Uncategorized

Instapundit Doesn’t Get It This

Instapundit Doesn’t Get It

This series of posts shows the problem with most of the loudest supporters of Iraq. They don’t understand non-proliferation or the real precedent we are creating.

I’m for an attack on Iraq. Friedman and Weisberg make the point better than I do, I’d like to think because their jobs allow them the time. Counterpoints that have been especially well done include Steve Chapman (always a great read) & Michael Kinsley. And let me tell you, the dishonesty of the administration is unbelievable.

Non-Proliferation is a problem we should have been fighting the last 20 years. And some have been like Dick Lugar and Sam Nunn (an unfortunate member at Augusta). Others get in a tizzy over it when they see an example of someone they don’t like–Saddam Hussein.

We can, and should take out Hussein, but another will spring up elsewhere. Controlling fissile material has little to do with him and given the number of times we have found it being trafficked, this wasn’t necessarily going to Iraq. Or at least Iraq under Hussein’s control. Hussein is an issue of a specific threat with a relatively easy solution.

Non-Proliferation is a long-term problem in search of a strategy. Let’s not forget, Gephardt had to scare the administration into including full funding for the Lugar-Nunn initiative back in January. Did you hear about that at Instapundits site? Why not?

Update: This page lists several cases of theft of fissile materials. The confusion between the Iraq threat and the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons has been completely confused by many in the current debate. What stuns me i s the lack of attention to serious non-proliferation and the mistaken notion that taking out rogue states like Iraq will solve the problem.

Moderates on the Block The

Moderates on the Block

The NY Times has a good article on Morella and the future of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is largely run from the center. Partisans can dispute this, but comparing the leadership (especially with Bonior gone) demonstrates the difference. One of the larger problems in the Republican Party is no one doing anything about the problem as many in the 80s did in the Democratic Party. Boehlerts, Shays, Leach and others exist, but there is no corresponding DLC. Adding to the thesis of the Emerging Democratic Majority, this bodes poorly for Republicans in the long run. Not only are they moving away from the center, they aren’t doing anything to moderate themselves.

Birkett’s Blues Two good stories

Birkett’s Blues

Two good stories (and maybe more by the time I get done with the papers) about Birkett’s role in the Cruz Case.

Phil Kadner offers the appropriate way to handle such cases.

Rich Miller offers why, even with all of her faults, Lisa Madigan is the better choice.

Birkett claims his experience in capital cases is vital to the role. With all of the identified problems with the Illinois death penalty, how can anyone believe a man with his experience belongs anywhere near a death penalty case?

Krugman: how could a $30

Krugman: how could a $30 billion robbery take place in broad daylight?

Because if you do something so incredibly brazen no one will believe it. The Democratic Party tried to present the Bush Tax plan to voters in focus groups, they refused to believe he would pass the plan–thus, Dems didn’t fight. Being brazen has the advantage of people thinking that no one will behave that badly.