DOWNLOADS: (534)

PLAYS: (3723)

Embed

Yesterday at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, Sarah Palin shot back at President Obama for his naked diss of Sarah Palin and her highly sophisticated advice on nuclear policy:

Palin: Now, the president, with all the vast nucular experience that he acquired as a community organizer ... and as a part-time senator and as a full-time candidate, all that experience, still no accomplishment to date with North Korea and Iran.

OK, Sarah, we'll write this very slowly and hope that you can understand:

-- See, the president can't be an expert in all things. So he surrounds himself with the best minds he can, experts who advise him on various aspects of national policy.

-- Obama probably would admit he is not an expert in nuclear issues.

-- However, the people whose advice he's following -- namely, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon -- very much do have that expertise.

Or do you now want to stack your resume on nuclear issues up against theirs?

Of course, it always helps if you know how to actually pronounce the word.

DOWNLOADS: (691)

PLAYS: (3007)

Embed

Smacking down Sarah Palin must be similar to swatting a gnat sitting on the table with a big "HIT ME HERE" sign on its back. I hate even writing about her, but when the President smacks down her idiocy, it's worth a post or ten.

In his exclusive interview with George Stephanopoulis yesterday, the President was once again asked one of those cutting-edge, everyone-needs-to-know questions, riffing off of Sarah Palin's rant on Hannity's show the day before. For reference, here's Palin's quote:

It's unbelievable. Unbelievable," said Palin on Sean Hannity's program. "No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face, and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'"

Leave it to George to ask the question burning in all of our minds:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to get to some of those broader issues. Because you're also facing criticism on that. Sarah Palin, taking aim at your decision to restrict the use of nuclear weapons. Your pledge not to strike nations, non-nuclear nations, who abide by the nonproliferation treaty. Here's what she said. She said, "It's unbelievable, no other administration would do it." And then she likened it to kids on the playground. She said you're like a kid who says, "Punch me in the face, and I'm not going to retaliate." Your response?

OBAMA: I really have no response. Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues.

Undeterred by Obama's non-response, GSteph presses forward:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the string of criticism has been out there among other Republicans as well. They think you're restricting use of nuclear weapons too much.

OBAMA: And what I would say to them is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not concerned about her criticisms?

OBAMA: No.

I think the President put Sarah Palin's opinion about nuclear weapons in the proper perspective. But there was a troubling aspect to her remarks for me, as a parent.

I've always taught my kids that the scorched-earth 'beat-the-crap-outa-them-if-they-touch-you' approach is fairly barbaric. There are always better, savvier, less violent ways to handle things. Now that they are adults, or nearly adults, I can say my approach seems to have worked. They've never been beaten up, are able to get along with others without a fuss, and actually have the ability to listen to a point of view which might not be perfectly in line with their own.

So is Palin saying that Republicans think the only way to handle an affront is retaliation? Why is that not surprising to me? Ronald Reagan would even have a field day with her. Please, please, let her keep making her case for national bullyhood so the President can keep smacking her down with a smile and absolutely no violence.

I wonder what the so-called Christians who exalt her would say about her denial of Christ's teaching to 'turn the other cheek'. Don't you love her selective Christian "family values"? I know I do.

SHORTER Alan Kuperman: "Well, diplomacy has completely failed to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, so now it's just a question of whether Israel or the United States hits Iran first. And since we can do 'shock and awe' better than the Israelis, let's get to it."

You have to wonder about the sanity of a person who, after receiving a PhD in Political Science from MIT and has directed the Strauss Center's Nuclear Proliferation Prevention program for more than a year, is advocating bombing Iran's nuclear energy infrastructure as an approach to enforcing nonproliferation.

Seriously, dude. Resign now. You clearly are out of touch with reality (although nothing says "serious analyst" like that soul patch). And shame on the NY Times for printing an op-ed that belongs more in the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times.

UPDATE: Joe Palermo spells it out at Huff Po.

Oh, I'd say this is a pretty safe bet! (In an unsafe kind of way.)

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed the assessment of the expanded arsenal in a one-word answer to a question on Thursday in the midst of lengthy Senate testimony. Sitting beside Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, he was asked whether he had seen evidence of an increase in the size of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

“Yes,” he said quickly, adding nothing, clearly cognizant of Pakistan’s sensitivity to any discussion about the country’s nuclear strategy or security. Inside the Obama administration, some officials say, Pakistan’s drive to spend heavily on new nuclear arms has been a source of growing concern, because the country is producing more nuclear material at a time when Washington is increasingly focused on trying to assure the security of an arsenal of 80 to 100 weapons so that they will never fall into the hands of Islamic insurgents.

The administration’s effort is complicated by the fact that Pakistan is producing an unknown amount of new bomb-grade uranium and, once a series of new reactors is completed, bomb-grade plutonium for a new generation of weapons. President Obama has called for passage of a treaty that would stop all nations from producing more fissile material — the hardest part of making a nuclear weapon — but so far has said nothing in public about Pakistan’s activities.

It doesn't look like Obama's going to have much downtime anytime soon:

SEOUL, South Korea — The North Korean military declared an “all-out confrontational posture” against South Korea on Saturday as an American scholar said North Korean officials told him they had “weaponized” enough plutonium for roughly four or five nuclear bombs.

Thousands of North Koreans turned colored cards to form the image of an atom last year during a performance at a stadium in Pyongyang, North Korea’s capital.

American intelligence officials have previously estimated that the North had harvested enough fuel for six or more bombs, although it has never been clear whether the North constructed the weapons. The scholar, Selig S. Harrison, said the officials had not defined what “weaponized” meant, but the implication was that they had built nuclear arms.

The North conducted a test of a nuclear device in 2006, but it appeared to result in a fizzle and experts concluded the explosion was relatively small. While the country has often claimed to possess a “deterrent,” this appears to be the first time it has quantified how much plutonium it says it has turned into weapons.

After the threats on Saturday, South Korea ordered its military to heighten vigilance along the heavily fortified border with North Korea, according to a spokesman for the South Korean military joint chiefs of staff.

[...] With President-elect Barack Obama about to take office and negotiations over the North’s nuclear program expected to resume, it is possible that the North is merely setting up its negotiating position. But analysts said the North’s remarks could also be an indication that it was intending to hold onto its arms despite an agreement it signed with five countries including the United States in 2005, in which it committed to eventually giving up any nuclear weapons. The exact conditions under which it would do so were left vague.

Coming in the wake of Russian warships passing through the Panama Canal and visiting Cuba, conflicting reports that Moscow intends to sell an advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Iran are ratcheting up tensions with the United States. But more worrisome still is the heightened prospect of a preemptive Israeli air strike against Tehran's nuclear infrastructure before the S-300 system would become operational.

On Sunday, Iranian official Esmail Kosari seemingly confirmed earlier rumors of the purchase, telling Tehran's IRNA news agency, "After a few years of talks with Russia, now the S-300 system is being delivered." But the next day, the Russian agency responsible for monitoring international defense cooperation denied plans for imminent deliveries of the S-300 to Iran, claiming the Iranian's revelation "does not correspond to reality." Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, also said a senior Russian official had "told Israel that the new report about delivery of the S-300 was false."

As the AP reported Tuesday, despite the Russian assurances American officials believe the sale of the SA-10 (as it is known in the West) is going forward. While protesting that the sophisticated anti-aircraft system would pose a threat to U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington's bigger concern is the prospect of dramatically improved air defense for the Iranian nuclear program. As the Washington Post detailed:

Israel and the United States fear that, were Iran to possess S-300 missiles, it would use them to protect its nuclear facilities, including the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz or the country's first atomic power plant now under construction at Bushehr by Russian contractors. That would make any potential military strike on the Iranian facilities much more difficult.

Make that much more difficult.

Continue reading »

Scary, but true:

Don't ever say the Bush administration doesn't take care of its own. Nearly three years after Paul Wolfowitz resigned as deputy Defense secretary and six months after his stormy departure as president of the World Bank—amid allegations that he improperly awarded a raise to his girlfriend—he's in line to return to public service.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. "We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job," said one senior official.

As Andrew Sullivan asked, "He's advising Condi on WMDs. Curveball wasn't available?"

And in case you're wondering, no, Wolfowitz’s new position "doesn’t require Senate confirmation."

Hullabaloo

Gene Lyons has an interesting column about Judith Miller and her crusade to protect powerful whitehouse souces who use the NY Times to destroy their critics. Lyons, many may recall, has some particular knowledge of the NY Times and its sources, having chronicled its massive journalistic failure in the Whitewater matter in his book "Fools For Scandal." Let's just say that the Times has a very credulous relationshihp with its sources. In fact, they've made a virtual fetish of being willing tools of lying Republicans over and over again.

Lyons says that Miller should testify:

In a haughty tone familiar to anybody who's ever caught the newspaper with its metaphorical pants down, the editors reminded the prosecutor that they're The New York Times, and he's not. "Mr. Fitzgerald's attempts to interfere with the rights of a free press while refusing to disclose his reasons for doing so, when he can't even say whether a crime has been committed, have exhibited neither reverence nor cautious circumspection."

What rubbish. Reverence, indeed. (To be fair, it's an allusion to James Madison, not a demand to be worshipped.) In making its argument, the Times states it wouldn't print information that "would endanger lives and national security."

So here's my question: In a post-9/11 world, what information could possibly be more sensitive than the identity of a covert agent charged with preventing nuclear proliferation? written an interesting column about Judith Miller and her crusade to protect powerful whitehouse souces who use the NY Times to destroy their critics. Lyons, many may recall, has some particular knowledge of the NY Times and its sources, having chronicled its massive journalistic failure in the Whitewater matter in his book "Fools For Scandal." Let's just say that the Times has a very credulous relationshihp with its sources. In fact, they've made a virtual fetish of being willing tools of lying Republicans over and over again.

Lyons says that Miller should testify:

In a haughty tone familiar to anybody who's ever caught the newspaper with its metaphorical pants down, the editors reminded the prosecutor that they're The New York Times, and he's not. "Mr. Fitzgerald's attempts to interfere with the rights of a free press while refusing to disclose his reasons for doing so, when he can't even say whether a crime has been committed, have exhibited neither reverence nor cautious circumspection."

What rubbish. Reverence, indeed. (To be fair, it's an allusion to James Madison, not a demand to be worshipped.) In making its argument, the Times states it wouldn't print information that "would endanger lives and national security."

So here's my question: In a post-9/11 world, what information could possibly be more sensitive than the identity of a covert agent charged with preventing nuclear proliferation?
Answer: None.

Let's put aside the fact that Judith Miller has long been a passionately outspoken ally of Bush administration neo-conservatives who pushed for war with Iraq. She gave paid public speeches urging Saddam's overthrow. Many journalists have asked why such a partisan was given the Iraqi WMD assignment to begin with. The answer? Access, access and access.

What everybody's ignoring here is that Fitzgerald already knows Miller's sources. That's not what he wants to ask her. His prosecution brief urging her incarceration stipulates that "her putative source has been identified and has waived confidentiality."

Even editor Bill Keller has conceded that there's no imaginable journalist's shield law that would protect her. It's Miller's patriotic duty to talk.

",0]);D(["ce"]);D(["ms","85b8"]);//-->

Answer: None.

Let's put aside the fact that Judith Miller has long been a passionately outspoken ally of Bush administration neo-conservatives who pushed for war with Iraq. She gave paid public speeches urging Saddam's overthrow. Many journalists have asked why such a partisan was given the Iraqi WMD assignment to begin with. The answer? Access, access and access.

What everybody's ignoring here is that Fitzgerald already knows Miller's sources. That's not what he wants to ask her. His prosecution brief urging her incarceration stipulates that "her putative source has been identified and has waived confidentiality."

Even editor Bill Keller has conceded that there's no imaginable journalist's shield law that would protect her. It's Miller's patriotic duty to talk.

Recovering Liberal

The numbers are in and it does not look to good for Dubya and the Neo-Cons. According to a CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll released Tuesday,fifty-seven percent of Americans now think that it was not worth going to war with Iraq. This is a decrease in support for Bush's Oil war of 9% since a similar poll in Feb. of this year.

Additionally, fifty-six percent of our fellow citizens now feel that the war is going "badly," an increase of 11 percentage points since March. Maybe this would explain theirunwillingness to offer up their children to fight this folly? 

Certainly, it 'splains why the military is resorting to illegal and ethically questionably methods to recruit new cannon fodder, nowadays. Recovering Liberal

But does anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Av. seem to be listening?  I doubt it.

If they did they would still be reeling from a recent Gallup finding that 50% of Americans now say that Bush Deliberately Misled them aka, the fucker lied through his teeth,  on WMDs, or that  56 percent think that he is doing a generally shitty job on domestic issues unwillingness to offer up their children to fight this folly?

Certainly, it 'splains why the military is resorting to illegal and ethically questionably methods to recruit new cannon fodder, nowadays. Recovering Liberal

But does anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Av. seem to be listening? I doubt it.

If they did they would still be reeling from a recent Gallup finding that 50% of Americans now say that Bush Deliberately Misled them aka, the fucker lied through his teeth, on WMDs, or that 56 percent think that he is doing a generally shitty job on domestic issues.

But the smirking chimp, (God, I wish I'd thought of that name), rolls merrily along nominating psychopaths and bullies and attempting to remodel this county in the image of Saudi Arabia.

Willing partners in this stealing of our democracy are the mainstream media, CBSNBCABCFOX who with their kindred spirits in the daily pubs have been largely successful  in blocking out virtually any notice of anti-administration citizen action.

Case in point, the anti nuclear proliferation rally in Central Park on Monday. If you follow this link you will be taken to the web site of a company called the Big News Network, an outfit incorporated in Bahrain, who's  main offices are in Sydney, Australia.

THIS IS THE ONLY SOURCE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DEMONSTRATION!!!

America's Leading Plague-of-Frogs Insurance Salesman

Norbizness

.

But the smirking chimp, (God, I wish I'd thought of that name), rolls merrily along nominating psychopaths and bullies and attempting to remodel this county in the image of Saudi Arabia.

Willing partners in this stealing of our democracy are the mainstream media, CBSNBCABCFOX who with their kindred spirits in the daily pubs have been largely successful in blocking out virtually any notice of anti-administration citizen action.

Case in point, the anti nuclear proliferation rally in Central Park on Monday. If you follow this link you will be taken to the web site of a company called the Big News Network, an outfit incorporated in Bahrain, who's main offices are in Sydney, Australia.

THIS IS THE ONLY SOURCE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DEMONSTRATION!!!