Shouting 'Cross the Potomac
but never a Monday morning quarterback
adrag1 at msn.com [until the QP server gets fixed]
willv at comcast.net
Virginia Pundit Watch Will Vehrs' Weekly Column at Bacon's Rebellion
DC Metro Blog Map
UVA Center for Politics and Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball Predictions 2002
Spinsanity - Countering rhetoric with reason
On the Third Hand
A blog by a proud member of the Bellicose Women's Brigade
Mark A. Kilmer's Political Annotation
A Nickles Worth of Free Advice
Where HipHop and Libertarianism meet
Note To Self
"Crash"'s way kewl blog
The Rallying Point
Mind Over What Matters
Off the Kuff
What She Really Thinks
Talking Points Memo
the talking dog
The Rittenhouse Review
The Lefty Directory
Common Sense and Wonder
Jim Miller on Politics
Croooow Blog: Rantings and ravings on the news of the day.
The Road to Surfdom
The Volokh Conspiracy
perfunctory links(We think it's "the Mother of links pages for news and pundit junkies" - eds)
Independent Gay Forum
Town Hall: Conservative News and Information - The Conservative Movement Starts Here
Friday, June 20, 2003
The Krauthammer Energy Plan
Tony AdragnaCharles has a plan to reduce reliance on foreign oil by conserving more and producing more
We must reduce oil consumption. The easiest way to do it is simply to artificially raise the price of oil -- i.e., tax it.Well, since we're going where snowball's dread going, let me offer an alternative. Instead of focusing just on reducing our reliance on foreign sourced oil, let's try something that might push us away from reliance on fossil fuels altogether: Get rid of subsidies in the fossil fuels market!
Why play around with the market by using the tax code to artificially pump prices — the same route cigarettes took on their journey to $5 a pack — when you can get the same result by removing tax & subsidy schemes that work toward keeping prices artificially low.
Better yet, don't just take away subsidies in the fossil fuel market — get rid of all energy subsidies. Let consumers see the true cost of the energy they consume.
Update: Here's a good idea for reducing the military's reliance on oil: Stop building petrol powered naval warships! If the administration thinks so highly of nuclear power — which I'm certainly not against — then let's look at nuclear power for all future warships.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
How Goes ME Diplomacy (cont.)
Tony AdragnaLast time I addressed this issue, it was to promote The Krauthammer Plan as the only path to a secure Israel existing alongside a Palestinian state. Since then much has happened: there's a Palestinian "Prime Minister", Mr. Bush released the "road map", and Mr. Sharon has accepted that the "[occupation] can't go on forever" — yes, he used that word, and even the nuanced explanation of what he meant doesn't alter the significance.
But is all that enough to change my mind? Do I now think that a diplomatic settlement might work?
Sure, we've now got Mazen/Abbas we can deal with, instead of Arafat. But Mr. Prime Minister seems to be stuck at the same roadblock as Mr. Arafat — what to do about Palestinian rejectionist terrorists. If Mr. Abbas is unwilling or unable to disarm the Palestinian terrorist threat to Israel's security, then he's effectively no improvement over Arafat. So far, it seems Abbas isn't willing to take the path that will lead to a necessary civil war between Palestinian rejectionists and those willing to live peacefully alongside Israel.
So, what's the point of this new Palestinian leadership, other than cosmetic — he's not too ugly to sit across the table from?
Mr. Sharon has a sticky mess in his path, too — what to do about the settlements. Ordering those people to leave their homes is going to be an extremely difficult task. Evictions from those "outposts" deemed illegal even under Israel's domestic law have been "carried out unimpeded" in the past, but opposition seems to be heating up.
How hot is it going to get when Sharon starts ordering the evacuation of well established settlements? Will he be able to take the heat? Is Israel ready for a civil war between Israeli rejectionists and those willing to live peacefully alongside a Palestinian state?
'Couse, "the wall" solution relies too on withdrawing Israelis from some settlements, but at least Israel would get security — peace will come somewhere further down the road.
But, not any further down the road than where it can be found on the current map — that place where Israelis and Palestinians are willing & able to deal with their own domestic pressures. Israel will get security through dealing death to terrorists, but she won't get peace. Abbas can avoid a civil war by not going after Hammas et al, but he won't get a Palestinian state.
What do I think about the "roadmap"? I think it leads to a dead-end...
Sunday, June 15, 2003
"Past the Point of Justifying"
It is too early to declare final victory in Iraq. But we're well past the point of knowing that our war to liberate Iraq was right and just. The discovery of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered children should have convinced even the greatest skeptic. We made America more secure, liberated millions from a reign of terror and helped create the prospect for the establishment of the first Arab democracy. That should make Americans proud -- and critics of the administration's decision to go to war a little more circumspect.That's Sen. McCain on today's WaPo op-ed page, and he's absolutely correct.
Certainly there's room for criticism of how the case for war was made. But one criticism can't be that the administration took us to war on intelligence that wasn't sufficiently reliable to justify war. To say that no other president would've taken us to war on the same conclusions drawn by the current one, you have to believe that Clinton's attack on Iraq in '98 either wasn't an act of war, or was based on some more reliable data.
But, I think there's as much room for criticism of public opinion that we shouldn't have gone to war on what we did know of Saddam's regime. Let's recall why it was that the UN Security Council resolved that Iraq be required to dismantle her weapons programs and submit to inspections. The Council made clear its concerns in 687's preamble[pdf], where we see this verbiage
Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,It was never just about Iraq's possession of weapons banned by international convention. It was about the regime "threatening to use" and the fact of "its prior use" of those weapons.
There didn't need to be a case made that those weapons could someday fall into the hands of thugs who might use them — they were already in the hands of a thug who did use them. But even then, in '91, there is expressed a concern about Saddam's possible connection to terrorism — his own threats.
My biggest criticism of the naysayers, though, isn't that they would discount those concerns until such a time as Iraq would prove an "imminent threat" to us. Rather, it's that they won't — or can't — see that there would still have been plenty of justification absent a direct threat against the US: Liberating Iraqi's from a thug the likes of Hitler & Stalin — admittedly not "like" in scale, but not for lack of trying.
Sure, non-compliance with Security Council resolutions was the vehicle we attempted using to gain international support, but even those resolutions understood that at its core the threat was the regime. The final campaign against Saddam's Iraq was always about getting rid of that regime.
To argue, as I've heard asserted repeatedly, that Saddam's murderous brutality wasn't enough justification, you'd also have to assert that knowledge of the Shoa wouldn't have been sufficient justification for going to war against Hitler. Indeed, as it became apparent — after our entrance into the war upon being attacked — that Hitler was murdering Jews by the millions, arguments were made that this was no worse than any other atrocities, so why would the murder of Jews rate a military response, but not those other cases? Sound familiar?
I'll wait 'til I know more about whether the president lied to the nation before starting to campaign for impeachment. However, whatever misdeeds there were leading us into war doesn't change the fact that the war was justified.