Sunday, October 30, 2005

Worldview from the Left

Let’s summarize the current worldview of Democrats around the nation. Feel free to jump in and fill in anything that I may have missed. I will make this a running post and transpose any decent suggestions into the main post.

1. Bush lied about the war in Iraq. There was only one reason that we went to Iraq, for oil. The whole WMD thing was a lie to justify that war. It was the only legitimate reason for going into Iraq. Minus WMD, the world and the US would have been better off with Saddam Hussein still sitting in Baghdad.

2. Bush has never won a presidential election fairly. When the Supreme Court decided that the state of Florida had to apply the same standard for counting votes across all counties, it became apparent that the fix was on. They pulled a similar vote counting scandal in Ohio in 2004.

3. Joe Wilson is a true American hero. He was simply doing the job asked of him by the CIA. His wife, Valerie Wilson, was uninvolved in the entire debacle, but Republicans attacked her in revenge for the great job that her husband was doing in shining light on the scandalous truth.

4. Global Warming became a problem in the year 2001, when George W. Bush became president. Once he nixed the Kyoto treaty, it became clear that a full frontal assault on the environment was on. Next on the Bush agenda is the complete destruction of the caribou and the majority of the Alaskan wilderness. Bush also caused the current hurricane destruction to the Southeast, perhaps intentionally.

5. In addition to causing the hurricanes, Bush then attacked the poor that were affected by them. It was his intention to keep the dikes in New Orleans weaker than they needed to be so that, when the big one hit, the poor would be affected the most.

6. Bush cut taxes purely to enrich the already rich and bleed the poor. All of that nonsense about helping the economy is a smokescreen to hide the real purpose, the destruction of the lower class. Government enforced redistribution of wealth is the only way to combat such things.

7. Bill Clinton is the greatest president since JFK. His lying under oath is understandable as he was only trying to protect his family. All comparisons to Scooter Libby are irrelevant, as Libby was implementing part of the Bush plan of evil. They just aren’t equivalent. Clinton unfairly had to pay $90k. Libby should have to pay $1.25 million and do 30 years hard time. That junk about sending rocket technology to China is all propaganda. Besides, the Chinese have nothing but good intentions, and once they see the light, will be our best friends.

8. Homelessness is running rampant due to the Bush economic plan. The homeless problem had disappeared during the Clinton administration, but returned with a vengeance beginning in 2001.

9. The United States, at its heart, is evil and imperialistic. Without the UN as the ultimate authority, the US will run rampant over smaller sovereign countries. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Yugoslavia doesn’t count, as there is no oil there. Doesn’t anyone watch Star Trek? We need a federation where all countries have equal input into American foreign and domestic policy.

10. America is losing in Iraq, just like it did in Vietnam. Both quagmires were the fault of Republicans. Sure, JFK got us in to Vietnam and LBJ built it up to its climax, but that’s irrelevant. Besides, the CIA was really in charge. The same is true in Iraq, but the CIA is now the last bastion of truth and goodwill. Thank goodness we took it over.

11. Most Southerners are stupid, not including Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or John Edwards. Look at the irrational way that so many of them follow Christian religions. They want to take over the world, but they can’t, because they are so stupid. Blind faith by non-Christian religions is acceptable. Even Judaism is ok, so long as they turn over Israel to the Palestinians. No other religions want to take over the World. Muslims are simply misunderstood, and the vast majority wants peace, unlike Christians. George Bush is the leader of the stupid Christians.

12. On that note, the founding fathers intended, through the separation clause, to run any and all references to the God of Abraham out of any institution that receives public funds of any kind. They put that reference to God on the dollar to throw us off. We should all be following Native American religions anyway.

13. The Constitution of the United States is a working document. All of that stuff that the founding fathers wrote was intended to be changed with the times. It is clear that rights such as abortion, are written right in there. Interpreting the Constitution to correct the missteps of Congress is exactly how it is supposed to work. Filibustering is the other way to ensure that the misinformed majority cannot run amok.

14. Any and all behavior is acceptable, so long as someone, somewhere can make a case that it is only through years of indoctrination by the Christian right that the public does not currently accept it.

15. GWB somehow was able to infect all of those birds so that he would be able to wipe out large numbers of people when he finally finds the way to make the virus mutate. 16. Expressing dissent is your patriotic duty. If you do not express dissent toward the government or those who agree in any fashion with the government you are part of Right Wing Facism and are just like Hitler. Free speech is "our right". However, free speech only applies to those who dissent. Otherwise, you are just a mouthpiece for the fascists and must be shouted down. --Oyster

17. Bush isolated US by antagonizing traditional friends (e.g. France and Canada). The coalition of the willing was a sham (especially Australian, Eastern European involvement). --Felis

There’s much more, but I will leave that up to you.

Update: Since I am enjoying this post greatly, and as the sky is falling on the homefront, I think I shall leave it up top for a few days. Enjoy.


Saturday, October 29, 2005

A Few Thoughts

Just a few parting thoughts on the Wilson, Wilson, Libby, Rove, WMD, Iraq mess. I'm going to leave this alone for a few days unless something new comes out.

There is one last nagging question that really bothers me. Joe Wilson knew his wife was in the CIA. He knew his wife, at a minimum, recommended him for the trip. He took it upon himself to thrash the President publically during an election campaign, using less than accurate information. To play the wounded bird following such actions is laughable. Did he honestly think that no one would find out? Mrs. Wilson should have stayed as far away from the situation as possible. As a public servant, especially one with any sort of classified status, she should not have gotten involved. It seems to me to be incredibly poor judgement from a career standpoint.

Wilson had come to his conclusion before he ever set foot in Niger. Others, besides his wife, were involved in sending him there to complete his hatchet job, but we will probably never know who they are.

Lying in front of Congress, to a Grand Jury, to the FBI, to a Special prosecutor, or even to a cop can not be tolerated, whether the original cause was justified or not. Niether can lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Democrats are overplaying this in a way that is going to damage them come election time. As usual, their only strategy is attack Republicans, not offer an alternative. But that is fine, as it gives me ammo to smack them around with. Ultimately, this whole incident is bad for all of us.

The media's role in this affair has been pathetic. Its not as though conservatives needed any confirmation that the vast majority were biased left, but this incident caused some of the media to give up any pretext of objectivity. Maybe we should just accept that our main stream press has become completely tabloid now.

I believe that Bush truly believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD. The UN, all of Europe, and everyone else that voted to go to Iraq believed it as well. WMD alone, was not the reason we went to Iraq. Bush and his advisors certainly erred by emphasizing WMD as part of the justification for war. That was a monumental mistake. But the fact that partisans key in on that one chapter in the decades before 2003 does not make it so. Saddam, and Saddam alone, caused the war. The World is better off without him.

Note: I invite debate and disagreement on these boards. I can get down in the dirt with the best of them. There are many that disagree with me and come here to debate, some of whom believe I am a complete fruitcake, which is fine. But trying to dominate my boards and throwing profanity at me will get you banned.


Thursday, October 27, 2005

Joe Wilson's Lies in Hardcover

Tran Sient, July 14, 2005:

The Two Faces of Joe Wilson

If I was aware that everyone involved, other than Judy Miller, was fully cooperating with the special prosecutor in the case, and that all of the relevant facts, including my own slanderous actions were about to flare up throughout the press again, I don’t think I could continue the facade.

That is, unless I intended to write a book and make a fortune off of the affair. Then again, that’s just me.

Tran Sient, August 1, 2005:

Novak Leaks on the Leak

I stick by my prediction that Joe Wilson will be coming out with a book, once again pedaling his lies, but for a profit. Go forth my liberal friends and enrich the man further.

The Book

The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir (Hardcover)

Price: $16.38


Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Americans Fed Bad Information on Plame Lunacy

As the media continue to salivate over the possibility of an indictment of Scooter Libby, more slanted stories continue to misinform the public on what actually transpired in the run-up to our current media frenzy. Let’s take a closer look at this NBC story that purports to explain…

How the CIA leak case evolved

In the beginning, it was a fight over weapons of mass destruction: Did Saddam Hussein have them? Were they an imminent threat?

First of all, no one ever said they were an imminent threat. That is a slogan that the left has been running since the early days of the build up. In addition, it was never up to the United States to prove that Saddam had WMD. It was up to Saddam to prove that he didn’t. That fact is totally lost on all Democrats and some Republicans today. What should have been done in 1998 was finally undertaken in 2003.

Saddam miscalculated. Thinking that he had the UN Security Council on the take (Which he did), and having observed multiple bluffs from the United States in the previous five years, he had no inkling that America might be serious this time.

In his annual State of the Union speech a month before, President Bush accused Iraq of trying to buy uranium from Africa for weapons fuel.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush told Congress on Jan. 20, 2003.

Nothing wrong with those statements. So far so good. Here comes the onion.

But the CIA had checked that out a year earlier by sending a secret envoy. His name was Joseph Wilson. And his conclusion: It wasn't true. So Wilson began challenging the crucial evidence the White House was using to justify the invasion.

Left out is the entire narrative on how nothing that Wilson reported contradicted the British claims, which, it turns out, still hold. Nowhere is the fact that Wilson lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee when he stated that Dick Cheney sent him to Iraq noted. Nowhere is it stated that Wilson is a Democratic hack that has long opposed the President on a variety of issues. It gets better.

Flynt Leverett was working in the National Security Council at the time. He quit, in protest, just before the war. He says the Bush team had decided to fight back.

Ahh yes, quite the crime when American position in something as important as Iraq policy is being undermined through the printing of false information by a political operative of the opposition party. Wilson is a hero to the left for fighting, but the Administration is perceived as the Death Star for 'fighting back'.

"It was imperative to discredit Wilson, to discredit his argument that the WMD case might not be solid," says Leverett.

Had his arguments been true, that might be a legitimate case. When they are politically driven and false, why shouldn’t he be discredited?

Officials point out that Wilson occasionally inflated his role, and on some points, misstated his findings.

Well, there is that little nugget. Give NBC a small amount of credit for that sideways acknowledgement, though they leave out all details and hedge it with ‘Officials say’. Everything wrong with Wilson’s story is public record, yet the media as a whole continually ignore it. If Karl Rove and Scooter Libby contradicted one another somehow, we will get to the bottom of it and someone will be indicted. Good.

But why isn’t Wilson being charged with contempt of Congress? Why do the media continually promote the idea that Valerie Plame was ‘covert’, when clearly she was not? Why is the fact that a faction of the CIA sought to undermine the administration when it was their own screwed up intelligence that was faulty in the first place? Why is the media, which has made a living off of ‘outing’ undercover CIA operations, suddenly such a cheerleader for the CIA?

Sources say, to undermine Wilson, Bush aides told reporters he'd been sent to Africa through the influence of his wife, who worked at the CIA.

Ahh, those famous ‘sources’. That statement is written in such a way as to make it sound like the fact that ‘he'd been sent to Africa through the influence of his wife’ is something that ‘Bush aides’ made up, when in fact that is exactly what happened. Once again, the fact that ‘his wife’ was not covert is totally ignored, as that would undermine the entire gleeful idea that any information ‘reporters’ received about the current status of ‘his wife’ was classified, and therefore illegal.

That led to an investigation into whether they broke the law, either through leaks or in their testimony.

And there you have it. The second to last line of this article finally states the only relevant point related to these possible indictments, but not before again promoting the wrongheaded idea that it is ‘through leaks’ prior to what it really may be; ‘in their testimony’.

I don’t mean to pick on NBC. Just about every MSM article on the subject is similar. This one is actually sort of mild. But the media barrage of the same misinformation, and the reporting only of the part of the story that makes most journalists and their allies on the left feel good, is a sad testament to the state of the American news media today.


Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Media Celebrates 2000 US Deaths in Iraq

Without one story mentioning that something good has come of it.

U.S. Death Toll Hits 2,000 In Iraq

U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 2,000

Death toll for U.S. troops in Iraq reaches 2,000

U.S. Military Deaths Reach 2,000 in Iraq

U.S. Military Death Toll in Iraq Hits 2,000

In the meantime, Iraqis approved a Constitution. That should be good enough for page 18. It doesn't even make the 'In Other Developments' section in the CBS article. The party will certainly be wild if we ever get to 3k.

All of these articles refer to the 2000th death as a milestone, which in itself is sort of sick. My question is, a milestone to what?

Monday, October 24, 2005

Galloway Knee-Deep in Oil-For-Food

An icon of the hate-America Club, European faction, may be headed for a fall. Pardon me while I shed a tear.

Galloway faces jail for fresh corruption claims

GEORGE Galloway could be facing a lengthy prison sentence in the United States after a Senate committee last night claimed it had fresh evidence his political organisation and his wife had received nearly £340,000 in oil-for-food allocations from Saddam Hussein and then lied under oath about the deal.

The committee said it had the "smoking gun" that proved the anti-war activist received UN allocations from Saddam, a charge the Respect Party MP vehemently denied under oath in May.

"I have not made a penny out of oil deals with Iraq or indeed any other kind of deal," Mr Galloway said.

Mr Coleman, a harsh critic of the United Nations, said his panel's evidence shows that Mr Galloway personally solicited and was granted oil allocations totalling 23 million barrels from 1999 through 2003. Those allocations could be sold for a profit.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

The report also alleges that Mr Galloway's friend, Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat, funnelled money from the oil-for-food programme to Mr Galloway's wife, Amineh Abu-Zayyad, and to the Mariam Appeal, a political organisation that Mr Galloway established in 1998.

Wasn’t Galloway at Sheehanpalooza last month?


Sunday, October 23, 2005

Newsweek Ventures Into More Tabloid Journalism

At times I read things and I can’t believe they are in print. Newsweek, that famous rag that brought us the Koran burning stories of last year, has published a story that can only be taken as tabloid journalism.

Prelude to a Leak

Read this story carefully. If is full of convenient ‘facts’, leaving out any opposing information and some of which is down right wrong.

Midlevel officials in the CIA's clandestine service quickly arranged to send Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the uranium claims.

Let’s conveniently leave out the fact that ‘midlevel officials’ means Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson’s wife. In addition, there is absolutely no mention of the fact that Joe Wilson is a long time supporter of the Democratic Party and a political hack.

Someone, perhaps to punish the loose-lipped diplomat, let it be known to columnist Robert Novak and other reporters that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover CIA operative, a revelation that is a possible violation of laws protecting classified information.

Lets repeat one word from this...'perhaps'. Great, they are making the story up as they go.

That paragraph is unbelievable. First of all, as we have long ago established, Valerie Plame was not a ‘covert’ agent. The special prosecutor isn’t going after Scooter Libby for ‘outing’ anyone. There is nothing there. That is why this has suddenly turned into a ‘gotcha’ attack on Libby. It’s an attempt to get him for making a false statement to a Grand Jury, not for ‘outing’ anyone. You can’t out someone that isn’t in. Yet Newsweek and Michael Isikoff make this statement as though it were fact.

Libby and other administration officials were quick to denounce Wilson's claims...

Well, considering that they were a pack of lies, why wouldn’t they discount his accusations?

...and to allege that it was his wife who had chosen him for the African trip. (Wilson and Plame say she merely recommended him to her supervisor when asked.)

And we are to take them at their word I suppose.

Democrats are looking for a Watergate and they won’t get even a nibble. Let's see, at best they may get a resignation from Scooter Libby. A resounding ‘who cares’ will be felt across the country. Anyone who does not believe Newsweek is agenda driven need look no further than this article. The same press that defended Clinton to the bitter end is cheerleading the prosecution of an aide to the Vice President. How pathetic.


Thursday, October 20, 2005

Rove Innocent

Nice. An entire article on the great Plame scandal with almost no information.

Libby possibly sought out reporters in CIA leak

Or, ‘possibly’, he didn’t.

And in a new twist, presidential political adviser Karl Rove has testified that it’s possible Libby was his source before Rove talked to two reporters about the CIA operative.

Does this absolve Rove? It won’t be half as much fun if Rove isn’t the target. It seems Judith Miller has hit on the main point of the story.

Miller said this week that she never wrote a story about Wilson’s wife because “it wasn’t that important to me. I was focused on the main question: Was our WMD intelligence slanted?”

And of course, the scandalous attack by Joe Wilson and his overt wife on the President is completely ignored. What a retread. The 'evidence' presented by Joe Wilson was a pack of lies.


Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Border Enforcement...What a Concept

Finally, some movement on illegal immigration issues. The guest worker idea is a sham, but at least enforcement is actually on the table for once.

Chertoff vows to get tough on illegal migration

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff promised Tuesday to end the “catch and release” policy that has allowed tens of thousands of non-Mexican illegal aliens to disappear within the United States.

They haven’t disappeared. I can’t go to the store without running into at least a dozen. I’m a foreigner in my own town. Even my atm knows it.

“Return every single illegal entrant — no exceptions,”


Chertoff was joined by Labor Secretary Elaine Chao in presenting administration views on the illegal immigrant problem. He said President Bush remains committed to a comprehensive approach including gaining control of the border, enforcing workplace laws and establishing a temporary worker program.

Well, two out of three ain’t bad.

Leaders in both the House and Senate have suggested taking up a more narrow bill this year that concentrates on beefing up enforcement, leaving the tougher issue of reforming the system for a later day.

First things first. Congress is right for once.

Cornyn…But he also said there must be improved avenues for legal immigration.

Well, some of them anyway.

Chertoff said it is should be possible to achieve significant progress in reversing that policy in less than a year, noting that his department’s budget for fiscal 2006 includes $90 million in new money to add hundreds of beds.

Imagine if we had started five years ago!

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., back a bill that would let illegal immigrants apply for a temporary work visa for up to six years, after which they must return home or apply for permanent residency.

Which is stupid on a variety of levels. First of all, anyone may apply for permanent residency, regardless of whether they have been a part of any guest worker program. Are McCain and Kennedy suggesting that those that broke our laws should get a leg up on those that have not?

In any case, at least we have some movement on the issue.


Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Off for a Week!


Sunday, October 09, 2005

Ex FBI Director Highlights 'Scandals'

Democrats today declare ‘scandal’ on a daily basis. I happened to run across this article shortly after reading a few comments from my trolls on Friday’s post. I thought it would be an appropriate topic.

Former FBI Director Freeh, with CBS News to plug for him, was nice enough to remind us that the Dems are adept at practicing selective outrage when it comes to ‘scandals’.

Ex-FBI Chief On Clinton's Scandals

As FBI Director, Freeh rarely sat down one-on-one with reporters. But now he’s written a book, My FBI, and speaks out for the first time about his years as director, and his toxic relationship with Bill Clinton.

“The problem was with Bill Clinton, the scandals and rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.”

Freeh says he was preoccupied for eight years with multiple investigations, including Whitewater, Jennifer Flowers and the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Freeh says he stayed on longer as FBI director because he didn’t want to give Clinton a chance to name his successor. “I was concerned about who he would put in there as FBI director because he had expressed antipathy for the FBI, for the director. I was going to stay there and make sure that he couldn’t replace me.”

The FBI wanted access to the suspects the Saudis had arrested but then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar said the only way to get access to prisoners would be if the president personally asked the crown prince for access.

Freeh says Clinton did not help him. He writes in his book:

“Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudi’s reluctance to cooperate, and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.”

But then, after Al Qaeda terrorists blew a hole in the U.S.S. Cole and demolished two U.S. Embassies in East Africa, and America did little to retaliate and Freeh writes how frustrated that made him because he believes that not retaliating only encouraged more attacks.

In his book, he writes “America seemed like a lumbering giant stumbling around with a sign on its back reading ‘Kick me.”

“We sent a missile into Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad after working hours. So, we were targeting the custodial staff and not the agents who had tried to kill the president,” says Freeh.

My point here is not to dump on Clinton. That's been done enough. His greatest scandal, the transfer of missile and rocket technology to China, is not even mentioned. Indeed, I find it irritating when public officials cash in following their days of service. No, my point is to illustrate how absurd Democrats are today. They can find a scandal behind every bush, no pun intended. Bush lied, Bush invaded New Orleans, Karl Rove is the Devil, etc, etc. Yet back in the day, even once Clinton was impeached, they felt the need to have a lovefest on the White House Lawn.

All of the commotion from the left today is political fog. 'Scandal' is simply a cheap, though failing, means to power. What Dems need to do is come up with a platform, but that goal eludes them. As Republicans did, justified or not, in the '90s with Clinton, Democrats today are so wrapped around the axle over Bush that they cannot offer even the most simple of alternatives to what they perceive to be so many injustices.


Friday, October 07, 2005

Democrats' Dilemma

Since the left won’t believe me, perhaps they will believe Thomas Edsall. If it’s good enough for the Post, it should be good enough for the left.

Report Warns Democrats Not to Tilt Too Far Left

The liberals' hope that Democrats can win back the presidency by drawing sharp ideological contrasts and energizing the partisan base is a fantasy that could cripple the party's efforts to return to power.

...two intellectuals who have been aligned with former president Bill Clinton warn that the only way back to victory is down the center.

Democrats must "admit that they cannot simply grow themselves out of their electoral dilemmas," wrote William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck, in a report released yesterday.

"Liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole. To the extent that liberals now constitute both the largest bloc within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party, Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill."

I’m not sure why it takes a fancy report for the DNC to understand these basic ideas, but maybe it does. I’m not trying to deter the Dems from changing their currently unhinged and irrational ways. I find them quite enjoyable to follow. But to some extent you have to wonder; why can’t they get it? I almost miss Bill Clinton. He never meant what he said, but he was a better politician than today’s Democrats.

How horrible it must feel to have to choose between your convictions and your party.


Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Response to the Avian Flu

Katrina complainers, now look what you’ve done!

Bush considers using military against avian flu outbreak

This reminds me of a joke I saw on, I think it was the Tonight Show. When asked what his response to the West Nile epidemic would be, Bush responded that he intended to invade the West Nile to eliminate the virus.

President Bush, increasingly concerned about a possible avian flu pandemic, revealed Tuesday that any part of the country where the virus breaks out could likely be quarantined and that he is considering using the military to enforce the decision.

Well, I guess the President decided to get out in front of this considering the scathing attacks he endured in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Remember Katrina? First the Bush haters attacked FEMA, which has no on ground resources and is simply a relief management agency, for not doing multiple tasks which they were never intended to do. Then Bush was attacked for not sending in troops. Then he was attacked for invading New Orleans. Who can blame him for putting his two centavos in early on this one?

"The best way to deal with a pandemic is to isolate it and keep it isolated in the region in which it begins."

The president was asked if his recent talk of giving the military the lead in responding to large natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and other catastrophes was in part the result of his concerns that state and local personnel aren't up to the task of a flu outbreak.

"Yes," he replied.

And there you have it. There are other ways of dealing with such a crisis. One might be to politely ask China to clean up their stinking chicken farms. Almost all forms of the flu come from the filth in China, and yet no one seems to think that approaching China to enter the First World in regards to sanitation is an option. And then, as noted here months ago, there is this option:

I'd rather have the Bird Flu...

I can’t help but think we should consider the old saying that begins, ‘Watch out what you ask for…’


Monday, October 03, 2005

On a Lighter Note...

I have been absent a bit from the blogging scene lately. So here is something to hold you over.

Randy Moss Collector's Mask

Here is your chance to practically jump into Randy's skin with this exclusive mask created directly from an actual face cast of Randy Moss. This super detailed mask comes complete with a deluxe afro wig and is presented in a beautiful, re-sealable collectors package.

For all of you anti-Capitalists that visit, this ought to really get you spinning. See you soon.



Saturday, October 01, 2005

Europe Crying Over Internet Control

Europe has become the fat kid that gets picked last and then whines to the teacher.

EU Wants Shared Control of Internet

The European Union insisted Friday that governments and the private sector must share the responsibility of overseeing the Internet, setting the stage for a showdown with the United States on the future of Internet governance.

And the EU enjoys just about zero clout in Washington. Why in the world would America even consider such a proposal? What has the EU done to prove itself? If the EU, why not China?

EU spokesman Martin Selmayr said a new cooperation model was important "because the Internet is a global resource."

He left out the section on how the Internet was created on the backs of American tax payers and grown by American business. Oil is a global resource. I think the Saudis ought to give it up. Share it all with the rest of us, for free.

"The EU … is very firm on this position," he added.

Scare me!

At issue is who would have ultimate authority over the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic.

That role has historically gone to the United States, which created the Internet as a Pentagon project and funded much of its early development.

Make your own network if you want one. Put the main servers in Brussels. Subject it to the EU bureaucracy. See how far you get.

They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy.

Which is a more likely scenario? The US creating a bad policy or the EU creating one? As Europe loses power, it looks like they are grabbing for any shred of legitimacy they can. This is just one more attempt.