The Qom Iranian Nuke Facility

From Tom Barnett:
" 'I am shocked! Shocked to find out there's gambling going on in this institution!'
--'Colonel, your enriched uranium.'
'Ah yes. Round up the usual suspects!'

Bet on Iran having already set up the sites where they'll continue enrichment AFTER Israel bombs them."

TW: Iran is pursuing nukes. We know this and have known this for a long time. It is logical for them to do so. One can think of many reasons why WE would not want them to have them but not so many as to why THEY would not want them. Their nuke program is not an Ahmedinejad initiative it is a national Iranian goal with widespread public support. I am highly skeptical that the international community will support sufficiently robust sanctions to deter the Iranians. I am also highly skeptical that the U.S. and other nations will use military force to stop the Iranians. Furthermore, I believe use of force would be ineffective in stopping their drive towards nukes unless applied in an overwhelming fashion of the sort likely not feasible (i.e. surgical air strikes would not get it done, casualties on both sides would be high).

The right-wing in the U.S. will use this likely evolution to claim Obama and the Dems are weak. There is a big difference between weak and simple-minded. The price we would rationally pay to prevent their acquisition of nukes is lower than the price they would rationally pay to obtain them. And if the world can live with Pakistani nukes, we can live with Iranian nukes.

From Economist:
"Victor David Hanson has produced a predictably unhinged rant in response to the revelation that Iran has a nuclear-enrichment plant that it has been keeping secret...

But ignoring Mr Hanson's many faulty arguments, his frustration is justified. As an anonymous administration official says in the Times, "They have cheated three times...So what now? Well, I think Mr Hanson gets this part right when he says that "there is nothing the international community can or will do about Iran's road to a small arsenal of nukes." Sanctions will be mulled and then, possibly, passed. Iran may even agree to stricter inspections. But we've been there before, and now we're here.

What other options do we have? A bombing campaign (whether carried out by America or Israel) might set back Iran's programme, but only briefly, and even then it might speed it up. A change in government may not produce the wanted results—even Mir Hossein Mousavi wasn't willing to give up Iran's nuclear programme. Short of invading and occupying the country (a terrible option and an impossibility with America's military currently overstretched), the one thing the West can do is make the journey to nuclear-bomb capacity as painful as possible for Iran...But ultimately it will be Iran's decision whether to take the final steps on that journey, and the West's capacity to stop it is rather limited. So forgive Mr Hanson for lashing out. That's what one does in a helpless situation."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/how_do_you_solve_a_problem_lik.cfm

The Climate Debate: A Couple Of Approaches

TW: Obviously this is over-simplified but in my view reflective of the opposing approaches to climate change debate. Who are you going to believe?

From Paul Krugman at NYT:


From Washington Monthly:
"National Review's Victor Davis Hanson [TW: VDH is a very conservative columnist and historian] explained his rationale yesterday for denying evidence of global warming.


'I just spent a few days in the Sierra in May during freezing cold temperatures and snow; a week ago it was quite cool and raining in New York; each time I have passed through Phoenix this spring it seemed unseasonably cool; and just gave a talk on the Russian River and about froze. Meanwhile the grapes look about ten days behind due to unseasonably cool temperatures. Any empiricist would be worried, as Newsweek once was, about global cooling. Will the planet boil, if we slow down a bit, review the science and dissenting views, and consider the wisdom in a recession of allotting nearly a trillion dollars to changing our very way of life (while the Chinese absorb market share)?'

It's items like these that help explain why our political discourse is so routinely stunted. If the left and right disagreed on how best to address policy challenges, that would at least open the door to constructive dialog. But we're still stuck in a political environment in which prominent conservative voices at high-profile conservative outlets a) don't recognize the difference between climate and weather; b) find meaningless anecdotes compelling evidence of global trends; and c) are entirely comfortable delaying necessary solutions while an already-completed debate continues."

Bellicosity Is Neither Patriotic Nor Effective

TW: Backseat driving is not unusual from political opponents. But Republicans almost never pass up the chance to impugn the intelligence, integrity and patriotism of progressives relative to national security. The audacity of arrogance personified by Gingrich and Hanson below is the sort that drives me crazy. Why anyone, whose knee jerk response is to shoot and ask questions later at any and all perceived affronts to the U.S., feels they credibility befuddles me. Obama has taken guff for not waltzing through Europe as some form of emperor afraid to acknowledge any complicity on the part of the U.S. in the world's problems. Don't conservative understand the concepts of:
1) walking softly and carrying a big stick (as opposed to the too much hat and not enough cattle approach of a W. Bush)
2) aiming before firing (unlike our due diligence prior to the Iraq War)
3) those who can acknowledge their own faults strengthen their own credibility

We are the greatest nation in the world, the largest economy by a factor of at least two, the largest military by a factor of three. When you have the power, why flaunt it like an adolescent jock? Think scalpels instead of dull sabers. We can keep bludgeoning our way to fiscal and moral national suicide or we can exhibit some maturity.

Too often bellicosity has been confused for patriotism. We elected Obama to get away from the frat house approach of his predecessor and cronies. Patriotism takes many forms. Here is to hoping intelligence, integrity and judgment can become more respected than bellicosity and testosterone.

From Economist:
"FORTY-EIGHT hours ago, the pressure was building on Barack Obama to do something about the pirate hostage stand-off near the coast of Somalia. The attitude was best summed up by Newt Gingrich, the bellicose former speaker of the House and new media obsessive, who tweeted that "the right solution is for [Navy S]eals to go in during the night and stop the pirates while saving the hostage." Later: "The navy has plenty of resolve. It is the White House that is confused." Later: "As a historian I know that weakness encourages predators and aggressors and strength convinces them to quit."

Well, the crisis is over, with the endgame playing out just as Mr Gingrich would've liked. Captain Richard Phillips is now a free man; three pirates are dead by way of three Navy Seal bullets. What was becoming a political problem for the president is a 24-hour story about a minor military victory. In brute political terms, this is exactly what Republicans didn't need: while they'll never admit it now, they wondered if this would become an example of Mr Obama's weakness, like Jimmy Carter's botched Iranian hostage rescue in Operation Eagle Claw. Instead, Mr Phillips becomes a hero and Mr Obama gets a sudden injection of political goodwill, days before Republicans take to the streets to protest his spending plans."

From Victor Hanson at National Review:
"1) Piracy may or may not be a matter of American national security, but the American people will not for long stand the notion that a captive brave American ship captain risks his life to escape, while formidable American naval power either cannot or will not punish the miscreants;
2) Pompey's victories over the Cilician pirates, the Venetian clean-up of the Mediterranean sea-lanes, and the British success in stopping Caribarrean piracy were all predicated on going ashore, destroying the docks, headquarters, and homes of the pirates. To end Somali piracy, disproportionate measures against the shore should be taken—for every one pirate assault, a lethal air assault should immediately follow.[TW: BOMB, BOMB, BOMB...Bomb them all too hell!!! Victor et al. would have started WWIII in 1962 in Cuba without a doubt, but then they would have started on ten other occasions as well probably]
3) In academic circles the last two decades, pirates have been romanticized in a variety of contexts—as in pirates being contrarian individualists, admirable anarchists, Marxist redistributionists, sexually ambiguous, cross-dressing, transgendered libertines, and Lotus-eater-like sensualists, rather than as murderous criminals. Who knows, maybe such esoteric theorizing has filtered down to the U.S. State Department.[TW: what does Johnny Depp have to do with this...]
4) The Obamists better be careful in their serial apologetics, "Bush did it" throat-clearing, and caving to European, Russia, Turkish, etc. agendas. Slowly, but clearly we are establishing a new atmosphere in which the old unpredictability, military preparedness, and deterrence will be lost, replaced by a touchy-feely sort of seminar discussion, laced with atonement, reaction. And then the two-bit pirates who boast "We are not afraid of the Americans" will be the least of our problems."

Victor David Hanson: Listening To Him Can Also Cause Blindness

TW: Economist, a reputable media organization, smacks down Victor Hanson who not only disseminates this stuff via columns he writes "history" books.

From Economist:
"THIS week is bringing a flurry of articles along the general theme of "is the presidency of Barack Obama doomed?" There are a few reasons to ignore them. For example, here is Victor Davis Hanson (pictured) in National Review, today, in a post that's making the "blogospheric" rounds:

"We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking."

Here's Victor Davis Hanson in National Review, September 2008:
"No Northern Democratic liberal like Obama has won the presidency in a half-century...The new Obama probably will recover from his temporary setback in the polls. But right now his problem is that disappointed independent voters are catching on that this saintly savior is all too human."

Here's Victor David Hanson in National Review, March 2008:
"Barack Obama is on his way to a McGovern candidacy."

Here's Victor Davis Hanson in National Review, March 2008(again):
"Obama is crashing in all the polls, especially against McCain, against whom he doesn’t stack up well, given McCain’s heroic narrative, the upswing in Iraq, and the past distance between McCain and the Bush administration."

Predicting a president's doom is a high-risk game. Or it would be, if pundits were held as accountable as, say, cabinet nominees.
http://tinyurl.com/b9wyfw

Caroline the New Sarah

TW: Them my friends is fightin' words. If I were Caroline I would seriously be looking for Victor David Hanson in order to administer a sack attack.

Thankfully the Economist comes to her rescue...kind of.

From the Economist:
"VICTOR DAVIS HANSON likes to write his columns from a parallel universe much like our own, except that he was right all along about everything. His take on Caroline Kennedy's troubled (we're a news cycle away from calling it "disastrous") Senate un-campaign is a case in point...

Quoting Hanson: 'Compared to Sarah Palin's almost immediate immersion into crowds and public speaking, Kennedy seems like a deer in the headlights before the media that is either ignored or asked to submit written questions. Palin was a natural; Kennedy can't finish a single sentence without "You know" or "I mean.'

Does Mr Hanson know what a "natural" is? Mrs Palin was the most incoherent candidate for national office of the television era. Her "you know" was "also", which she reached for as a kind of rubber cement for disconnected talking points. It was painfully obvious when Mrs Palin was speaking without notes and speaking on one of the many issues she'd had no background in before a briefing from the presidential campaign.

Quoting Hanson: 'Conservative Palin endured liberal Charlie Gibson's glasses-on-the nose pretentiousness, and Katie Couric's attack-dog questions; insider Kennedy I doubt will meet with either, much less sit down with a hostile questioner like a Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.'

Well... why would she? She's not running for vice president alongside a 72-year old man with recurring cancer. There's national interest in her, sure, because she's a Kennedy, but the stakes and the audience aren't the same at all. And when has Glenn Beck ever done a tough interview? He's a loud, charmless conservative with a cable show: was Mr Hanson outraged when Mrs Palin declined to sit with Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow? Or when Mrs Palin declined, throughout the campaign, to give a televised press conference?

Conservatives with a little more self-awareness than Mr Hanson should be cheered, in a grim sort of way, by the Caroline situation. It's proof that the political media was not acting out of the ordinary when it portrayed Mrs Palin as dizzy and unable to face their questions. If the New York Daily News will print every "you know" uttered by Caroline Kennedy, this is its new standard for working over political rookies. Mrs Palin got treated fairly and failed; so, seemingly, will Mrs Kennedy."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/beyond_the_palin.cfm

The World Is Not Black And White

TW: So many conservatives epitomized by W. Bush seek to break the world down into black and white choices. As most of us learn at some point between nursery school and first grade more subtle shades of gray are more relevant. Another of my least favorite conservative columnists is Victor David Hanson. In this recent piece, he bagged a two-fer, creating the dreaded straw man argument overlaid with a heavy dose of black and white logic where gray is most definitely the operative reality. Hanson implies Democrats would end all intelligence gathering involving wiretaps (the straw man) while claiming that the elimination of wiretaps is an all or nothing proposition (the black or white choice). Andrew Sullivan answered with the right points.

From Sullivan:
"One wonders how out of it NRO can get, and then one reads this from Victor Davis Hanson:

FISA and wire-intercepts of terrorist communications in the pre-Obama president months were once derided as more of Ashcroft-Bush stomping on the Constitution — except that now ABC News reports that, in fact, US intelligence agencies supplied India with general knowledge of the rough time period, place, and
perhaps even method of terrorist attack. Are we to believe that such newfound capability to warn a country 7000 miles away about terrorist infiltration on its
borders would be of no utility here at home?

Does Hanson actually believe that opponents of the Bush warrantless wiretapping were actually against all wire intercepts of terrorist communications? Does he really believe we wanted no intelligence procured through spying or wiretapping? Or is he actually aware that we were concerned about checks and balances so that these powers could not be abused or adopted in secret or given to the president alone? And just lying about it?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/it-gets-worse.html