Ahmadinejad the fabulist

Nobody denies the obvious like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has called the Holocaust, probably the most well-documented event of the 20th century, a "myth." He has continually denied Iranian involvement in Iraqi violence or in arming Hamas and Hizballah's rocket forces, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary on all fronts. He famously said at Columbia that in Iran there aren't homosexuals "like in [the United States]." One of his techniques in interviews with Western media is to simply deny allegations they make and dispute their sources.

He does this in his own country, too. He is under fire from both reformists and conservatives for his fiscal policies, yet he brushes aside problems like they were because of other peoples' actions all along. When asked about the doubling of Iranian currency in the open market over the last 3 years, widely blamed as a factor in the country's rising inflation, economist Morteza Allahdad said, "Ahmadinejad can't escape responsibility for this."

But why would that stop him from trying? In a TV address, he responded, "Inflation has its roots in the past," meaning that the blame should not be placed on his shoulders. What a far cry from Truman's "the buck stops here," no?

What planet is Ron Paul on?

Ron Paul, the darling of the internet (who is not Barack Obama) is on record as saying this: "I don't think we'd all die of unsafe food if we didn't have the FDA. Someone else would do it."

Let's dissect this a moment. Paul seeks to assure us by saying that we won't all die. This might be parsing language a bit, but it doesn't settle me much.

Of much more significance is his second part of the quote -- "Someone else would do it." Really? We would get one, unified body of experts to -- without regard for profit -- monitor every food and drug item on the market, outside of our government?

Paul and other free market fetishists fail to comprehend the absurdity of what they are suggesting. Did they ever ponder why the FDA was established in the first place? Or Social Security and Medicare for that matter? They were established precisely because somebody else wasn't doing it. The free market had its shot in each of these areas, and it failed to adequately address the problems presented to it. That is why the government must be tasked with things such as product safety.

Why do we like Musharraf again?

President Bush probably feels a bit outdone by Pervez Musharraf. He uses "The War on Terror" to wastefully spend and clamp down on civil liberties. As the New York Times reports, the multi-billion dollar investment in Pakistan's military, an attempt to quell Al Qaeda, has been diverted to other projects. One example of this has been an effort on the part of the Pakistanis to shore up defenses against another U.S. ally, India.

In another classic instance of the administration seeming to have its foreign policy wander without direction, the aid had few stipulations or even specific purposes. Only now is it being evaluated as to its use.

It's about time we stopped feeling so obliged to support Musharraf at all costs. Bush obviously pushed hard for him to remove the martial law in place, but he didn't go far enough. Our image has suffered even more. And for what? The people protesting against Musharraf were not Al Qaeda -- in fact, they were the people we ought to have been encouraging: people who respected civil law and modernity. But we can't win. Bush would never allow us that chance.

Copy editors needed!

Now, I don't think this is going to cost Hillary much in the Iowa caucuses, but how on earth does your campaign put out reminder cards to folks telling them to caucus on the wrong day? Not only is it the wrong day -- it's six days even after the New Hampshire primary. By January 14, the day listed, Hillary may have (but hopefully will not have) pretty much already won the Democratic nomination. This is why it's always good to have copy editors and knowledgeable campaign staff . . .

Mitt Romney, the true conservative?

It's the process all the Republican candidates have to go through to be considered a shot for getting the party nomination: who is the "real conservative"? Even normally sensible people like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain get swept up into the madness, courting the evangelical vote. But Mitt Romney? The former pro-gay rights, pro-choice, anti-gun governor of the bluest of all blue states? Some conservatives are biting. National Review endorsed him. And now, so has Tom "Immigration is un-American" Tancredo. This after The Boston Globe twice uncovered the fact that Romney's Belmont home was being landscaped by illegal immigrants. Ron Paul's popularity doesn't make any sense to me, and neither does Romney's. As Jon Stewart said regarding Romney's campaign, "A patrician flip-flopper from Massachusetts . . . good luck with that."

The Ron Paul phenomenon

He's not polling very high in Iowa, but Ron Paul is raising money like a beast: $6.2 million in one day! I don't quite understand the internet phenomenon surrounding Paul, the only candidate to my knowledge who favors disbanding Medicare, the Department of Education, and other popular programs. Plus, what's the deal with this conspiracy about a North American Union? Is this so much better than Kucinich believing in aliens?

Making sense of the NIE

With the news that the 16 US intelligence agencies have reached a consensus that Iran stopped developing a nuclear weapons program in 2003 due to international pressure, the urgency for quick action is dropping. But there are many reasons not to call it a day and move on:

• The assessment that Iran had not re-started its weapons program by mid-2007 was judged with only "moderate" confidence, because of intelligence gaps.
• The estimate was not able to conclude whether or not Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons.
• The report judged with "moderate-to-high confidence" that Iran is still "at a minimum" keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons.
• The estimate highlighted that Iran would probably be using covert nuclear facilities rather than declared sites to convert and enrich uranium for a bomb.
• Finally, it "assess[es] with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so."
• Past NIE reports, namely the 2002 Iraq estimate -- and now perhaps a 2005 NIE on Iran -- were glaringly wrong in their intelligence assessments.
• Israeli intelligence and presumably that of some European capitals contradict the findings of this NIE.

It is fair to say that the mission has not been accomplished. It will undoubtedly be more difficult to persuade Russia and China in for another round of sanctions, but we still have to keep trying.

National Review offers a reasonably coherent defense of continued vigilance on Iran.

A sigh of relief and a new low for Bush

Shock of all shocks, Iran is NOT actively developing a nuclear weapons program. Read more here.

This is rather remarkable. We were nearly led into another Middle East conflict based on Bush and Cheney cooking intelligence. When will I learn?

Democracy 1, Dictatorship 1

Mixed news in the world of liberal democracy today. Generalissimo Vladimir Putin's United Russia won 63 percent of the vote in a highly flawed parliamentary election. If it was not clear already that Russia did not have civil liberties, well now it cannot be even described as illiberal democracy. This is thuggery and extortion. Why, why can he get away with this? . . .

Luckily, the news is not all bad. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez will not be president-for-life after all. To his credit (I can't believe I'd ever say that), he conceded defeat and did not change the results in his favor. Venezuelans won't sell out to populist rhetoric after all.

Law & Order

Will we find any in Arab Palestine? Thanks to Marty Peretz's guidance, I found an article on Ha'aretz's website, announcing the arrest of 3 men who murdered Israeli settler Ido Zolden. They are Palestinian. They are under Fatah's command. Worse yet, they are Palestinian national security servicemen. Israel put a gag order on the arrest until after the Annapolis Conference concluded so as not to guilt Abbas. I'll ask what I've wondered many times before -- how much more control over the West Bank does Abbas have than over Gaza?

Abbas's inferiors causing trouble . . . anyone remember this?