Iain Murray offers a useful primer on e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK (mentioned by Goldfarb, here), hacked and publicized, which revealed systematic, less-than-scientific treatment of data in order to bolster global-warming claims.

Read the whole thing, but the bottom line:

So what does this all mean? It does not mean that there is no warming trend or that mankind has not been responsible for at least some of the warming. To claim that as result of these documents is clearly a step too far. However, it is clear that at least one branch of climate science — paleoclimatology — has become hopelessly politicized to the point of engaging in unethical and possibly illegal behavior.

To the extent that paleoclimatology is an important part of the scientific case for action regarding global warming, urgent reassessments need to be made. In the meantime, all those responsible for political action on global warming should stop the process pending the results of inquiries, investigations, and any criminal proceedings. What cannot happen is the process carrying on as if nothing has happened.

They could've executed him in the desert and left him in a shallow grave for all I care, but the SEALs are professionals, and so they brought the man behind the 2004 murder of four American contractors in Fallujah to the Green Zone, where one SEAL told investigators that he "had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee."

"I gave the detainee a glance over and then left," the SEAL wrote. "I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health."

Maybe there's a whole lot more to this story than is currently being reported, but it'd have to be pretty terrible stuff to convince me that three Navy SEALs who successfully captured a high-value target now deserve to be court martialed for their service. A fat lip? That's enough to get you rough military justice from the Obama administration, but blow up the World Trade Center and you get all the due process rights of the civilian criminal justice system. Sounds fair, right?

Another episode of right-wing violence that wasn't, kind of like the entire month of August's town halls:

A U.S. Census worker found dead in a secluded Clay County cemetery killed himself but tried to make the death look like a homicide, authorities have concluded.

Bill Sparkman, 51, of London, might have tried to cover the manner of his death to preserve payments under life-insurance polices that he had taken out. The policies wouldn’t pay off if Sparkman committed suicide, state police Capt. Lisa Rudzinski said.

“We believe it was an intentional act on his part to take his own life,” said Rudzinski, who helped lead the investigation.

At the time of the census worker's death, liberal commentators and bloggers scrambled all over themselves to blame Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck and other right-leaning figures for inciting violence with their "anti-government" sentiment.

Sparkman’s nude body was found Sept. 12 by people visiting the cemetery. There was a rope around his neck tied to a tree, and he had what appeared to be the word “fed” written on his chest in black marker.

His census identification card was taped to his head.

The bizarre details of the death caused a firestorm of media coverage and widespread speculation on the Internet, including that someone angry at the federal government attacked Sparkman as he went door to door, gathering census information.

Michelle Malkin highlights the subtle smear art that made the rounds on the left.

Clarence Page on NPR's "Talk of the Nation", Nov. 5, 2009: "You know, maybe perhaps the research that I do - I worry about the Bill Sparkmans, the census worker that was hanged and - found hanged in Kentucky with the word fed on his body. Or, you know - or Stephen Johns, the guy that was killed at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. a few months ago that - I hope those type of incidents, not only interracial marriages increase, but I hope those type of violence, violent incidents decrease."

Andrew Sullivan, Sept. 26, 2009: "No Suicide: That's the one thing we know for certain now in the case of the Kentucky lynching...But the most worrying possibility - that this is Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts - remains real."

NPR's Neal Conan of "Talk of the Nation"used the Sparkman story as a jumping-off point for a segment entitled "A History of Mistrust" about the census on Sept. 29.

The opening to MSNBC's Ed Schultz show Sept. 28, 2009:

It didn't sound real good. My wife and I were traveling on the East Coast this weekend, in the car for three hours. We haven`t done that for a while.

Let me tell you, right-wing rhetoric in this country has reached a boiling point. Oh, the government`s the enemy. Every kind of government, local, regional, state...

Republicans have always tried to make the government the bogeyman. No matter what the subject, it`s the government's fault. But this is out of control. The fever pitch we`re experiencing in this country right now, I think has got a lot of people nervous.

A census worker, somebody doing a part-time job for the government, for America -- we`ve had the census in this country for 210 years. This man`s name was Bill Sparkman. He was found dead in Kentucky.

Most of his clothes had been stripped off and his census identification tag, it was Duct Taped to his body, and the word "Fed` had been written across his chest. Investigators don`t know who killed Mr. Sparkman and what the motive was. They still aren`t certain it was a homicide.

A lot of things playing into this right now. But we do know that census workers are afraid to go to work right now.

Brian Levin, on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Sept. 25, 2009:

"But, at this point, this was such a symbolic and personal anger, that I'm -- I'm led to lean towards someone who has severe anti-government feelings, perhaps someone who is seeking revenge. Maybe they were audited or had some problem with some kind of government official.

COOPER: OK. To display the victim in this way seems, I mean, telling, one way or another. I mean, there's clearly something to that."

Rachel Maddow, Sept. 25, 2009:

"Now, on the record, law enforcement authorities remain cryptic. This reporting however paints a most troubling picture. None of the details of Bill Sparkman`s death that we have learned since we first found out about this point away from the possibility that he was killed for his affiliation with the United States government...All of these new details do create the expectation, I think, that we will hear something more specific from law enforcement. As you know, Ron, we`ve been hearing recently that they haven`t even determined whether this is homicide, suicide, or an accident. To found a body that was bound hand and foot, gagged and with a federal employee identification tag taped to the body and then it defaced with the word "Fed," we`re starting to get to a point where it`s hard to imagine that this could be anything other than a homicide.

That said, we're still waiting for law enforcement conformation on that, aren't we?"

"Good Morning America" with Diane Sawyer, Sept. 24, 2009, did a segment entitled, "GOVERNMENT HATE CRIME? CENSUS WORKER KILLED ON ROUTE?"

Mark Potok, Director of the Souther Poverty Law Center on MSNBC's "The Ed Show, Sept. 24, 2009: "I think the bottom line is it's a very rural area, and these are the kinds of areas where sometimes, you know, real white hot anti-government sentiment thrives. I think it's probably worth saying that I know that back in `95, immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing, I remember "USA Today" did a poll and found that 39 percent of Americans at that time felt that the federal government was an imminent threat to their liberties as Americans. Quite incredible.

I think that we are at a similar point in history right now, you know, where we've seen this anti-government sentiment very much whipped up by militia certainly but also the whole scene that we've seen develop around town halls and so forth."

On Sept. 23, 2009, Rachel Maddow just about begged an AP reporter to confirm her suspicions: "We`re all wondering if is -- should be taken as some indication that this was a crime related to anti-government sentiment.

Are you able to report anything? Are you hearing anything about even circumstantial evidence in that regard? Is there any way to know even whether federal and law enforcement getting involved is an indication that they think that might be true?"

Allison Kilkenny, Huffpo: "This is the kind of violent event that emerges from a culture of paranoia and unsubstantiated attacks. Personalities like Glenn Beck have irresponsibly accused the government of running FEMA concentration camps, and constantly stoke the fear of 'the Feds' taking over."

Brad Friedman littered his post with caveats before ultimately going to same route (and using that lovely piece of art): "With all of that in mind, however, it's admittedly damned difficult not to look back at the kind of wildly-irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric being slung casually across the airwaves to millions of viewers and listeners every day by folks like Bachmann, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and all the rest, without pondering questions such as: 'What the hell are these people thinking?' and 'Do they not realize that people are actually out there paying attention to what they have to say?'"

Village Voice: "Village Voice Media's True Crime Report blog cited the recent 'rage against Washington . . . especially in the rural South,' and said the death had ;all the makings of some anti-government goober taking his half-wit beliefs way too far.'

People for the American Way put this video together of right commentators talking about the census, while drawing this connection in the about box:

There are many unanswered questions about the tragic hanging death of Bill Sparkman, a US Census Bureau employee, in rural Kentucky. But one thing is clear. Right-Wing leaders like Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and media outlets like Fox News have whipped up hysteria and paranoia over the 2010 Census.

Speculation is often a part of the news cycle, and the circumstances surrounding Sparkman's death were strange indeed. But if I weren't far too fair to jump to conclusions, here, I'd say a lot of commentators acted stupidly in reaching for the storyline that fit their preferred violent, redneck right-winger narrative.

In the end, police determined Sparkman wrote the word "Fed" on his own chest, his hands and feet were bound loosely enough for him to have maneuvered himself, and they found no defensive wounds or anyone else's DNA on him.

Thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends who will now be able to mourn his death without the glare of the national media. (All transcript results pulled from brief perusal of Lexis-Nexis search.)

There'll be joyous dancing in the streets of Israel when—if—Gilad Shalit is freed by his Hamas kidnappers in the coming weeks, most especially in the vicinity of the tent set up in March across from the prime minister’s official Jerusalem residence and occupied since then by Noam and Aviva Shalit as a fixed rebuke to the government for failing for three long years to secure their son’s release. But the price of his freedom will be terrible. Among the hundreds upon hundreds of Palestinians slated to be exchanged for this one son of Israel will be those sentenced to life in prison for slaughtering innocent Israeli men, women, and children as they ordered pizza or rode on buses or drank coffee or enjoyed the sea-side or celebrated Passover. We’ll see no celebrating by those victims’ families, men and women whose own life sentences of rage and mourning were mitigated somewhat by seeing the killers of their loved ones punished. What will they do now? Where’s the justice for them? And what about the cost to the security of the Jewish State? There’s now a Hamas bounty of $1.4 million for every Israeli soldier kidnapped. Will the IDF not be hamstrung? Will Israeli generals not be forced to weigh every decision, every move, with that fact in mind?

When the Israelis' inimical interlocutor cares more for the life of one Israeli than for the lives of a thousand of his own blood-spattered brethren, there’s really no such thing as justice, and there’s really no such thing as safety from terror.

Jonathan Martin reported yesterday on an interview with Univision anchor Jorge Ramos in which Ana Navarro, a McCain campaign veteran, trashed Sarah Palin, saying Palin "does not understand issues concerning Hispanics and Latin America" and that the McCain campaign was forced to cancel an interview with Ramos at the last minute because "She did not feel comfortable speaking about issues regarding Hispanics and Latin America."

Navarro is described in Martin's report as a "GOP consultant" and a "top adviser on Hispanic issues to John McCain’s presidential campaign," but a month ago Navarro was cited in the same paper in a story by Alex Isenstadt as "a longtime Florida Republican fundraiser who is working for [Marco] Rubio." Rubio, of course, is a favorite of the conservative rank and file, most of whom seem to be pretty big fans of Sarah Palin, whose endorsement in the Florida primary battle could go a long way.

Asked if Rubio agrees with Navarro's assessment, a campaign spokesman told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that "Marco Rubio would be honored to have [Gov. Palin's] support. There are many things they agree on and have in common, as both have been reformers during their political careers."

Crist declined to answer when asked earlier this week if he would accept Palin's endorsement, saying only that her support "hasn't been offered."

Update: A Rubio campaign spokesman clarified that Navarro "is a Rubio supporter and donor to the campaign. Like other volunteers, she is working to help elect Rubio to the Senate. She is not part of the campaign’s staff."

Via Jennifer Rubin, Rasmussen reports:

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this president. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve as do 33% of unaffiliated voters. Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans disapprove.

Among all voters, 54% now disapprove.

Byron York takes a look inside a recent Gallup poll that shows disapproval of Obama is broad-based among almost all age and income groups:

For the first time in the White House, Obama is below 50 percent with every age group of Americans except those between 18 and 29. He's at 48 percent with people in the 30-49 range; 46 percent with people in the 50-64 range; and 42 percent with people 65 and over. Among those 18-29, he's at 61 percent. ...

Among income groups: For the first time in the White House, Obama is below 50 percent with every income group except those making less than $2,000 a month.

...I bring you the State Dinner menu. First item:

Potato and Eggplant Salad
White House Arugula with onion seed vinaigrette
2008 sauvignon blanc, Modus Oprendi, Napa Valley, California

Perhaps the price at Whole Foods is no longer an issue because they're growing it in the garden?

“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?” the senator said. “I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”

Mark Knoller has a picture of the place-settings for tonight's event, and Politico will be livestreaming it, if you're into that kind of thing.

On October 29, the White House claimed that the Cash for Clunkers program contributed to a surge in economic growth: "We found out that motor vehicle output added 1.7% to economic growth in the third quarter — the largest contribution to quarterly growth in over a decade." But Jim Geraghty notes that "The revised numbers out today indicate that automotive consumption was less than half of what was initially estimated, contributing 0.81 of a percentage point to growth. The overall quarterly growth number was revised from 3.5 percent to 2.8 percent."

Meanwhile local papers around the country continue to expose the false reports of jobs "created or saved" by the stimulus program. Michael Brendan Dougherty writes in New York's Putnam County Courier:

The Federal government claims that when Putnam County purchased five Paratransit vans with $319,000 of federal stimulus funds, 60 jobs were saved. A casual visitor to Recovery. gov might think that those 60 jobs were in Putnam County. But John Lynch, Putnam County’s Commissioner of Planning/Development and Public Transportation, said, “That number of 60 jobs is incorrect.”

In fact, the number of jobs that should appear on the report is not 60, but just 1.54, and those one and a half jobs are actually in New Paris, Indiana. Whether by bureaucratic error, or deliberate maneuvering, the administration has inflated claims of job creation based on Putnam County stimulus spending. Other stimulus-funded projects in Putnam County are riddled with reporting errors and inaccuracies.

Recovery.gov reports that Putnam County has received $1,092,595 of stimulus money for projects, $319,000 of which was dedicated to purchasing five new Paratransit vans, manufactured by Turtletop Busses in Indiana. Lynch told the Courier that the inaccurate number of 60 jobs created by the purchase of vans “counted both the second and third fiscal quarters, when it was only supposed to count the third quarter.” Putnam County officials tried to correct the number before the third quarter report was issued, but were “frozen out of the system” according to Lynch.

The number 60 does not reflect the number of jobs saved only by Putnam county’s expenditure of $319,000; that expenditure would yield an average salary of $5,316 per year.

The administration's explanation for these errors does not inspire confidence:

"We know what the problem is and we are trying to fix it,'' said [Ed] Pound [director of communications for recovery.gov]. Asked why recipients would pluck random numbers - 26, 45, 14 - to fill in for their congressional district, Pound replied, "who knows, man, who really knows. There are 130,000 reports out there.''

... in New Jersey.

Richard Holbrooke was the man who would be king, with jurisdiction from India to Afghanistan, overseeing American diplomacy and foreign policy in a region that will make or break the Obama presidency. But almost from the beginning things didn't go as planned. The Indians sent a clear message to Washington: Holbrooke was not welcome, and on the day that the Indian Prime Minister is in town for Obama's first state dinner, Holbrooke is off to Telluride for a ski vacation.

Ben Smith reports that Holbrooke was at the "war council" meeting at the White House last night, though neither Holbrooke's staff or the pictures confirm it, but says that his current "absence seems to confirm what has been whispered for months: That he has not occupied the central role on Afghanistan strategy that he had once been expected to take, and that although -- or perhaps because -- he's maintained his strong relationship with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his relationship with the White House leaves something to be desired."

In February, when Holbrooke's fortunes were on the rise, the New York Times published a glowing profile of the megalomaniac diplomat. Wes Clark told the paper that Holbrooke "sees power the way an artists sees color." The paper also reported in passing that Holbrooke has a "personal archivist," who'll no doubt put together a lovely scrapbook of Holbrooke's time in Telluride.

FP's Cable blog reports on NSC deputy spokesman Ben Chang, aka Hong Kong Hefner, fashion photographer and disc jockey extraordinaire. By day Chang controls foreign press access in the White House. By night, "dancefloor jazz, funky breaks, old school & classic hip hop, indie pop/rock, new wave, dance punk, mutant disco." And then there's the NSFW "fashion photography." Chang and Jim Jones must have so much to talk about during those long nights in the West Wing...

Eugene Robinson goes there: "The honest solution," he writes in a column on government health care spending, "is a word that cannot be spoken: rationing."

The reason that the word "cannot be spoken," of course, is that fiat rationing scares the daylights out of people. In a way, Robinson's piece recalls the 2007 speech in which Robert Reich said that a "candidate [who] did not care about becoming president" would tell the American people that "'[B]y the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."

Stuff like that doesn't help Obamcare's chances, does it?

No, not that one. I mean former Bush pollster Matthew Dowd, who writes in today's Washington Post that, despite everything, Sarah Palin could make a serious attempt at the White House in 2012. Check it out:

Looking ahead to the political landscape of the 2012 presidential election, there are certain elements to keep in mind, assuming that President Obama runs for reelection.

First, Gallup polls over the past 60 years show that no president with an approval rating under 47 percent has won reelection, and no president with an approval rating above 51 percent has lost reelection. (George W. Bush's approval rating in the weeks before the 2004 election hovered around 50 percent.) The 2012 election will be primarily about our current president and whether voters are satisfied with the country's direction.

Who the Republican candidate is, and his or her qualifications and abilities, will matter only if Obama's approval rating is between 47 and 51 percent going into the fall of 2012. Interestingly, in the latest Gallup poll Obama's approval rating was at a precarious 49 percent.

Second, America is still (unfortunately) politically divided and polarized, and Palin benefits from this dynamic. While Democrats love Obama, Republicans look on him with real disfavor. The gap between Obama's approval rating among Democrats and among Republicans is nearly 70 percentage points -- a higher partisan divide than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush experienced. Obama's agenda and actions this year, and some mistakes, have solidified this divide.

Polls show that Palin's favorability numbers are a mirror image of those of Obama. She is respected and loved by the Republican base, while Democrats despise her. Granted, independent voters have significant reservations about her capability to be president, and this would be a hurdle in the general election. But to win the Republican nomination, Palin needs only to get enough support from the base to win early key states. Already, in nearly every poll today, she has a level of support that makes her a viable primary candidate. Just look at the crowds and the buzz her book tour is drawing.

Dowd closes his piece with some suggestions about how Palin could win over independents who are leery of her. (I covered similar ground in a recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.)

Brief aside: In 2006, Dowd, Doug Sosnik, and Ron Fournier wrote an excellent book about politics called Applebee's America. Highly Recommended! (And of course, while you are on Amazon.com, you might want to check out this other book as well.)

Scott Fenstermaker is an attorney who has performed various legal services for one of the five 9/11 conspirators who will be put on trial in New York, as well as other al Qaeda terrorists. Fenstermaker says he is concerned with protecting the “rule of law” and defending the constitutional protections of his clients. That is how many of Fenstermaker’s fellow al Qaeda defense attorneys, at the ACLU and elsewhere, describe themselves as well--as heroes fighting an unjust American government on behalf of some noble cause.

Fenstermaker has also said that the way the 9/11 terrorists were treated is not consistent with America’s values. If Fenstermaker and his cohorts were merely making a principled stand against the manner in which the 9/11 terrorists were interrogated (enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.) that would be one thing. Many would disagree with their stance, but at least it would be a principled one.

Consider, however, the video below of Fenstermaker on Bill O’Reilly’s show. In it, Fenstermaker refuses to concede that thousands of civilians were murdered on September 11. He says that is up to a jury to decide.

Fenstermaker had previously explained to the press that the 9/11 conspirators would plead not guilty in order to provide “their assessment of American foreign policy,” which will be “negative.” Many rightly concluded this meant that the worst of the worst were going to try to turn the trial into a circus filled with al Qaeda propaganda. After all, al Qaeda’s leaders frequently tries to blame U.S. actions in the Middle East and beyond for their terror. But Fenstermaker wouldn’t concede that the 9/11 terrorists were looking for a venue to spew their propaganda.

Instead, Fenstermaker said: “You are going to hear a lot of United States government propaganda.”

Got that? The U.S. government is the one spreading propaganda we should be worried about.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani

From Bloomberg:

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian who faces terrorism charges for his role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies, asked a judge to order U.S. prosecutors to surrender information about “black sites” where he was held.

Ghailani faces federal charges over the bombings of U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. Ghailani had been held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since 2006, before being transferred to the U.S. in June. He is the first detainee from Guantanamo Bay to be tried in a U.S. civilian court.

In a legal request filed today, lawyers for Ghailani asked a U.S. judge to compel prosecutors to disclose “material related the government’s decision to detain and interrogate” Ghailani “in CIA ‘Black Sites’ and Guantanamo Bay.” Defense lawyers also want information about his treatment there.

The request indicates that lawyers for Ghailani will highlight his treatment after his capture as part of his defense. A legal brief and supporting affidavit by his defense lawyers is redacted.

The trial of the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation policies has begun. For years, leftist human rights groups and criminal defense attorneys have fought for the day when they could make the Bush administration the center of a federal trial. You can bet that the same types of motions as those filed on Ghailani’s behalf will also be filed during the trial of the September 11 conspirators.

Defense attorneys will say, of course, that information about Ghailani’s treatment while in U.S. custody is crucial to their client’s defense. But that is only true as far as they can show that Ghailani’s interrogators “tainted” his admissions through abuse or “torture.” (Ghailani was subjected to some of the CIA’s so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” but not waterboarding.) To the extent that the case against Ghailani is based on other evidence, that which was not extracted during his interrogations, it is doubtful that the details of Ghailani’s interrogations have any relevance in determining his guilt or innocence.

In fact, we know that substantial evidence against Ghailani was accumulated outside of his interrogations. Ghailani was indicted years ago for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings. Federal prosecutors had begun to build a case against him then--that is, long before he was captured or interrogated.

During his combatant status review tribunal (CSRT) at Gitmo, Ghailani also made a number of admissions in the context of flimsy denials. For example, Ghailani admitted that he purchased TNT that was used in the bombings, but claimed that he thought it was “soap for washing horses.” In addition, Ghailani’s own testimony at Gitmo directly connected him to the truck, fertilizer, detonators, gas cylinders, and cell phone used in the attack.

So, there is really no doubt about Ghailani’s guilt and prosecutors will hopefully be able to convince the court that the details of Ghailani’s interrogations are not necessary--for either the prosecution or defense.

Meanwhile, we should not forget that while Ghailani was held by the CIA he gave up important intelligence on al Qaeda’s operations. According to declassified excerpts of a CIA analysis titled “Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al Qaeda,” and dated June 3, 2005 (emphasis added):

“Ahmed Khalfam Ghailani (a.k.a. Haytham al-Kini, a.k.a. Fupi) a Tanzanian al Qaeda member who was indicted for his role in 1998 East Africa US Embassy bombings, has provided new insights into al Qaeda’s skills and networks. As a facilitator and one of al Qaeda’s top document forgers since the 11 September attacks, with access to individuals across the organizations (sic) until his arrest in July 2004, he has reported on how he forged passports and to whom he supplied them.”

The CIA’s files undoubtedly contain more information about the al Qaeda agents Ghailani identified. If Ghailani’s attorneys are successful in getting the courts to demand that documents pertaining to Ghailani’s interrogations are introduced into the record, then the court should also see the intelligence (or summaries of the intelligence) that came out of those interrogations. The CIA and America’s national security establishment will likely object by claiming that this intelligence should not be exposed because it is vital to our counterterrorism efforts. There is certainly some truth in that argument.

But nothing will compromise U.S. counterterrorism efforts more than having al Qaeda’s defense attorneys put on a show trial in which America’s counterterrorism officials are portrayed as the bad guys and terrorists such as Ahmed Ghailani are made out to be innocent victims. And if we are going to hear about how Ghailani was interrogated and debriefed, then we should also be able to weigh the intelligence he gave up in the process.

Reuel Marc Gerecht: Major Hasan and Holy War.

Robert J. Samuelson: Obamacare is the latest assault on the young.

Rich Lowry: Democrats have "talked themselves into the ludicrously self-delusional notion that what ails them and the president is that they haven't yet passed the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax hikes and Medicare cuts that finance (albeit incompletely) ObamaCare."

How toxic is Obamacare? A Zogby poll shows North Dakota senator Byron Dorgan trailing GOP governor John Hoeven 55 percent to 36 percent.

And an incumbent Democrat from Kansas announces his retirement.

Ace: "Fiorina isn't exactly playing identity politics. She's not saying, as Sotomayor did, that she's better qualified due to her sex. Instead, she's saying that her sex might make her more appealing to female voters."

Noah Pollak: Aim for the bull's eye, or at least the center.

Reason.TV: Will Obamacare kill medical innovation?

Eric Holder's decision to bring KSM and his fellow 9/11 plotters to New York City for the "trial of the century" became an issue today in the primary race between Rob Simmons and Linda McMahon who are battling for the chance to take Chris Dodd's senate seat from him in 2010. Simmons blasted out a statement saying McMahon had "hedged her bets," in the words of the New Haven Independent, on whether a federal criminal court in New York was an appropriate venue for the trial of a man who committed an act of war against the United States:

Democrats like Dodd have largely supported the decision. One of Dodd’s leading Republican challengers, Rob Simmons, blasted him for that position.

“I’m trying to do a poll of any politician I can find on this, since I’m from New York, where the trial’s going to actually take place,” [voter Julie Hershon] said.

McMahon hedged her bets on the issue. While New York “has certainly tried other terrorists before,” she noted, this trial will cost New York $75 million.

“I’ll probably have more firm policy statements after the first of the year,” she said.

McMahon spokesman Shawn McCoy responds in a statement to THE WEEKLY STANDARD: "Linda of course believes KSM should be tried in a military tribunal, not in a civilian court. The high cost of a civilian trial, coupled with the disruptions such a trial would create in New York are just two of the reasons Linda opposes Holder's decision on this issue. She is deeply concerned that a trial would make sensitive information public."

Think about how much juice this issue will have in the 2010 election if KSM is actually given the daily opportunity to spew al Qaeda propaganda in front of the media and in open court. Leaving aside the very serious implications for national security that such trials will raise, the political implications for Democrats facing tough races next year are very real.

Any of these pictures of Katie Couric would make a great Newsweek cover, don't you think?

The wires are starting to take an interest in the "landmark" deal that would see the French sell as many as three amphibious assault ships to the peace-loving regime in Moscow. As the AP reports, the Russians aren't being shy about what these ships would be used for:

The head of the Russian navy has said that a Mistral-class vessel could put as many troops in Georgia in 40 minutes as the Russian Black Sea Fleet took 26 hours to land during the nations' August 2008 war. Moscow declared the Russian-allied breakaway Georgian territory of Abkhazia an independent nation after the war and sent thousands of troops there. Russia, Georgia and Ukraine all have Black Sea coastlines, as does Abkhazia.

Meanwhile, the French are trying to get a piece of the Air Force tanker contract through their deal with Northrop. Imagine this scene from 2020: Russian warships, made in France, start landing troops in Georgia just ahead of that country's formal acceptance into NATO. Meanwhile, American tankers, made in France, conduct aerial refueling of U.S. fighters from Incirlik as they head toward Georgia to provide air cover to Georgian troops. Sure, the United States and Russia are on the brink of confrontation -- but the French got paid, oui?

NATO allies like Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania also have coastline on the Black Sea. They can't be happy about the French augmenting Russia's ability to project power into the region.

If the French are allowed to sell warships to the Russians while the Russians don't even bother to conceal what they'll be used for -- aggression against a democratic friend and partner of the United States -- the fallout will be severe. First off, it won't stop at ships. The Europeans will be selling all manner of materiel to the Russians at the earliest opportunity. Next, the Europeans are going to start looking for the quickest way to kill the arms embargo on China. After all, if you can sell amphibious assault ships to a country that invaded a democratic neighbor last year, why wouldn't you be able to sell them to the Red Chinese, who haven't invaded any of their neighbors for a bit longer.

I'm told the sale was discussed pretty critically at the Halifax International Security Forum this past weekend where senior government, military, and defense experts gathered to discuss trans-Atlantic security issues. There will be fallout from this sale here in Washington as well. Congress needs to draw a line in the sand: anyone who sells weapons to Russia or China will not be able to sell weapons to the United States Armed Forces. If France goes through with this sale, the tanker competition should be dead on the spot with the contract awarded to Boeing by default. And there are a whole bunch of Democrats in Congress just looking for an excuse to kill the EADS/Northrop tanker bid. If the French aren't careful, they may find themselves cut out of a far more lucrative U.S. arms market.

I haven’t been to Miami in a while, but it used to be that you could launch World War Three by stopping at a coffee stand in Little Havana and asking patrons sipping their cafecitos in peaceful harmony there, “Who’s worse: Fidel or Raul?” Whether they’d been comrades-in-arms or fellow travelers of la revolución and fallen into disfavor with the Castro brothers for one reason or another, or they’d watched their friends being rounded up for prison and their own properties expropriated because of their unwillingness to sign on to comunismo, or they’d run afoul of the dictatorship for no discernible reason at all and escaped with their lives and the shirts on their backs, you’d need no more than two members of the exile community’s older generation to get the war going, and it might still be going, in the beautiful warp-speed Spanish of the Cubans, long after you’d left.

There were factions within factions among the Cuban exiles I knew and loved as a child in New York, as well: Castro and his minions were corrupt murderers! Por supuesto! But had Batista and his cronies been any better? Had the revolution been necessary? Had it not? Even within families, even during celebrations—where tables groaned with food, gorgeous, outrageous piles of it; fantastically rhythmic music played, with the dancing a tiempo, on the downbeat, or a contratiempo, on the upbeat, and it was impossible not to jump to your feet, either way; folk singing, the very definition of “soul music,” brought guests to tears; and loud conversations punctuated everything—furious exchanges over the minutiae of exile politics and the fate of those left behind could erupt without warning. One year, my best friend’s birthday party was derailed when her father and her uncle had to be separated after one’s sigh of nostalgia for Havana and the other’s disgusted contempt nearly brought them to blows.

That was a long, long time ago. The generation that fled the revolution is growing old; many of their children have never seen the island; their grandchildren are having children of their own, and their political cares are distinctly American. And for the first time, all sorts of people in American politics and policy—with the tacit approval of the president—are advocating for a lifting of the five-decades-old travel ban.

But Fidel and Raul are still there, still imprisoning bloggers, press journalists, and human-rights activists in unspeakable conditions, still running the island like their personal gulag. Even Human Rights Watch says so. There is no liberty in Cuba! How will Americans of conscience travel there?

Nice to see CNN giving Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty its due--and timed just right to mark the 20th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution. Besides interviewing the always impressive head of RFE/RL, Jeffrey Gedmin, the CNN reporter also spends time talking with Pavel Pechacek, a journalist who was instrumental during the downfall of Communism in Czechoslovakia. Pechacek was basically the only source of news from behind the Iron Curtain in his country and allowed us insight into the dramatic events that were taking place. I actually shared an office with Mr. Pechacek when I visited RFE/RL headquarters last summer. He was such a soft-spoken fellow that at first I thought he was the IT guy. (I highly recommend watching the video as it also shows RFE’s sleek new headquarters and the very same halls that yours truly roamed--mostly on my way to that terrific cafeteria!)

In case you missed it, former Democratic staffer and Asia note-taker Chris Nelson, author of the eponymous Nelson Report, last week issued yet another missive that might as well have been written by the DNC press shop or an unhinged commenter at the Daily Kos. Blaming Washington “insiders” -- read Republicans -- for Obama’s free-fall in the public opinion polls, Nelson went on to state that “so for all of the concern about Obama's lack of experience now showing up, no 'insider' seriously thinks the country would be better-off with McCain and Palin, respectively an emotional time-bomb and, in policy terms, a functional illiterate.”

Credit to Nelson who has figured out a way to monetize this kind of thing, or that he's found an audience clueless enough to think that you can't get the same quality "insights" for free at any of two or three dozen left-wing blogs. But Nelson's supposed to be an "insider" himself, and even he is struggling to find someone -- anyone -- to blame for a foreign policy that has demonstrated not one result in nearly a year. Obama's Asia trip, where his gladhanding brought no deals, no strengthening of critical alliances, no reaffirmation of American values of democracy and human rights, coincided with the collapse in support for the centerpiece of his domestic policy -- healthcare reform now gets the nod from just 38 percent of the American people, a superminority. In fact, the LA Times reports that Palin’s approval numbers are surging and on their current trajectory will soon surpass Obama’s.

Said one Republican foreign policy expert Nelson seeks to consult regularly, “next time he calls, he’ll enjoy the click of a receiver.”

... is a speedy global recovery. Recently the Wall Street Journal asked the CEOs of Amex, Westpac, and Marriott, and Sen. John McCain, what the global economy needs to rebound. Here's what they said. The panel had five top recommendations, including, in the Journal's words:

(1) "[P]olicies that stimulate sustainable job growth by identifying national competitive strengths, encouraging innovation, reforming tax policy and avoiding regulatory disincentives."

(2) "Encourage entrepreneurship. Be blunt about U.S. competitive strengths and weaknesses. Remove the risk of protectionism. Reduce uncertainty. Don't demonize success or overpenalize failure."

(3) "Reduce uncertainty for consumers and businesses over energy, tax, health and other policies to encourage hiring and capital investment."

(4) "Sign and ratify by the end of 2010 a global free-trade agreement with all willing countries to encourage greater world growth."

(5) "Change tax code, in revenue-neutral fashion, to encourage savings and investment and discourage consumption and debt over the long term."

Judging by these criteria, the Obama administration is 0 for 5 (so far!).

Exit quote, from McCain:

Every day, I encounter somebody who is a small-business person who not only can't get a line of credit but they're losing a line of credit.

Now, you may say that you're trying to get credit to small business; you may say you're trying to help small business. I'm telling you, they don't believe that. They don't believe that at all. ...

I have never seen anything like it. And all I can tell you is that unless something changes pretty quick, you will see an election in 2010, the likes of which we have not seen probably since 1982 or 1994, when there were bigger changes. And this will be bigger than that. So my urgent plea to you is, think of the small-business person who is the engine of the economy, who creates jobs in America, who is literally unable to get a line of credit anywhere.

As David Smick said in a recent speech, the TARP may have been great for the banks' balance sheets, but it hasn't spurred the lending necessary to drive enterprise and job creation. And a jobs summit won't make matters any better.

What's the best way to win in a Republican primary? Well, Charlie Crist is charting the path to victory by reducing the Republican base to a stereotype favored by the likes of Daily Kos, the New York Times, and Chris Matthews:

"It's hard to be more conservative than I am on issues - though there are different ways stylistically to communicate that - I'm pro-life, I'm pro-gun, I'm pro-family, and I''m anti tax. I don't know what else you're supposed to be, except maybe angry too,'' Crist said.

Yes, all prospective Republican voters want is anger. That potent anger exhibited by Marco Rubio in this video clip about health policy. Simply seething, that guy.

The St. Petersburg Times rightly notes:

(Critics will note he voted against abortion restrictions as a legislator and used to call himself "pro-choice," that he supported higher cigarette taxes)

Conservatives are being accused of pushing Crist out for his apostasy on the stimulus alone, but in that case even, it may be the cover-up that gets him, not the crime.

I really enjoyed last week's WWII in HD mini-series on the History Channel. Ten hours of color footage from World War II, all of it digitally restored, and the series was narrated through the voices of soldiers, Marines, and journalists, all of whom had written books about their time in combat -- my Christmas reading list is set. So when I did a bloggingheads debate with Cato's Malou Innocent on Friday afternoon, the battles of Tarawa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa were fresh in my mind. The video of this debate was lost to technical difficulties that could not be overcome, but I don't think Innocent would object if I attributed to her the view that America would be stronger for retreating from Afghanistan. I argued the other side -- that the war in Afghanistan is, in the words of President Obama, a necessary war.

As soon as I started comparing the war in the Pacific with the war in Afghanistan, Innocent jumped all over me. "You're not comparing Imperial Japan to al Qaeda?" she asked. "No, of course not," I assured her. Respectable people can't compare the wars America is fighting now with the Great and Good War America fought against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

But, you know what? On second thought, Imperial Japan and al Qaeda have a lot in common -- and so do the Second World War and the war in Afghanistan. The Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, killing more Americans than any attack on U.S. soil until al Qaeda launched its own sneak attack on 9/11. The Japanese and al Qaeda also share the same fanatical devotion to their "cause." The Japanese had kamikazes and al Qaeda has kamikazes -- with hundreds of passengers on board. Our enemies in both wars shared a suicidal commitment to an impossible delusion of world domination. The war in the Pacific was a bloodbath as a result. Women and children threw themselves off of cliffs on Saipan rather than surrender to U.S. Marines. Only 1,000 Japanese surrendered on Iwo, the other 22,000 died fighting or were buried or burned alive in the island's caves. On Okinawa the Japanese sacrificed 100,000 men in the service of a lost cause.

The American people braced for the invasion of Japan, but Truman wasn't prepared to see a million Americans killed or wounded when there was a chance to end the war quickly with the Bomb. Truman would use nuclear weapons against civilian populations, so committed was his government to total victory and so costly would that victory have been if it was pursued by conventional means.

In Afghanistan today, against a fanatical enemy who attacked the United States and murdered 3,000 civilians, the president and his party seem to be looking for a way out. No more pay any price, bear any burden. They would have us surrender rather than spend another $50 billion to provide McChrystal with the troops he needs. They would have us leave Kandahar and Kabul to the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies rather than lose hundreds, maybe thousands, more American soldiers in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Maybe the great mistake in Afghanistan was to treat it like it was a different kind of war than World War II. If there was a chance to get bin Laden in the caves of Tora Bora, we should have sent in the Marines with flame-throwers just like we did on Iwo. Now the President of the United States considers abandoning the fight against an enemy that attacked America and is determined to attack America again. We could leave and hope for the best, but Truman could have done the same in June of 1945. 'We'll contain them from Okinawa, Iwo Jima and the Philippines, we'll use airpower to disrupt their operations, we'll send the boys home and maintain a flexible, over-the-horizon strike force,' Truman might have said -- and that's essentially what the Democrats are proposing, and Obama is now considering.

Mary Landrieu was awfully upfront about her $100 million vote in Senate debate Saturday:

“I will correct something. It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it,” Landrieu told reporters after her floor speech. “But that is not why I started this health care debate; I started this health care debate for all the reasons I just mentioned in my statement” on the floor.

She blamed "very partisan, Republican bloggers" for reporting on that section of the bill, but it was first reported by the well-known, right-wing outlet, ABC. The nerve of any of us to insinuate she could be bought for a measly $100 million.

Landrieu's justification for the extra money for Louisiana is that federal emergency aid surrounding Katrina had incorrectly inflated Louisiana's per-capita income for a short time, thus leading to insufficient Medicaid funds for the state, due to the federal government's calculation based on per-capita income.

She followed up with another odd assertion:

"Our state is still as poor as it was, if not poorer."

Perhaps not the thing to highlight so dramatically, when you're a senator who's been serving for 12 years.

Landrieu said her yes vote Saturday, to proceed to debate on Reid's health-care bill, should not be construed as a vote of support for the bill in its current form.

Sen. Mary Landrieu said that Reid wouldn't have 60 votes unless Democrats agree to weaken the government plan so that it is triggered if private insurers don't reach certain benchmarks.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney unloaded on President Barack Obama and his administration in a radio interview Monday morning, saying that Obama's recent bow before the Japanese Emperor was "fundamentally harmful" to the United States and indicates that Obama "doesn’t fully understand or have the same perception of the US role in the world that most Americans have." Obama's behavior on foreign trips is "very upsetting," Cheney added.

The former vice president, who has been far more publicly outspoken out of office than he was in it, discussed the Obama administration's foreign and national security policies in an interview with conservative talk radio host Scott Hennen. Cheney suggested that Attorney General Eric Holder wants a "show trial" for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and four other terrorists who will be tried in federal court for their crimes. “I can’t for the life of me figure out what Holder’s intent here is in having Khalid Sheikh Mohammad tried in civilian court other than to have some kind of show trial. They’ll simply use it as a platform to argue their case – they don’t have a defense to speak of – it’ll be a place for them to stand up and spread the terrible ideology that they adhere to." Cheney noted that members of Congress are pushing to block those civilian trials and encouraged those efforts.

Cheney said of the recent attack at Fort Hood: "I think it clearly is an act of terrorism. I don’t know any other way to define it. This is a guy who apparently motivated by some of the same sentiments and philosophy that was behind 9/11, takes a weapon and kills thirteen of our soldiers and wounds many, many others. That strikes me as an act of terror. I don’t know of any other way to call it."

The former vice president was very critical of Obama's continued "dithering" on Afghanistan.

I worry that there’s a lack of understanding of what this means from the perspective of the troops. You know, if you’re out there on the line day in and day out and putting your life at risk on a volunteer basis for the nation and you see the Commander in Chief unable to or appearing to be unable to make a decision about the way forward here – you know that raises serious doubts. Nobody wants to think of volunteering to be participate in that kind of operation.

It may in part be inexperience on Obama’s part. It may be that there’s confusion on the staff. But I’m not encouraged by it. Presidents are the ones we pay the big bucks to to make these kinds of difficult decisions and it’s not as though he had not addressed this before. Remember, he announced a new strategy in March. He was given a strategy that was pretty well put together at the end of our administration as just recommendations. He adopted many of them, announced a strategy in March, reinforced it in August before the speech at the VFW, and then in the fall when it was time to decide based on McChrystal’s recommendations, you know, he’s dithered.

And Cheney warned that there would be consequences for the drawn-out decisionmaking process. "The delay is not cost-free," he said. "Every day that goes by raises doubts in the minds of our friends in the region about what you’re going to do. Raises doubts in the minds of the troops…I worry that the delay and that time that it’s taken to come to the decision will be very costly."

Audio of the interview is here.

Goldfarb mentions Andrew Revkin's decision not to publish "private" -- though publicly available -- emails which cast the purveyors of climate change in a bad light. Just in case you were inclined to give Revkin the benefit of the doubt, here's another small data-point on him.

Revkin's blog is called Dot.Earth. Here's his explanation of it:

About Dot Earth

By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. In Dot Earth, reporter Andrew C. Revkin examines efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits. Conceived in part with support from a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, Dot Earth tracks relevant news from suburbia to Siberia. The blog is an interactive exploration of trends and ideas with readers and experts.

How does Revkin know that the world's population will peak at 9 billion? That figure comes from the United Nations Population Division which does really good, serious work on demography. Revkin is using their annual population survey, the most recent edition of which is from 2008. In it, the U.N. projects population forward based on a number of factors, particularly changing mortality and fertility rates. They use a range of assumptions and give multiple projections based on different variables. For the 2008 edition, for instance, they give three variant projections for world population in 2050:

* 7.959 billion (low variant)
* 9.150 billion (median variant)
* 10.461 billion (high variant)
* 11.030 billion (constant--that is, if all current conditions remain unchanged)

But here's the important part: The subject which has dominated most demography discussions for the last several years isn't population growth, but population decline. Fertility rates are falling all around the world. Only one or two countries have positive fertility-rate growth. Fertility rates have fallen below replacement levels in almost all industrialized nations but the rate of decline is actually fastest in developing nations.

The noteworthy part of the U.N.'s population report isn't that peak number in 2050 -- it's that after 2050, the U.N. sees world population shrinking. By 2048, the U.N. projects that 76 percent of the world will have a fertility rate below replacement level (that's 2.1 children born per woman). Only 22 percent of the world will have a fertility rate as high as 3.0.

All of which means that around 2050, we'll be hitting the high-watermark for world population. At that moment, the demographic momentum built up since the 1950s will have petered out and -- because the average age will have increased markedly -- people who haven't replaced themselves will begin dying off in large numbers. Thus, when the U.N. did a long-range population study in 2003, they projected that after peaking at 9.2 billion, the world would spend the next century shedding bodies, drifting back down to 8.3 billion by 2175.

There are too many caveats to list here -- demography is barely science, let alone destiny. But do understand that the discussion in demography circles isn't "How do we cope with two extra China's?" Rather, it's "How do we manage one of those extra China's disappearing?" And that's because throughout history, only bad things have happened when population declined. As Mark Steyn puts it, “There is no precedent in human history for economic growth on declining human capital.”

Mmm, Mmm, Mmm. No breast exams for mama.

"Not that it matters politically because obviously she's a female Republican dunce and he's a male Democrat genius. But Sarah Palin's poll numbers are strengthening. And President Obama's are sliding. Guess what? They're about to meet in the 40s."

"The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday."

Lagging the French: "A concern for not giving offense to Muslims would never prevent the French internal-security service, the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST), which deploys a large number of Muslim officers, from aggressively trying to pre-empt terrorism."

"There are 'many' Democratic senators who would vote against a Senate health bill lacking a strong public option, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asserted Monday."

SNL presents "Palin-Beck 2012," from the mind of Keith Olbermann.

NYT on GlobalWarmingGate: "'The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.' And they don’t contain any obvious state military secrets as well, unlike say the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War or more recently, the secrets of War on Terror, or any of a number of other leaked documents the Times has cheerfully rushed to print."

Dear young people: Kiss your earning potential good-bye with health-care overhaul. Hopenchange!

NYT: "With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019." A TARP a year.

The politics of engagement: "Unlike during previous trips by US leaders, China made no goodwill gestures for Obama such as freeing dissidents despite appeals from the US Congress to free Liu and other prominent inmates. 'The Chinese government does not reciprocate when it is given things for free. It simply takes them and moves on,' Zhang and Jiang wrote."

Israel's targets: "The new strategy of creating proxy terrorist groups endowed with the potency and sophistication of armies, but with none of their restrictions or responsibilities, is racking up points. The goal is not to defeat Israel on the battlefield, but to wage a war of attrition that erodes its national confidence, challenges its moral clarity, and transforms it into a pariah among democratic peoples. Yet this model of warfare depends for its success on one important factor: Israel's willingness to fight on the battlefields that Iran and Syria have assigned to it."

The Foreign Policy Initiative has produced a very helpful fact sheet that makes the case for a fully resourced counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan. Read it here.