubaydah "also said, however, that any relationship would be highly compartmented and went on to name al-Qaida members who he thought had good contacts with the Iraqis. For instance, Abu Zubaydah indicated that he had heard that an important al-Qaida associate, Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence."

So, Risen, the author who mis-reported so badly he missed out on the link between Zarqawi and Iraqi intelligence as reported by an Al Qaeda interogatee ... hmmm, I wonder if that 'oh, Saddam and Al Qaeda could never work together' meme has been totally discarded by now or not.

MNF Press releases now include Arabic versions. 'bout time! That's a good channel to the Arab press and Iraqi citizenry. So now, instead of reading the anti-US slant on an operation on Al-Jazeera, they can read in Arabic of operations like: Unmanned UAV takes out IED-placing terrorists, or Iraqi and U.S. Soldiers capture 23 suspected terrorists.

One more thing to give kudos to Roggio about: An update on the security operations in Iraq and projecting into the future. The "River Campaign" was successful; the insurgency's core is now closer to Baghdad (as one can note by reading about where bombings are taking place); smaller operations and raids are in store for 2006; the insurgency is increasingly criminalized.

He quotes a Lt. Col. Dale Alford, battalion commander in the 3rd Battalion: "Tell everyone who will listen that we are winning this thing. I know you have heard this, but it will take time. The Iraqi Army is getting better everyday. Counter-insurgency’s are by definition a long process."

Bill Roggio in NR retorts a distorted Washington Post piece that ran after Christmas and falsely insinuated he was part of a DoD media program. A more detailed response is on ThreatsWatch. Roggio explains what he DID do:

In less than three weeks I organized a trip to Iraq and raised well over $33,000 as well as thousands in equipment and services. I had to be creative and sought out alternative media organizations to provide credentials, as I knew the established media would have little interest in sponsoring me. I took a leave of absence from my job, and traveled to Iraq.

I then did what many reporters in Iraq admitted to me they do not do: Embedded with frontline units to tell the stories of those serving. I saw, and reported great success, in the once-troubled areas of Western Iraq. I suppose that's a threat to the mainstream media — a challenge to their traditional monopoly on war reporting. An upstart blogger and amateur has exceeded his pajama-clad place and done what much of the media in Iraq will not do.

Indeed. We linked to his report of the December December 15th election in Barwana, please read it, it is moving and poignant in the description of an attack that occured after the election. As Bill said: "I wrote what I experienced, both the good and the bad." Few if any U.S. MSM reporters were out there reporting on this important election of 11 million Iraqi voters. The few that did were stuck to a few Baghdad neighborhoods. Roggio did a journalistic service.

Bill notes: "I am a mere blogger, a citizen who is interested in the situation in Iraq and has focused on the subject for well over a year. My analysis and predictions have proved to be accurate over time, and this drew the attention of the Marines, who subsequently invited me to come to Iraq to witness the results of recent operations for myself, to go there for myself and report. And what I am most interested in right now is clearing the good name of my work."

Roggio deserves plaudits for embedding to observe our frontline troops and their efforts in the December elections. And he got some - that report has this comment: " Thank you for your reports from Barwana, and a glimpse into the 3/1. I enjoy reading your honest approach to what is happening on the ground. Proud father of Lima Co. Marine".

Roggio said: "I have been repeatedly asked what would motivate the Washington Post to write such an inaccurate and obviously antagonistic article. I can only speculate on the causes."

My observation of the MSM reaction to bloggers and conservative journalists tells me this: Roggio got the double-whammy of MSM disdain for commited the dual sin of trying to be a journalist without being in the MSM club, and for daring to not be defeatist about our efforts. The Wash Post is not above inaccuracies against a blogger anymore than they will be fair against the Bush white house when distorting stories about wiretapping terror suspects.

One last thing, though. The liberal press is not the only game in town anymore. That's how Roggio could respond and get a a megaphone for it ... and even a comic strip.

In a shot of unintentional humor, a Yahoo message board commentator declares: "Without public schools, this country would be a reck" (sic)

Texas will take up school financing this year, and taxpayers will be told: "We have to raise taxes, we have no choice." And that is precisely the problem with education, the lack of choice that prevents real reform and academic rigor from returning to the halls of schools.

Big choice on education notes the problem of lack of choice in education and points out how many in the education business have their own children avoid public schools:

Currently, 34.3 percent of public school teachers in San Francisco, Oakland and Vallejo send their own children to private schools. The 34.3 percent is more than one-third, and 9.1 percent higher than the 25.2 percent of all families who opt for private schools. In Philadelphia, 43.8 percent of public school teachers, nearly half, opt for private schools. (See Denis P. Doyle, Brian Diepold and David A. DeSchryver, "Where Do Public School Teachers Send Their Kids to School?" http://www. edexcellence. net/ foundation/ publication/ publication. cfm?id=333)

If even the educators in public schools have no faith in their product, why should we? Why are we not admitting that such widespread private school attendence clearly shows the substandard nature of public schools and shows the need for school choice?

Sunni and Kurds near coalition accord:

The largest Sunni Arab political group in Iraq has unexpectedly moved close to agreement with Kurdish leaders on a broad framework for a coalition government. The group, the Iraqi Consensus Front, also said it would abandon claims that elections last month had been rigged, once international election monitors finish their review of the allegations.

The moves on Monday drew a rebuke from other Sunni Arab political leaders. They accused the Sunni Consensus Front of violating an agreement to press ahead with claims of Sunni disenfranchisement in the Dec. 15 vote and to not bargain on its own for a role in the new government.

... A Sunni consensus party official, Ahmad Rushdi, said that meetings in Kurdistan between the party and the Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani yielded "an agreement that the results from the international monitoring committee" - which is examining the Dec. 15 vote - "would be approved."

The Sunni consensus slate won about 40 seats and the Kurdish parties 50 seats (expected results), with the UIA winning about 120 seats, the only other major party is Allawi's Iraqi Nationalist list. If these four parties can forge a Government, it will be indeed a national unity Government.

Hugh Hewitt calls it Mr Patterico's Opus, Patterico calls it the "Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2005". And why not. This is not just an in-depth story, it's a criminal indictment of a year's worth of callous, negligent, offensive and egregious media bias, errors, omissions and other journalistic sins at one of our nation's largest newspapers. Read all about it!

The things you learn on the internet. Did you know that Che Guevara was Chief executioner for the Castro regime, responsible for the murder of thousands? I bet not a single one of those hippy-dippy kids with the Che t-shirts know that, or this:

A Cuban prosecutor of the time who quickly defected in horror and disgust named Jose Vilasuso estimates that Che signed 400 death warrants the first few months of his command in La Cabana. A Basque priest named Iaki de Aspiazu, who was often on hand to perform confessions and last rites, says Che personally ordered 700 executions by firing squad during the period. Cuban journalist Luis Ortega, who knew Che as early as 1954, writes in his book Yo Soy El Che! that Guevara sent 1,897 men to the firing squad.

... Equally important, the massacres cowed and terrorized. Most of them came after public trials. And the executions, right down to the final shattering of the skull with the coup de grace from a massive .45 slug fired at five paces, were public too. Guevara made it a policy for his men to parade the families and friends of the executed before the blood, bone and brain spattered firing squad.

Next time you see a Che t-shirt, ask the wearer if they know the above facts.

This blog originated as "Freedom's Truth", my personal politically-oriented weblog. Starting in July 2004, I focused primarily on Liberating Iraq as the topic, but have brought in other topics from time to time. This limitation has added focus and remade the blog, but it has been constraining at times, as I am interested in more topics.

I'm glad I've had this blog, but in this New Year I had to consider: What would I put into an Iraq-only blog? I found that I need to return to my roots; This blog will focus this year on the ebb and flow of freedom, at home in the US and around the world. It will focus in Iraq and other hotspots / key issues, and will reflect my personal voice and opinion on these matters, coming from one who loves freedom. It's time to update the name to reflect the ongoing focus of this blog, so for this year the name is "Freedom's Truth & Liberating Iraq". Or you can call it one or the other to keep it short and sweet. In the future, I may revert to just "Freedom's Truth".

Sometimes a distant change has an impact. For me, the straw that made me rethink things was the resignation of an oscrue economic minister in Russia. "Democracy in Russia is dead." he declared, in the wake of news of further restrictions on NGOs in Russia. This in the wake of years of tightening of media control.

Freedom has been on the march, but so are the enemies of freedom. An anti-American Castro wannabe called Hugo Chavez is in the process of strangling freedom in Venezuala and is now exporting trouble elsewhere. Putin has revealed his true nature, a man of the KGB who now is strong-arming his way to creating a strong-man state, while Russian democracy withers. In turn, he is helping Iran, and the world's oil producers, including the vilest of Governments, like Iran's, get fatter on petro-dollars.

Yes, Iraq has been center-stage in history for the past few years, but as Iraq's democracy stabilizes (which I believe it will), we will see other looming challenges to freedom take history's center-stage: Iran, and her nuclear ambitions. Latin America's move to the Left. Russia and China as post-Communist states with both democratic and autocratic tendencies and possibilities. Other possibilities are out there. I'd like to talk about this issues as they come up. I'd also like to get into domestic politics and the partisan wrangling over wiretapping, Judges, the economy, and the war on terror.

The broader focus will also give me the opportunity to write even more broadly about some topics that are both very original and quite interesting (at least to me), that fundamentally describe and explain structural underpinnings of economies and society. Sounds high-falutin? Stay tuned, I'll explain later.

A comment on ITM started me going on anti-Americanism:

"I would postulate that America becoming the single most despised country on earth has more to to with the rise of CNN International than any other single factor. People naturally assume that what they are hearing on an "American" news station is a "pro american" view. If CNN International is a "pro American view"...then America is clearly worse than the Soviet Union ever was. The worlds perspective of America is shaped by CNN International, if CNN actually had the stones to broadcast CNN International in the US, it's offices would be burned to the ground by an offended citizenship."

LOL!! That's a good one.

It's an exagerration but raises an interesting point: Where does all the 'Anti-Americanism' come from? It comes from certain elites in certain places first of all and is channeled through the media. Those elites are firstly the left-wing partisans in the US and Europe first and foremost. This anti-Americanism was as strong in the Clinton years, but far more latent, since those elites were much less willing to criticize Clinton than Bush, even though Clinton did far more that those same elites could condemn (more deployments, interventions and acts of 'hyperpower' than even Bush has done). Secondly, note that media organs help foment this, and when they are in the hands of Governments, its at the behest of Government policy. In Russia and China, its an arm of their nationalist policies. In the mid-east, its an adjust of the anti-Israel slant and thus a consequence of being braver than Europe in standing up for Israel.

So simply blaming hatred of America on America is like blaming the victim of a rape - ask who is doing the hating, and why. It just so happens that fomenting anti-Americanism has been in the political interest of many groups in many countries, there is a reason for it, and a very ugly one: Governments and partisans are cultivating xenophobia, envy, and fear as a way of deflecting from their own errors and sins and using America as either a scapegoat or bogeyman.

America can react to that by catering to those who wish us ill by placating their unfounded fears and resentments, or simply ignoring the unreasonable and the irrational.

I am not interested in having the people who have the irrational, crazed mindset of a Bin Laden or a Naom Chomsky liking the US, I am interested in having the believers in freedom and progress liking the US - then we can know we are doing the right thing. The test in Iraq is one example: Salafists, islamofascists and Arab nationalists with parochial vision dont like us; idealists like the ITM brothers and many other normal Iraqis do appreciate our liberation of Iraq from Saddam. So too in many other countries. The advocates of freedom look to America with hope; the enemies of freedom look to America with fear.

There was a reason that America asked the world after 9/11 - are you with us or against us? A simple reason: We would need to do difficult things and needed allies in the fight. Sadly, we found in the 4 plus years later that the number of true through-thick-and-thin friends that we have is rather small, and among the democracies of Europe, practically every left-wing party, and some number of center-and-right parties, have sided with the enemies and not the friends of freedom. Spain is a case in point, where the terrorists *knew* a leftwing victory would make Spain crumble in Iraq and so timed a terrorist attack before an election explicitly to impact that election - at a cost of 200 lives. The terrorism worked, as the polls shifted and the withdrawal happened.

The Global Left has been very opportunistic to take the era of terrorism and make the most of it. First, recycling the same pacifist pablum that they started when they were Soviet front organizations. Second, seeing that the reaction to the terrorist threat creates a wonderful bogeyman. Third, by explictly allying with the Islamofascists and/or engaging engaging in direct anti-Americanism (for the third, see Hugo Chavez). The Left has opened a second front and challenge against America.

TIME magazine has for some years (even decades) become a mouthpiece of politically correct pablum, and in the process has blown it many times when making their call for the "Person of the Year". This year, they did it again. They passed over a passing Pope and the central defining events of 2005 for a rock star and one of the world's richest couple and their philanthropy. Important yes, but not history-shaping.

The people that have impacted history more than any other this year is clear: The Iraqi people. They are at center stage of middle-east and world history.

They earned that through the crucible of ongoing terrorist attacks and insurgent violence, through three elections and the formation of a Constitution and a new Government, the emergence of real democracy and Governmental open-ness in a part of the world that has little of either. There is not a single Arab Muslim country that has the democratic credentials that Iraq has earned in one short year. Not Egypt, which is jailing dissidents. Certainly not the dictatorships of Syria and Libya, or the Kingdoms, albeit with elected assemblies, of Jordan and the Gulf States.

First, in January, the first election was held, and 8 million people cast a vote for Iraq to have a democratic future. The formed Government took a while to get its footing, but by August had drafted a new Constitution, and readied it for voting in October. Since Sunni participation in the January elections was small compared to the Shiite and Kurd turnout, which was very high, the Constitution had a tilt that Sunnis still do not favor. Yet the Iraqis did several things to wide n the process: Adding Sunni representatives, accomodating their demands, and finally as a last-ditch effort, making the Constitution itself easier to amend in the near future.

In October, the vote tally increased again, to almost 10 million, when Iraqis went to the polls to affirm support for the new Constitution. There were fears raised that the Constitution wouldn't pass, but it did, and by an overwhelming majority, over 70% support.

The price in Iraqi lives for this political transformation has been high: 2500 Iraqi military and police have been killed in 2005. We ought not forget, putting the 840 U.S. deaths in Iraq in 2005 in perspective, that Iraq, a country 1/10 our size in population, is suffering four times the casualty rate of our servicemen.

Add to that, the civilian price as well. Civil War has been raised by the media as well, but it has been the actions of Iraqis themselves and many leaders preventing a few extremists from driving the country into chaos. The article itself quotes Iraqis refuting the civil war thesis:

"The Shiites insist on their demands, and the Sunni and the Arab nationalists remain feeling marginalized and isolated or ignored and this and that, so I think there will be big problems and violence will continue" for the next two or three years, said Yunadim Kana, a Christian politician.

"Will there be a civil war? I don't think it will reach that point," he said, adding that no one can be sure. "Every time in Iraq there is A plus B that should equal C, but then something else happens."

Wamid Nadhmi, an Iraqi political analyst, said he was pleased that the nightmare scenario had not dawned. "Now there are indications that the country is being gradually pulled into some sort of a sectarian conflict, because there are reports that some Shia personnel on the one hand and some Sunni personnel on the other are getting killed. But up to now it seems to me that this is the action of small groups," he said. "It is more of an organized mafia rather than mass spontaneous activities."

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the country's leading Shiite cleric, has been a consistent voice to moderate the tensions between Sunnis and Shiites since the U.S.-led invasion. Last month, he endorsed a unity government that would include Sunnis.

Bayati, of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, says such enlightened thinking will keep the lid on. "Political tension by itself cannot lead to civil war," he said. "Sectarianism is the one possible cause. But the position of the leadership has pulled the rug out from under this proposition."

The lesson, then, is that despire the presistence of the insurgency, and despite the provocations of sectarian violence that minions of Zarqawi created, there has been little backlash. The threat of civil war remains a latent one, and democracy and ability to hold protests is leading to other forms of expression and political power-mongering that will deflect from the politics of violence.

The Iraqi people delivered on building a democracy. They persevered in enduring terrorist violence. Yet through it all, they are optimistic about their future. Perhaps the lesson is - yes, Saddam Hussein was really that bad.

Shockingly, while the Iraqi people have stepped up to the plate, western elites and political enemies of Bush and Blair try to sow the seeds of defeat in Iraq to reap political dividends. We've had repeated calls by Democrat defeatists for an unwise timetable for withdrawal. We've had Rep John Murtha call for immediate withdrawal. At the same time, they draw a dark picture of the situation in Iraq, so dark they would have to admit in their scenario that US withdrawal they advocate would have terrible consequences in Iraq.

Those who paint a dour picture in Iraq have one thing right and many things wrong. What they have right is that we are not done yet and Iraq is not (yet) stable nor peaceful. But the dark prism misses much: It misses the Iraqi economy that has been expanding so much that many Kurdish areas are like boom towns. It misses that Iraq is so far from collapse politically; rather, the Big Story of 2005 was the emergence of Iraqi democracy. It misses the fundamental strength of democracy, which is its adaptibility and resiliency. It misses the collapse of the insurgency as a politically viable alternative. Yes, the insurgents can kill tens or hundreds, but the democracy is millions of people and hundreds of active leaders.

As Iraq the Model is reporting, the new Government of Iraq is taking shape as a national unity Government, built on a consensus basis. A snippet:

It also seems that meetings fever has spread to Amman/Jordan; these days there are talk going on there between members of the Accord Front, Iraqi list of Allawi, the Kurdish alliance and the UIA, a report from al-Mada paper said that American diplomacy will be represented in those meetings. The same reports said that it’s been suggested that top government posts should be distributed so that Talabani keeps the presidency, SCIRI’s Abdulmahdi gets the PM post while Tariq al-Hashimi of the Islamic Party gets the chairmanship of the parliament and Allawi gets to manage the security file.

What matters here are not the particular names but the reality that democratic Governments have the vice of caution and confusion, and the virtue of consensus and flexibility. The legacy of 2005 was the actions of the Iraqi people in defying terrorists to go to the polls to give Iraq its democratic future.

There are cautions, needs and challenges for 2006. Now Iraq will be guided by the leaders, and the successes in elections have to be followed by stabilization, which requires a settlement where the Sunni community 'comes in from the cold' and joins the governing consensus. Challenges and internal strife and kill democracies, and it is yet possible Iraq could fall back, but that scenario is neither likely nor necessary nor inevitable. If 2005 was the year for building Iraqi democracy, 2006 will need to be the year for building Iraqi stability, where after 3 years of history, Iraq fades from the front-pages and becomes a more 'normal' country. It is easily possible by simply having the US support the continued stbilization in Iraq by building up Iraqi forces, by making sure the security forces are in competent hands, and by policially widening the participation through having a national unity Government that encompasses the needs of all Iraqi people.

Something has been bothering me about the Intelligent Design and evolution debate recently, and David Warren put his finger on it:

Here is where a little autodidactic training in philosophy has served me better than any kind of scientific tutoring could have done. For I am able to spot the premise upon which the logical argument sits: and therefore grasp the argument’s circularity. Working from the premise that only strictly material causes are admissible in the study of biological effects, the Darwinians then demonstrate that all biological effects can be explained from strictly material causes.

Intelligent Design is not science - the critics are right about that - it is philosophy, an attempt to challenge the materialist philosophic presumptions that underly thinking about science, particularly the theory of evolution.

It's unfortunate therefore that the mass media is taking up the false dichotomy with full gusto and presenting materialist philosophy as "Science". We ought not confuse the theory of evolution itself with materialist philosophy, something the atheists and creationists both are wont to do in their attempts to make this debate an either-or one. That is a false dichotomy: Who's to say that evolution of the universe and of life itself is not part of the "Intelligence Design" of the Creator's Universe? Certainly the Catholic Church has accepted evolution as compatible with Christian thinking.

It's also unfortunate that a judge decided such philosophic questions and points don't belong in a school, because it points to the most important questions we ask. (That being said, it may also be said that Intelligent Design was a Trojan Horse for creationist input, and if it is philosophy, ID belongs somewhere else besides a biology classroom.) At root, the basic questions we ask are about origins, existence, and destiny - our past, present and future. Science itself is not "truth", it a tool and method for finding truth. Undergirding that search for truth are some axioms; those axioms can be Christian or materialist at root, but do not confuse the roots with the branches. Further, don't assume materialist roots are required for scientific branches; the compatibility of science and Christianity is proven by among other things, the fact that many of our great scientists were also good Christians, among them Isaac Newton, Copernicus, etc.

There is more than one answer to such questions of origins, existence and destiny. If we bar not only God but his philosophical kin, we are in danger of closing minds. A better answer to shutting the door to either evolution or responses to it is Choice and Freedom: Freedom to teach more sides to the story; educational choice so such debates are left to the marketplace of ideas and not in the hands of Federal judges. In an era of a science scams and science frauds like the scandal in Korea over stem-cell research, what we are told today may be wrong tomorrow. All the more reason for open-ness in how we teach. Just as the truth will make you free, freedom to explore multiple theories will lead you to truth.