WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER 23,  2009

HOUSE DEMS WON'T ROLL OVER - AT 8:51 P.M. ET:  Conventional wisdom has it that the House Democrats will eventually cave in and accept the Senate compromise on health "reform."  Not so fast.  The ultra-liberals aren't rolling over, as The Politico reports:

On the eve of a historic health care vote in the Senate, liberal Democrats in the House have launched a full-throated defense of the public option — a sign of battles to come when party leaders try to meld the two bills.

“Now that the Senate is poised to pass its version of a health care reform bill, it is time to turn to reconciling it with the House legislation," California Reps. Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey said in a joint statement Wednesday. “For Congress to achieve true health care reform we must have a meaningful conference process that integrates both bills into the best possible piece of legislation for the American people."

COMMENT:  True, Woolsey and Lee are fringe characters, members of the way-out-there California delegation, but they speak for an important bloc of votes in the House. 

This health-care fight is far from over.  It's being reported that President Obama expects the issue to linger until February, past the State of the Union message.  That gives Americans many weeks in which to make their voices heard.  I would not be shocked to see some "tea parties," even in the snow.

December 23, 2009   Permalink 

BREAKUP ON THE LEFT - AT 7:13 P.M. ET:  Apparently, there isn't total harmony in the precincts of the Hollywood left, as the Washington Post notes:

After two decades of togetherness and a reputation as one of the more stable relationships in Hollywood, a rep for Susan Sarandon this afternoon announced to People.com that not only has she split with partner of 23 years Tim Robbins, but that they actually broke up months ago:

"Actress Susan Sarandon and her partner of 23 years, actor Tim Robbins have announced that they separated over the summer," her rep Teal Cannaday tells PEOPLE in a statement. "No further comments will be made."

What happened and why the announcement now just in time to ruin the holiday season? Doubtless, details will emerge over the coming days.

COMMENT:  They were Hollywood's quintessential leftist couple.  Sarandon, in particular, almost outdistanced Jane Fonda. 

Now, a few questions:

1.  When Hollywood leftists split, do they fight over their millions, or does the fortune go to the workers?

2.  Will lawyers be involved, or will there be facilitators?

3.  Is there child custody on the left, or will the kids be shipped off to a commune?

4.  If one partner was found to be cheating with a person of a different race, does that partner get extra credit in any settlement?

5.  If one partner tried to hurt the other by cheating with a Republican, does that partner have to do penance by cutting Barbara Streisand's lawn for a year?

6.  Who keeps the bust of Che Guevara?  Who keeps the Hugo Chavez coffee mug? 

7.  Which one will get the note of regret from the White House?

Okay, okay, okay.

December 23, 2009   Permalink

WE WONDER WHY - AT 6:30 P.M. ET:  It's surprising to find this in a mainstream magazine like TIME, but I'm glad they ran it.  It seems 2009 was a frightening year in terms of terror:

You may not have noticed because most of the plots were foiled, but 2009 saw an unprecedented surge in terror "events" on U.S. soil. When analysts tally these events, they refer to anything from a disrupted plot to U.S. citizens traveling abroad to seek terror training or a lone gunman running amok in the U.S. And by the calculations of Rand Corporation expert Brian Jenkins, more terrorist threats were uncovered in the U.S. during 2009 than in any year since 2001.

"There appears to be an increase in [terrorist] activity in the U.S.," warns Jenkins, who calculates that there have been 32 terror-related "events" on these shores since 9/11, and that 12 of those occurred in 2009.

To its credit, TIME lists the Fort Hood shooting as a terrorist incident, deviating from the trendy line that the shooter was simply "stressed."

But then we get this:

Terrorism experts and Muslim community leaders caution that the spurt in such events doesn't necessarily add up to a trend. For one thing, the cases are unconnected. "Each case has its own special circumstances," says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Garbage in, garbage out.  Of course they're connected.  They're connected by a common ideology.  Have you ever noticed how these jihadists always seem to use the same language?

The internet is being used widely as a recruiting tool:

Jihadist recruiters have grown increasingly sophisticated in their use of the Internet, and many of them specifically target American audiences. Extremist e-preachers such as Anwar al-Awlaki, an American living in Yemen who exchanged e-mails with Maj. Hasan, communicate in English, which makes them more accessible to American Muslims. Pakistani authorities believe the Virginia Five were recruited by a man known as Saifullah, who communicated mainly through e-mails.

And...

Jenkins suggests there may also be a generational conflict at work: He points out that many of the American Muslims accused of terrorism this year are young men, who "would have been at a very impressionable age when 9/11 happened." Although the majority of the community were repelled by the terrorist attacks on that day, he says, "some would have been inspired by it and caught up in the jihadist narrative."

If 2009 alerted Americans to the domestic terror threat, it's a safe bet that there will be more reminders of the danger in 2010.

COMMENT:  No doubt.  And no doubt we'll get the usual excuses and rationalizations.  But one factor not discussed in the piece, or in the mainstream media generally, is the signal of weakness being sent by the Obama administration.  Jihadists, like any other fighters, sense the power and resolve of the opposition.  And weakness encourages them.   

If you were a jihadist, would you rather face Barack Obama or Dick Cheney? 

Case closed.

December 23, 2009   Permalink

THAT SINKING FEELING - AT 10:20 A.M. ET:  There's a good reason why no one at the White House refers to Scott Rasmussen as "Santa Claus."  They'd like to send back every gift he brings.

This morning's Rasmussen report has still more bad news for the president, and his party:

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. The President’s overall approval has stayed between 44% and 46% every day for twelve days. Prior to that, it had stayed between 46% and 50% every day for more than two months.

Fifty-five percent (55%) now disapprove of the President’s performance.

It is the trend that should worry the White House.  There was stability for a time, but the last 12 days (of Christmas?) have shown another downturn.

And there's this:

Republicans have opened their largest advantage yet on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

Rasmussen has the details:

Republican candidates now have an eight-point lead over Democrats, their biggest lead of the year, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Support for GOP candidates held steady over the past week, but support for Democrats slipped by a point.

COMMENT:  The Dems are reportedly hoping that the president's signing of the anticipated health "reform" bill will turn things around.  Well, that's possible.  Moments of triumph, well orchestrated, can have a bandwagon effect.  But I really wonder whether that will happen this time, with so much public opposition to the bill being signed.

Other than that, there isn't much coming down the road that looks good for the Dems...unless of course the Republicans really mess up their 2010 campaign.  Can't judge that just yet.

December 23, 2009   Permalink

THE SPIES AMONG US - AT 9:03 A.M. ET:  We are not supposed to talk about this.  Polite people don't, you know.  After all, it's so unintellectual.  But NRO went slumming a bit, and gave us this remarkable piece about a spy among us, and how he was accepted by the elites.  Revolting.

Now another case of spying has emerged from the halls of our government institutions. And this one may raise a sardonic chuckle over how casual liberal sympathies and knee-jerk Bush bashing made a Communist agent seem normal among the elites in academia and our nation’s capital.

Kendall Myers, who worked for the State Department for some 30 years starting in 1977, eventually earning Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance, pled guilty and was convicted last month of spying for Cuban intelligence for virtually all that time. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment. His wife, Gwendolyn, was not employed by the State Department, but pled guilty as his accomplice and received a sentence of six to seven and a half years.

They will now officially be listed by the left as political prisoners, victims of imperialism, and martyrs in the battle against BUSH (!!).

Myers also taught part-time at Johns Hopkins.

David P. Calleo, director of European studies at Johns Hopkins, knew Myers for 40 years but was taken completely by surprise at the news of the arrest in June. “Anyone who knows him finds it baffling and finds this completely out of character,” Calleo said. “He has this amazing intellectual curiosity. He is open to all kinds of ideas.”

Why such traits would make spying “out of character” in Professor Calleo’s judgment is not clear, but being “open to all kinds of ideas” is probably the ultimate compliment in the liberal mind, at least on a theoretical level.

And...

...during the couple’s time in Washington, nothing about Mr. Myers seemed exceptional. He fit right in with his anti-American attitudes and bitter fury at U.S. policies — his “deep and long-standing anger toward his country,” as court documents put it. “To his liberal neighbors in Northwest D.C. it was nothing out of the ordinary,” according to the Washington Post. “We were all appalled by the Bush years,” volunteered a neighbor.

Finally...

A former colleague of Mrs. Myers during her time in a low-level Capitol Hill job observed, “She was not remarkably different than dozens and dozens of other people that you ran across in the 1970s who were McGovernites who got into politics for reasons other than to make a lot of money.”

Well, let’s hope she and her husband were at least a little different from all those other McGovernites. Certainly, not all ex-McGovernites receive the personal commendation of Fidel Castro himself for their “disinterested and courageous conduct on behalf of Cuba.”

COMMENT:  What is remarkable is that Kendall Myers was so open in his attitudes, and yet no one thought it unusual.  Maybe if he'd just come into the State Department one day wearing a hammer-and-sickle lapel pin, a few eyebrows might have been raised.  Then again, maybe not.  Just another narrative, you know.  Who are we to judge?

December 23, 2009   Permalink

ARE THESE PEOPLE SERIOUS? - AT 8:30 A.M.  Fox News gives us an insight into the kind of thinking surrounding health "reform."  Will someone please ask Obama about this?  Is this what he meant by "change we can believe in"?

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, after securing a sweetheart deal for his state as part of the health insurance reform bill, said Tuesday that three other senators have told him they want to bargain for the same kind of special treatment.

"Three senators came up to me just now on the (Senate) floor, and said, 'Now we understand what you did. We'll be seeking this funding too'," Nelson said.

But the Democratic senator, who has faced a heap of criticism for appearing to trade his vote on health care for millions in federal Medicaid money, said he's considering asking that the Nebraska deal be stripped from the bill.

What?  Now this is intriguing.

Though he defended the exemption as a "fair deal," he said he never asked for the full federal funding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended up granting his state. Nelson said he instead asked that states be allowed to refuse an expansion of Medicaid.

"This is the way Senate leadership chose to handle it. I never asked for 100 percent funding," he said.

Reportedly, there's actually a backlash in Nebraska among decent citizens who feel their state has stolen something.  That's heartland America.

Nelson has maintained that the only reason he even brought up Medicaid was that Nebraska Republican Gov. Dave Heineman put him up to it.

After Nelson sent a letter to the governor offering to kill the Medicaid deal, Heineman acknowledged that he and other governors had "expressed concern" about the state burden for Medicaid patients. But he rejected any suggestion from Nelson that he asked for the kind of deal Reid struck.

Public revulsion is building.  The question is whether it's great enough to block final passage of the bill.  The answer is, probably no.  The Democrats feel they're making history.  They're completing the sixties dream of a more socialist society, with greater control by the government.  They even seem prepared to lose Congressional seats, maybe even control of Congress, over this. 

Ideological fanaticism is having its day.

December 23, 2009   Permalink

'TIS THE SEASON FOR...LAWSUITS - AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  Of course, what season isn't for lawsuits these days? 

The Washington Examiner reports that the health "reform" bill about to be passed by the Senate is drawing the attention of lawyers, some of whom are ready to challenge the constitutionality of some provisions:

Looks like the steadily growing list of constitutional, ethical and political outrages that constitute the Harry Reid version of Obamacare is sparking a rebellion in the states, as AP reports South Carolina's attorney general plans to investigate the vote-buying that surrounded the proposal in the Senate majority leader's office.

According to AP, South Carolina's Henry McMaster is being joined by the attorneys general of Michigan and Washington state in a suit to determine the constitutionality of the Obamacare proposal. Their initiative was prompted by a request from South Carolina's two senators, Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint, both Republicans.

Attorneys-general in at least four other states are also considering joining McMaster, according to AP. A move by a group of states to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare could reinvigorate the efficacy of the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states or the people all rights not specifically granted to the federal government.

COMMENT:  What hasn't been emphasized in the media is the fact that this legislation, if it finally passes both houses of Congress and is signed the president, will lead to a variety of legal actions and challenges.  You may be sure that whole law firms will be formed just dealing with Obamacare, and what it will do to patients and physicians. 

Further, the Dems will tell you that the legislation doesn't cover illegal immigrants.  No, not in its current form.  But you can be sure that a legal challenge will be mounted, on constitutional grounds, if an illegal immigrant is denied care.  Courts may have as much to do with the health services we receive as Congress. 

December 23,  2009   Permalink

TUESDAY,  DECEMBER 22,  2009

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS ERUPTING - AT 7:05 P.M. ET:  There is much fuss this evening over a statement by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, who commands U.S. forces in northern Iraq, that female soldiers under his command who become pregnant, and those males who get them so, will be punished.  At first he said court-martialed, but he's pulled back on that.

The general's statement was actually contained in a general memo in which he listed causes for punishment.  CNN reports:

The commander who instituted a policy cracking down on pregnancy among soldiers defended it Tuesday as necessary to maintain troop strength, but said no soldier would ever be court-martialed for violating the directive.

The policy -- which would punish soldiers who get pregnant or impregnate another soldier -- was included in Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo's orders to troops regarding conduct while deployed under his command in northern Iraq.

Cucolo, who has 22,000 people under his command, including 1,682 women, said the policy is meant to make his soldiers "think before they act."

"The main reason why I did this was my intense desire to maintain my fighting strength any way possible in a very tough and complex mission that includes a drawdown," he told reporters in a conference call Tuesday. "The consequence of them departing early is they're leaving their team, their unit, shorthanded with their special skills."

Well, I tell you...the mascara hit the fan.  The National Organization for Women, which doesn't lift a finger at the oppression of Muslim women, issued a blistering statement:

"How dare any government say we're going to impose any kind of punishment on women for getting pregnant," NOW President Terry O'Neill said. "This is not the 1800s."

Of course, in the 1800s we didn't have women deployed in a combat zone.  As if O'Neill or NOW care about combat zones, or women therein.

And four senators all but declared war against the monster militarist Cucolo:

"We can think of no greater deterrent to women contemplating a military career than the image of a pregnant woman being severely punished simply for conceiving a child," the senators wrote to Cucolo today. "This defies comprehension. As such, we urge you to immediately rescind this policy."

The letter was signed by Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

This is over-the-top stuff.  And it is very insulting to women, who are portrayed by NOW and these four senators as too immature to be trusted to control themselves.  As the father of two daughters, I'm outraged.

The general is correct.  Both men and women, especially in combat deployments, have responsibilities as soldiers.  And the first responsibility is to maintain their ability to be soldiers and remain deployed. 

I suspect most women in the military will back the general.

December 22, 2009   Permalink

STEPS!  THERE ARE STEPS TAKEN! - AT 5:53 P.M. ET:  I post this to assure you that steps are being taken.  From Reuters:

The White House has begun to take steps to confront Iran's unwillingness to "pursue its responsibilities" on the nuclear issue, spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday.

"We've begun to take those steps, if Iran is unwilling to pursue its responsibilities," Gibbs said.

Steps.  More steps.  I'm so grateful.  Peace in our time.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday dismissed a year-end deadline set by the Obama administration for Tehran to accept a United Nations-drafted deal to swap enriched uranium for nuclear fuel.

The deal aims to diminish Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, easing the West's fears that the material could be used to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran, which denies it seeks to build a bomb, has balked at the deal's terms.

COMMENT:  I'm glad they're taking steps.  Gibbs also told Iran to take next week's deadline seriously.

No doubt this will have as much impact as previous warnings.  The president will get up on January 1st, maybe still wearing his party hat and tooting his tooter, and realize that he's got to produce something for the Iran account. 

Fox News is reporting comments by unnamed administration officials to the effect that nothing much will happen right after the first of the year, but that something will happen by the end of January.

The steel in that statement is inspiring, isn't it?

December 22, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE REAL WORLD - AT 4:42 P.M. ET:  The economic numbers for the third quarter, when looked at with both eyes, aren't quite as encouraging as they first seemed.  From The New York Times:

The nascent economic recovery was weaker than expected in the third quarter, the government said Tuesday, held back by slow business construction and dwindling inventories.

The Commerce Department said the economy expanded at an annual rate of 2.2 percent from July through September, down from the original forecast of 3.5 percent, tempering some of the enthusiasm about the speed of economic renewal. The downward revision was well above average, but analysts still foresee stronger growth in the fourth quarter, as exports rise and an improved jobs market encourages consumer spending.

COMMENT:  Ten and a half months to the election.  The economy will still be the key issue.  Anemic numbers like this will not help the already beleaguered Democrats.  And, being high tax types, they'll probably make things worse.

December 22,  2009   Permalink

NEW POLL STUNNER - AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  With daily tracking polls now starting to show reaction to Obama's Copenhagen flop, and the Senate's imminent passage of Obamacare, the news keeps getting worse for the president.  Rasmussen has just published his Tuesday report:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.

The internals are even worse. 

Fifty-three percent (53%) of men Strongly Disapprove along with 39% of women. Most African-American voters (58%) Strongly Approve while most white voters (53%) Strongly Disapprove.

The racial divide, while understandable, is very troubling for a "post-racial" president.

And overall approval?

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove. 

I believe that gap is also the greatest recorded in the Rasmussen poll.  Again, the internals:

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Democrats approve while 88% of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters disapprove.

That unaffiliated (independent) number, 62%, is staggering.

We always stress that other polls may show a better position for the president, but Rasmussen polls likely voters, which is the best way to do it.  Some polls question registered voters, or even all adults.  In Chicago they poll those alive, or not.

December 22, 2009   Permalink

GET USED TO THIS - AT 9:27 A.M. ET:  States and cities are starting to tally up the damage from the health "reform" bill about to be passed by the Senate.  There are winners and losers, depending on what deals were made at the last minute.  But when most Americans realize what's been done, there's got to be a backlash.  Governor Paterson of New York State, and Mayor Bloomberg of New York City give an assessment of the wreckage.  Expect this in your area soon:

The Senate health reform bill is packed with lumps of coal for New York's Christmas stocking.

Gov. Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg and other officials warned the Senate plan would:

- Force the city to close 100 health clinics.

- Blow a $1 billion hole in the state's budget.

- Threaten struggling hospitals, nursing homes and other facilities.

"It is really a disgrace and we've got to make sure that we fight before the bill is finally passed," Bloomberg fumed.

New York ended up on the short end as Senate brokers showered cash on states whose senators were among the last holdouts before Democratic leaders locked up the 60 needed votes.

New York's best hope now is emergency surgery to undo the shafting before the bill becomes final.

COMMENT:  That closing of 100 clinics will certainly improve health care for the uncovered.  Why didn't they think of that before? 

How are things in your region?  Are you looking forward to Obamacare?

Can't wait to get my card.  I understand it will get you a free roll of Tums.

December 22, 2009   Permalink

CREEPING TOWARD OBLIVION - AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  I heard an interesting definition last night.  It seems that in Britain they have a rather strong "green" movement - you know, the environmental "activists."  But those who are on to them don't call them greens, but "watermelons" - green on the outside, red on the inside.

We saw that in Copenhagen.  The greatest applause at the "climate change" conference didn't greet President Obama, or even Al Green, uh Al Gore.  It greeted Hugo Chavez and his attacks on capitalism.  The climate-change movement, like many movements, has a hidden agenda - a move toward socialism and world government.  And yet, we're told very little about it by the mainstream media, which regards socialism as just another "narrative."

Investors Business Daily, in a fine editorial, discusses our own drift toward socialism, symbolized by the health "reform" package:

Health Care: Democrats on the take and in the dead of night pass an execrable piece of legislation that they haven't read, the public doesn't want and only socialists could love. What has happened to this country?

And...

Let's see if we have this right:

This was a vote on a Democrat-concocted scheme that Americans have rejected every time it's been proposed for 100 years and that is opposed again, by 54% to 41% by the public at large, by 2-to-1 by practicing physicians and by every last member on the Republican side of the aisle.

What could these people possibly know?  Do they live in Manhattan?  Beverly Hills?  Do they have parties and invite African diplomats?

Despite growing public opposition, Democratic members had the nerve to call those who questioned their monstrosity "obstructionists" and worse. Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse called health care bill foes "birthers," "fanatics" and "people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups." Is this what Democrats meant when they said they seek bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems?

By bipartisan they mean that far-left Democrats and liberal Democrats will join together. 

As the nonpartisan Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation put it, "The House and Senate health care bills contain enormous tax hikes to accompany massive increases in government spending."

But, of course, in the eyes of the left, those are wonderful things.  Progress!

What's truly frightening about this bill isn't what it does, but what it sets us on course to do. Democrats have long said they see this bill as a first step toward a total takeover of U.S. health care, regardless of the consequences.

The bill's requirement that Americans buy insurance is a major step toward that takeover. It's the first time in our nation's history the government has made Americans buy something. Get used to it. It's going to become a pattern.

COMMENT:  It already is a pattern.  U.S. Government Wheels & Deals, formerly known as General Motors, is an example.  The 1960s left has come roaring back, a little more careful with its propaganda this time, getting protection from the slick rhetoric of Barack Obama, and supported by much of the media. 

It's pretty clear from the polls that many Americans are in fact aware of what is happening.  But we need that 50% plus one at the polls to reverse it.  And the clear goal of many on the left is to do what political machines in many cities have done so effectively, going back to the 19th century - make the people so dependent on the party in power that they feel they must vote them in year after year.  Tammany did it in New York, the Daley machine does it in Barack Obama's Chicago. 

Now the machine has gone national, and international.

December 22, 2009   Permalink 

LAUGHED AT AGAIN - AT 8:19 A.M. ET:  The extent to which the Obama foreign policy is being laughed at all over the world was brought home to us in Copenhagen, where the attitude toward the president of the United States was, "Write a big check or go away."  Anyone surprised?

Now the president of Iran, facing a deadline from Obama that is little more than a week away, shows more reverence toward the president who was going to change the world with a sweep of his hand.  From Britain's veddy leftist Guardian:

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, today dismissed a year-end deadline set by the US for Iran to accept a UN-brokered deal to swap enriched uranium for nuclear fuel.

As Iran faces a renewed US drive for further sanctions, Ahmadinejad made light of the threat. "If Iran wanted to make a bomb, we would be brave enough to tell you," he told supporters in the southern city of Shiraz. He said the west could give Iran "as many deadlines as they want, we don't care."

In an interview aired on US television yesterday, Ahmadinejad dismissed documents apparently describing Iranian efforts to make a nuclear trigger as "fabricated and distributed by the US."

The president brushed away a report in last week's Times newspaper that cited confidential Iranian technical documents detailing a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the part of a nuclear warhead that triggers detonation.

"No, I don't want to see them at all. I don't," he said. "They are all fabricated bunch of papers continuously being forged and disseminated by the American government," Ahmadinejad told ABC News.

David Axelrod, a top White House adviser, said the charge that the US had forged the documents was "nonsense."

COMMENT:  This will be Obama's greatest foreign-policy challenge of 2010, and so far his approach has been just a bit higher than casual.  There does not seem any great likelihood that he will bring China and Russia on board for serious sanctions against Iran, so he'll have to accept lesser, ineffective sanctions, while calling them "unprecedented," this administration's favorite adjective.

And Iran will play the very effective game of nuclear ambiguity - rolling ahead with its nuke program while denying any interest in weapons.  Remember, engineers today don't actually have to test a nuclear bomb to know that it will work.  Modern computer simulation can replace testing, which is probably why we've never seen an Israeli nuclear test.  So the appeasers can always claim that we have no "proof" that Iran has the bomb.

We live in interesting times, as the Chinese say.  And they mean it as a curse.

December 22, 2009   Permalink