Via Dana Loesch:

Sen. John Kerry has come to the conclusion that President George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Gen. Tommy Franks could have captured Osama bin Laden if they had done a couple of things differently.

Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, as President Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, has long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get the al-Qaeda leader and top deputies when they were holed up in the forbidding mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

So, a bunch of Democrats looked at the past and came to the conclusion that the Republicans in charge didn’t fight the war correctly. That’s a surprise. This from the same man who concluded the Surge in Iraq was a failure while trying to justify his party’s stance against the war in Iraq. It wasn’t a stance against the war so much as it was a stance against anything Bush.

Which is what this report is.

What’s even more interesting is now Kerry is producing reports to justify an increase in troops in Afghanistan:

Although limited to a review of military operations eight years old, the report could also be read as a cautionary note for those resisting an increased troop presence there now.

Got it? If we don’t send more troops, we might not capture bin Laden. Kerry, the antiwar leftist from Massachusetts, is now creating talking points for an increase in soldiers in Afghanistan.

If that doesn’t show the political nature of the Democrats, I don’t know what it will take. To their credit, the Republicans are backing an increase in the military also, not because of politics, but because they believe the war should be won.

If they were playing politics, they would be against any increase. They aren’t. If anything, they want more troops sent.

Finally, if we are going to blame Bush and Co. for not capturing bin Laden, I think it’s fair to recall Bill Clinton’s refusal to accept custody of him when he was president:

Sudan offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden at this meeting, according to Erwa. He brought up bin Laden directly. “Where should we send him?” he asked. This was the key question. When Sudan turned over the infamous Carlos the Jackal to French intelligence in 1994, the CIA covertly provided satellite intelligence that allowed Sudanese intelligence to capture him on a pretext and escort him to the VIP lounge at the Khartoum airport. There, he was met by armed members of French intelligence and flown to Paris in a special plane. Would the CIA pick up bin Laden in Khartoum and fly him back to Washington,D.C.? Or would bin Laden go to a third country?

The CIA officer was silent. It was obvious to Erwa that a decision had not yet been made. Or perhaps his offer was not quite believed. Yet, the Sudanese official was still hoping for a repeat of the French scenario. Finally, the CIA official spoke. “We have nothing we can hold him on,” he carefully said.

Also:

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — “(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him.” Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

“Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy…”

Sounds like what is going on today. But this is all Bush’s fault.

There is supply. And then there is demand.

It’s not that difficult. If there is a demand for a product, then the market will supply it, and the quantity of the supply helps dictate the price.

Now, the government doesn’t believe in supply and demand. It thinks that if they create the supply and force it on the market, a demand will somehow be created.

For example:

Two years ago, Congress ordered the nation’s gasoline refiners to do something that is turning out to be mathematically impossible.

To please the farm lobby and to help wean the nation off oil, Congress mandated that refiners blend a rising volume of ethanol and other biofuels into gasoline. They are supposed to use at least 15 billion gallons of biofuels by 2012, up from less than seven billion gallons in 2007.

But nobody at the time counted on fuel demand falling in the United States, which is what has happened during the recession. And that decline could well continue, as cars become more efficient under other recent government mandates.

This is the setup. The government orders the market to use ethanol. The market says, “Um, forget that. We’re cutting back on the use of gasoline. Sup now?”

The government says, “Huh. Well, no reason to stop making ethanol. Let’s just increase the percentage of ethanol mixed with gasoline. That’ll fix it.”

Yeah, not so much:

One possibility is to raise the maximum proportion of ethanol in gasoline to 15 or 20 percent.

But that idea is opposed by some carmakers and pollution experts. They contend that high ethanol blends can cause damage to cars, including making catalytic converters run hotter.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says it believes this could cause the converters, components that help control pollution, to fail at around 50,000 miles. They are supposed to last for 120,000 to 150,000 miles. “We are sensitive to the issues facing the ethanol industry, but the government must make decisions based on sound science,” said Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the alliance, in a letter to the E.P.A.

Sound science? As long as that science isn’t economics.

Here’s another problem. Ethanol isn’t as fuel efficient as straight gasoline. So, mixing more ethanol in with gas effectively reduces the fuel efficiency of America’s cars. That makes little sense to begin with, less when you consider the same bill that ordered an increase in ethanol also ordered an increase in fuel economy.

So why don’t they just waive the ethanol standards? Politics, silly:

Another possibility is that the agency could waive the mandates requiring use of a large volume of biofuels. But that would anger farmers, who sell a great deal of corn to ethanol factories, and the members of Congress who represent them. It might also undermine the efforts of companies that are investing millions in factories to make ethanol from waste materials, like corncobs, straw and garbage.

They didn’t mention what that would do to the corn market. If there is suddenly a drop in the demand for corn, but the supply doesn’t change, the price of corn drops,

There is no easy way out of this. Government should not have been messing in the market to start with. If ethanol were the salvation of American motorists, it wouldn’t need government subsidies. But the farm lobby wanted it and they got it. Now, we have a glut of product on the market and no easy way out:

A return of $4 gasoline might change things, by making E85 a relative bargain and spurring wider use. So would an unexpected spurt in total fuel demand. Otherwise, it is not at all clear how the nation’s coming surplus of ethanol can be absorbed.

That’s a cheerful thought.

Hat Tip: Say Anything

In my book, Gov. Mike Huckabee has one redeeming quality politically. He is an ardent supporter of the Fair Tax. I don’t know any politician, outside of Rep. John Linder, who vocally supports the Fair Tax more than Huckabee.

Other than that, I really have no use for him.

Sorry.

And that’s why I want you to watch his show on Fox News. I know that sounds contradictory, but let me explain.

Higher ratings result in no 2012 campaign:

MIKE HUCKABEE, on “Fox News Sunday,” told Chris Wallace that a 2012 presidential bid is “less than likely,”and depends on whether Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO of Fox News, keeps liking his eponymous weekend talk show. “The reason I wouldn’t is that this Fox gig I’ve got is really wonderful, ” Huckabee said.

As my old school readers recall, I was initially interested in Huckabee, mainly because of his support of the Fair Tax. But when I took a closer look at him, I turned away.

Mike Huckabee is a fatally flawed candidate for the Republicans. As governor, Mike Huckabee did some things that are really going to turn off American voters. The biggest will probably be his role in the parole of a convicted rapist.

I took a lot of flak on Newsvine for that article. I was told that Huckabee released Wayne Dumond because the right wingers wanted him to in order to embarrass Clinton. There may be something to that, but the fact is, Huck is just not that strong on crime.

For example, nine years ago he commuted the sentence of Maurine Clemmons. Clemons is now wanted in the horrific assassination of four police officers in Washington state.

I haven’t really researched it, but I don’t think there were a lot of Republicans lobbying for his release.

As Arkansas Governor, Huckabee had a long record of pardoning criminals—including murders and rapists: HuffPo reports that “between 1996 and 2004, Huckabee helped to free more Arkansas prisoners than were freed from all of Arkansas’ six neighboring states.”

Huckabee may be a really nice guy. But he’s nothing more than a Republican George McGovern. Please, please, please watch his show on Fox and keep him out of the 2012 race.

“As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly…”

Slam a black man to the ground and call him a n-bomb before putting the boots to him? In the STL, that’s called a “misdemeanor:”

Six people arrested in August outside a raucous town hall meeting in south St. Louis County have been charged with misdemeanor ordinance violations.

…

Post-Dispatch reporter Jake Wagman, 30, of University City, was charged with interfering with a police officer. The charges allege that he failed to obey repeated commands “to leave the site of an ongoing disturbance.”

Elston McCowan, 47, of St. Louis, and Perry Molens, 50, of De Soto, each were charged with assaulting a person and interfering with police. They are accused of scuffling with and injuring Kenneth Gladney in a clash of opinions over the Democrats’ universal health care proposals.

Javonne Spitz, 51, of O’Fallon, Mo., and Brian Matthews, 34, of Glendale, also were charged with interfering with an officer. Cheryl Johner, 55, of Arnold, was charged with assaulting a person and destruction of property for allegedly pushing another woman and breaking her cell phone.

Scuffling?

Behold, video:

You can see a particularly large purple people eater grab Gladney from behind and throw him to the ground. Had Gladney been a liberal, that would be a hate crime. Instead, it’s a misdemeanor.

According to Jim Hoft, Gladney wasn’t even protesting. He was a vendor.

This happened on August 6. Why did it take this long to get charges filed? John at Powerline says the defendents should feel glad they aren’t Navy SEALs:

It occurs to me that if these union thugs had been Navy SEALS apprehending a terrorist mass murderer of Americans, rather than agents of the Democratic Party trying to suppress expression of a political view with which the Democratic Party disagrees, they would have been treated far more harshly. Why do you think that is?

So, just to recap, leftist protestors outside a leftist congressman’s event, in a city governed by a Democrat assault a black man and it takes this long before charges are filed against them. And then they are filed the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.

It stretches my ability to give them the benefit of the doubt to think this was anything but politically timed. Obviously they wanted to have minimal political impact so they did this on a day when most people would be busy, followed by a holiday.

Define “narcissism:”

• self-love: an exceptional interest in and admiration for yourself; “self-love that shut out everyone else”
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• Narcissism describes the trait of excessive self-love, based on self-image or ego.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism
• Love of oneself; Sexual desire for one’s own body
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/narcissism
• narcissist – someone in love with themselves
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• narcissistic – egotistic: characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

See also:

Obama has decided he will go to Copenhagen to help decide how much of America’s wealth will be looted and given away:

The president will attend the summit on Dec. 9 before heading to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, the official said. Obama’s attendance had been in question until now.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the formal announcement has not been made.

The conference had originally been intended to produce a new global climate change treaty on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases that would replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. However, hopes for a legally binding agreement have dimmed lately, with leaders saying the summit is more likely to produce a template for future action to cut emissions blamed for global warming.

There was never any doubt that Obama would have America participate in the latest installment of the Kyoto Protocol, even if Al Gore and Bill Clinton refused to when they had the chance.

But if we are looking at doing even more with this next treaty, shouldn’t we look at how effective the previous on was. For example, did it reduce emissions? Not so much:

The industrialized world again in 2007 boosted, rather than reduced, its emissions of global-warming gases, the UN reported Wednesday, as international negotiators looked ahead to crucial climate talks in December.

Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases rose by one percent between 2006 and 2007 among 40 nations classified as industrialized under the 1992 UN climate treaty, the treaty secretariat reported, detailing data for the latest available reporting period.

It was the seventh consecutive year of an upward trend, it said.

Interesting. So what happens when a country doesn’t decrease its emissions enough to reach their goal? They pay:

Japan, Italy and Spain face payments of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty. (Source.)

and

TAXPAYERS face having to fork out more than €270m so that Ireland can “buy its way” into meeting the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gas emissions.

Ireland is set to overshoot its Kyoto targets by almost 100pc as things stand, according to the latest figures from the European Commission. (Source.)

and

New Zealand’s Kyoto liabilities have deteriorated by a further $500 million, official papers show. (Source.)

Two questions come to mind. First, why were they unable to decrease emissions and second, where does all this money go?

According to the article on Japan, Italy and Spain increasing emissions, “they underestimated economic growth and future emissions from factories and utilities.”

They had a better year economically than they expected, so they have to pay a fine. Makes sense to a Marxist.   

As for where the money goes:

Under the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Climate Change treaty, endorsed by 175 nations and organizations, countries that exceed their emission caps must buy credits in the market. The sellers are typically investors or industrial polluters that have accumulated a surplus of credits, also called permits.

…

Under Kyoto, governments create a limited number of permits they grant freely to industrial polluters. If the CO2 created is more than the amount the nation pledged not to exceed, the country must buy permits to make up the difference — essentially a penalty for discharging too much.

For example:

Russian power producer OGK-6 has sold some 4.5 million Euros ($6.83 million) of emissions reduction credits under the Kyoto Protocol to the U.K.-based Clean Planet Group, its parent firm said on Monday.

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty meant to fight global warming by obliging many developed nations to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in 2008-2012 by 5 percent compared to 1990 levels.

So New Zealanders get to pay Russians for their unexpected economic growth. And so will we, if we join in the next version of Kyoto. We either stop growing, cause electrical rates to skyrocket and scale back our standard of living or we pay countries like Russia a penance for our sins.

And our president is thinking this is a good thing.

Linked up at Tom Nelson, the global warming hereitic’s Instapundit. Thanks Tom!

I don’t know what art school or requirements are needed for the police department in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, but one thing is for sure: They follow the KISS method:

It is being compared to the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz” and amazingly has worked to catch a killer by Bolivian police.

Police were able to use the image (above) to help track down two people involved in the murder of a taxi driver from the city of Santa Cruz, who was stabbed 11 times and set on fire in March.

They caught the killer with this sketch. I want to see that episode of CSI: Bolivia.

Three Navy SEALs are charged with assault for allegedly fattening the lip of a wanted terrorist. Ahmed Hashim Abed is wanted by the United States for being the “mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004.”

When he found himself in United States custody, he told the investigators he was punched by his captors. His bloody lip served as enough evidence to bring the three sailors up for Admiral’s Mast. They said they preferred a court martial:

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

So rather than being congratulated on bringing in a terrorist subhuman, they are charged with swelling up his lip. Rather than being on a morgue table, he’s lawyering up.

Between this and the criminal trials of 9/11 terrorists, I’m starting to wonder if the Obama administration isn’t intentionally trying to destroy morale in the military.

Allahpundit says they’ll get off with a “wrist slap.” Uncle Jimbo at BLACKFIVE sheds some reality on his ignorance:

Let me explain something to you amigo. That wrist slap would be a career-ender in Spec Ops for these men. You understand? We take three guys who accomplish more in a lazy afternoon than you have in your entire anonymous, snarking-from-the-sideline, existence and we put them out of work making dead tangos. And that sounds like what should have happened to this ass clown. If he dies during the take down we have no problems.

I know you have no earthly clue just how god-awful complicated it is to actually perform a raid and scarf up a bad guy, let’s just say it rates up there with trying to conduct a Beethoven Symphony with your orchestra in free fall, screaming towards Earth like a phalanx of freaking lawn darts. That is why we like to send a f**king Hellfire down on them and last time I checked that leaves a little more than a god damn bloody lip. And yes I am saying I don’t care if he got it once he got to base. What if the guy who clocked his murderous ass knew Scott Helverson, who this bastard helped kill, burn and then defile his corpse? Do you really want to be on record saying he should be made an example of? Do you remember what Kos said about the four men this scumbag killed you dumbass? I’ll remind you “F**k them”. You are sure in illustrious company.

Uncle Jimbo, this is for you:

Cross posted at Right Wing News.