Office of the Independent Blogger

Al Franken is running for the Senate in Minnesota. He is running because the incumbent Republican disrespected Franken’s friend, Paul Wellstone, after he died during the finals days of the 2002 Congressional election, and he wishes to get revenge by defeating him. I’m not sure how I feel about this. By all means, I support a true politician over Franken if the true politician is someone with knowledge of politics and plenty of support, but I don’t quite see the harm in allowing Franken to run. He’s just not my first choice. I worry that he doesn’t have the seriousness to begin and maintain a winning campaign, and I fear that he’ll be goaded into silly statements.

We’ll see, but I expect a Democrat, any Democrat, to beat Coleman in 2008.

Two bits of interesting news are coming from Iraq. First, this,

Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr has ordered his militia not to confront U.S. forces and has endorsed negotiations aimed at easing the deployment of American troops in his strongholds, according to Sadrist and other Shiite officials. Ahead of a planned surge of 21,500 U.S. troops intended to secure Baghdad, Sadr has instructed his al-Mahdi Army, recently described by the Pentagon as the biggest single threat to a stable Iraq, to keep a low profile and stay off the streets, Sadr officials say.

and then there’s this.

Iraq’s prime minister said Wednesday he’s sure Iran is behind some attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and he won’t allow his country to be a battleground for the two nations. “We have told the Iranians and the Americans, ‘We know that you have a problem with each other, but we are asking you, please solve your problems outside Iraq,’ ” Nuri al-Maliki told CNN. “We will not accept Iran to use Iraq to attack the American forces,” al-Maliki said Wednesday in an exclusive interview with CNN. (Read more of al-Maliki interview) “We don’t want the American forces to take Iraq as a field to attack Iran or Syria,” he added. Asked about the role of Iran in Iraq, al-Maliki said he was confident that Iranian influence was behind attacks on U.S. forces. “It exists, and I assure you it exists,” he said.

Iranian-U.S. tensions have been ratcheted up recently, with two U.S. officials theorizing about the possibility that Iran was involved in a January 20 attack that killed five U.S. soldiers. Two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said Tuesday the Pentagon is investigating whether the attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives. “People are looking at it seriously,” one of the officials said, adding that the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation. The second official said: “We believe it’s possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained.” The five soldiers were abducted and killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing American-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports. (Watch how attackers got into the compound ) Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is only a preliminary view, and there is no conclusion. They agreed this possibility is under consideration because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination. “This was beyond what we have seen militias or foreign fighters do,” the second official said.

It’s very interesting to see the Iraqi government tell Iran and America to stay out and fight someplace else. I’m not sure I believe it, though. It must be quite the balancing act for Maliki. To have to placate the Iranians, who are dangerous because they’re dangerous and next-door, and to placate the Americans because they’re dangerous and they’re the Americans. Honestly, I suspect that the Iraqis are helping both sides to cover themselves against either one. Now, in regard to the first story: al-Sadr is a whip for the Iranians. I wonder why he’s ordering the standdown, for real. Whether it’s because of the incoming American troops or because of Iranian orders to stand down? Both?

In 1996, the American government went after Iranians through covert action after the Khobar Towers bombing and the Iranians backed off. Iran isn’t entirely stupid: America is nearing war, internally, and Iran knows this and so is cooling itself off before it gets lit ablaze. The question is, How long will they settle down for? and if they don’t, What do we do? See, the Iranians want to avoid war, now, because they don’t have nuclear weapons yet. Let’s say they don’t give us explicit reason for war: what then? Do we idly watch them build nuclear weapons and then start a war? Threaten to “contain them” and then blast their nation into the sand after they nuke Israel?

The Middle East hasn’t been this dangerous since 1945.

Air America Radio went bankrupt recently and was going through the final stages of Chapter Eleven. Unfortunately, it will be revived later this week by a businessman seeking to sink his businesses. Listen, I’m all for Talk Radio from the Left, but Air America Radio didn’t do anything right and I’m sad to see its return. Then again, they might surprise the world and change the station to make it better, but I doubt it, truly, unless there’s a total overhaul of the organization. It simply worries me that many of the people who will be running it a second time were running it the first time. When it went bankrupt.

I wish the station the best but I’m not sure a lot of good is in its future. Like I’m not sure this shows much wisdom, either.

Nuclear power plants will not be required to put up defenses against terrorist attacks from the air, according to a rule enacted Monday by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The commission specifically rejected ordering plants to erect so-called “beamhenge shields” — steel I-beams and cabling — that are designed to keep planes from hitting nuclear facilities. Critics slammed the commission’s decision, saying it “jeopardizes the safety of millions.” Dale Klein, chairman of the NRC, said that nuclear plants are already adequately defended against such attacks. “Nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane,” he said in a written statement. “The NRC has also taken actions that require nuclear power plant operators to be able to manage large fires or explosions — no matter what has caused them.” The NRC says the military and other agencies are able to protect the facility from airborne attacks. “The NRC is actively involved with other federal agencies, including the military, to protect all this nation’s infrastructure against such attacks,” Klein said.

It seems like arrogance. “Our buildings are strong enough to withstand a kamikaze jet!” and “Our fire department is equipped to handle it!” Seems like something that might backfire and backfire in dramatic fashion, but I’ll give those who made this decision the benefit of the doubt. Although I think they should be liable for the attack if something of the sort did occur and the commission voted against added protections.

African Politics are pretty interesting, and I’m sort of impressed by this news. See, the African Union had told the Sudan that its President would get the Presidency of the Union this year, but they took that back, and with good reason.

Kufuor was unanimously elected by consensus at the eight AU summit which opened in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He had previously served two terms as chairman of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Monday’s election is second time Sudanese leader Bashir has been pushed aside for chairmanship of the AU. At the last session, African leaders selected Congo’s President Dennis Sassou-Nguesso as a compromise candidate to chair the alliance for one year and then hand over to Bashir. However, this had depended on Sudan demonstrating progress in bringing peace to Darfur, which has not been done.

It’s good to see, as far as moral stands go, but it be better to see something done to legitimately help someone in Sudan. Don’t get me wrong. There’s a time and place for moral stands, and sometimes it’s all you can do, but I don’t feel that that’s the case here, and the whole tragedy breaks my heart a million times over.

Let’s turn north to Iraq now, where Iran is offering to rebuild Iraq, and to help the Iraqis with their military and new country. I’m not sure how much the Iranians are involved in the War, but I’m sure they’re a significant problem, and I’m fully on board with the President’s recent order to kill Iranians found engaging in Warfare or War-related activities in Iraq. I just can’t believe the Iraqis can be so foolish as to turn over great portions of their security and compromise their future by befriending their historical enemy, especially considering that Mahmoud Ahmaniac! is transparently power hungry and nuts.

The Iraqi public that supports the Iranian regime and welcomes it will certainly regret it one day.

Or,
How Chuck Hagel Might be the Best Chance the Republicans have in 2008.

The Republicans haven’t got much going for them in terms of candidates for President, although they have got a few sleepers (who I’ve talked about before, like Huckabee, or the media’s favorite, Mitt Romney). Newsweek today raises a possibility worth pondering, and that’s a potential run by Chuck Hagel. The article is worth reading for its look at Hagel’s anti-Iraq-war position and the criticisms he’s faced from within (himself and the Party), but it concludes that Hagel would have little shot at the Presidency because the Republicans wouldn’t nominate him because he was disloyal to the President. It is this very reason that has caused me to, in the past, discount Hagel’s candidacy, but then I thought about it and figured, Hagel has a chance.

Know why? Almost all of the candidates are rebels as far as the Republican orthodox is concerned. McCain has long feuded with Christian Conservatives and Bush; Giuliani defies the Party Line on everything, whether or not he wants to admit it (I saw him on TV last night, talking about his Conservative credentials, and he is absolutely full of shit when he talks about his “Conservative credentials”); Romney is a Mormon who governed Ted Kennedy’s Taxachussetts; Huckabee is from Hope, Arkansas, and hasn’t got much insider support, although I like his chances; and Tancredo is insane. Hagel’s a rebel for criticizing the White House as firmly as he has, but he’s also got impeccable Conservative credentials, has been right on the War (as far as the American public is concerned) since the beginning, and has a military background.

If he runs for President, he could raise hell in the Republican Party. More importantly, he could raise support, too.

Jane Fonda must not be fond of Democrats or the anti-war movement in any incarnation. What else explains this: her first anti-war protest in over three decades. Why pick now as the time to speak out? She has no political clout, and so while I can appreciate the first amendment’s shield, I think she should be quiet, as she won’t achieve anything positive by speaking out. Think about it: if the majority of a citizenry remember you for what Fonda is remembered for, you should decline to endorse anything you support because your endorsement is bound to be a kiss of death.

To be fair to her, though, I suppose she figured that Bush has a lower rating than she at this moment, and she had to take advantage of her newfound popularity!

Now, there are a few other “movements” I’d like to address briefly. First, is this story, which seems to create a hole in the Democratic Party’s ethical movement. It’s true enough that both parties are corrupt, and given enough time in power any party will crook itself, but this story is true-and-false at the same time. It’s about Dianne Feinstein, whose husband is a contractor making money in Iraq. That, along with the fact that she’s voted on bills that have given him a ton of money, is the controversy. The deal, however, was approved by the Senate Ethics Committee while run by Republicans, and it was awarded through traditional bidding means, meaning that Feinstein herself did little unethical. My problem is, she should’ve abstained from voting when she knew that her vote might be a stamp on his paycheck.

Still, it’s not an indictment of Democratic ethics so much as it goes to show us that everybody in Washington is related to someone by birth or marriage who will benefit from their money eventually. It’s an elite, tight circle, and it’s trouble. Not in this specific case, but often, it is.

The second movement I wanted to mention was this one. Rolling Stone recently featured a commentary on Al Gore’s current political situation and calls for him to run. I’d love it if he did (wink wink nudge, Mr. Gore) but I doubt it. Still, it’s nice to see articles in the news urging Gore to run. The only thing that could further cement this election cycle’s place in history would be Al Gore’s entrance.

This story in the Tribune today is heartbreaking and infuriating. I’ll summarize it for you, but I’d recommend reading it: man murders five year old boy in his sleep, slitting his throat; stabs mother several times (only stops when she pretends to have died); gets life in prison. He eventually gets out on parole, after years of trying (but failing, with help from the testimony of the murdered boy’s father) he gets out and kills a sixteen year old girl, burying her in a cornfield. Now he’s on trial again, and now he’ll likely die in prison.

I believe that parole should be a process that exists, and I do believe in rehabilitation the idea, but I can’t understand how anyone can believe that a man who slit a five year old’s throat can be “rehabilated” or deserves a “second chance.” There’s just a certain evil inherent in killing a defenseless person that makes denial of parole and life in prison and perhaps execution a no-brainer. This is one of those cases, and this is an indictment of our justice system.

Bush is asking for an additional ten point six billion dollars in Afghanistan, yet I dislike it, despite my longstanding calls for further funds.

The aid request would come before what is expected to be another spring offensive by resurgent forces linked to the Taliban, the former rulers of Afghanistan. In Washington, the Pentagon announced Thursday that it was delaying the departure of a 3,200-soldier combat brigade from Afghanistan for as long as three months, increasing the American force level there to around 24,000. An additional 20,000 soldiers from other NATO countries are also deployed there. The aid request would include $8.6 billion for training and equipping Afghan security forces and would go toward increasing the size of Afghanistan’s national army by 70,000 and its local police forces by 82,000, said a senior American official familiar with the issue.

An additional $2 billion would go to reconstruction projects like building roads, laying down electric power lines, development in rural areas, and counternarcotics efforts, administration officials said. The officials said that they planned to use some of the money to help Afghanistan and Pakistan battle the Taliban and other insurgents along the Afghan-Pakistan border. President Bush is expected to make a formal request for the funds next month, after a year in which Taliban forces have carried out fierce attacks across the country, particularly in the south.

Before Bush asks for more money, he needs to send more troops. I’m willing to take it a little easier on him, too: he can ask for money as he sends more troops, but more troops — and more than just an additional three thousand troops — are needed. It’s not surprising, though, to see the President ask for big money but lowball on soldiers. It’s like the man that covers a pizza with sausage but forgets the cheese.

I haven’t much to contribute today, but I’m willing to go out on a limb to predict that Scooter Libby will be found guilty at the end of this trial. For one, I never bet against Patrick Fitzgerald, and for another, I never bet for people whose truths are so easily disproven.

The spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney told a jury Thursday that she informed Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., that the wife of a prominent critic of the invasion of Iraq worked for the CIA days before Libby contended he heard the information from a reporter. Cathie Martin, who was Cheney’s chief spokeswoman, was the fourth witness for the prosecution in the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of Libby, who is charged with lying during an investigation of who leaked the name of the CIA operative, Valerie Plame Wilson, and why. Unlike the previous three witnesses, who worked at the CIA and State Department, Martin provided an insider’s perspective, one from directly inside the office of the vice president.

The perspective she laid out under questioning from a federal prosecutor was damaging to Libby. She testified that both Cheney and Libby were intensely interested in Wilson and her husband, Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a mission to Africa to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Niger for his nuclear weapons program. Martin’s testimony was damaging for Libby in two respects. She bolstered the prosecution’s assertion that Libby was fully aware of Wilson’s identity from a number of administration officials, and did not first learn about her from reporters, as he has claimed. Perhaps more important, she testified as a former close colleague of Libby’s and demonstrated her familiarity with him by repeatedly referring to him by his nickname, Scooter.

Martin, who still works at the White House but no longer for Cheney, described how Libby had telephoned a senior Central Intelligence Agency official in her presence and asked about the Wilson trip. She said she was then put on the phone with Bill Harlow, the CIA’s spokesman, who told her that Wilson went on behalf of the agency and that his wife worked there. Some days later, she testified, she told Libby and Cheney that Wilson’s wife worked at the agency. Libby is facing five felony counts that he lied when he told a grand jury and FBI agents that he learned of Wilson’s identity from reporters. Her identity was first disclosed in a news column by Robert Novak on July 14, 2003, just days after her husband had written a commentary in The New York Times asserting that the Bush administration had distorted intelligence to bolster the case for invading Iraq.

To counter this, Libby is arguing that their memories are faulty and credibility suspect, that the Bush Administration set him up to be their fall-guy because they didn’t want Rove busted, and also that he was too busy a man to engage in such petty rift-raft — indeed, he was busy talking to Tom Cruise about scientology. Hollywood is a crazy place, and Libby is apparently counting on that to help him Cruise toward freedom. I think it’s pretty clear he’s going to prison, and hopefully he can join Israel’s President.

Israel’s embattled president temporarily gave up his powers Thursday, but dozens of legislators vowed to have him dismissed so he could face sexual assault charges, including rape. President Moshe Katsav, who insists he is the victim of a conspiracy, stepped aside after a parliamentary committee voted 13-11 to grant his request to do so. He preserved his immunity by taking a leave rather than resigning. Legislator Zehava Galon, who is leading parliamentary efforts to oust the ceremonial leader, was outraged that parliament’s house committee didn’t include dismissing Katsav on its agenda.

“The decision taken today is a prize for a man accused of rape,” Galon said. “Instead of finding himself behind bars, this man charged with rape gets a prize of continuing to serve as president.” Parliamentary Speaker Dalia Itzik stepped in as acting president - the first woman to hold the post. For seven months, Katsav has been at the centre of allegations that he preyed on women who worked for him, threatening to fire them if they didn’t grant him sexual favours. On Tuesday, Attorney General Meni Mazuz notified Katsav that he intended to press charges of rape, sexual assault and abuse of power, but said he would first give the president an opportunity to plead his case before him. Katsav has said he would resign if, after the hearing, Mazuz decides to go ahead with the indictment.

The president, whose seven-year term is to end in July, made no public comment after the parliamentary committee’s vote. But in an emotional, hour-long speech broadcast on all Israeli television stations on Wednesday, the 61-year-old Katsav painted himself as the victim of a vicious campaign by journalists, police and the state prosecution to smear his name. He said he would “fight with his last breath” to clear his name, but would not resign before his hearing.

I don’t understand Legislatures, sometimes. Don’t get me wrong, they’re always integral to a democratic society, but I’d quite like it if someday, a legislature could take rapid action and remove a man from power, especially when he’s not actually in power, serves merely as a figurehead, and has been charged with rape. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they turn.

Bush’s State of the Union Address yesterday was the same as it’s ever been. There were a few things that especially bothered me, namely his challenge on the budget deficit (it’s well enough in principle, but how come he’s waited until Democrats took over to insist on an elimination of the deficit? Also: I doubt he’s serious); if the Democrats take him up on reforming Social Security and other entitlements to make them sound for the next hundred years — for forever! — will he sign it into law? Further on the same point, he calls for “serious, civil, and conclusive debate — so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.” I wonder, does that mean he’ll sign whatever’s passed on immigration?

Ultimately, I believe that everything in his speech was window dressing. A lot of SOTU addresses are, and we’ll just have to see what happens.

Last Sunday I didn’t post because the Bears made the Super Bowl and I was busy celebrating with friends. Today, I won’t be posting too much as I’m feeling weak in the legs, from a heavy baseball workout, and I am tired from Finals, which end tomorrow. Bush’s State of the Union Address was today, and I’ll get into it tomorrow, but for now, let me say that I’m happy to see this.

With the rhetoric of reformers bent on sweeping corruption from the Capitol, the House voted unanimously yesterday to deny federal pensions to lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other related felonies. “Corrupt politicians deserve prison sentences, not taxpayer-funded pensions,” said freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), chief sponsor of the bill. But the punishment of those who betray the public trust will not be far-reaching.

The measure is similar to one approved by the Senate last week and comes in the wake of major congressional scandals last year that led to the conviction of former Republican congressmen Randy “Duke” Cunningham (Calif.) and Robert W. Ney (Ohio). The House passed the bill 431 to 0, with four members not voting. The bills passed by the House and the Senate are not retroactive, which means that Cunningham and Ney will collect substantial pensions for the rest of their lives, courtesy of taxpayers.

Very good.

In other news, E. Howard Hunt of Watergate fame died. I’m conflicted: I’d like to know what else he knew, what else he did, but now we might not find out. But then again, he’d never tell, so he might as well burn in hell, no?

Every government has its share of idiots, and each idiot is his own special idiot as no two idiots are alike. (In fact, I move that we replace the term, “No two snowflakes are alike” with “No two idiots are alike,” given this news.) Knowing this, let me say that most governmental stupidity in America tends to fall into the, Dumb Legislation category or Financial Mismanagement, like laws forbidding you from waking a bear to shoot it (although shooting it, itself, is no crime — and speaking of Bears, I heard they’re going to be out en masse en Miami this year…) or grand government grants aimed at the study of fly sex. But, all in all, idiotic politicians rarely make their name in America by saying idiotic things or doing them, with Dan Quayle and George Bush (see here, and here) and Bill Richardson (here, and that is one you’ve got to see, because he is creepy).

But all in all, nobody is quite like Hugo Idiot, whose latest comments blow my mind.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday called the U.S. secretary of state “my little girl” and told Washington to “go to hell” after it questioned his plan to seek special powers to legislate by decree. Chavez, a Cuba ally re-elected by a landslide in December, this month launched a campaign to consolidate power by nationalizing key industries, seeking expanded executive powers and pushing for unlimited presidential re-election. A State Department spokesman on Friday described Chavez’s proposal to allow presidents to rule by decree as “a bit odd” in a democracy.

“That is a sacrosanct legal authority of Venezuela. Go to hell, gringos! Go home! Go home!” Chavez said during his weekly Sunday broadcast. “We’re free here, and every day we’ll be more free.” Chavez also took on U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has described Chavez as a “negative force” in the region. “Hi Condoleezza, how are you? You’ve forgotten about me, my little girl,” said Chavez, who last year called President George W. Bush “the devil” during a U.N. speech. Venezuela’s legislature this week is expected to give its final approval to the Enabling Law that would grant Chavez 18 months to decree legislation.

I like one Venezuelan loudmouth, but not this guy. How anybody can think him fit for command is beyond me. Which, of course, makes him a lot like the one man he hates above all others.

What’s the matter with our command when we have been at war with a small faction for years and still have not destroyed their capability to build schools and control “regions” of a country?

The Taliban said they will open their own schools in areas of southern Afghanistan under the group’s control, an apparent effort to win support among local residents and undermine the Western-backed government’s efforts to expand education. The announcement follows a violent campaign by the fundamentalist Islamic group against state schools in the five years since its ouster by U.S.-led forces. The Taliban destroyed 200 schools and killed 20 teachers last year, and President Hamid Karzai said Sunday that 200,000 children had been driven from the classroom.

The Taliban’s announcement that they will open schools “is like putting salt into the wound,” said Mohammad Hanif Atmar, Afghanistan’s education minister. Abdul Hai Muthmahien, the purported chief spokesman for the militants, said the group will begin providing Islamic education to students in March in at least six southern provinces, funded by $1 million allotted by the Taliban’s ruling council. He said textbooks would be the same ones used during Taliban rule. He also said education would be available to boys first and later to girls, but he did not explain if there had been a change in Taliban thinking about schooling girls. During its rule, the hardliners banned girls from schools in Kabul, the capital, although elsewhere they sometimes permitted their schooling until age 8 — but only to study the Quran, Islam’s holy book.

Muthmahien said the program had been approved by tribal elders in the region. “The U.S. and its allies are doing propaganda against the Taliban,” he said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from an undisclosed location late Saturday. “The Taliban are not against education. The Taliban want Shariah (Islamic) education.”

Answer: a lack of resolve and a refusal to play it tough. There’s absolutely no reason not to have obliterated the Taliban a long time ago and the fact that we’re still (half-)fighting the War in Afghanistan is a testament to the Pentagon’s small mindset and the President’s incompetence. This is an embarrassment to the nation, and George Bush should be ashamed to have allowed the Taliban survival after all these years.

Hillary Clinton has announced her candidacy for President, joining Barack Obama and John Edwards as a heavyweight. Tomorrow, Bill Richardson is going to join the race (or so the rumor goes) and we’ve got ourselves a race. I’ve already gone on record with my belief that Obama will lose (and that he deserves to, for not having done anything). I have a few more thoughts on the race: John Edwards has little chance, and I don’t like him. He jumped into the race in 2004 despite having little behind his name (like Obama this year) and now he has even less experience, given that he gave up his job as a Senator. Charisma might carry him to a respectable figure, but he’s bound to lose. As far as Richadson goes, I wouldn’t be stunned if it came to him and Hillary Clinton, and frankly, I think he might be the best candidate out there, along with Tom Vilsack, though they’ll only go so far as their team takes them.

John Kerry, on the other hand, is someone that I doubt does anything at all. He had his chance. Just guessing here, but I expect Hillary Clinton to be the frontrunner all through the race, and I expect her to control it through brute political force. That is, I expect her to be the one doing much of the savaging in this campaign, especially of Obama; I expect Obama to fizzle out when the voters realize that he has little to say about anything (though he’ll say it quite eloquently); I expect John Kerry to attempt to be the conscience of this race, Edwards to be a pander bear and Vilsack/Richardson to play spoiler, and potential Presidential candidate.

Should be fascinating on the Democratic end, but let’s not forget the Republicans, too, who have Sam Brownback, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee. Talk about an uninspiring and unsexy group, though I suppose someone sees something in them, since a few of them have been married so many times.

My goodness, China destroyed a space satellite. I fear.

Arms control experts called the test, in which the weapon destroyed an aging Chinese weather satellite, a troubling development that could foreshadow an antisatellite arms race. Alternatively, however, some experts speculated that it could precede a diplomatic effort by China to prod the Bush administration into negotiations on a weapons ban.

“This is the first real escalation in the weaponization of space that we’ve seen in 20 years,” said Jonathan McDowell, a Harvard astronomer who tracks rocket launchings and space activity. “It ends a long period of restraint.”

White House officials said the United States and other nations, which they did not identify, had “expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese.” Despite its protest, the Bush administration has long resisted a global treaty banning such tests because it says it needs freedom of action in space. Jianhua Li, a spokesman at the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said that he had heard about the antisatellite story but that he had no statement or information.

This seems like a no-brainer to me: don’t weaponize space. Haven’t they seen Star Wars, and what happens through militarized stars?!? (Really, though. I’m all for outer space and its exploration but I deplore the thought of allowing and engaging in intergalactic warfare/chest-puffing.)

The House of Representatives, in other news, voided fourteen billion in tax breaks to big oil. Very good.

News headlines today suggest that Iraq’s Prime Minister “dissed” the United States, and he did, but he also drew a fascinating, ironic parallel and made a great point.

The Iraqi government’s need for American troops would “dramatically go down” in three to six months if the United States accelerated the process of equipping and arming Iraq’s security forces, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Wednesday. The head of Iraq’s Shiite Muslim-led government defended his country’s independence and sovereignty and called on U.S. leaders to show faith in his ability to lead.

Maliki disputed President Bush’s remarks broadcast Tuesday that the execution of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein “looked like it was kind of a revenge killing” and took exception to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s Senate testimony last week that Maliki’s administration was on “borrowed time.” The prime minister said statements such as Rice’s “give morale boosts for the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort and making them believe they have defeated the American administration,” Maliki said. “But I can tell you that they have not defeated the Iraqi government.”

Speaking through an interpreter to a group of reporters for an hour in his offices in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone, Maliki found several ways to say that Iraq is beholden to no country. He defended Iraq’s constitutional right to the death penalty, its commitment to dialogue with Iran and Syria despite U.S. opposition to those governments, and its determination to use Iraqi troops to lead the latest effort to pacify Baghdad. At a time when Bush has committed an additional 21,500 troops to the fight in Iraq, Maliki went further than he has before in establishing a time frame for drawing down the U.S. presence.

“If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down. That’s on the condition that there are real strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping them and arming them,” Maliki said. In a statement issued by Maliki’s office Tuesday, he said Iraq would continue to build up its armed forces “so it will be possible to withdraw the Multinational forces from cities, or withdraw 50,000 soldiers from Iraq.”

The irony of Maliki’s comments is found in his suggestion that the Bush Administration is supporting terrorism through dissent. Given that the White House has maintained that as its party line since September eleventh, it’s great to see another country give Bush the same song and dance. That it’s Iraq, the country whose circumstances have most often prompted his “aid and comfort to the enemy” line, makes it all the more ironic.

That said, I’m all for his comments. The Administration should escalate its arming of Iraqi soldiers and begin pulling out in a few months. I’ve given the very same suggestion here countless times, though mine is a longer timeline (a year to a year and a half) and contains deeper troop cuts (hundred thousand or so) than Maliki’s. Still, it’s something that could be done and would do well, done.

Now, to Afghanistan, where the Defense Secretary is said to be considering a troop increase.

Gates said he had discussed the situation with the commander of Afghanistan’s NATO force, General David Richards, and others. Asked if the commanders had made a case for more troops, Gates said: “Yes.” “They’ve indicated what they can do with different force levels,” Gates told reporters at the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, at Bagram, north of Kabul, adding he would take those ideas back to the U.S. joint chiefs of staff for study.

“At that point I’ll make a recommendation to the president,” said Gates, who arrived in Afghanistan late on Monday on his first trip to the country since taking over as defense secretary. Asked how many more troops might be sent, he said: “It depends on different scenarios and those are the kinds of decisions that we’re going to have to look at.” There are more than 40,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, the highest level since 2001, about 22,000 of them American.

I must say, it should be more than a “consideration.” At this point it’s something that should’ve been done yesterday, not tomorrow, but since it wasn’t, it should be done tomorrow and not next month. Yet they delay and delay and delay, and all the while, the Taliban regroup and retake parts of the country, and the Americans let it happen. This is a War on Terror?