A Salute to Rick Ankiel: The Natural

Check out Rob's place.

On Mining Safety

In the wake of the tragic, apparent loss of 6 miners and 3 rescuers in Utah, it's likely that Congress will at least consider legislation to try to make sure nothing like this happens again. One problem with that approach: Congress did it 14 months ago -- in the wake of the loss of dozen workers at the Sago mine in West Virginia. The MINER Act requires (click the link for a more detailed summary):

A comprehensive, proactive approach to safety:

• For the first time, every mine will have a comprehensive emergency response plan that provides for evacuation of miners and the maintenance of miners unable to evacuate.
• The plans must address post-accident communications, tracking, breathable air, lifelines, training, and coordination with local emergency response personnel.

Coal mines must provide oxygen to save miners’ lives in the event of a disaster.

Every mine must have flame resistant lifelines.

MSHA must take action to prevent future disasters due to blown out seals.

Mines must have two-way wireless communications and electronic tracking.

Every mine must have a well-trained rescue team nearby.

New programs included in the MINER Act will advance safety technology and train a new generation of skilled miners and safety inspectors.

National Journal's the Gate has a very interesting post that puts some perspective on this tragedy:

Technological advancements have done little to mitigate the dangers of mining, one of the most risk-fraught occupations today. But mining also offers relatively lucrative pay without requiring a college degree, making it an attractive job prospect in some parts of the country.

In Utah, miners made an average of more than $62,000 last year, the Deseret Morning News reports. Disasters have befallen central Utah mining communities before. And while residents are hardly shocked by tragedies like the one playing out now, there are signs native Utahns are abandoning the trade. Migrants from Latin and Central America are filling the void, Reuters reports, and three of the trapped workers are reportedly Latinos.

Another group of foreigners may also be eyeing the developments in Utah closely. China may have the world's worst record on mine safety, with 4,746 fatalities last year compared with fewer than 50 in the U.S. Cave-ins, explosions and fires are a fairly regularly occurrence, and workers more or less are the canaries in the coal mine. Under pressure from the usually cautious Chinese media, officials there are taking steps to improve safety for miners.

It's ironic that at the same time Americans are focused on the accident in Utah, 181 miners in China are feared dead due to a flood. You can bet the response of the US Congress the Utah mine disaster will be greater than whatever the Chinese government does.

Bush to Propose Drawdown

The New York Times says that the Bush administration will propose to do in Iraq exactly what logistics and reality seem to have imposed. When they are no longer able to sustain the surge (in April), they will begin to draw down troops. And it appears that as troops are pulled out of the country, the mission will begin to change to reflect something approaching what the Iraq Study Group recommended:

“The surge, we all know, will end sometime in 2008, in the beginning of 2008, and we will begin probably a withdrawal of forces based on the surge,” Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 officer in Iraq, said Friday. “We must consider the complexity of the threat and deliberately reduce our forces based on the situation on the ground as well as the capability of the Iraqi security forces.”

General Odierno said the five additional brigades added this year under the president’s troop increase were likely to be withdrawn on a timeline parallel to their arrival in Iraq. Under this timeline, which is not yet the official plan, the troop increase would end by April with the five brigades leaving Iraq one each month, with American force levels returning to the troop levels existing before the increase by next August, he said.

Central to the internal debate on a “postsurge” strategy is the extent to which American troops would be able to ask Iraqi forces to take the lead on security missions in critical sections of the country, particularly in Baghdad. Many Democrats in Congress, and even some Republicans, have demanded that Americans hand over more security missions to the Iraqis.

Although no decision has been made about the full extent of the American combat mission next year, administration officials and military officers say the troops in Iraq would shift priorities to training and supporting Iraq forces. They said the large contingent of Special Operations forces now in Iraq would continue missions to capture and kill terrorist and insurgent leaders, and to disrupt their networks.

As Odierno says, as Admiral Mullen testified a little while ago, and as has been clear for some time, we will reduce overall troop levels when it is impossible to do otherwise.

The big question is just what the mission will be once troop levels are reduced. We recall too well the dissatisfaction with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy we were playing before Operation Phantom Thunder. We were making little progress and the losses were unacceptable to Americans. So it makes sense that the mission would have to change. We will see what the Iraqi government is capable of with a reduced commitment from American troops.

Politically, this announcement will give Democrats something of a free ride. They seem likely to have navigated a year in the majority without directly influencing the shape of the mission. They will be in a good position to claim that the President 'owns' Iraq. Events on the ground in Iraq -- and the opinion of the American people -- will go a long way to determining whether they will see it as politically in their interests to continue criticizing, or leave well enough alone.

But if the Administration submits a plan to limit our commitment to Iraq and sticks to a timetable to do so -- while arguing that we need to keep some troops in Iraq to preserve gains and fight Al Qaeda -- the public might be largely satisfied. That may end the domestic political fight over Iraq.

Maliki Tries to Change the Game

As we approach the September progress report on Iraq -- whoever delivers it -- there are signals that leaders in Iraq recognize the importance of signaling to the American people that things have changed. To that end, we got the report the other day that General Petraeus may be prepared to recommend the drawdown of US forces in areas of Iraq where violence has been suppressed. Now comes the world that Nuri Al Maliki has flown to the hometown of the late Saddam Hussein to make a personal appeal for unity to Sunni leaders. Ed Morrissey has the story:

Maliki didn't stop there. He made what looks to be a clean break with Moqtada al-Sadr yesterday, signing an accord with the Kurds and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. The coucil commands the Badr Brigade, which has fought Sadr's forces in the south for control. Maliki apparently has co-opted them into the government, isolating Sadr even further than ever after the radical cleric pulled his ministers from Maliki's government.

Opposing Sadr will help build trust with Sunni leadership. They have bitterly complained about security efforts being focused on Sunnis while Sadr's Mahdi Army continues to operate against Sunnis in mixed sectarian populations. If Maliki has broken with Sadr, then the Sunnis will have an opening to flex some political muscle. And with the effort of General Petraeus and the American forces in western and central Iraq, the unity and purpose of those Sunni tribes can work to Maliki's benefit with recalcitrant Shi'ites.

The personal appeal, coming directly to the heart of Saddam's former power base, is a spectacular move by Maliki. Up to now, he's mostly been known as a sectarian forced to deal with Sunnis and Kurds by circumstance. He may have finally taken the necessary steps to become the statesman Iraq needs, and the father of their liberated national unity most of them desire.

It's tough to flip from partisan to statesman overnight, and feelings have been pretty well hardened among Sunnis and Shia over the last few years. At the same time, there seems to be a sense of urgency among those Iraqis who want to see the US mission continue. They recognize that the US is coming to a crossroads on Iraq. And while these changes won't lead to a change of heart by Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, their positions are irrelevant if a significant chunk of the American public can be swayed to back more time.

One thing that could affect the perception is if Maliki is able to re-enlist support among some of the Sunnis in Parliament:

Mr. Maliki's trip to Tikrit came under heavy security a day after announcing a new Shiite-Kurdish coalition that he said was a first step toward unblocking the paralysis that has gripped his Shiite-dominated government since it took power in May 2006. But the reshaped power bloc included no Sunnis and immediately raised questions about its legitimacy as a unifying force.

Let's see if Maliki's move to change the game bears fruit.

Brookings: US Military Falling Behind on Reporting Progress in Iraq

From the latest Brookings Institution Iraq Index:

After a trip of 8 days one of us (O'Hanlon) took to Iraq this July, revisions are needed in some key numbers in the Iraq Index. This is in part because fresh data have recently become available, and in part because the U.S. military and Bush administration have not done a sufficient job getting data into the American public debate. It required a trip to Iraq to get access to some information that really should be widely available on this side of the Atlantic.

A more thorough accounting will follow in the coming days, but in short, civilian fatality levels in Iraq now seem to have declined substantially more than previous Pentagon reports or data had indicated. In particular, the monthly civilian fatality rate from sectarian violence appears about one-third lower than in the pre-surge months. That is still far too high, and remains comparable to violence levels of the 2004-2005 period, but it nonetheless reflects progress...

On balance, Iraq at the end of July is showing significant signs of battlefield momentum in favor of U.S./coalition military forces, but there is nonetheless little good to report on the political front and only modest progress on the economic side of things.

Any improvements are welcome, although the report shows pretty clearly that there remains lots of work to be done. Nevertheless, we were hoping for dramatic reductions in sectarian violence and it seems to be dropping dramatically.

Most Americans Want to Win in Iraq

Jules Crittenden has the story:

47 percent of Americans now think we’re making progress in Iraq, despite the best effort by our major news media organizations to ignore this, to bury it, to cast it in the worst possible light.

This is before our top generals have had the opportunity to address Congress and the nation. This is after repeated efforts by Congress and presidential candidates to portray Iraq as a disaster we must abandon at allow costs, though it very likely would mean we bear witness to genocide and wear a national stain of shame and cowardice in perpetuity.

I'm not sure the poll is quite as encouraging as Crittenden paints it -- although there clearly are upbeat aspects. People oppose the war by a margin of 64-33. Give yourself a pat on the back if you note that the poll is among 'adults.' To get the opinion of actual voters you probably have to skew each number 6-10 points in the direction of the President. Furthermore, there's more or less an even split on the question of whether we're making progress: 49-47 against.

The other potential reason for optimism is the figure of 28 percent who say they're more likely to support the war if Petraeus's report is positive. There's probably significant overlap in that group with the 33 percent who say they support the war, but it's still something.

Newsweek: Manly Men Making a Comeback Thanks to Plastic Surgery, Hair Transplants

Disappointing:

Measuring 6 feet 3, with chiseled pecs and a bushy beard, George seemed like a model of manliness. Yet two years ago the 47-year-old Virginia businessman (who declined to give his full name to protect his privacy) decided he didn't look quite macho enough. So he went to see Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, a Miami hair-restoration surgeon, to have 3,000 hair follicles ripped from his scalp and transplanted into his face, chest and belly. He wasn't satisfied. So a year later he returned to get an additional 2,400 grafts done. "I could still have another surgery and not be completely covered," says George today. "I'm very pleased, but 2,400 grafts is not a very hairy chest."

George's quest for maximum hirsuteness isn't as unusual as it may sound. He's part of a growing group of "retrosexuals"—men who shun metrosexuality, with its often feminine esthetic, in favor of old-school masculinity. Cosmetic and hair-transplant surgeons on both coasts report increases in patients seeking a more rugged look: hairier chests and beards, squarer chins, more angular jaw lines. Dr. Paul Nassif, a well-known Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, has noticed the change in the photos patients bring in to show him their ideal image. A few years ago "they were bringing in a pretty-boy look," he says. Now, though, the requests are different: " 'Give me a big, strong, manlier chin'," he says...

On the cosmetic front, some surgeons say that men are also asserting their manliness through rhinoplasty, or nose jobs, asking for a more pronounced proboscis. Among them is Mike Love, 20, of Arizona. Last year he underwent surgery to pare down what he considered an oversize snout and to achieve "facial harmony," as he puts it. But what he ended up with, he says, was "too small, almost feminine." So Love now has a second surgery scheduled for November. He's much happier with the new version of his nose that he's been promised. "It looks more masculine," he says. "It's much more suited for my face." Unless, of course, the next fad to sweep in causes him to reconsider.

If you want to alter your appearance to appear more manly, don't do it like a sissy. Do it some traditional 'retrosexual' way -- like weight lifting, chopping wood, fist fighting, going to war, chain-smoking, or suffering an industrial accident. I know lots of people who have plenty of body hair, and it doesn't make them look especially manly. A surfeit of hair pales in comparison to a scar, or a lost digit or two.

If you're one of those who wants to get that 'manly look,' drop me an E-mail. I'll be glad to sell you some of my back hair -- or just chop off one of your fingers. Whatever it takes to help you impress the girl of your dreams.

Friday Funny

I don't know who Petra Haden is, but this is pretty funny:

Who Says News Writers are Economic Illiterates

The Albany Times Union:

Half the nation's families earn below the median family income of about $56,000.

Well -- it is true.

Median: a value in an ordered set of values below and above which there is an equal number of values

See: AVERAGE

Charlie Cook: Not Much Room for a Bloomberg Indie Bid

Charlie Cook is one of the more respected and listened to election analysts in DC. He thinks that it would take a lot for Bloomberg to win the Presidency:

Obviously, trying to win the presidency is an even more formidable exercise for an independent than for a major party nominee. An independent might start with the support of about 11 percent of the electorate. Combining that with the $1 billion that Bloomberg could pump into his own campaign, it might not be implausible for his support levels to hit the mid-to-high 20s, perhaps even attracting the 30 percent or so who seem particularly open to an independent candidacy. But for Bloomberg to get from, say, 30 percent to the high 30s, the level probably needed to win the necessary 270 electoral votes, the public would have to be repulsed by both major parties' nominees because they had been so badly damaged.

Right now it seems there's a good chance that both parties' bases will be largely satisfied with their nominees. Certainly Hillary seems to have pacified the extreme Left wing of her party pretty well -- with guys like Markos Moulitsas saying nice things about her, there probably won't be much room to her Left. And if Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee, he probably begins with the base locked up. With regard to Rudy Giuliani however, it's hard to see how Mike Bloomberg would have room to steal his base.

So will Bloomberg try to beat the odds?

Sean Penn: Journalist

Spicoli is hanging with Chavez now, but as a journalist he had to refrain from reporting on his visit to Venezuela until he did some 'fact-checking:'



Were you not aware that Penn is a 'journalist?'

How much of that is going to end up in whatever story Sean Penn writes?

Penn claimed that he was in Venezuela to take in what was going on and then write about it. Nothing wrong with that, ostensibly. It's what journalists do. He even tried to play I'm-not-a-movie-star.

"I'm here as a journalist," Penn told The Associated Press. "So I'm not going to give quotes to anyone."

So there you go. Just your average ink-stained wretch.

To give Sean some help, here are some questions from a Venezuelan journalist that he might want to address in his anticipated news piece:

"Why are 1.8 million poor families waiting for houses while you are spending $5 billion on surface-to-air missiles, naval frigates, submarines, fighter jets and killing machines?

"Why are the military guys hiding their Rolexes up their sleeves when they shake hands with me?

"What's this about cocaine deliveries from Venezuela to the US going from 50 to 250 tons per year? Who's profiting from all that?

"Why do you have to produce all this black excrement for California SUV's? That's hard to take. Isn't there a way you could get into solar power? You've got some big time sun here.

"Why are you giving $200 million in discounted oil to Americans when half these poor Venezuelans wearing red shirts and screaming your name are living on $1 a day?

"What's so smart about putting 100,000 assault rifles in the hands of untrained teenagers wearing a uniform for the first time? Crap like that got the US in big trouble, especially in Columbine High School and Virginia Tech.

"How come I see bootlegged DVD's of my movies selling for a few Bolivars on the street? That's stealing the labor of a comrade, my man, not exactly what Marx had in mind, right?.

"What I'm hearing is a lot of talk about peace in Iraq but also, war in Venezuela. I'm here writing for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. So this part is getting hard for me to play. Mind if I ask Danny Glover to stand in for me on this one? I mean, Danny's got $20 million coming his way from you, isn't that right, I mean, doesn't he owe you one?"

The clip above was loaded to YouTube over a week ago. So far I haven't seen any statements from Spicoli on whether he's finished his fact-checking. If any appears, I'll gladly post it.

Note: Read also Fausta's post on Penn's visit, and a quote from a famous Venezuelan who actually loves her country.

Petraeus & Crocker to Testify

The brief dustup over the attempt by the White House to 'shield' Petraeus and Crocker from Congressional testimony appears to be over. The White House has signalled that they will be available for testimony:

The White House promised Thursday to allow Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, to testify in open session before congressional committees, denying reports that the administration had sought only private meetings with lawmakers.

“General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will testify to the Congress in both open as well as closed sessions. ... That has always been our intention,” National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters.

So expect to be treated to 'questions' of more than 7 minutes from some Senators, and more appearances like this one. Will the Democratic leadership be more or less likely to sway the public if they insist that Petraeus get a soapbox to discuss his views on Iraq (instead of say, Condi Rice). I say less:



See also the Politico and the Hill.

MORE Trouble for Ted Stevens

Mickey covered the confrontational visit of Ted Stevens to the editorial board of the Anchorage Daily News the other day. Stevens was... prickly, as he is wont to be.

Wonder if he knew this story was in the works:

An Alaska-based transportation firm that recently hired the son of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has received more than $300 million in federal contracts over the past six years, many of which came from agencies over which Stevens has direct oversight authority in his current position as ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, federal records show.

Earlier this month, Bering Marine Corp., a subsidiary of the transportation company Lynden, hired Ben Stevens — a former Alaska GOP state Senator — to toil on one of its work boats as part of a support contract the company has with Shell oil company. The job will keep the younger Stevens in the Arctic Ocean for an unknown period of time...

Lynden CEO Jim Jansen has had long-standing ties to Ben Stevens. According to Opensecrets.org, Lynden paid Stevens $10,000 to work as a federal lobbyist in 1997.

Additionally, Jansen and Ben Stevens both served on the board of directors of the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board, a nonprofit organization created by Ted Stevens to funnel millions in federal dollars to the state’s fishing industry. The FBI and IRS are investigating both Stevens and the members of the AFMB’s board of directors as part of the widening federal probe.

Over the past several years, Lynden companies have secured scores of federal contracts, according to federal records compiled by FedSpending.org. Since 2000, the various companies connected to Lynden and the Jansen family have received at least $312 million in federal funding, much of it coming through contracts with the Department of Defense.

The headaches keep coming for the GOP -- as they ought to when they engage in this sort of behavior.

A measure of whether anything is improving under Democratic leadership: their lobbying reform bill doesn't include any provisions to prevent this sort of abuse.

Update: In recognition of the ethics cloud starting to gather around Stevens, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza elevates Stevens' re-election run next year onto hist list of races to watch:

We never thought we'd write this, but Sen. Ted Stevens (R) appears to be in serious electoral jeopardy. Stevens, a legend in Alaska politics, has drawn considerable scrutiny from a federal investigation into a pay-to-play scandal involving an Alaska energy company. Democrats sense an opportunity and are optimistic that Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, the son of late Alaska Rep. Nick Begich (D), will decide to take on Stevens. A recent independent poll conducted in the state showed the depth of Stevens's potential problems: 44 percent felt favorably toward him while 40 percent felt unfavorably. Stevens, 83, insists he has no plans to retire. If the investigation continues to proceed, however, Stevens may rethink that plan.

One of the lessons drawn by GOP leaders after their drubbing in 2006 was the danger of allowing scandal-tarred incumbents to seek re-election. It both endangers the incumbent and creates problems for other GOP candidates. Whatever happens in Alaska, one can only hope there's no whiff of scandal there next year.

Huckabee Shows Off His Inner John Edwards

The other day I posted on some of Huckabee's rhetoric which has earned him some compliments on the Left. It looks like he's decided that this is fertile ground to plow:

“The headlines are that the economy’s doing great. … But if you go out and talk to the people who work on the floors of factories, or you talk to waitresses who are doing their second job and schoolteachers who have to work an extra job, you don’t get quite the confidence of how great the economy’s doing.”

“There are a lot of people who are working harder than they ever worked, they’re staying at best even. But their cost of health care, their cost of fuel, their cost of college education means that no matter how hard they’ve worked, they’re not quite making it to the next level. That’s a sensitivity the president better have.”

“If you’re really going to say I’m applying my faith to the world on which I live, that has to conclude concerns about the environment, it has to include concerns about poverty and hunger. It can’t just be about abortions and same-sex marriage.”

“It’s ridiculous to think that any one political group owns God. That’s absurd.”

“We can’t ignore that there are kids every day in this country that literally don’t have enough food. And don’t have adequate drinking water. In America.”

But all of the quotes were from former Republican Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee at this morning’s Christian Science Monitor breakfast.

Frankly, I'm not really sure what this gets him. I can understand him deciding to take advantage of the attention to his strong showing at Ames. He has an opportunity now to showcase something that might vault him closer to the proverbial 'top tier.' But what in the world made him decide to show off his inner John Edwards?

If Huckabee wants to do something different and striking to make a strong positive impression on primary voters considering him for the first time. He could promise to maintain a long-term presence in Iraq. He could declare a pro-life litmus test for judicial appointments. He could promise that tax reductions would take a backseat to an expanded military under his administration. Heck. He could even promise to stop illegal immigration completely.

Why is he choosing to show off a side of him that earns unfavorable comparisons and turns off many primary voters?

Jack Kingston Returns from Iraq

He says that according to Deputy Prime Minister Salih, expecting Iraq to meet the benchmarks set for it by the US is like 'asking the US to pass civil rights legislation in 1865.'

*Sigh*

Read it at the Standard.

Hillary: Cross Me & I Will Show You Real Terror

Brilliant campaign ad for Hillary - full of awesome Frank J lines ("you will beg me for death, but I won't listen"):

Visitor to Poe's Grave Revealed

It was a promotion designed to boost interest in the church where Poe is buried:

Now, a 92-year-old man who led the fight to preserve the historic site says the visitor was his creation.

"We did it, myself and my tour guides," said Sam Porpora. "It was a promotional idea. We made it up, never dreaming it would go worldwide."

Great story, Grandpa. Coulda used a vampire, though.

Sucking up to Hugo Chavez

The Mayor of Macon Georgia expresses solidarity with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. City Councilman-elect Erick Erickson (also of RedState) will sponsor a measure to ensure that taxpayer dollars don't get wasted in this way again:



Hat Tip: CA Yankee

Weak Tea in Nuke Attack on Thompson

The Politico reports that in the 1970s and 80s, Fred Thompson lobbied for federal funds for the Clinch River Nuclear Reactor:

When Fred Thompson was a lobbyist, he advocated for one of his home state’s biggest government-funded boondoggles. Along the way, he made some important connections and a nice chunk of change – and he paved the way for the spending of a whole lot of taxpayer money.

It’s a part of his past that runs counter to the fiscally conservative outsider image he’s seeking to cast as he positions himself for an all-but-certain bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

Proponents of the reactor argued that it warranted federal funds because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear reactors, which would dramatically improve the US energy picture. It received those funds -- probably more than warranted -- on that basis. And it was ultimately killed not so much because it was a drain on tax dollars as because it was a nuclear project. And at that time -- 1983 -- environmentalists regarded nuclear power as perhaps the single greatest threat to our environment. Killing Clinch River went a long way toward killing nuclear power for a generation in the US.

How many think that was a good idea?

I am not an expert on nuclear power. I have no idea if the 'groundbreaking work' done at Clinch River would ultimately have paid off. But if nuclear power had not been killed in the 1980s, we would have an alternative source of power that does not pose the global warming problems that coal and gas do.

Go back and read this Heritage Foundation backgrounder from 1982 (can you believe they're online that far back?):

For many conservatives, Clinch River presents a dilemma.

They are, on the one hand, strongly supportive of nuclear energy, but they are also concerned about the burgeoning federal deficit.

Their opposition to the Clinch River Breeder, therefore, is born more out of a concern to limit federal spending than opposition to nuclear power. The stakes are high. If, as spokesmen for the nuclear industry contend, the death of Clinch River will lead inevitably to the death of nuclear power in the United States, conservatives would undoubtedly continue to support the project.

The author of the Heritage paper by the way, is Henry Sokolski -- who now tells the Politico that Clinch River belongs 'up there in the pantheon of nonsensical projects.' That may well be the case. But if Sokolski himself did not realize that in 1982, can Thompson be criticized for not realizing it several years before?

Did reasonable people think that the Clinch River reactor was important to our energy future? Well, a journal of the Los Alamos national labs printed a commentary in 1982 that said:

Our country’s energy future is not at all secure; another series of crises over imported oil and new demands and higher prices for uranium could make the breeder reactor very attractive thirty years from now. From our own experience and from watching the European efforts, we know that development and commercial plant production take twenty years or more. We also know that the costs of development and construction are rising rapidly. Much of the preliminary testing of breeder reactor components is done. Now the moratorium is over. It seems a good time to go forward either with a revised intermediate project at Clinch River or with a new large developmental plant—or both.

The author of this piece was Jay Boudreau, who went on to serve as Deputy Associate Director for Nuclear Programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory. (I don't find a current listing for him. If someone sends it to me, I'll print it below.)

So Thompson made money lobbying for a home-state energy project backed by everyone in Tennessee and many conservatives -- one that experts had high hopes for, but which was ultimately killed in the anti-nuclear frenzy of the late 70s and early 80s?

It doesn't strike me as a big deal. It sounds a lot more rational and justifiable than going to Iowa and pimping ethanol -- which doesn't seem to move anyone to write exposes.

Democrats Livid that Bush is Obeying the Law

The Left is angry that -- according to the LA Times -- the White House will prepare the September 15 report to Congress on progress in Iraq:

The Los Angeles Times reports that Gen. David Petraeus’ upcoming Sept. 15 report on Iraq will be authored by the White House:

Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

In other words, the Sept. 15 report promises to be much like the July mid-term report which purported to show “satisfactory performance on 8 of the 18 benchmarks.” A closer look into those claims revealed that the progress was purely White House spin. Yet, the report accomplished its primary objective of producing media reports which suggested that the overall picture in Iraq was “mixed.”

The White House has repeatedly employed Petraeus as a PR flack, using him to promote failing Iraq policies and the war czar nomination.

First let's note the LATimes' editorial 'despite.' Is there some inherent inconsistency in saying that report would 'reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker,' and that it would be written by the White House? Obviously not. Simply the LATimes trying to create a contradiction in administration statements where there is none.

It's also worth looking at exactly what Congress has required for September 15. I've written on it before. Here's what Congress passed, and the President signed:

(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.

(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.

(C) If the President’s assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.

(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.

Is there any lack of clarity as to whom Congress tasked to prepare and submit the report? Anyone surprised that the report is being prepared by the White House, with the input of appropriate officials in Iraq and throughout the Executive Branch?

Further, does anyone doubt that IF Bush left responsibility for the report with Petraeus and Crocker, the same critics on the Left would not be blaming him for passing the buck? They'd charge him with trying to leave Petraeus and Crocker twisting in the wind, and say that he needs to take ownership of the war.

Fact is, they'll criticize him no matter who prepares the report, and no matter what the report says. Like the old saying goes, if he walks on water they'll mock him for being unable to swim.