Bogus Gold quotes Frank Gaffney, president of Center for Security Policy as saying the sale of P&O to UAE interests is a "Harriet Miers moment".

Doug focuses on the political calculus, which is admitted rather obvious--this dog won't hunt. Yet there is a considerable difference between kicking the can down the road on Social Security and allowing partisan warfare to undermine years of foreign policy work.

Chuck Schumer, a man completely devoid of any discernable principles except the pursuit of power by any means necessary, is actively engaged in racist rhetoric. While he cleverly masks it by saying that the UAE had a connection to 9/11, so did Germany, yet we know that this wouldn't be an issue if Germans had bought P&O.

Are we seriously going to engage in racial profiling here? Are we building a bridge back to the 19th century?

Obviously the moral elements of this nefarious rhetoric don't concern people striving for power or survival--so much for a civil society. Let me then offer a more practical argument--basic military tactics.

Sun Tzu devotes a chapter in his famous work to the importance and deployment of spies.

...what enables the wise commander to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.

...

Hence it is only the enlightened and wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying and thereby they achieve great results. Spies are the most important asset, because on them depends an army's ability to march. 

If we alienate our Arab allies, we have thrown away our greatest strategic advantage, and that itself makes Bush's threat of veto much, much easier to understand, even it is no easier to explain to people who don't even think we are at war...

Bush's trip to India was kind of a shoulder shrug for the elite media, with the exception of the deal to provide nuclear technology, which of course is important because it has the word "nuclear" in it.

Yet it was a fascinating move in the geopolitical chess game where the U.S. is position itself to maintain and increase its global hegemony.

It hasn't completely escaped major media notice--the Washington Post alludes to the larger issues

Yesterday, Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they expected India to start purchasing as much as $5 billion worth of conventional military equipment as a result of the deal, if it is approved by Congress. The current U.S. Nonproliferation Act prevents India and other countries that have not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty from acquiring a wide range of U.S. military technology that includes components that could be used for nuclear programs.

Administration officials have sought to publicly play down how the arrangement fits into a broad White House strategy to help position India -- a democracy that has the capacity to expand its nuclear arsenal -- as a regional counterweight to China.

But Pentagon officials said they considered many of the potential sales, including anti-submarine patrol aircraft that could spot Chinese submarines in the Indian Ocean and Aegis radar for Indian destroyers operating in the strategic Straits of Malaka, as useful for monitoring the Chinese military.

The Pentagon yesterday released an assessment of China's military strength. Basing the findings on U.S. intelligence, the report claims that Beijing is increasing its nuclear arsenal and specifically noted that Chinese missiles are capable of striking India, Russia and "virtually all of the United States.":

In my view, this makes a lot of sense. India and China are bound to clash at some point as their interests collide and cultivating the world's largest democracy as an ally in this region is a no-brainer. The criticism of the deal's "proliferation" aspects is simply demogoguing in my view since India has been a responsible nuclear power since the 1970s (India gots its technology from "proliferator" Canada...). India will almost certainly attain great power status one way or another, and this way they will become a friendly great power in a region bound to be the locus of geopolitical developments for the foreseeable future.

Some middleeastern analysts are recognizing the nature of this development as well, although they aren't as sanguine about it as I am.

Now that India is under American nuclear auspices, New Delhi will not only give up its oil-related ambitions, but will be caught in the American spider web, because of its dependence on U.S. nuclear technology. Therefore, America will hit 10 Indian birds with one stone.

The second coup has to do with the Great Chess Game, the balance of power and strategic interests.

History will note that the George W. Bush-Manohan Singh deal of March 2, 2006, will have the same historic consequences as the deal between Richard Nixon and Mao Tse Toung in 1973. As the 1973 deal proved the undoing of major international alliances by pushing China away from the Soviet Union and dividing the Communist world, this new deal places India in opposition to China, again dividing the Asian world into two.

Condoleezza Rice described this development as an expression of "a balance of powers based on Freedom." But Zbigniew Brzezinski had a more realistic and less demagogic description. In his latest book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives,"[RealVideoexcerpts] he said that the three requirements for American Strategy are:

1) To prevent alliances and keep all satellite countries needing American security support.

2) Keep the burdens that are placed on these satellite countries low.

3) Prevent "the barbarians" from "uniting."

The Indo-American nuclear deal accomplished two of those requirements: it prevented a new oil alliance, and disturbed the efforts of the "barbarian" countries (read: India, Russia, and China) from uniting against the power of the American empire.

Surely, it is a historic coup for American diplomacy, surpassed only by the other coup, related to oil and energy. The Chinese will no doubt quickly come to realize the new situation and will react accordingly (along the line of famed Chinese wisdom). But will those concerned in Iran do the same? Don't ask President Ahmadinajad!

In a very real sense, we are seeing glimpses of another cold war. The real conflict is between the ambitions of the Chinese and the American hegemony, and as with the conflict with the Soviets, surrogates are used to play out the game. While the media talks about Iraq, Iran, Taiwan and North Korea as separate issues, they are in reality threads in the same cloth.

While the Thai Prime Minister is in New York, tanks surround the government house in Bangkok, while the army-controlled radio station has suspended regular programming and playing patriotic songs.

PM Thaksin Shinawatra was reelected with a large majority in 2005, but has faced charges of corruption in recent months.

Details are scarce.

North Korea has apparently relented on its threat to test a nuclear weapon this weekend.

The North also denied speculation that its nuclear test was imminent and said the regime has not raised the alert level of the country's military, said Jang Sung-min, citing a telephone conversation with an unidentified Chinese diplomatic official.

North Korea warned the Chinese official, however, that it would accelerate its preparations for a nuclear test if the United States moves toward imposing sanctions or launching a military attack, Jang said, citing his contact.

The Chinese official was informed of North Korea's stance by North Korean officials Sunday afternoon, Jang said.

The official then telephoned Jang in South Korea with the news.

Jang is a former lawmaker of the then-ruling Millennium Democratic Party which later split into the ruling Uri Party and an opposition party. He currently heads a policy think tank in Seoul and has been active in Northeast Asian affairs.

The Chinese official's comments cannot be independently confirmed. Jang declined to identify the Chinese official, citing the sensitive nature of the issue.

I am not surprised. The current "threat" from North Korea has been based on its widely-assumed stockpiles of highly-enriched uranium. While it is not considered a terribly complicated technological challenge to build an atomic bomb once one has HEU in hand, an active test has formidable implications for North Korea whether it succeeds OR fails. If it succeeds, it finds itself in a much higher stakes game. Nuclear weapons--one's that really work, will be in Japan at least, and perhaps in South Korea too. This is bad for everyone, not the least of which is North Korea. As long as it is the sole alleged nuclear power in the region (excepting China and the Soviets), it has as much leverage as it can ever expect to have. What can NK threaten its neighbors with when they too have nuclear weapons?

If they fail, they "lose face", as they did with the risible performance of the Taedong II missile that is designed to reach the west coast of North American, but didn't get much past the Korean shoreline.

With such poor prospects for a nuclear test, why would someone even threaten one? I can only assume intense desperation. Little has been reported in the western media about US moves to choke the economic lifeblood of the NK regime. The supernote forgery business has been badly damaged, if not completely destroyed--a factor that directly affects the regime's elite. Without western currently-forged or not--no more bourbon and caviar.

That might seem a little facetious, but without these luxuries, Kim Jong Il has nothing to offer for the loyalty of those that enforce his rule. At that point, its every man for himself, which I suspect is what the U.S. was hoping for all along. The various factions will be lining up to do a deal with the Americans and in fact Kim Jong Il is trying to beat them to it by insisting on bilateral talks, so he can get the goodies flowing again.

I suspect Kim Jong Il's regime is not long for this world, in fact we may see its collapse inside of 12 months...

Basically..."we're going to keep changing it..."

The Chinese government released its first national plan on climate change on Monday. The plan supported the rights of developing nations to pursue growth and rejected the idea of binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

"The international community should respect the rights of the developing countries and allow them enough space for development. The consequences of inhibiting their development would be far greater than not doing anything to fight climate change," said Ma Kai, the minister of China's key Reform and Development Commission.

China isn't really a communist nation any more--its an imperial one. They have figured out that ultimately, the only thing that matters is economic and technology parity with the west--a lesson that Japan absorbed much earlier. Ironically, the "cultural revolution" was the steam roller than made the new China a possibility. While liberals bemoan the hob-nailed boots character of the cultural revolution and all that was lost with it, its notable to understand that with the art and culture also went the destructive traditions and institutions that weakened what had once been the flower of civilization.

China was in fact starting over, and its remarkably rapid rise to power is an illustration of what I consider the critical principle of national development--making room for better..

China's attitude that development is king is not the environmental contradiction it seems. It is precisely because western countries have advanced economies that they can even contemplate ways and means to reduce emissions.

Wealth is environmentally friendly in the near and long term

Rather than provide a long and detail explanation, I'll just cut to the chase--the first thing a wealthy person does is improve their environment. A nation of wealthy individuals do much the same. The transformation of the U.S. over the course of one hundred years is remarkable. We have more forest, more wild life than we did 200 years ago. Most people are astonished when I tell them that White Tailed Deer were nearly extinct in this country by 1920. Yeah its crazy--deer are like a plague in a lot of places, eating your shrubs and rampaging through department stores. There are now twice as many deer in Virginia as there were when Jamestown was first settled.

Poor Americans were shooting every deer they saw--rich Americans wanted to live in an environment where they could see deer in an eden-like environment.

As the Chinese get richer, they will inevitably do much the same thing--human beings don't like to live in industrial wastelands, breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water..

Yeah, but what about global warming. Well, the crisis is bullsh_t and I'd have to write a book to tell you why, but setting that aside for a moment ask yourself the question--what kind of economy is going to develop alternatives to fossil fuels? A country like Sweden with a wealth index comparable to Mississippi, or a country like the United States?

A wealthy, prosperous China becomes a stake-holder in the future of the globe and an ally in creating a more environmentally-friendly coexistence with the rest of the biosphere.

This is a Japanese Hyuga class "helicopter carrying destroyer", and certainly, and absolutely not an aircraft carrier.

Aircraft carriers are illegal for the Japanese government to commission because of certain constitutional provisions imposed on them after their surrender.

As is always the case, the constitution is not a suicide pact, and with an increasingly belligerent China, the Japanese are not willing to trust in divine wind anymore. So its an aircraft carrier, but it goes on the books as a "destroyer".

Whatever you call it, its a formidable craft designed to project power anywhere in the region in the form of a fleet of helicopters or more ominously a squadron of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (with their very cool VSTOL capabilities...).

Notably, the last time we saw this kind of arms race in the Sea of Japan, Teddy Roosevelt predicted war. 40 years later, Teddy was proven right.

Chatting with a young, educated Russian I was struck how thoroughly his policy choices were inspired by lust to do down America, a psychological condition distinct from a cold-eyed assessment of Russia's self-interest. He agreed when I said so, but straightway reverted to glee at America's supposed humiliations at the hands of Putin and Islamists. He believes US policy is constructed to humiliate Russia. He's not interested in collaborating with the US on the more proximate threats to Russia from Islam and China.

I've seen the same obsession in a Russian emigrée who's lived many years in the US. Despite her in-depth exposure to the US and close American friends, she believes what she wants to believe. She can do no other.

The same hurt-collecting sense of shame at their own failures motivates many educated people everywhere, even a fair number of Britons, tho I reckon the tide has turned especially since the BBC's bias became so widely acknowledged, and the British variant is relatively superficial.

I dub myself an honorary American in order to say: they hate us because they are ashamed.

The US says that Iran hasn't been running a military nuke program since 2003 thanks to international pressure.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is most likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies "do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney have been claiming without equivocation that Tehran is bent on achieving a nuclear weapon, with the president warning in October of the risk of a third world war. They were briefed on the national intelligence estimate (NIE) on Wednesday.

We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon.

P.S.16 spy agencies?!*!?

P.P.S. Powerline: "I assess with moderate to high confidence that the CIA is a joke."

In which what was condemned one day is praised on the next.

Hillary was the first presidential hopeful to raise the 'Boycott Beijing' call on the campaign trail saying, ''I believe that the President should not attend the opening ceremonies because that is giving a seal of approval by our government.''

Interestingly, when Hillary was the US first lady in 1996, she went to China for the international women's conference despite being asked not to attend the conference because of Beijing's human rights abuses.

Such anguish we have witnesssed these last days, among people ruled by two totalitarian regimes. Guy Sorman, WSJ:

Children crushed by the walls of their school are victims of the corruption of builders, businesses and government officials as much as they are victims of the earthquake. This the people know, and all the gesticulations of aid agencies and national leaders will not be able to eradicate this source of collective hatred of the people towards the party.

So it is with China and with tyrannical regimes: The party is convinced it controls everything. But it is often unexpected events that reveal fault lines in the system, the hypocrisy of public discourse, and the most unbearable injustices.

The Chinese are naming their kids Aoyun, meaning "Olympic Games":

It is not uncommon for Chinese children to be given names of common events and popular slogans - such as Defend China, Build the Nation and Space Travel.

I guess it beats the old Soviet model when Russians named their kids Stalina and Traktorina after a mass murderer and a machine. Those are girls names. This is mostly a boy's name. But then the Chinese select for that.

In college I took a class on China taught by an Australian professor. I have to say, one of the things I remember years later was a story he told about being served Foster's for breakfast in China. He wondered who the Aussie was who had been there before him, that the Chinese had such a peculiar idea that beer was de rigeur for the first meal of the day. And so we are led to wonder who was responsible for this translation? Slate:

In preparation for this summer's Olympic Games, the Chinese government has recommended new English translations for more than 2,000 traditional Chinese dishes to appeal to Western tourists. The menu items in question include "bean curd made by a pockmarked woman," "ants climbing a tree," and "chicken without sexual life." Where did these unusual names come from ?