http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/10/wkyoto10.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/10/ixportaltop.html

This is a fucking embarassment. Every civilized country in the world's agreed to what is a very reasonable treaty, and we walk out of it. It's no longer a question of whether global warming is occurring (unless you're a political hack), it's a question of whether we're willing to marginally sacrifice our current way of life for the sake of our future and the future our children. Say what you want about any of the other controversies going on right now, but this is clear cut evidence that this administration is composed of selfish assholes.

I'm not sure Hillary will ever be able to rub off her azure 'C', but this article seems to imply that she can and has begun to:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10313850/site/newsweek/

Her current position seems to be more of a posture than a policy, but that seems to be all that matters in this near non-debate. Good news nonetheless.

The President's plan for Iraq:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051130-2.html

Murtha speaks on Iraq:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq113005_murtha.rm?mode=compact

This really impressed me. Murtha makes a convincing and competent argument: that our insistence on maintaining forward operating bases and the need to resupply those bases puts our troops in unnecessary danger. Many say the greatest lesson of Vietnam was that the only way to adequately secure an area is to start with a few well secured centers and expand your radius of influence outwards if needed. I think a very reasonable strategy is to redeploy and pull our forces into a more secure configuration. That way, we can still attack terrorists if they attempt to establish bases in Iraq, but we wont be around to draw the ire of insurgents, who must ultimately be defeated politically by the Iraqis themselves.

As it stands, there are about 75,000 trained or partially trained security forces in Iraq, of which 25,000 are in battalions that operate independently. In the US, our armed forces comprise about 2.4% of those fit for military service. According to the data released by the president, this number is about 1.4% in Iraq (0.5% if you count only those operating independently). Given this respectable start, I believe this redeployment would not result in a collapse of the security situation, especially since the insurgents seem to target mostly US troops.

That said, I hope people will start listening to Murtha, because he's not as crazy as others are trying to make him out to be. Hillary's already staked out her position, which is not all that dissimilar from Murtha's. People are kind of going crazy on the left accusing her of being hawkish, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. Here's a quote from an e-mail I got from her:

"I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities."

Sounds familiar. On the other hand, maybe it's good that they're ostracizing her, it'll actually put her in better standing for the '08 general election.