Andrew Hagen

For many years I believed in global warming theory (anthropogenic global warming (AGW)). I had grown skeptical of it recently, however. Average temperatures have not climbed for several years as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have steadily increased. The polar bear population is increasing despite predictions that polar bears would die off.

AGW scientists claim that a catastrophe is imminent, we are not allowed to see their data or methods, we must not question “settled science” or award-winning propaganda films or the fixing of the peer review process, and if we don’t absorb a multi-trillion dollar cost to the world economy very soon, we will be very sorry.

Now, however, with the revelations of Climategate, I now longer believe global warming theory to be accurate. Climategate appears to make Piltdown Man look like a botched game of tiddlywinks. Climate science is an important endeavor, and it’s a shame that it has become associated with fraud. Whatever effect that carbon emission may have on the planet, it does not appear to be particularly worrisome at this time.

Update: A new study finds that Mount Kiliminjaro’s icecap melted due to a natural cycle, not due to anything that mankind has done. NASA is also alleged to be hiding climate data and methods.

The health care crisis in America should be addressed. The plans of Obama and the Democratic Congress do not appear satisfactory. Government’s role in health care should be diminished, not increased.

The ultimate, long-term goal is to make Americans rich enough so that they can afford health care without needing insurance. To be realistic, we will need a practical solution for the here and now. The policies below are intended to reduce the costs of health care and allow Americans to get by with decent health care. An additional goal is to not spend trillions more when health care has already ballooned to 17% of the economy. The less the government spends on health care, the lower the price of health care will become, due to the law of supply and demand.

To propose an alternative:

1. Create a new branch of the US Public Health Service that will employ 10,000 doctors and tens of thousands of other medical personnel. The mission of this new service will be to provide medical care to Americans who cannot afford it. Only US citizens will qualify to receive care from this new service. Very small, affordable fees will be charged. Fees will be waivable for extreme hardship cases. The new service will have numerous clinics across the country. Professions on staff will include MDs, dentists, podiatrists, osteopaths, nutritionists, optometrists, physical rehabilitation specialists, addiction treatment specialists, and psychological counselors. Pediatricians and OB/GYNs will be aggressively recruited. All of the professionals will be encouraged to view the patient in complementary fashion with the other disciplines. This new medical service will have a mission of providing high-quality care. Realistically, however, the best care will likely be available in other clinics and hospitals. Thus, Americans who can afford to, will not use this service. The service will provide critical, stop-gap health care for people. It will not compete with existing health care providers.

Once this service has existed and has been successful in its mission for three full years, the American Indian tribes of the US will be consulted, and the following offer will be made: the Indian Health Service (IHS) would be abolished and all IHS clinics will be henceforth operated by the new health service. If American Indian tribes do not agree, then that step would not take place. The IHS mission is a moral and legal obligation of the US government. It is unfortunate that the IHS has not lived up to its mission. This is largely due to funding problems. With a broader base of political support, the health care that today is given by the IHS would be improved. The existing IHS bureaucracy will be abolished and done away with, as it has been proven to fail in its mission. Nothing of IHS will be folded into the new service except the facilities themselves, and those will be renovated.

2. Add two questions to the Census: First, “Do you have health insurance?” Second, tick boxes for the names of the insurance providers. The 2010 Census must count US citizens and non-US citizens separately. If not, the Census will have to be re-done from scratch.

3. Provide free air tickets to illegal immigrants back to their home countries if they need health care. This will be 100% voluntary. Many countries provide free health care for all of their citizens, and, regardless of whether that public policy is advisable, if the need arises, allowing people to return home for care is the kind and neighborly thing to do.

4. Recognize that the Constitution does not allow federal law to control the pocketbooks of Americans. Americans cannot be required to spend money on anything they do not want to buy, except through government’s taxing power or court orders. It is unconstitutional to require people to purchase health insurance on penalty of criminal punishment. Do not create a “public option” or other trojan horse for single-payer (socialized medicine). The goal is to limit the government’s role.

5. As a condition of becoming a new US citizen, require the individual to have purchased health insurance.

6. Conduct a public relations campaign to encourage people who can afford health insurance to buy it, if they have not done so already. It is their choice, but having health insurance is smart.

7. Make health insurance portable across state lines. Enact a federal law that requires a health insurance company doing business in more than one state to continue coverage of an insured person if they move to another of the company’s states. If Company A’s coverage extends to Iowa and Nebraska, if a covered person moves between those two states, they will keep their coverage.

8. Revise the food pyramid to reflect nutritional science, and not industry prerogatives. Change the school lunch program accordingly.

9. Ban the sales of candy, soda, and other sugary products on public school grounds (K-12). These should be “treats” and not the staple of kids’ diets.

10. Drop all federal subsidies on sugar-based agriculture including sugarcane and sugar beets . While it is sound policy to subsidize food, and sugar is food, at this particular point in our country’s history, we have too much sugar in the national diet, and the imbalance does significant harm to the health of the country. At some point in the future, a sugar subsidy could be restored, but probably not for decades. Explore the possibility of temporarily increasing tariff barriers on sugar imports. Adopt a 5-cent tax per item on any consumer product that contains HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup).

11. Create a research project to investigate human harm done by herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, PVC, other petroleum products, and other artificially-created products. The study should encompass everything from groundwater pollution to the safety of children’s toys. Require that the full results be published within three years. Employ about 20 to 30 scientists with diverging views and allow each of them to publish material as part of the study. Pay each scientist very, very well so that they will not have any financial incentive to do anything except present the unvarnished facts as they see them. In the future, there will be more studies like this. We don’t know the truth, but we will find out.

12. Require country of origin labels for food products. This is the free market at work. Give the information to consumers and let them make their own decisions.

13. Change the tax code to allow any individual to open a Medical Savings Account. Individuals will be able to put pre-tax dollars in their MSA, and spend those dollars on health care tax-free.

14. Stop abuses committed by health insurance companies. Abolish the special legal immunity that only health insurance companies enjoy. Allow policyholders to receive full legal remedies, including contractual, quasi-contractual, and tort damages. Specifically, repeal the “deemer clause” from ERISA, section 514(b)(2)(B), 29 U.S.C. s 1144(b)(2)(B). This will put health insurance companies on the exact same legal footing as all other insurance companies, including car insurance, fire insurance, etc.

15. Investigate the accreditation of American medical schools on antitrust grounds. There is substantial circumstantial evidence that anti-competitive, potentially illegal conduct has taken place. This conduct has limited the number of practicing physicians in the country by reducing the number of medical schools and the number of students that they graduate. As the number of doctors increases, as it should, the price of their services will level off or decline slightly, according to the law of supply and demand.

16. Ban sexual enhancement pharmaceutical ads from television and radio except between the hours of 9:00 pm and 3:00 am. Limit ads for pharmaceutical products that regulate the process of “going” to similar hours. It is clear that everyone in America now knows about the existence of these drugs. These ads have become bothersome to society.

17. To deal with the twin issues of medical mistakes and malpractice litigation, attack the problem at the source. Reduce the incidence of medical mistakes. Direct the US Public Health Service to create a special program to reduce medical mistakes. This will include research and improvement of medical practices. Unfortunately, medical mistakes kill 100,000 Americans per year. Encourage the medical profession to turn in the approximately 3% of doctors, nurses, and other practitioners that are responsible for most of the medical mistakes in this country. Create an 18-month window in which anyone employed in the health care industry will be paid $75,000 for each doctor who is reported and found to be incompetent and de-licensed. As the number of medical mistakes decreases, lawsuits will decrease, and malpractice insurance premiums will decrease.

Unfortunately, medical licensing boards have done a poor job at policing the medical profession. Concurrently, investigate every medical licensing board in the United States for potential corruption. If incompetent doctors are reported but not de-licensed, the boards themselves will be held accountable. Enforce federal criminal law against corrupt licensing board members.

18. Devote at least 33% of all federal medical research dollars to “out-of-the-box” studies. There are far too many federally-funded studies that make trivial findings. One study says coffee slightly hurts heart health. The next study says coffee slightly helps heart health. This is trivia and is unworthy of our hard-earned tax dollars. We want “risky” research with a big payoff, even if the probability of a successful finding of something helpful is low. We want to find cures. In particular, we are interested in the causes and cures of cancers and heart disease. We want dollars invested into researching epidemics. We want to solve big problems and transform our understanding of medicine and medical practice to a new, better level. We want 22nd Century medicine to be a significant improvement from where we are now.

Brent Budowsky provides an analysis. (*)

Realignment is dead. President Barack Obama and Democrats blew it.

Dealignment has arrived. Republicans blew it, and are now so repellent that Americans increasingly reject both political parties.

Budowsky points out that 43% of Americans now identify themselves as independents. His column is a helpful guide to the confusing political landscape in the US at this moment.

That is Budowsky’s analysis. Let’s take another step, beyond where his column goes.

The question becomes: what next? The time is ripe for a new political party to take wing. It happened after the War of 1812, when the Federalists lost legitimacy and eventually were replaced by the Whig Party. It also happened in the years before the Civil War, when the Whigs lost legitimacy and were replaced by the Republican Party.

Due to the winner-take-all political system enshrined in the Constitution, the natural tendency of US politics is for two political parties to form. A “third” party will be relegated to insignificance as the candidate with the most votes wins, even if he is only riding a plurality. Third parties do not take power, but major parties can fall from grace leaving the door open for their replacements.

In light of the current unpopularity of the Democratic and Republican Parties, is there an opportunity of the moment for a new major party to come along and supersede one of the two political parties of today? There might be. Less likely would be that both the GOP and Democratic Party would be replaced by two new major parties. Nevertheless, there is no reason why that couldn’t happen if the trends in poll numbers continue.

Shifts can occur. Replacement does not require that a new major party have the same platforms as the party it replaces.

Politics is politics. Becoming a major political party does require enough popularity in the new party to win a great number of elections.

A party starts out with a unity of purpose. Bringing together people of different outlooks and persuasions takes something that brings them together. A political party starts out with a cause.

The recent death of Ted Kennedy (1932-2009) has people talking about the history of the Kennedy family again.

Gerald Posner fills in some gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the Kennedy tragedies of the 1960s. In particular, the following points are particularly interesting.

• On learning of JFK’s assassination on November 22, 1963, RFK immediately felt guilt because as his brother’s Attorney General, he had been leading the US effort to assassinate Fidel Castro. In fact, on the very day of JFK’s assassination, the CIA gave a “poison pen” to a Cuban agent in Paris who was supposed to use it cause Fidel Castro’s death.
• Posner does not indicate whether RFK felt guilt over his brother’s approval of the coup d’etat against the established government of the Republic of Vietnam (also known as “South Vietnam”), which resulted in the murder of the leader of the country, Ngo Dinh Diem, on November 2, 1963.
• By the spring of 1964, RFK knew as fact that communist agitator Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the assassination of his brother, and that Jack Ruby had acted alone as well.
• RFK actively hid from the Warren Commission all information regarding the Kennedy brothers’ attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. RFK did not tell his younger brother, Ted Kennedy, about that circumstance, either.
• An aide, Frank Mankiewicz, described Ted Kennedy after the assassination of his second brother, “I have never, ever, nor do I expect ever, to see a face more in grief.”

Robert F. Kennedy had been assassinated by Palestinian partisan Sirhan Sirhan, who was upset over RFK’s support for Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Ted Kennedy’s long crusade against the easy availability of firearms is well-known, and well-traced by himself to the loss of his brothers. It is worth noting that his motivation for gun control centered around the immediate circumstances (the opportunity, the means, the method) of his brothers’ deaths. His motivation did not center around the motives for their assassinations. For example, Ted Kennedy did not make it his personal crusade to support Israel, or to oppose communism. It just seems to not have occurred to him. This fits with the observation that Ted Kennedy was a true liberal, that is, he was guided primarily by pragmatism and was not particularly interested in other people’s motivations as a way to understand them or the tides and turns of history.

May Edward M. Kennedy rest in peace.

The following interest groups have secured deals in return for supporting President Obama’s health care plan.

Hospitals will receive an additional $17 billion per year from tapayers for the next 10 years. In return, hospitals will support Obama’s plan. Source: New York Times.

Unions will receive an additional $10 billion from taxpayers. Union health insurance does not have enough money to pay for union members who have retired early, do not qualify for Medicare because they are not old enough for that program, and yet still have high health care expenses especially for the retirees who are over age 55. In return for the federal outlay, unions are strongly supporting Obama’s health care plan. Source: Detroit Free Press.

The pharmaceutical industry has received assurance from President Obama that they will be last in line to face cost reductions, and that drug reimportation will continue to be banned. President Obama promises to not get the best price for pharmaceutical products that the federal government pays for. In return, the pharmaceutical industry has made the following promises:

• The pharmaceutical industry will pay $150 million for advertising to try to rally the public to support Obama’s health care plan. Source: Associated Press
• Pharmaceutical companies have promised to reduce costs by $8 billion per year for the next 10 years, although their promise is not legally binding. It is only moral promise. The moral promise is presented to the public as a “pledge” despite having no collateral or exchange of contractual rights. Source: New York Times.
• It is implied that the pharmaceutical industry will oppose President Obama’s health care proposal in public, but in reality they will not fight it.

Obama’s approach to health care reform cannot become a long-term political success. Obama has targeted health insurance companies as the sole reason for everything going wrong in the health care industry. Plainly, the modus operandi is to deal with health insurers first, and then once that industry is broken, the strategy will shift and the next weakest industry will be attacked. While taking a “divide and conquer” approach may be tempting at times to a democratically-elected leader, that sort of approach is bound to fail because people will quickly see what is going on and resist the division. Even if it successfully results in the implementation of a plan, “divide and conquer” breeds resentment and triggers a political backlash. Practically, even if Obama’s plan would be adopted, the temporary alignment of hospitals, unions, and pharmaceutical companies would soon revert to their normal status, and they would return to competing with one another for scarce resources, reducing the life-span of any political deal. To make lasting change for the better, “divide and conquer” is the wrong strategy.

The spiraling costs of health care in the US demand reform. Attacking one industry while sparing the others is not the most effective way of dealing with the problem. In fact, the general feeling throughout the country is that something must be done. This has become something of a slow-moving crisis. The general feeling opens the door to a general appeal that could lead to negotiations and compromises by all affected health care interest groups, including patients, doctors, medical malpractice attorneys, medical malpractice insurance companies, small business, and all the others.

Democratically-elected officials face a dilemma. The people have certain values, and they also have certain desires. Sometimes the values conflict with the desires. In many cases, it is proper for elected officials to make a judgment call and resolve a conflict between the two.

Yet, what if a decision would be unpopular with a large portion of the voting public? Should the elected official notify the people as to his decision, or should he try to keep the actual decision secret? It must be awfully tempting to keep it secret so the people won’t know that he gratified their desires while breaking with their values, or fulfilled their values at the expense of their desires. That way the people will continue to hold the elected official and his political party in their esteem, and not hold him accountable for the actual decision he made.

It’s the best of both worlds–for one man.

Yet, courage and integrity dictate the proper response: notifying the people as to the elected official’s decision, giving his true reasons for making it, and making a case for why his judgment was proper.

For decades, British Petroleum plc has been one of the largest companies in the world, primarily engaged in the oil and gas business. BP has long been a leading producer of North Sea oil. BP has a long history in Scotland, with operations in Aberdeen going back decades. In recent years, production of North Sea oil has showed many signs that the oil fields there have peaked, and that production will significantly decline in the future.

On December 21, 1988, Pan Am flight 103 took off from Heathrow, bound for New York. The Boeing 747 carried 243 passengers and 16 crew members. Unbeknownst to them, a Libyan, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, had placed a bomb on board the plane. It was Megrahi’s intent that the bomb explode while the airplane was over open water so that no one would learn what caused the disaster. As it flew over Lockerbie, Scotland, the airplane was blown out of the sky by Megrahi’s bomb. All aboard died, and 11 people on the ground were killed by falling debris.

In 1999, Scottish governmental authority was restored. The Scottish Executive became the executive branch governmental authority of Scotland. The restored Scottish parliament met for the first time.

In 2001, Megrahi was convicted of committing the Lockerbie bombing by a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Investigators believe that others in addition to Megrahi bear responsibility for the bombing. No others have yet been convicted of the crime.

In 2007, BP signed a deal to explore Libyan gas fields. Since then, BP’s efforts have been stymied by Libyan bureaucratic obstacles.

In 2007, the Scottish Executive renamed itself “The Scottish Government.” Cabinet Secretary for Justice is an executive branch position therein.

On 24 July 2009, Megrahi made a request to be released on grounds of compassion.

A few days ago Megrahi was released by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill. The justification as stated by MacAskill was that Megrahi suffered from terminal prostate cancer and should be released for humanitarian reasons.

Dr Bassam Fattouh of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies told the Times of London, “Now that al-Megrahi is released, BP expects to get the go-ahead.”

Under pressure, the Scottish Government has refused to release the name of the one doctor on whose medical opinion it relied to determine that Megrahi was dying, or the doctor’s area of specialty.

Megrahi spent about 12 days in custody for each of the 270 lives he murdered.

The conclusion that Megrahi suffered from cancer has come into serious doubt. Megrahi traveled to Libya and partied with the “reformed” Colonel Khaddaffy.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated publicly that he was “angry and repulsed” by the celebratory hero’s welcome given to Megrahi in Libya.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has tacitly confirmed that he was in negotiations with the government of Libya prior to his decision to release Megrahi. MacAskill told the Scottish parliament that the government of Libya broke its “pledge” to give Megrahi a low-key reception. MacAskill did not reveal what, if anything was pledged by him, the Scottish Government, or other entities in return for Libya’s pledge, or what other arrangements were made.

MacAskill is a member of the Scottish National Party.

In a written statement, MacAskill takes responsibility for the release. He denies that there was any basis for the release other than compassion. In a bizarre passage in his statement, however, he states:

This crime precedes both the election of our Government and even the restoration of a Parliament in Scotland.

While that is a true statement, it nevertheless opens the door to a simple question: why would that matter here? Any legitimate government would wish to uphold law and order within its jurisdiction, even if a crime was committed before the current government came into existence. The fact that MacAskill stated such an irrelevancy creates a natural suspicion that he may have been guided by motives other than compassion.

The values of Scotland include justice. Justice requires that Megrahi be punished for his crimes. Justice required Megrahi to be punished by spending the rest of his life in prison, nothing less.

On the other hand, people like to drive automobiles that run on gasoline (petrol), and British politicians wish to help their own private companies make money. It is a conflict of values and desires.

Good elected officials portray their decisions to the public honestly. They do not deceive the public in the hopes that they and their political party will get their cake and eat it too.

Faithful servants of law and order do not release into freedom a mass murderer on grounds of compassion, regardless of what medical diagnosis the mass murderer is supposed to have received.

It is quite clear that the Scottish Government, and perhaps other public authorities in the UK have engaged in a public deception campaign over the disgraceful release of the smiling, laughing, bloodthirsty mass-murderer Megrahi.

Megrahi and Khaddaffy celebrate joyously, and the victims of the Lockerbie attack have no justice.

Update: Khaddaffy’s son confirms that Megrahi was freed as part of a deal for oil.

Update: The Times of London reports that a minister of the UK government, Ivan Lewis, recently sent a letter to The Scottish Government stating that any deal with the US to keep the terrorist mass murderer Megrahi in Scotland was not definitive. This indicates that the UK government was involved in the matter.

Update: Megrahi continues to claim innocence.

Update: There is now further confirmation that the UK government explicitly freed Megrahi for the sake of an oil and gas deal with Libya.

The Constitution empowers Congress to pass certain laws. One of Congress’s enumerated powers is “To regulate Commerce. . . . among the several States.” Article I, Section 8.

Let us imagine the following. The government buys 1% of Americans automobiles for their own personal pleasure. The cost of this is paid for by the rest of us. That is one inch away from ‘Cash for Clunkers.’ We are a long way off the path from the Constitution’s commerce clause.

So let’s have a government program that allows people who purchased gas guzzlers in the past to purchase a new SUV or truck that guzzles slightly less gasoline. Many people use their personal subsidy to trade-up to foreign-made automobiles, which is not helping Government Motors. If their car’s trade-in value was less than $4,500, the government will make the $4,500 up for them by just printing the cash, or borrowing it from the Chinese government and promising that younger generations will pay for it with interest, and giving the cash to the chosen few.

If you purchased a fuel-efficient car in the past, you get nothing, except more taxes, thanks to ‘Cash for Clunkers.’

Within the category of bad economic policies, there is a special, reserved place for subsidies. While even Adam Smith accepted the need for some regulations in some circumstances in The Wealth of Nations, Smith stood flatly against subsidies.

So let’s have a subsidy for a few lucky people that rewards poor choices and destroys perfectly working things for no reason.

‘Cash for Clunkers’ makes the future poor so that a few people can get paid a special bonus.

I don’t blame anyone for taking advantage of the program. If the government were shoveling cash out of a truck on a certain street on a certain day, I would show up to collect what I could along with everyone else. That is all this program does. My criticism is of the policy, not of anyone taking advantage of it.

Has anyone been down to Goodwill to buy up all their “clunkers” to reap their ‘Cash for Clunkers’ value? It has probably happened already.

As economic policy goes, I believe we should erect a memorial in Washington to ‘Cash for Clunkers,’ as a historical lesson for Congresses of the future of what not to do.

I do have a suggestion to improve the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program, however. It would be more efficient to just print out a few million t-shirts that say “Subsidized,” and drop the t-shirts out of airplanes. Then anyone who finds and wears a “Subsidized” t-shirt can go up to anyone else and ask for $100. That $100 must be handed over under penalty of law. They can make this demand to 45 different people. This reform would avoid all those nasty transaction costs. ‘Cash for Clunkers’ nirvana would then be reached.

Paul Krugman stumbled into the health care debate today, stating that opposition to President Obama’s health care plan was based on racism. It’s such a foolish statement, it’s laughable.

Let’s take a step back for a second. According to the US Census Bureau, America’s population now stands at 307 million. How many are uninsured? Let’s say that the estimates of researchers are correct at the high end, and that 50 million Americans do not have any health insurance or health care plan. That means 257 million Americans do have health insurance.

The Democrats’ reform plan has been pitched as a way to bring health insurance to all Americans. Yet, only about 16% of Americans lack health insurance. The reform plan has also been pitched as a major change to American health care. If the plan will only affect 16% of Americans, then it cannot be a major change to American health care. Surely it must do something major if it is to be a major change. Yet, there is apparently no benefit that this health care reform will bring for people who already have health insurance. If you already have health insurance, you might believe you will have something to lose and nothing to gain from the proposed reform, as Peggy Noonan suggested. In fact, 68% of all Americans say the health insurance they have is good or excellent.

Yet, no one is truly happy with our current health care system. Everyone would like to have a guarantee of perfect health at no expense to oneself, but there are no guarantees in life. It seems quite ridiculous for us to make debt-slaves out of generations of Americans for the sake of a mirage of guaranteed good health.

The Democrats have a point in casting blame on health insurance companies. Costs have risen, and stories abound that indicate health carriers have improperly denied claims—even while sending executives on vacation junkets to tropical islands. The solution, however, would be to improve regulation of health insurance companies, not replacement of them. The easiest way would be to allow private lawsuits for damages to be commenced against one’s own health insurer in cases of breach of contract or bad faith, as a policyholder can do against any other kind of insurance company. This simple change would let private parties sort out their own business with each other without bureaucratic entanglement. In consequence a few health insurance companies would have to go out of business due to their no-doubt horrific abuses being made public, and the rest would indeed have to do business a little differently. Then we would all sadly learn that there is just not enough money in the world to make everyone as healthy as we would like.

Health care costs have risen much too fast. The situation is unacceptable. The health care system should be reformed or we will all go bankrupt and have nothing but bread, water, and bandages.

We should all spend more of our time and money making ourselves healthy in the first place. Thusly we would avoid a number of afflictions, and have more money socked away for that dire day when we need to be healed by highly-paid professionals.

Whatever we do, we should find the smallest change possible in our health care system that could make a positive difference, and then do that. If that proves insufficent, we would then make the next smallest possible change. And so on. We should not leap blindly into the unknown and enact a huge change just for the sake of change.

Criticism of the President and his plans are possible without the criticism being motivated by race. I would think that would be obvious by now.

Paul Krugman (linked above):

There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.

Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing.

Note how casually Krugman conflates “socialized or government-run health care” with “a government program” and Medicare. It would be news to Americans if they learned that Medicare is socialism. Medicare is a mere government program. It does not “run health care.” Medicare does not deliver health care. That is done by doctors and medical staff. Medicare does not tell doctors how to treat patients. Medicare, at least supposedly, is a program that one pays into while working, and receives as a benefit while retired. The idea behind Medicare is that retirees do not have an income, other than Social Security and whatever they saved, and thus cannot pay their own health expenses very easily. Aging people naturally have more health expenses, and private health insurance would charge terribly high premiums to seniors if not for Medicare. The idea of extending Medicare to people who are of working age, however, would be a new idea.

It is not inconsistent to be against socialism and for Medicare. This is not news to America, but it is news to Paul Krugman.

It is a sad sight, but all too many Nobel prize winners decline in their abilities after winning the prize. It is as if it goes to their heads. As for Krugman, his New York Times column has been so disappointing even years before his Nobel prize, largely because in his column he shows himself to be just a simple party man, willing to say anything for his political party and anything against the other.

After a Harvard professor was arrested for disorderly conduct, a national conversation on race and civil rights has brewed.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is a Harvard University professor famous among academics. He happens to be African-American. Last week he returned to his Cambridge, Massachusetts home from a trip to China. He couldn’t open the front door to his house, as it had jammed or was broken. He and his chaffeur tried to force the front door open. The police received a call that two men were trying to wedge open a door. The call was made by a woman who apparently is Skip Gates’s neighbor.

The police responded, thinking it could be a break-in attempt. A police officer who happened to be white arrived. He spoke to the caller. She said the men were African-American and wore backpacks. The officer then saw an African-American man who later turned out to be Gates, and who is still just 58, through the glass-paned front door. The officer asked Gates if he could step outside and have a word with him.

At that point, according to the police report, Gates began issuing a series of statements such as demanding to know who the officer was, telling the officer that he had “no idea who he was messing with,'’ accusing the officer of being racist, and eventually “Ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside.” When Gates finally came outside, he began to repeatedly yell out the phrase, “This is what happens to black men in America!” A crowd gathered and was taken aback. The officer believed a tumult, a commotion, had been created. The officer arrested Gates for disorderly conduct. It became a national news story. Subsequently, the prosecutor dropped the charge.

In a coincidence, it turns out that the arresting officer, James Crowley, is the same police officer/EMT who heroically, desperately tried to resuscitate Boston Celtics’ star Reggie Lewis back in 1993 when the basketball player tragically collapsed and later died due to a heart condition.

Yesterday, in President Barack Obama’s prime-time, nationally-televised news conference, he stated:

Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.

We should all learn a lesson from that. We should offer opinions based on the facts. But was Barack Obama’s opinion correct? Were the police in the wrong? A couple of points.

• Henry Louis Gates, Jr. has made public statements on this matter. See below.
• Gates was mentored by Wole Soyinka, a Nobel Prize winner. It is very possible that Gates himself someday could become a Nobel Prize candidate himself for his writings.
• In America, if anyone tries to wedge open the front door of their own home with their shoulder, especially when carrying a backpack, it is not at all unthinkable or uncommon that the local gendarmes will show up, asking questions, trying to determine if there is a crime in progress. This applies to a white American, and to any American.
• If you go on a trip, it is helpful if neighbors call the police should they see someone they don’t know trying to break into your home. That can help protect you from a house robbery. That is part of being a good neighbor.
• Generally, in America, people can recognize their neighbors by sight. It is strange that the neighbor here did not recognize Gates. Perhaps he or she had just moved to the neighborhood.
• It would really be too bad if a Harvard professor attempted to intimidate a police officer by saying, in effect, “Do you know who I am? I am a Harvard professor, and you better not do anything to me or I will do something very bad and vaguely extralegal to you using my super-powerful connections and influence.” America is a democracy under the rule of law. There is no one better here than anyone else, and any suggestion otherwise is condescending and ugly. Intimidation based on social status is a dirty trick that anyone should rightly scorn.
• Police officers do not have the ability to automatically recognize everyone they encounter by sight, or to automatically know where they live.
• Fame in the academic world does not at all translate to fame in the everyday world. Gates can go to the grocery store without getting swarmed by people. A celebrity cannot. A typical police officer would recognize Denzel Washington, for example, by sight, but would not recognize Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
• It is rare that a 58-year-old man commits a burglary, but it probably happens from time to time. A police officer, however, has to verify the facts that he observes, rather than just acting on appearances.
• Disorderly conduct is a crime that is not precisely defined. On the one hand, people have the freedom of speech. On the other hand, the reason that “disorderly conduct” is against the law is to protect the peace of communities. Without the law, people would have to enforce the peace themselves without the benefit of police intervention.
• As a general rule of thumb, people should respect police officers. If a police officer asks you a question in a polite manner, you ought to respond in a polite manner. If people stop being polite to police officers, the civility of our society will have run aground.
• If Gates had assumed that the police officer was there to protect his home, and responded politely to the officer, the situation would have been defused without him being arrested.
• Being arrested does not mean you are guilty of a crime. It only means that the police have probable cause to believe that you are guilty. We Americans should not stigmatize people just for being arrested. The law of the land is: “innocent until proven guilty” in a court of law.
• People who wish to be treated with distinction should treat others, including police officers, with distinction. Respect is a two-way street.
• If you believe the police are harassing you, it is a more effective tactic to not resist arrest or cause a ruckus, and then gather the evidence, and release your evidence to the public. Simply shouting to a crowd, “This is what happens to black men in America,” is not going to persuade anyone to change their views on any topic.
• In the news conference, Obama made a tactical mistake when he diverged from talking about health care, and made a comment about race and civil rights. It’s a distraction that will only reduce his effectiveness.
• The President’s statement that anyone would be angry in that situation is wrong. People understand that the police need to do their jobs. People are and should be happy that the police show up in such situations. If there is a real burglary, the police could stop it in progress, protecting property.
• If you are a professor at an elite university, you should conduct yourself in an exemplary fashion that everyone else could look up to and emulate.
• Black people are victimized by crime more often than people of other races, and so if there is any direction the police should take, it is to work harder to protect black people from crime. The police should not be distracted from this important mission by false charges of racism.
• Accusing someone of racism is very easy to do, and impossible for the other side to live down, or prove false. People should be “innocent until proven guilty” of racism.
• I fail to see how a Harvard professor with all of the accolades and fame of Gates could possibly become a victim of racism in this situation. He seemed to imply as much when he told the cop, “You don’t know who you’re messing with.” As such, Gates should take measure of who truly had power in that situation. Especially when one considers that he is friends with the President of the United States, Gates never had anything to fear from the local police. Accusing them of racism, and thereby implying that the police officers held some overweening power over him, was simply wrong.

Based on what evidence I have seen, I don’t see how this case could be an example of racial profiling. Additionally, Obama has no support for stating that the police officers acted “stupidly.” It was more like good police work combined with an ill-mannered Harvard professor.

Update: The police officer who Gates accused of racism and Obama accused of acting stupidly has taught the racial profiling course at Lowell Police Academy for the last five years. He was “hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black,” according to the AP.

Update 2: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “[i]n 2006. . . per every 1,000 persons in that racial group, 32 blacks, 23 whites and 18 persons of other races sustained a violent crime. . . . Property crimes were experienced by 186 of 1,000 black households and 157 of 1,000 white households. . . . Burglaries were experienced by 42 of 1,000 black households and 29 of 1,000 white households. . . .” BJS. Black people have more to fear from crime than white people, and therefore need police protection more.

Update 3: Gates describes the event in an interview as follows:

All of a sudden, there was a policeman on my porch. And I thought, ‘This is strange.’ So I went over to the front porch still holding the phone, and I said ‘Officer, can I help you?’ And he said, ‘Would you step outside onto the porch.’ And the way he said it, I knew he wasn’t canvassing for the police benevolent association. All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.’

My lawyers later told me that that was a good move and had I walked out onto the porch he could have arrested me for breaking and entering. He said ‘I’m here to investigate a 911 call for breaking and entering into this house.’ And I said ‘That’s ridiculous because this happens to be my house. And I’m a Harvard professor.’ He says ‘Can you prove that you’re a Harvard professor?’ I said yes, I turned and closed the front door to the kitchen where I’d left my wallet, and I got out my Harvard ID and my Massachusetts driver’s license which includes my address and I handed them to him. And he’s sitting there looking at them.

Now it’s clear that he had a narrative in his head: A black man was inside someone’s house, probably a white person’s house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me.

So he’s looking at my ID, he asked me another question, which I refused to answer. And I said I want your name and your badge number because I want to file a complaint because of the way he had treated me at the front door. He didn’t say, ‘Excuse me, sir, is there a disturbance here, is this your house?’—he demanded that I step out on the porch, and I don’t think he would have done that if I was a white person.

But at that point, I realized that I was in danger. And so I said to him that I want your name, and I want your badge number and I said it repeatedly.

TR: How did this escalate? What are the laws in Cambridge that govern this kind of interaction? Did you ever think you were in the wrong?

HLG: The police report says I was engaged in loud and tumultuous behavior. That’s a joke. Because I have a severe bronchial infection which I contracted in China and for which I was treated and have a doctor’s report from the Peninsula hotel in Beijing. So I couldn’t have yelled. I can’t yell even today, I’m not fully cured.

It escalated as follows: I kept saying to him, ‘What is your name, and what is your badge number?’ and he refused to respond. I asked him three times, and he refused to respond. And then I said, ‘You’re not responding because I’m a black man, and you’re a white officer.’ That’s what I said. He didn’t say anything. He turned his back to me and turned back to the porch. And I followed him. I kept saying, “I want your name, and I want your badge number.”

It looked like an ocean of police had gathered on my front porch. There were probably half a dozen police officers at this point. The mistake I made was I stepped onto the front porch and asked one of his colleagues for his name and badge number. And when I did, the same officer said, ‘Thank you for accommodating our request. You are under arrest.’

The police could not have arrested Gates for breaking and entering because they did not have probable cause to suspect him of that crime. According to the above account, Gates left the house, following the police officers, because he wanted their name and badge number. Gates makes no mention of yelling out to a crowd. The police report states he yelled out a number of times, creating a commotion.

Gates states he was arrested because he was black. The police say he was arrested for disorderly conduct. They provide details as to what that entailed. Gates states the police report is “pure fiction. . . pure fabrication.” Interview posted at the Daily Beast. This is a factual dispute.

Gates says: “If I had been white this incident never would have happened. He would have asked at the door, “Excuse me, are you okay?”

The skin color was not the issue. The police officer was going off a report of a burglary. When the officer sees someone who might be innocent, or might be a burglar, he does not say, “Are you okay?” He determines which one the person is. In this case, the officer politely asked the person (Gates) to identify himself. That is not racist. It’s just good, respectful police work.

Gates throws accusations of racism around rather casually. It means very little to him personally. For the police officer in question, however, his career and reputation are now at stake because a Harvard professor with White House connections has made such grave charges.

Update 4: The witness was not a neighbor. There had been three home invasions in Cambridge, Massachusetts the week before. Washington Informer.

Update 5: An anonymous writer at Salon.com says:

Skip Gates . . . isn’t outraged because he feels he was the victim of racial profiling by the police. . . . He’s outraged because he was the victim of class profiling. He didn’t resent being identified as black; he resented being identified as that kind of black, the kind of black that can be hassled and pushed around by simpleton cops. How dare you hassle me? I’m Skip Gates: Harvard professor! . . . .

But I’m also sure the good doctor was talking some shit. The Ivy League Effect, when it’s potent, wouldn’t allow otherwise. It made Gates forget that, no matter what, even when you’re right, you don’t talk shit to the police. And that’s not a matter of manhood or pride; it’s a question of survival. Why? Because you’re black before you’re a Harvard professor. Because, in an extreme case, you can’t tell your side of the story if you get shot reaching for your ID.

White people do not “talk shit” to police and walk away free anymore than do black people. Oftentimes that kind of thing is going to result in an arrest and charge for disorderly conduct. It doesn’t matter what race the person is. Furthermore, police officers do not shoot people for “talking shit.” That point of the anonymous writer is pure hyperbole. Treating police officers respectfully is the right thing to do.

Update 6: Obama quotation expanded to include full context.

Update 7: While the conservative Mark Steyn takes the side one would expect him to take, he remembers that Henry Louis Gates was called as a witness in 2 Live Crew’s obscenity trial in Florida back in 1990. Acccording to the New York Times, Gates was to testify that based on their album, As Nasty as They Wanna Be (no link, but if you aren’t familiar with it, you would not want to browse to the Wikipedia article about it while at work), the songwriters of 2 Live Crew were not producing anything obscene, but in fact were “literary geniuses.” Personally, I find it hard to understand how Gates could consider the song “Me So Horny” to be an example of literary genius, and “Could you please step outside?” to be an example of racism.

Update 8: The witness who placed the 911 call denies, according to the Boston Globe, that she spoke of what race the people were. The police report states that she told the officer of their race when he arrived on scene. Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas implies that that portion of the police report may be inaccurate due to the report being a “summary.” The witness states that she placed the 911 call due to a rash of break-ins in the area.

It is worth noting that perhaps Gates himself was the victim of a real attempted break-in while he was traveling abroad. If such an event occurred, that could explain why the front door to his house was jammed.

The reference to the witness’s race in this post was removed.

Update 9: The 911 tape is released. On it, the witness says she is not sure, but she thinks one of the people is Hispanic. Of course, that turned out to be untrue. In fact, the police oftentimes have only sketchy facts to go on.

It seems indisputable to me that regardless of how she described the people’s race, the police were going to send officers by to check on the house in case there was a break-in in progress.

The witness should be commended for calling the police to report suspicious activity. Gates ought to personally thank her for acting to protect his property, even though it turned out that what she saw was not an actual crime. She did the right thing.

It appears that the witness misremembered what she had said to 911. She did mention race, and said she wasn’t sure about it. The 911 call took place on July 16, and her statement to the media through her lawyer took place over a week after that.

A call to 911 can be a stressful experience, especially if one believes there is a real emergency or crime. It may be that her ability to recall what she said was reduced by the stressfulness of the experience. Years ago, I reported a car fire to 911, and afterward I couldn’t quite remember what I had told them. Fortunately, the fire department soon arrived and put out the fire.

Update 10: Andrew Breitbart takes up the next position along with me: we need to stop the rush to judgment about racism. If someone is accused of racism, they should be presumed “not guilty” of it until proven that it is racism. Importantly, racism in and of itself is not even a crime, but the mere accusation of it in recent years has led to witch hunts of epic, tragic proportions. It is now time for anyone making an accusation of racism to prove their case.

This should apply to accusations about Sgt. James Crowley, the officer who arrested Henry Louis Gates for disorderly conduct, and also to accusations about Al Sharpton, for example, who is often accused by conservatives of reverse racism without them laying out the evidence for their accusation.

Let’s presume that people are generally acting decently. That way more people will.

Update 11: On July 21, the City of Cambridge and the Cambridge Police Department made a joint press release. In it, they state that they recommended to the prosecutor that the charge against Gates (disorderly conduct) be dropped. Above, I had suggested that the prosecutor had dropped the charge perhaps against the wishes of the police department. The July 21 press release undermines that notion.

Update 12: Wrapping up, various audio tapes of the incident were released. I don’t think any of them provide conclusive evidence for one side or another. Obama, the police officer, and Gates had a beer in the White House and discussed the matter. No one has apologized for or retracted any of their statements.

Bob Herbert tried to justify Gates’s actions by referencing a few other incidents around Harvard. He fails to understand that police officers do not stop black people because they are black. They stop an individual person if that person fits a description of a suspect.

Years ago, the Supreme Court decided that police officers have the power to stop people based on “reasonable suspicion.” As a result, police officers typically stop and temporarily detain anyone they reasonably suspect of an offense. Sometimes this results in more information which results in an arrest. Sometimes it does not result in an arrest. Simply being stopped by the police is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, being arrested should not bring shame either, since everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and an arrest is not proof of anything.

If a police officer does stop someone simply because the person is black, or if arrest rates of races are dramatically different than rates of criminal offenses committed by races, then that would certainly be concerning. Racial profiling is anathema to the values of our country.

The “teachable moment” is this. If a police officer asks you a question or even detains you (ordering you to stop), do not assume the police officer is there to harass you. Assume that someone who looks like you was reported to have committed a crime. Assume that perhaps someone misinterpreted your actions, or you bear a resemblance to the actual suspect who the police are seeking. Assume the police are doing their job properly unless you have some evidence in that situation that they are doing it improperly. Befriend police officers. They play a very important role in keeping society peaceful and free.

If more people cooperated with the police, there would be less crime, and fewer stops of innocent people. If Gates had cooperated with the police and not created a commotion, the officers would have been able to spend their time looking for actually dangerous lawbreakers, and less time dealing with a merely quarrelsome Harvard professor, and the media uproar.

Congress and the White House have refused to deal with each other in passing an update to US foreign surveillance law. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and George W. Bush might hate each other, but right now, for the good of the country, they need to put down their pop guns and work together on a key bill that transcends political differences.

The newly drafted bill under consideration in Congress allows the US to listen in on foreign terrorist conversations. Advances in technology including computers and cell phones means that the prior legislation, enacted decades ago, is out-of-date. The proposed legislation enacts many powerful new protections against governmental abuse to benefit the privacy of US citizens, including those abroad. Congress will be kept regularly and fully informed through the Intelligence Committee. Separate bills have passed the House and Senate. Yet, there is no bill on the President’s desk to sign. As a result, the temporary legislation that preceded these bills has now expired. Harry Reid, George W. Bush, and above all, Nancy Pelosi have failed. Now our ability to stop terrorist activity lies in shambles. Harry Reid, George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi have been selfish in aggrandizing their own political positions no matter what the cost. Apparently they think that risking another 9/11 is worth it if they can whip up their political bases for the November elections. Sickening.

We are presently engaged in a dire struggle to stop suicide bombs and terrorist attacks. A few hours ago, we let our guard down for no reason. We cannot let the violence of Iraq, reduced as it is since the surge, spread to the US.

The claimed sticking point is whether telecommunications companies should have protection from lawsuits for helping the government listen in on terrorists in the days after 9/11. They should have that immunity. Yet, some have suggested that business and government must not cooperate or we risk fascism. A little history suffices to remedy any misconception. Business and government cooperated extensively in World War II. Without that, the US would not have achieved victory over fascism. In prior years, FDR attempted to spark extensive business-government cooperation in the New Deal, but FDR is not considered a fascist. Business and government often cooperate. Cooperation is not ipso facto tyrannical. The desire for freedom concerns itself with abuses of power. We have First Amendment freedoms in America today and free elections coming up that undermine any claim that our government is fascist.

There is no record of any serious abuse of power in terrorist surveillance in the days after 9/11. US agencies were not exploiting the new cooperation with telecoms after 9/11 to dig up dirt on Americans by listening to their phone calls, like East Germany would have done. There is every indication that our intelligence services acted in good faith at that time. There is no evidence that any telecom company betrayed its customers. In the days after 9/11 we were all worried about more attacks that would kill thousands at a time. There is no evidence that any American’s privacy was invaded by foreign surveillance. If that did happen, it would have been a regrettable mistake, yet forgivable in the immediate days following 9/11. The telecoms were trying to do the right thing for the good of our country.

Benjamin Franklin wisely said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” A temporary and minor reduction in privacy was justified by a threat that became real on 9/11. Now we have new legislation to permanently protect our privacy and liberties and provide a cornerstone for our future security. We need not punish telecoms who acted in good faith in the meantime. We deserve both liberty and security.

To forestall continued squabbling, might I suggest a compromise bill? Make the telecoms liable during that period if they did not act in good faith. If they did act in good faith, grant them amnesty. This compromise is a last resort.

Contrary to what conservatives are saying, trial lawyers are not fighting FISA. Maybe civil rights lawyers like the ACLU are currently in the dark and are fighting the update to FISA for no good reason. Trial lawyers are not against this change, even though it grants limited immunity to an industry. In this case, the protections afforded to our lives, liberty, and privacy justify the result.

Give the telecoms amnesty as per the Senate bill. Pass the legislation. Stop playing chicken with American security.

Step back for a second. Is fighting terrorism a war? If not, fighting terrorism is a law enforcement action. Regardless of one’s opinion, it is plain that we cannot stop terrorism unless we give the right tools to either law enforcement or the military–take your pick. One necessary tool against foreign terrorists is foreign surveillance. Congress has put together an adequate bill. Now it is time to make it law.

Terrorists attacked a political rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Their target was apparently Benazir Bhutto, who died of wounds from the explosion and, reportedly, two subsequent gunshots. (*) Fifteen died in what was likely a suicide bomb.

Earlier in the day, Nawaz al Sharif, Bhutto’s recent running mate, was nearly shot. (*)

Bhutto (1953-2007) stood for women’s rights, modernity compatible with religion, and democracy. While prime minister of Pakistan, the Taliban took root in Afghanistan. Later, in a speech to the Pakistani parliament in 1998, Bhutto spoke in favor of cutting ties with the Taliban. (*)

Subsequently in 1998, with a cloud of corruption charges hanging over her, she went into exile in Dubai. She said the charges were politically motivated. In 2007, she returned to Pakistan in part thanks to the United States working with the Pakistani government. Bhutto was granted amnesty. In an election, Bhutto’s side did very well. Pakistan’s leader, General Musharraf announced a state of emergency. Bhutto had stated many times that Musharraf’s cabinet and government is rife with Al Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers. (*) In 2004, for example, she stated that prior to 9/11 Musharraf’s government was the biggest supporter of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The New York Daily News reported on December 26, 2007: (*)

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto yesterday accused President Pervez Musharraf of failing to stop the spread of Islamic militants and promised to crack down on the groups if she wins next month’s parliamentary election.

She did not give specifics.

As it turns out, maybe Musharraf was right to call for the state of emergency. Maybe he should have tightened it.

Since 9/11, Musharraf has worked with the international community to fight the war on terrorism. Key Al Qaeda suspects like Khalid Sheik Muhammed were arrested on Pakistani soil.

I do not share Bhutto’s deep skepticism of Musharraf’s commitment to the war on terrorism. I feel Musharraf has turned against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Bhutto’s father was assassinated by a military dictator and I believe feelings lingered in Bhutto against Musharraf, who at the least resembles a military dictator. I believe we should work with Musharraf and encourage Bhutto’s followers to support the current government.

The highest priority for Pakistan should be resistance to extremism. Once that is established, other goals can gain priority.

Pakistan is an unstable country. It might be prudent for NATO to offer the Pakistani government a part of an island for lease for the purpose of safe storage of weapons of mass destruction. As part of this deal, a nuclear guarantee could be granted to Pakistan while its WMD is out of the country. The deal would include a next step which would be a peace process with India.

The world’s goal should be to have a Pakistan and India living as peaceful neighbors, neither falling prey to extremism.

Update: A camerman said Bhutto waved to the crowd through the sun roof, then shots rang out, and then the explosion occurred. (*) CNN has apparently now removed this story from their site. There is fogginess, confusion, and misinformation on the exact particulars of the assassination.

It happened in Rawalpindi, the headquarters of the Pakistani military. Bhutto had prepared an e-mail for posthumous delivery. In it she blamed Musharraf for her death. In my view, the assassination was an Al Qaeda job. By performing the attack in Rawalpindi they encourage shifting of blame to the government of Pakistan. Bhutto must have been perceived as a stronger enemy of Al Qaeda than Musharraf. I don’t doubt there is infiltration to a degree of Al Qaeda and Taliban into the Pakistani armed forces, including to a degree in Rawalpindi. I do doubt that Musharraf was in the conspiracy. I would like to see investigated Bhutto’s allegations against cabinet-level ministers in Pakistan as to Al Qaeda infiltration.

This site is in the midst of changes. Wordpress was upgraded to one of the latest versions. I’m going to change the layout.

Due to blog spam, comments are disabled, except on just a few posts. I’m moving it to a different web host, which may result in uneven operation for the next few days.

The Iraq Study Group has released its report. (*) The call for drawing down US forces in Iraq puts great pressure on the Maliki government of Iraq to establish security and the rule of law in Iraq, especially in the immediate area around Baghdad, where 80% of insurgent attacks take place.

Iraqi reaction from ruling party Shia elements has been negative. (†) Nevertheless, Sunni politicians will see this as an opportunity to swing the government away from sectarian politics and toward national unity. The Kurds appear to be negative on the ISG, as is likely. The ISG wisely disagrees with the notion of splitting Iraq into three countries, and furthermore suggests the US should draw its force levels down, reducing the chances of an irresponsible Kurdish independence.

ISG panelist and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor made the following remarks at the press conference today. But first, remarks by President Clinton’s former chief of staff Leon Panetta.

LEON PANETTA: As I told the President this morning, this war has badly divided this country. It’s divided Republicans from Democrats and to some extent the President from the people. And policy sometimes with those divisions has been reduced to a thirty-second soundbite that runs the gamut from victory or stay the course to cut and run. And what this group tried to do, five Democrats and five Republicans, is to try to set aside those code words and those divisions and try to look at the realities that are there.

And I would suggest to the President and to the American people that if you look at the realities of what’s taking place there, the fact that violence is out of control, the fact that Iraqis ultimately have to control their future, they have to take care of security, they’ve got to deal with the region in that area, that ultimately you can find consensus here. This country cannot be at war and be as divided as we are today. You’ve got to unify this country. And I’d suggest to the President that what we did in this group can perhaps serve as an example to try to pull together the leadership of the Congress and try to focus on the recommendations we’ve made.

We have made a terrible commitment in Iraq in terms of our blood and our treasure. And I think we owe it to them to try one last chance at making Iraq work, and more importantly to take one last chance at unifying this country on this war. I think the President understands that he simply is not going to be able to proceed with whatever policy changes he wants to implement if we’re divided. That is the principal goal in my mind that he has to accomplish.

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: I would be willing to add a comment about what Leon Panetta has just expressed so well. We’ve said in the report that we agree with the goal of US policy in Iraq as stated by the President: an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. And to do that, we’ve made these various recommendations on a consensus basis. It’s my belief that if a large segment of our country gets behind that on a consensus basis that it’s very likely we can move forward and make some progress toward that statement of goals. And this is not an ongoing commission. It really is out of our hands having done what we did.

It’s up to you, frankly. You are the people who speak to the American people. You’re there interpreting this and talking to America. And I hope the American people feel that if they are behind something in broad terms that we’ll be better off. I think we will and I hope in general that others think so too.

(Video available from C-SPAN. )

The primary objective of the ISG was to find a workable political consensus for implementing the inevitable changes that will occur to US policy in Iraq. That is a worthy cause, and perhaps they have achieved it.

The other, perhaps unexpected result is the pressure ratcheting up on the Maliki government of Iraq. If Iraq is to establish security, it must come primarily from the government of Iraq. My guess is that Maliki is too closely tied with militant Shia groups like that of Muqtada al-Sadr. We are likely to see Maliki’s coalition implode within the coming months. Hopefully, we will then see a transition to more effective Iraq governance.

I would hope that the US government has learned the lessons of Mossadegh, Diem, and Allende. Assassinating foreign leaders does not work. Forcing a coup d’etat would also be incredibly foolish.

Allow the organic political processes to work in Iraq. Continue to push the Iraqi government into the lead role in its country’s security.

As for talking with Iran and Syria, that is better than just bombing them now. The whole point of creating an active front in the war on terror in Iraq was to stave off a larger, wider war. That objective remains as possible as ever. Nevertheless, our strategic dealings with Iran need deeper contemplation than they are currently receiving.

George W. Bush wants a new immigration policy for America, a guest worker program and amnesty. President Bush and Congress are about to act on immigration.

This video has been highly rated by viewers from opposing points of view. It lasts about 15 minutes. In my view, this video contains important information that the public and Congress need to know before any change in immigration policy is made.

Video on Google

Numbers USA

Congress may act at any time, even in the next few weeks. What can you do? Contact your Congressional representative and your Senators and tell them how you feel. Every time they hear from one person, they assume 1,000 people believe the same thing. Your voice counts.

Current US population: 300,249,016.

A consumer struggle for toys in which young people stand in line for days outside of toy shops for a “Playstation 3″ has now spilled over to the political realm.

Democratic 2004 VP nominee and possible 2008 presidential candidate John Edwards has been helping to lead the “Wakeup Wal-Mart” campaign for worker’s rights. As recently as November 14th, Edwards was on a national conference call for supporters of the campaign. (*)

On November 16th, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., made a press release. It said: (†)

Even Presidential Candidates Agree: Wal-Mart is the Best Place to Shop for Hot Electronics Items this Christmas Season

BENTONVILLE, Ark. � Nov. 16, 2006 � Just like the millions of Americans who turn to their neighborhood Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) for their holiday shopping needs, Wal-Mart announced today that former Sen. John Edwards is seeking to be one of the first to get a Sony PlayStation3, one of the most coveted holiday gift items this Christmas season.

Yesterday, a staff person for former Sen. Edwards contacted a Wal-Mart electronics manager in Raleigh, North Carolina to obtain a Sony PlayStation3 on behalf of the Senator�s family. Later that night, Sen. Edwards reportedly re-told a homespun story to participants of a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union-sponsored call about how his son had chided a fellow student for purchasing shoes at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart welcomes Sen. Edwards to visit his local Wal-Mart store and explore the extensive line of home electronics as well the wide array of apparel for men and boys.

The Company noted the PlayStation3 is an extremely popular item this Christmas season, and while the rest of America�s working families are waiting patiently in line, Senator Edwards wants to cut to the front. While, we cannot guarantee that Sen. Edwards will be among one of the first to obtain a PlayStation3, we are certain Sen. Edwards will be able to find great gifts for everyone on his Christmas list � many at Wal-Mart�s �roll-back prices. . . .�

Although Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. put a gloss of trumpeting their stores by referencing John Edwards as someone who shops there, it is plain that Wal-Mart has a political motive to push this story to the media and even to exaggerate or distort it for their own end. Wal-Mart fears the campaign for worker’s rights, even putting up its own web site at walmartfacts.com to defend the corporation in the media.

Edwards spoke to the media, including the Raleigh News Observer. (‡) He told them that a volunteer staffer overheard that the Edwardses were looking for the toy for their six-year-old son. The young volunteer freelanced and contacted the local Wal-Mart, referencing the name John Edwards. The volunteer didn’t know how Wal-Mart was criticized by Edwards. Edwards stated the volunteer made a mistake using his name. Edwards told the Associated Press that this is an attempt by Wal-Mart “to divert attention from its own problems.” (§)

Opinion columnist Dave Johnson has diagnosed this kerfuffle as a political smear by Wal-Mart. (**) I agree. He stated Wal-Mart should possibly have its right to operate revoked. I disagree.

While Wal-Mart’s action here was both arrogant and deceitful, John Edwards has not handled this strategically. He should have immediately published a press release of his own on his web site, johnedwards.com. Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign strategy of a “war room” that fires back press releases as soon as criticism of the candidate is made should be something that all presidential candidates take as their field manual. In today’s era of 24-7 news and the Internet, you need to speak directly to the people, and attack lies immediately. A direct press release to the web would also allow web loggers to quote the politician’s campaign directly without worrying about plagiarizing a journalist or violating the copyright of a news service. Furthermore, as a matter of leadership, John Edwards needs to do a better job of communicating with his staff so they are fully aware of his political convictions so they can best assist him effectuating his public campaigns.

Finally, John Edwards should take a page from the playbook of another successful politician. While I don’t agree with some of Jimmy Carter’s policies, Carter left an indelible impression on the public that he was first and foremost their servant. Carter did not expect any favors or gifts as a result of his presidency. Carter famously carried his own luggage during the 1976 campaign. Edwards has not left that kind of an impression with the public, unfortunately. A candidate fighting for “working families” would do well to work harder to live up to Carter’s standard. Although Edwards rightly called the volunteer’s action a “mistake,” the fact is that a volunteer close to Edwards gained the impression that Edwards was owed something by the general public. That is a sign that the ducks are not all in a row at the nascent Edwards campaign.

Wal-Mart’s embittered slap at John Edwards will likely cost them more goodwill. But can John Edwards straighten out his disorganized campaign? I believe he can, but I don’t know if he has the will to do it.

One thing is for sure. The 2008 presidential race is on, and it is no video game.

Terrorists in Iraq are targeting American troops in Iraq with sniper fire. CNN obtained videotape taken by the terrorists for the purpose of propaganda. (*)

The newsclip video from CNN features an interview with an American serviceman. († video) He says:

One of the attacks, you know, the locals, they talk to us about what they see, and they said they saw a car pull up, a guy get out the back seat, uh, get out the front seat, get in the back seat, remove a panel from off his car and aim from the car to our rooftop position. Which unfortunately resulted in the death of one Marine who was on the rooftop.

In another video clip, CNN interviews Jack Coughlin, a retired Marine sniper who was shown the terrorist videos. (‡ video) The retired Marine sniper states that he believes that some of the videotaped shots may have come from a location different from the cameraman, perhaps hundreds of yards away. Others may have been closer.

When John Allen Muhammad, 41, a US citizen, and 17-year-old John Lee Malvo, a Jamaican citizen. were arrested for the DC sniper attacks that occurred in 2002, their method of operation came to light. CNN reported on how the DC snipers used a car with a customized panel that could swing open, through which a shot could be fired, and then swung closed to make an unnoticed getaway. (§)

The Chevrolet Caprice used by the sniper suspects was a “killing machine” with two holes in the trunk, one for the rifle, the other for the scope, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday.

The two holes were there so that shots could be fired without opening the trunk, a source said, adding that the back seat could fold down, enabling a potential shooter to stretch out in the back without stepping foot outside.

The source called it a “perfect place” for a shooting platform.

This appears to be quite a coincidence. Perhaps the Iraqi terrorist snipers learned from the DC snipers, or perhaps there was another source for this concept.

British and American authorities foiled a plot today that was intended to blow up approximately 10 airplanes simultaneously en route from the UK to the US. (*) (†)

The New York Times reports: (‡)

The police did not identify the suspects or their origin, though Paul Stephenson, the deputy metropolitan police commissioner for London, said “community leaders” had been alerted about the police action, using a code word for the British Muslim community.

The terrorist objective of bombing multiple airplanes at a time over an ocean was also at play in the Bojinka plot. (§)

Bernard Lewis has a critically important op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal. (*)

Nouri al-Maliki, democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq, speaking from the floor of the Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. (*)

(Extended Applause.) In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Your Excellency the speaker of the House, Mr. Vice President, honorable ladies and gentlemen, members of Congress, it is with great pleasure that I am able to take this opportunity to be the first democratically and constitutionally elected prime minister of Iraq to address you, the elected representatives of the American people. And I thank you for affording me this unique chance to speak at this respected assembly.

Let me begin by thanking the American people, through you, on behalf of the Iraqi people, for supporting our people in ousting dictatorship. Iraq will not forget those who stood with her � with him and who continues to stand with her in times of need. (Applause.)

Thank you for your continued resolve in helping us fight the terrorists plaguing Iraq, which is a struggle to defend our nascent democracy and our people who aspire to liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

All of those are not Western values; they are universal values for humanity. (Applause.) They are as much for me the pinnacle embodiment of my faith and religion, and they are for all free spirits.

The war on terror is a real war against those who wish to burn out the flame of freedom, and we are in this vanguard for defending the values of humanity. (Applause.)

I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of the war on terror. Let me be very clear — this is a battle between true Islam, for which a person’s liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak; in reality, wages a war on Islam and Muslims and values — (applause) — and spreads hatred between humanity.

Contrary to what’s come in our Koran, which says we have created of you — of male and female and made you tribes and families that you know each other, surely noblest of you in the sight of God is the best conduct. The truth is that terrorism has no religion. Our faith say that who kills an innocent as it has killed all mankind. Thousands of lives were tragically lost in September 11th, where — when these imposters of Islam reared their ugly head. Thousands more continue to die in Iraq today at the hands of the same terrorists who show complete disregard for human life.

Your loss on that day was the loss of all mankind, and our loss today is loss for all free people. (Applause.)

And wherever human kind suffers a loss at the hands of terrorists, it is a loss of all humanity. It is your duty and our duty to defeat this terror. Iraq is the front line is this struggle, and history will prove that the sacrifices of Iraqis for freedom will not be in vain. Iraqis are your allies in the war on terror. (Applause.)

And history will record their bravery and humanity. The fate of our country and yours is tied. Should democracy be allowed to fail in Iraq and terror permitted to triumph, then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, we are building the new Iraq on the foundation of democracy, and are erecting it through our belief in the rights of every individual, just as Saddam has destroyed it through his abuse of all those rights, so that future Iraqi generations can live in peace, prosperity and hope. Iraqis have tasted freedom, and we will defend it absolutely. (Applause.)

Every human possesses inalienable rights which transcend religion, as it is stated in the International Convention of Human Rights. They transcend religion, race and gender, and God says in the Koran, and surely we have honored all children of Adam.

I believe these human rights are not an artifact construct reserved for the few; they are the divine entitlement for all. (Applause.) And it is on this unwavering belief that we are determined to build our nation, a land whose people are free, whose air is liberty, and where the rule of law is supreme.

This is the new Iraq, which is emerging from the ashes of dictatorship, and despite the carnage of extremists, a country which respects international conventions and practices non-interference in the internal affairs of others, relies on dialogue to resolve differences, and strives to develop strong relations with every country that espouses freedom and peace. (Applause.)

We are working diligently so that Iraq returns to take the position it deserves and to play — plays a positive role in its regional and international environment as a key, active player in spreading security and stability, to give an example of positive relationship between countries through denouncement of violence and resorting to constructive dialogue solving problems between nations and peoples.

We have made progress, and we are correcting the damage inflicted by politics of the previous regime, in particular with our neighbors. My presence here is a testament of the new politics of a democratic Iraq. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, in a short space of time, Iraq has gone from a dictatorship, to a transitional administration, and now to a fully fledged democratic government. This has happened despite the best efforts of the terrorists who are bent on either destroying democracy or Iraq. But by the courage of our people, who defied the terrorists every time they were called upon to make a choice by risking their lives for the ballot box, they have stated over and over again with their inked-stained fingers waving in pride that they will always make the same choice. (Applause.)

Hope over fear –

HECKLER: The Iraqis want the troops to leave! Bring them home now! Iraqis want the troops to leave –

AUDIENCE: Boo!

SPEAKER HASTERT: (Sounds gavel.)

HECKLER: Iraqis want the troops to leave! Bring them home now!

SPEAKER HASTERT: Our guest would suspend for the — a moment. The chair notes a disturbance in the gallery. The sergeant of arms will secure order by removing those engaging in disruption. (Scattered applause.)

HECKLER: Iraqis want the troops to leave! Bring them home now! (Off mike) — bring the troops home now!

(Note: Heckler is removed from the gallery.)

SPEAKER HASTERT: The gentleman may proceed.

PRIME MIN. AL-MALIKI: Hope over fear. Liberty over oppression. Dignity over submission. Democracy over dictatorship. Federalism over a centralist state. Let there be no doubt. Today Iraq is a democracy which stands firm because of the sacrifices of its people and the sacrifices of all those who stood with us in this crisis from nations and countries. (Applause, cheers.)

And that’s why I thank you. I would like to thank them very much for all their sacrifices. Iraqis of all persuasions took part in a unanimously democratic election for the first parliament formed under the country’s first permanent constitution, after eight decades of temporary constitutions and dictatorship, a constitution written by the elected representatives of the people and ratified by the people.

Iraqis succeeded in forming a government of national unity, based on an elected parliamentary foundation and includes all of Iraq’s religions, ethnicities and political groupings.

The journey has been perilous, and the future is not guaranteed. Yet many around the world who — underestimated the resolve of Iraq’s people and were sure that we would never reach this stage. Few believed in us. But you, the American people, did, and we are grateful for this. (Applause.)

The transformation in Iraq can sometimes be forgotten in the daily futile violence. Since liberation we have witnessed great accomplishments in politics, the economy and civil society. We have gone from a one-party state ruled by a small elite to a multi-party system where politics is the domain of every citizen and parties compete at all levels. (Applause.)

What used to be a state-controlled media is now completely free and uncensored — something Iraq had never witnessed since its establishment as a modern state, and something which remains alien to most of the region.

What used to be a command economy in Iraq we are rapidly transforming into a free market economy. In the past three years, our GDP per capita has more than doubled, and it is expected that our economy will continue to grow.

Standards of living have been raised for most Iraqis as the markets witness an unprecedented level of prosperity. Many individuals are buying products and appliances which they would never have hoped to afford in the past.

And in keeping with our economic visions of creating a free market economy, we will be presenting to parliament legislation which will lift current restrictions on foreign companies and investors who wish to come to Iraq. (Applause.)

While we are making great economic strides, the greatest transformation has been on Iraqi society. We have gone from mass graves and torture chambers and chemical weapons to a flourishing — to the rule of law and human rights. And the human rights and freedoms embodied in the new Iraq and consolidated in the constitution have provided a fertile environment for the ever-growing number of civil society institutions — (applause) — which are increasing in scope and complexity and provide a healthy reflection of what is developing beneath the violence.

The rights chartered in the constitution will also help consolidate the role of women in public life as equals to men — (applause) — and help them to play a greater role in political life. (Applause continuing.) I am proud to say that a quarter of Iraq’s Council of Representatives is made up of women. But we still have much to accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, our — Mr. Vice President, our nascent democracy faces numerous challenges and impediments, but our resolve is unbreakable and we will overcome them.

The greatest threat Iraq’s people face is terror, terror inflicted by extremists who value no life and who depend on the fear their wanton murder and destruction creates. They have poured acid into Iraq’s dictatorial wounds and created many of their own.

Iraq is free and the terrorists cannot stand this. They hope to undermine our democratically elected government through the random killing of civilians. They want to destroy Iraq’s future by assassinating our leading scientific, political and community leaders. Above all, they wish to spread fear.

Do not think that this is an Iraqi problem. This terrorist front is a threat to every free country in the world and their citizens. What is at stake is nothing less than our freedom and liberty. Confronting and dealing with this challenge is the responsibility of every liberal democracy that values its freedom. Iraq is the battle that will determine the war. If in continued partnership we have the strength of mind and commitment to defeat the terrorists and their ideology in Iraq, they will never be able to recover. (Applause.)

For the sake of success of the political process, I launched the National Reconciliation Initiative, which aims to draw in groups willing to accept the logic of dialogue and participation. This olive branch has received the backing of Iraq’s parliamentary blocs and support further afield from large segments of the population. I remain determined to see this initiative succeed. But let our enemies not mistake our outstretched hand for forgiveness as a sign of weakness. Whoever chooses violence against the people of Iraq, then the fate that awaits them will be the same that of the terrorist Zarqawi. (Applause.)

While political and economic efforts are essential, defeating terror in Iraq relies fundamentally on the building of sound Iraqi force, both in quantity and capability. The completion of Iraq’s forces forms the necessary basis for the withdrawal of multinational forces, but it — only then, only when Iraq’s forces are fully capable will the job of the multinational forces be complete.

Our Iraqi forces have accomplished much, and have gained a great deal of field experience to eventually enable them to triumph over the terrorists and to take over the security portfolio and extend peace through the country.

The other impediment to Iraq’s stability are the armed militias. I have on many occasions stated my determination to disband all militias, without exception — (applause) — and reestablish a state monopoly on arms, and to guarantee citizens security so that they do not need others to provide it.

It is imperative that the reconstruction starts now. While small sections of central Iraq are unstable, large sections have remained peaceful but ignored for far too long. These were most deprived areas of Iraq under the previous regime, and have been the most valiant in Iraq’s struggle for freedom. We need to make an example out of these stable areas as models for the rest of the country. (Applause.)

Reconstruction projects in these areas will tackle unemployment, which will weaken the terrorists. They will become prototypes for other, more volatile regions (to) aspire to. Undoubtedly, reconstruction in these areas will fuel economic growth and show what a prosperous, stable, democratic and federal Iraq would look like.

Members of the Congress, in this effort, we need your help. We need the help of the international community. Much of the budget you had allocated for Iraq’s reconstruction ended up paying for security firms and foreign companies, whose operating costs were vast.

Instead there needs to be a greater reliance on Iraqis and Iraqi companies, with foreign aid and assistance to help us rebuild Iraq. (Applause.)

We are rebuilding Iraq on a new, solid foundation, that of liberty, hope and equality. Iraq’s democracy is young, but the will of its people is strong. It is because of this spirit and desire to be free that Iraq has taken the opportunity you gave us, and we chose democracy.

We faced tyranny and oppression under the former regime, and we now face a different kind of terror. We did not bow then, and we will not bow now. (Applause.)

I will not allow Iraq to become a launch pad for al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I will not — terror rob Iraqis of their hopes and dreams. I will not allow terrorists to dictate to us our future.(Applause.)

For decades we struggled alone for our freedom. In 1991, when Iraqis tried to capitalize on the regime’s momentary weakness and rose up, we were alone again.

The people of Iraq will not forget your continued support as we establish a secure, liberal democracy. Let 1991 never be repeated, for history will be more unforgiving. (Applause.)

The coming few days are difficult and the challenges are considerable. Iraq and America both need each other to defeat the terror engulfing the free world. In partnership, we will be triumphant because we will never be slaves to terror, for God has made us free. (Applause.)

Trust that Iraq will be a grave for terrorism and terrorists. (Applause.) Trust that Iraq will be the graveyard for terrorism and terrorists, for all — for the good of all humanity.

Thank you very much. (Cheers, extended applause.)

Copyright 2006, Federal News Service

A strategic analysis of conflict in the Middle East is in order. First, however, a summary.

Last month, an explosion occurred on a Gaza beach. Israel and Palestinian terrorists pointed fingers at each other. (*) An Israeli soldier was kidnapped and taken into Gaza. Israel started to move on Gaza. Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and took them to Lebanon. Israel started to move on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel. Israel has responded with air strikes on Hezbollah and strategic positions in Lebanon, including the Beirut airport. Hezbollah fired a UAV missile at an Israeli warship, inflicting damage. Israel has responded with more air strikes and indications it may send ground forces into southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah is entrenched without the approval of the free government of Lebanon. (†) Meanwhile, Iran continues saber rattling against Israel while continuing to delay and obstruct nuclear weapons inspectors and the UN Security Council from acting. Sectarian violence worsens in Iraq between Arab Sunnis and Arab Shias.

Let’s begin the analysis with a sketch of the motivations of the major players:

Hezbollah - Wishes to destroy Israel and dominate Lebanon to impose a Khomeini-style regime. Not incompetent. Frequently termed “the A-team of terrorists.” Possesses several thousand Katushya rockets (unguided) and a few heavier weapons. Has several thousand terrorist fighters in Lebanon who were trained in Iran. Hezbollah takes orders directly from Iran. It is funded and supplied by Iran and Syria.

Lebanon (free government) - Wishes to supplant Hezbollah in Lebanon and establish peace and rule of law in Lebanon. Not friendly with Israel, but Lebanon’s other enemies are bigger threats right now.

Syria - Seeks to restore its influence in Lebanon. Barring that, this regime of a Sunni-dominated country wishes that Israel loses influence in the region and Syria gains. The Syrian regime does not want a direct conflict with Israel because it knows it will lose. The Syrian regime is dependent on Iran for military and economic cooperation, and is heavily influenced by Iran.

Iran - The Khomeini/Khamanei/Ahmadinejad regime seeks to build nuclear bombs and missiles and then to literally destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. Subsequently, Iran will seek greater influence in the Middle East and the world, assuming that Iran has not by then triggered the end of the world as per the Khomeini regime’s religious beliefs by nuking Israel. In the meantime, Iran must delay and block the weapons inspectors and the UN.

In this scenario, Iran wants to create a widespread Middle East war that Iran is not blamed for. Iran will need support from Islamic countries as the Security Council acts on Iran’s nuclear weapons program in the next few weeks. A regional war would serve Iran’s purposes. It would distract the world’s attention while Iran builds the bomb, and will also serve the purpose of providing a pretext, however thinly disguised, for Iran’s use of nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

How could this scenario play out?

Hezbollah’s rockets cannot inflict great damage to Israel, but the randomness of the strikes and their increased range will keep the Israeli population in fear. The Israeli air force will not be able to stop the rocket attacks in a short enough time to keep the Israeli people safe because the rockets are mobile. Israel will have to send in ground forces to destroy Hezbollah. The specter of Israel occupying “Arab land” will again be on full display in the media.

The question is why is Hezbollah forcing Israel to invade Lebanon, when Hezbollah realizes that it will be destroyed by the superior Israeli army. The answer might be based on Hezbollah taking orders from Iran and Iran’s motivations.

An Israeli invasion of Lebanon could drag the Lebanese government into the war, either with or against Hezbollah. At this point, Iranian and Syrian forces would seek to re-establish influence over the Lebanese government and force it to side with Hezbollah, Iran’s pawn.

Iran wants an Israeli-Syrian conflict. Once nations become nervous with war occurring nearby, a subterfuge or other sleight-of-hand maneuver can light the match. If Israel does not strike Syria, it is not clear why Syria would want to engage in a war with Israel, however.

Additionally, Iran has a motive to entangle the US and a third country with a war outside of Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s borders. This would further distract the US. One possibility would be an Iranian deal with North Korea, truly an Axis of Evil. It is not impossible that North Korea’s missile tests could be part of a pact that the North Korean regime has with the Iranian regime. The missile tests could also be useful to Iran’s missile technology.

At some point, Iran would want to have the blame for a wider war shifted to Israel and/or the United States. It is not clear how that might occur, although with Israel and the US winning few world popularity contests right now, it is not inconceivable either.

In this scenario, Iran distracts the world long enough, and pins enough blame on Israel and the US, that Iran is able to become a nuclear power, nuke Israel with impunity, dominate the Middle East, and gain great global influence.

This scenario would counsel that immediate attention be applied to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It must be put on the top of the world’s agenda by the United States. The US must not allow what happens in Lebanon to sidetrack the process. Furthermore, the UN Security Council should act immediately, not any later. Finally, the US should consider a offering single UN Security Council resolution with two purposes to irrevocably link what is occurring in Lebanon with Iran’s nuclear weapons program. For example, the same chapter 7 resolution could call for Hezbollah to lay down its arms and for Iran to open fully to inspectors within 12 hours or face war. Everyone knows Iran controls Hezbollah. A dual resolution would force Iran to either accept the resolution or oppose it utterly, with no wiggle room and no finessing the issue.

On top of that, the US should introduce a UN Security Council Chapter 7 resolution stating that Iran, North Korea, and Syria must immediately publicly divulge all secret treaties, including mutual defense pacts, that they have entered into, especially with one another. These secret treaties were made illegal by the UN Charter because secret treaties have historically helped cause many wars, including World War I.

Of course, what is likely occurring here is that in Iran’s Islamofascist regime, we have another Nazi totalitarian government hell-bent on dragging the world into another world war. With this in mind we have to realize that the only rationality to the actions and words of Iran’s regime might be, by hook or by crook, to spark all-out global war. This fits generally with the known radical Islamic scenario of destroying the United States as a stepping stone to establishing global radical Islamic supremacy.

Through it all, it should be kept in mind that nothing that the Iranian regime says should be accepted as true unless it can be independently verified.

(Note: “Hezbollah” means “Party of Allah” in Arabic. In Arabic, “Allah” of course means God. Thus, when Western reporters, commentators, and statesmen say things like “Hezbollah is a terrorist group,” or “Hezbollah needs to surrender,” it must sound suspicious when translated into Arabic for Arab-speaking people. We should refer to Hezbollah as “the group calling itself Hezbollah,” or “the group supposedly known as Hezbollah.”)