Overplayed

It appears that at least some sanity has suddenly emerged in the Democratic party. A few people realize they seriously are in danger of trying to overplay their hand. Harry Reid is trying to back away from the far left agenda that was trying to dictate what the party should try to do to force a defeat in Iraq.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.

Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

Reid, who will huddle with Democrats Tuesday to discuss whether to postpone the Iraq debate, cited pressure from victims' families for quick action on the Sept. 11 bill as the reason for doing so.

"Iraq is going to be there — it's just a question of when we get back to it," Reid said, predicting it would be "days, not weeks" before the Senate returned to the issue. The war reauthorization legislation also appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to pass the Senate.

This political posturing isn't working out very well for the Democrats, I suspect. They are reading the poll numbers and realize they are following a path over a cliff as a party. I realize the left's shrieking machine is very loud, but the fact is that the American voters do not like losers - especially politicians who are planning to make the US lose a war. This is the real third rail for the Democrats. They can try to force a defeat on the US. But they will pay for it.  

Agreeing On Oil

Joe Lieberman today called for a truce to give the new commander in Iraq a chance to achieve his mission. The swarm from the noise machine indicates that won't be happening if they have their way. But, regardless of the naysayers, progress is being made - not just militarily, but politically. The Iraqi Cabinaet has managed to hammer out an agreement on oil revenue sharing for the entire country.

BAGHDAD, Feb. 26 — The Iraqi cabinet approved a draft of a law today that would set guidelines for countrywide distribution of oil revenues and foreign investment in the immense oil industry.

The endorsement marked a major agreement among the country’s ethnic and sectarian political blocs on one of Iraq’s most divisive issues.

The draft law approved by the cabinet allows the central government to distribute oil revenues to the provinces or regions by population, which could lessen the economic concerns of the rebellious Sunni Arabs, who fear being cut out of Iraq’s vast potential oil wealth by the dominant Shiites and Kurds.

The law also grants regional oil companies the power to sign contracts with foreign companies for exploration and development of fields, opening the door for investment by foreign oil companies in a country whose oil reserves rank among the world’s top three in size.

……

Since last year, senior Bush administration officials and top American commanders here have said a new oil law is crucial to the country’s political and economic development, and they have been pressuring Iraqi leaders to make passage of the law a priority. In recent weeks, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the senior American envoy here, has been in intense talks with Kurdish leaders in the north to overcome their objections to the draft. Iraqi officials say Mr. Khalilzad’s negotiations were crucial to winning unanimous cabinet approval today.

We have to give this a chance to work and cannot be forced - by our own politicians - into a precipitous withdrawal.  

A Titanic Something

I steered clear of this story about James Cameron claiming to have discovered the grave of Jesus Christ, his wife Mary Magdalene and their son. It's very sensational. But it means nothing whatsoever. Anyone who swallows this story, by a man who directs fictional movies, is more interested in the agenda than the story. Cameron has zero - absolutely zero - proof of anything other than a few names that were common in that time period. All of the rest is speculation. But don't listen to me, listen to the scholars.

Dr. Gibson, who was one of the first people to examine the caskets 27 years ago, now says: "Entering the tomb in 1980 I didn't imagine this would become such an international focus.

"These are typical stone caskets from the first century. There are a lot of aspects that need to be looked at. A lot of new research has to be done. I'm sceptical."

Even Cameron, pushed to support his claims, said statisticians found "in the range of a couple of million to one in favor of it being them."

Most Christians believe Jesus' body spent three days at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City. The burial site identified in Cameron's documentary is in a southern Jerusalem neighborhood nowhere near the church.

Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.

"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said. "It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave," he added. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."

"The historical, religious and archaeological evidence show that the place where Christ was buried is the Church of the Resurrection," said Attallah Hana, a Greek Orthodox clergyman in Jerusalem.

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.

"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," he said. "But sceptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

"How possible is it?" he added. "On a scale of one through ten, with ten being completely possible, it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."

A lot of hype and nothing really behind it but speculation playing to the people who already want to debunk Christianity. I have a really great idea for Cameron's next project, since he's now a self-proclaimed documentary filmmaker. Why not debunk Islam next? These attempts to discredit Christianity are only a popular sport because it is fundamentally safe.

UPDATE: Others: One Hand Clapping, Macsmind, Neocon Express, The Strata-Sphere, Wizbang, Winds of Change,

An Inconvenient Bill

Al Gore has his Oscar, his fawning followers are thrilled to the very core. But Al has one other thing.

A $30,000 energy bill for his home in Tennessee.

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
 
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
 
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
 
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
 
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

That would be rather inconvenient. If his sycophants weren't so star-struck with a not very nice looking gold-plated statue. (I told you I wasn't an Oscar fan.)

UPDATE: Ohers:  Stop The ACLU, Redstate, NewsBusters.org, Libertas, Wizbang, Scared Monkeys,  Jules Crittenden, Don Surber, PoliPundit, Outside The Beltway,

Flanking Maneuvers

Peter Navarro, a business professor at the University of California, Irvine, pens an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor that should be required reading for Congress. With virtually nothing whatsoever of any real use going on in Washington at the moment while elected officials are busy striking poses for the cameras over Iraq, other things are going on in the world. Other nations actually do things in their own interest and against the best interests of the US. In other words, it isn't all about us.

Here's the clear and present danger: What may have started out as a simple mercantilist currency gambit for China to sell its exports cheap and keep imports dear has morphed into a powerful weapon to hold off any effective US response to China's unfair trade practices. And make no mistake: Such practices run the gamut from a complex web of illegal export subsidies and currency manipulation to rampant piracy and woefully lax environmental, health, and safety standards.

From time to time, US politicians have railed against these practices – and the collateral hollowing out of America that China's "weapons of mass production" have brought about. However, any time that the Bush administration or Congress threatens any kind of significant and tangible action – as opposed to simply beating its chest – China can now credibly threaten to stop financing US deficits and start dumping greenbacks.

This is a very credible threat. If executed, inflation, the costs of imports, and interest and mortgage rates would skyrocket. With higher housing costs leading the way, consumers would soon be overburdened. The result: a nasty stagflation shock.

Some say that the Chinese would never take such an action because it would hurt them as much as Americans. But it's Beijing's view that the Chinese people are far tougher and better able to withstand any economic shock than Americans who've grown soft living the good life – and they are probably right. Chinese officials also take a far longer view of strategic action. So if a "dump the greenbacks" strategy needs to be implemented to break the back of a rising American protectionism, to secure Taiwan, or to achieve any other strategic goals, sobeit.

That's the snapshot right now – and it goes a long way in explaining why the Bush administration, and particularly Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, have taken such timid actions in dealing with this threat.

But the long-run picture is even scarier. In the next five years, as China's foreign reserves hurtle toward the $2 trillion mark (and perhaps as China begins to allow its currency to appreciate somewhat), the Chinese government and its many state-run enterprises will be in a very strong position to go on an acquisition binge for US companies.

There is a need to watch more than one thing at once in Washington. That appears to have been lost in the fixation of Congress to try to take over as Commander in Chief of the military. China is following a course that could have serious consequences for this country. And as Navarro points out, if American companies are taken over, it will be by the Chinese government, not private businesses. Think hard about that, folks.

Today’s Department Of “Duh” Report

We brought you the story of the takeout loving rats in a New York City fast food joint last Friday. Well, the Greenwich Village eatery had passed a Health Department inspection just the day before the media captured the rat races inside the building on video. It appears that the Health Department has a firm grip on the obvious - at least when the media is watching them - and has decided that there was something wrong with the inspection.

(CBS) NEW YORK Health officials are going to review the inspection of a Greenwich Village KFC/Taco Bell, which was completed one day before CBS 2 cameras caught dozens of rats scurrying across the store, jumping on tables, and climbing into food trays.

"It doesn't look like the inspection that was done Thursday met our standards," said Geoffrey Cowley, a health department spokesman. "I don't want to prejudge that. We're concerned and we're going to carefully revaluate that inspection."

The restaurant located at Sixth Avenue and West 4th Street was investigated Thursday following complaints, but the inspector didn't see any rats.

In addition, the same restaurant passed both of its inspections last year, although it was fined $1,300 for some violations which included mice droppings.

Now the Health Department has closed the store, and said it will remain closed until it passes re-inspection.

Regardless, many people were so disgusted by the entire episode, they are rethinking their dining plans.

Apparently the "menace" of trans fats trumps any concern for trivial things like rat-infested restaurants. The Health Department is inventing things to occupy their time while the rats run wild. Happy dining, New Yorkers! There may be rats in your restaurants, but you won't have to worry about any of those trans fats! Now that's progress, New York style.

Cutting Through The Smoke

There is a concerted effort going on to tout how Republicans are abandoning the Bush administration over the war in Iraq. The stories from the pundits and the media-imposed conventional wisdom is that Republicans are bailing out in drives. Only thing it, they aren't. And even USA Today, no fan of Bush or the administration, is honest enough to admit it.

 The Washington punditocracy has proclaimed far and wide that Republicans, disenchanted with the war in Iraq, are abandoning President Bush in droves, leaving him the lamest of lame ducks. However, the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll suggests Bush might not be as wounded as he appears — at least not among his party faithful.

The Feb. 9-11 poll puts Bush's job approval at 37%, but among people who identify themselves as Republican or leaning Republican, his approval rating is 76%.

Thus, despite bad news from Baghdad and carefully crafted hand-wringing by high-profile GOP war critics in Congress such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, three of four Republicans in the country are hanging in there with the president.

The poll also shows that rank-and-file Republicans have higher regard for the president than they do Republicans in Congress. They gave GOP lawmakers a 63% job-approval rating, 13 points below Bush's. And 72% of Republicans do not think Bush made a mistake sending U.S. troops to Iraq.

So if congressional Republicans figure the key to re-election in 2008 is taking a hard line against Bush on Iraq, they could be dead wrong. They might lure some independents, but they risk alienating their GOP base. To win, you need solid support from your base plus independents, not independents alone.

Conventional wisdom also says the presidential ambitions of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., could be derailed by his strong support for the war. This poll, however, shows that his stance could be a plus among the base.

What does this high approval among Republicans mean for Bush? It means that as long as his party support remains that strong, he won't fall below 30% approval, a depth that would virtually extinguish his political power. The lowest Bush has fallen is 31%, still enough to make him a significant, although wounded, force in legislative battles with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

I have stated, repeatedly, that the Democrats did not win a mandate to lose a war in November. They may have won for a number of other reasons, but that isn't one of them. They are playing a dangerous game in trying to hamstring the troops and their commanders. And people like Chucky "Janus" Hagel are misreading the tea leaves really badly. (I've said before that I know one Nebraskan who will never vote again for Hagel for any office after his grandstanding attempt at shoemanship.)

I have stated, repeatedly, that the Democrats did not win a mandate to lose a war in November. They may have won for a number of other reasons, but that isn't one of them. They are playing a dangerous game in trying to hamstring the troops and their commanders. And people like Chucky "Janus" Hagel are misreading the tea leaves really badly. (I've said before that I know one Nebraskan who will never vote again for Hagel for any office after his grandstanding attempt at shoemanship.)

Political Truce

Joe Lieberman is calling for a political ceasefire on all the maneuvers and posturing in Washington. It is sure to fall on deaf ears among the ardent supporters of defeat in Iraq, but he makes the effort anyway.

Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain "readiness" standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight.

I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, "Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct.

But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake–assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.

In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger–forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill–probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.

I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.

Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.

The facts are that there will be a genocidal bloodbath in Iraq if we pull out precipitously and the entire nation will become a safe haven for terrorists. Democrats are risking serious damage to their reputations of this. They have long been thought of as weak on national security. This whole effort could make them seen as pro-American defeat as well. They will also be setting a really bad precedent that will come back to haunt a Democrat holding the office of the president in the future. They really need to keep that in mind.

History Repeating Itself

One of the main things the British Royal Navy and the American Navy did during the past two hundred years or so is not the fighting of wars, it has been the suppression of piracy around the globe. The two navies have been instrumental in guaranteeing the freedom of the seas that international trade depends on. Unfortunately, it looks like a case of forward into the past is developing off the Horn of Africa. An American naval vessel is en route to a ship that was captured by pirates off the coast of Somalia.

Gunmen wielding AK-47s stormed the Kenyan-owned MV Rozen on Sunday, taking hostage its six Kenyan and six Sri Lankan crew after intercepting the freighter by speedboat.

It was the third hijacking in two years of a ship hired to carry relief supplies by the U.N.'s World Food Programme (WFP).

Penny Ferguson, WFP spokeswoman in neighboring Kenya, said the United Nations understood the vessel was anchored off Bargal, a port in Somalia's semi-autonomous Puntland region.

"We also understand a U.S. warship is heading to that area but that it is still in international waters," Ferguson said. "There has been no contact yet from the pirates and our biggest concern remains for the safety of the crew."

The ship, chartered by WFP from Mombasa-based Motaku Shipping Agency, was seized after unloading 1,800 metric tonnes of food aid at two northern Somali ports.

Somali pirates seized three Motaku vessels in 2005, holding one and its crew hostage for nearly 100 days. Two of those ships had been carrying WFP cargoes.

A Motaku director confirmed there had been no word yet from the hijackers, and said the company was waiting for any news.

Here's a list of American Naval casualties throughout the history of the service. There have been numerous engagements with pirates through the years. Here's an interesting collection of links about piracy.

Snakes On A Screen?

I have never been interested in the Oscars. The only thing the award show format - and the Oscars in particular - is good for is as an aid to insomnia. So I never bother watching them. So I read today that Al Gore's film won an Oscar. (Al Gore did not actually win the award himself; the film did. There is a distinction, but it doesn't matter in how it is being reported and trumpeted around today.) I predicted that, so it isn't particularly surprising to me. But for a perfect description of the Oscars, it's fun to read Tom Shales take on the festivities in today's Washington Post.

Then Celine Dion sang the "world premiere" of a Morricone-penned song called "I Knew I Loved You." Unfortunately it sounded like the theme from "Titanic" and every other song she ever sang.

Time was wasted throughout the evening on a number of cutesy gimmicks that laid enormous eggs — among them the avant-garde Pilobolus Dance Theatre, whose members posed behind a white screen and acted out the titles of films, or something. DeGeneres joined them at one point and the film they seemed to be interpreting was "Snakes on a Plane," although it was not nominated for any major awards.

As the third hour of the show approached, the stage was taken over by the cast of "Dreamgirls" for a medley of songs from the film. It was fine, but like everything else, and the Oscarcast itself, it went on and on and on. And on. It might still be going on now, for all we know.

DeGeneres reprised a bit from when she hosted the Emmy Awards a few years ago, wandering out into the audience and making small talk with such luminaries as Martin Scorsese (who won Best Director for "The Departed"); she presented Scorsese with a script she said she'd written. Later, she got Steven Spielberg, the world's most successful director, to take a snapshot of her and Eastwood, who occupied an aisle seat in the Kodak Theatre.

It was cute, but DeGeneres didn't seem to have quite the stature of the legendary Oscar hosts of the distant past — namely Johnny Carson and Bob Hope. Of course, that was a long time ago, and Hollywood has changed hugely.

All in all, I'm glad I didn't have to watch it to write a review of it. Five minutes of excitement crammed into a three plus hour show isn't good for much. Except for replacing expensive sleeping pills.