It's the Guardian so salt to taste.

The US and Pakistan struck a secret deal almost a decade ago permitting a US operation against Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil similar to last week's raid that killed the al-Qaida leader, the Guardian has learned.

The deal was struck between the military leader General Pervez Musharraf and President George Bush after Bin Laden escaped US forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001, according to serving and retired Pakistani and US officials.

Under its terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion.

"There was an agreement between Bush and Musharraf that if we knew where Osama was, we were going to come and get him," said a former senior US official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations. "The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn't stop us."

...A senior Pakistani official said it had been struck under Musharraf and renewed by the army during the "transition to democracy" – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected.

Over the weekend Noam Chomsky (yeah, I was surprised to find out he was still alive too) wrote an idiotic piece saying the raid violated international law (oh and that Bush was a bigger criminal than bin Laden). Adam Serwer was one of the liberals defending Obama from the charge of international lawlessness (something liberals take seriously. Well, sometimes).

Today's lesson: Some liberals mistake their personal pacifism for what is actually circumscribed under international law.

Shooting bin Laden was certainly legal but what about sending the US military into Pakistan unbidden? That's not exactly kosher according to international law. So either Obama is an international criminal, his (and other liberal) professions of fidelity to international law are situational at best or...there was a pre-existing deal.

I hold no stock in international law. It's a fiction that is occasionally useful to us but mostly allows the little countries and liberals to bitch about something. Still, I think if they want to hold the US to when Republicans are in charge, they need to live by it (though I'm glad when they ignore it in our interest). Now though it appears, as one might have expected, that this whole thing was set in place but Evil International Law Breaking Cowboy George W. Bush.

Gutsy call indeed.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:25 AM | Comments (64)
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

Thanks to Slublog we can see what bin Laden was actually watching on his little TV in Pakistan.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:35 AM | Comments (289)
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Science, with a slight dash of charlatan doom-calling.

Wi-fi internet access and other communications are at risk from global warming unless measures are taken to protect them from rising temperatures and stormier weather, a government report warned on Monday.

Presenting the report, the secretary of state for the environment, Caroline Spelman, said that higher temperatures can reduce the range of wireless communications, rainstorms can impact the reliability of the signal, and drier summers and wetter winters may cause greater subsidence, damaging masts and underground cables.

The threat posed by climate change to internet and telephone access is a rare example of when the developed world would be hit harder than developing countries, which are in general more at risk from increased floods, droughts and rising sea levels.

"If climate change threatens the quality of your signal, or you can't get it because of extreme fluctuations in temperature, then you will be disadvantaged, which is why we must address the question," said Spelman, "and just imagine in the height of an emergency if the communications system is down or adversely affected."

Do you realize what this means?

If we don't destroy our economy immediately, we all could be plunged, temporarily, back into the Dark Ages of 1991-1993.

You might have to sign up for America Online again, people.

America. On. Line.

Get with the program, wingnuts. The porn you save could be your own.

Thanks to Johnny.

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 AM | Comments (346)
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

I'd call him a RINO but I don't have the guts.

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), who has emerged as an outspoken conservative voice among GOP freshmen, cast a surprising vote last week against a bill to scrap part of the 2010 healthcare overhaul. The legislation would repeal $100 million in funding for the construction of school-based health centers. West was one of just four Republicans to vote against the measure, which passed 235-191.

West spokeswoman Angela Sachitano said in an email that the congressman “believes there are bigger funding issues to be focusing on right now including the numerous developments in the Middle East, concerning Pakistan and whether there is a link to [Osama bin Laden] and the recent unity agreement with the [Palestinian Authority] and Fatah and Hamas."

That's pretty weak tea. It's not like the House of Representatives is directly responsible for managing that litany of foreign affairs crisis his spokeswoman lists. Funding or defudning programs is however exactly what the House does.

This does get to a larger truth...winning the House last year was never going to be as powerful as people seemed to think it would be. With Democrats in the Senate and most importantly the White House, the real power in taking the House is to stop the bleeding. Having the House means no more new ObamaCares, no DREAM Act or wider amnesty, no Card Check or any other expansions of the Obama agenda. Repeal however was always going to be a multi-cycle effort.

Oh and if you think the answer to this is "shut the government down!", I'm going to guess you don't remember 1995. I'm not saying we shouldn't threaten to shut it down to get what we want (and be ready to follow through) but it's not without risk or sure to work.

Still, why not make the odd symbolic vote here or there? It's important to keep this stuff top of mind. Sure it's dead on arrival in the Senate but so is immigration "reform"and yet Obama trots that out every now and then.

I really don't get the idea of voting no on this. What exactly did West gain? If he doesn't like the strategy, then make that known in private. Voting no doesn't seem to serve any purpose.

Via Barbarian in the comments.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:39 AM | Comments (214)
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

A couple of big time GOP donors from Iowa traveled to Jersey to either beg or encourage Chris Christie to run.

Some of Iowa's top Republican campaign contributors, unhappy with their choices in the developing presidential field, are venturing to New Jersey in hopes they can persuade first-term Gov. Chris Christie to run. The entreaty is the latest sign of dissatisfaction within the GOP over the crop of candidates competing for the chance to run against President Barack Obama in 2012.

Bruce Rastetter, an Iowa energy company executive, and a half-dozen other prominent Iowa GOP donors sought the meeting with Christie, the governor's chief political adviser, Mike DuHaime, told The Associated Press. The get-together is set for the governor's mansion in Princeton, N.J., on May 31.

The meeting speaks to what some Republicans nationally say is a lack of enthusiasm about the emerging roster of contenders. It's also unusual because candidates typically court Iowans, who get the first say in presidential nominating contests, and not the other way around.

Christie, who was elected in 2009 and has drawn national attention for his tough talk and battles with Democrats, has explicitly and repeatedly rejected the idea of running for the White House. Yet that hasn't deterred these Iowans.

Yes, I know the litany of RINOriffic offense Christie has either committed or been accused of but I think if getting our economic house in order Christie is the best hope for that (short of Mike Pence or Paul Ryan).

What I like about Christie is that he is combative enough to get people fired up but he's also comfortable dealing in policy specifics. His track record is shorter than I'd like but he's clearly not afraid to tackle the big fiscal issues. If you didn't see his speech at the American Enterprise Institute, take a look and you'll see what I mean. For all his combativeness and taking on the entrenched Democratic establishment in a very blue state, he's still above 50% approval.

Right now the field as constructed is heavy on people who can really energize small segments of the party (Santorum, Paul and yes, Herman Cain) or are likely to be viewed as "serious" candidates but don't get too many people really excited (Romney, Pawlenty and maybe Daniels). I'd put Palin in Huckabee in another group...at this point they are polarizing figures that have more support than the first group but face a challenge in growing beyond their current support. Christie may turn out to be part of this third group but opinion on Christie isn't as set in stone as it is for Palin and Huckabee who are far more well known at this point.

On the other hand, we kept waiting for a savior in 2008 and he never came (well, teh Fred showed up but it was more like a drop in for a visit than anything). At some point the field is the field and we have to accept that the our candidate is going to come from the people we know are running or admit to being open to a run.

Elections with an incumbent President are always a referendum on the previous 4 years. On that score, Obama is in big trouble. To beat an incumbent though you have to nominate a candidate that excites the opposition's base while at the same time seeming a plausible and reasonably safe alternative to swing voters. It's a fine line to walk. At this still early point, looking at the field as it is, I'm not sure who bridges both sides of that equation.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:41 AM | Comments (222)
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.

Mish Shedlock asks a question we've all been asking for awhile now: What's the real unemployment rate? The government's policy of not counting people who have "left the workforce" for whatever reason as "unemployed" pretty much makes their official number of 9% worthless -- I think we can safely assume that the real rate is probably somewhere closer to 12 or 13%. The rate is worse among men in general (especially black men), and among teens.

Mish also notes that in Illinois, fiscal stupidity is the official state religion.

The next time you see some "professional economist" bloviating on TV or on the interwebs about how thus and such is the case about the economy, remember these words from Greg Mankiw:

After more than a quarter-century as a professional economist, I have a confession to make: There is a lot I don’t know about the economy. Indeed, the area of economics where I have devoted most of my energy and attention — the ups and downs of the business cycle — is where I find myself most often confronting important questions without obvious answers.

Speaking of discredited economic theories: Another nail in the Keynesian coffin. (In fairness, it's worth nothing that Keynes himself advocated a policy that was more laissez faire than the policies governments have since adopted using his general theory.)

Could municipal bonds lose their tax-free status? I doubt it, frankly. Investors would flee in droves if that happened; many municipalities would collapse. Munis have a reputation as being good tax-shelters among other things; if that benefit is lost, there are better (and, frankly, safer) avenues in which to invest your money.

How is Greece like Lando Calrissian in The Empire Strikes Back? They're both complaining that this deal is getting worse all the time. Some are speculating that the Greeks might just tell the ECB and the EU to go pound sand. The problem is, leaving the Euro and going back to the Drachma is a very complicated and fraught business, and will incur costs of its own. The Greeks may decide to take a passive-aggressive stance and merely threaten to leave so that the bailout dollars will keep flowing indefinitely. Meanwhile, Portual and Ireland are looking on and taking notes.

Home values? Still in the toilet. See, this is the thing about bubble-inflated prices -- for the housing market to stabilize, the inflated prices must deflate. Sellers are desperate to avoid the consequences of this, but it must happen if the housing market is to recover. Pumping more air into the bubble only delays the reckoning and makes it more painful when it comes.

One argument I've heard from public-sector employees (especially at the state and municipal level) is that their comparatively-rich benefit packages offset their lower (compared to the private-sector) wages. This is a myth that refuses to die. Average wages for government workers at all levels are higher than the average wage for the same work in the private-sector (allowing for regional differences), even discounting the benefit packages. Add in the benefit packages, and the wage disparity between public and private sectors yawns like a chasm. Public-sector employees really have no idea what people in the private-sector are making, and how lousy the benfits packages are (if they're even offered).

[UPDATE 1]: It's not all DOOM! Mickey D's is profiting quite nicely from the legions of depressed citizens seeking cheap comfort food.

[UPDATE 2]: VDH: Thoughts on a surreal Depression.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 05:13 AM | Comments (114)
Post contains 666 words, total size 5 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:48 AM | Comments (176)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Mother's Day all. Better call your mom before it's too late.

Scientific Literacy: A Depressing Infographic

Are the American people still friends with science? Yes.
Do they talk? Apparently not.

And I'd very much like to find these gene-less organic tomatoes that don't give your kids cancer. or modify their genes.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:26 PM | Comments (704)
Post contains 616 words, total size 6 kb.

Not the worst sore loser cheap shot I ever saw in the playoffs, but definitely top ten material.

ALSO: I bloviated about "the worst cheap shot ever" on twitter and Adam Baldwin corrected me.

I hate being corrected. Particularly when I'm wrong, and also, it's the friggin NBA. Nobody pulled a gun, so it wasn't the worst ever. My bad. more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:43 PM | Comments (169)
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

And, as a kicker, it is asserted, finally, that he's just as brave as the SEALs who actually did stuff, rather than talk about stuff.

Posted by: Ace at 02:08 PM | Comments (382)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.