North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-Il, has made his first public appearance in 50 days:

SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, thought to have suffered a stroke in August, made his first appearance in about 50 days, the state’s media said on Saturday.

Last month, U.S. and South Korean officials said Kim, 66, may have suffered a stroke in August, raising questions about leadership in Asia’s only communist dynasty as Pyongyang backed away from an international nuclear disarmament-for-aid deal.

North Korea’s official media said Kim saw a soccer match between two universities. The last report of a public appearance by Kim was in mid-August when state media said he visited a military unit.

Reassuring.

Readers may be familiar with the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics (short version: the US can do whatever it wants if it just has even willpower). Now, it appears we can add another member of the Justice League to our understanding of foreign policy. On Friday, author Andrew Klavan had a piece in the WSJ comparing Batman and George W. Bush (yes, you read that correctly): What Bush and Batman Have in Common

A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .

Oh, wait a minute. That’s not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a “W.”

There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

Call me crazy, but I am betting pretty heavily that the producers of the latest Batman flick aren’t out to sing the praises of the 43rd president, but oh well.

Klavan’s piece seems to have two basic points within it. One is about about foreign/security policy under the war on terror and the other is about movies on general.

The Batman Theory of Foreign Policy. The logic here appears to be the brute force and general havoc is sometimes necessary when going after the bad guys. Batman works in the shadows and seeks to control crime in Gotham by brute force and by doing things that the cops can’t do. However, Klavan’s view that one can actually look at Batman as even a useful allegory about the war on terror illustrates perhaps the key problem with what has been the underlying logic in much of the Bush administration’s approach to counter-terrorism, i.e., that it is that it is all very simply: just punish the bad guys.

There are two basic assumptions inherent in the overall approach: 1) whatever the good guy does in pursing the bad guy is ultimately good and is justified because the good guy only wants good, and 2) the good guy only using his powers against the bad buys. It assumes above all else that it is easy to identify the bad guys, as in movies (or the comics) where they wear costumes and they are quite obvious in their malefaction. For example, the most ardent supporters of the administration think that this is the way the War on Terror works–for example, that everyone at Gitmo is obviously a terrorist (even if we know that that is not the case) and that they are all on the same level as Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers. In that world, just having the wrong name or being in the wrong place at the wrong time isn’t a problem as the wrong people are never punished or harmed because, again, we know who the bad guys are and no mistakes are ever made. In the comics, only the bad guys are punished and they deserve everything that they get. The neoconservatives like to think that that is what happens in real life, but it isn’t and one cannot formulate policy based on that notion as whenever a nation-state starts to throw its weight around, innocents will always be hurt and to pretend otherwise is foolishness.

Indeed, it would seem that we thought that that Batman approach was going to work in Iraq: jump in, defeat the supervillan (Saddam) and his henchmen and that would solve all the problems. Lest anyone didn’t notice, unlike in the comics, defeating the head honcho didn’t fix everything in Iraq–not by a longshot.

And, I suppose that when it comes to Dubya’s Rogue’s Gallery, the less said about Osama bin Laden the better, or the fact that Bush ultimately negotiated with Kim Jong Il and with the Iranians as well.

“Conservative” Movies. Part of what Klavan is dealing with as well is that notion that Batman represents a specific type of “conservative” movie:

“The Dark Knight,” then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year’s “300,” “The Dark Knight” is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

In regards to movies and ideology he states:

time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror — films like “In The Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Redacted” — which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.

Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense — values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right — only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like “300,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Narnia,” “Spiderman 3″ and now “The Dark Knight”?

First, I am not sure why these are “conservative” movies, per se (although of those mentioned, 300 was pretty clearly embraced as a neoconservative opus—see a discussion of this here.). I don’t think that it is legitimate to say that the presence of a clear good guy and a clear bad guy means that a movie is necessarily “conservative.” While Klavan asserts that these views can somehow only be projected by Hollywood by “putting on a mask” the main thing that all of these movies have in common is that they are all fantasies and are ultimately simple tales where the good guys and bad guy are clear and the script can control how the tale ends (indeed in all of these movies we know from the very beginning that Good with triumph over Evil—which is at least in part why we go see them in the first place). The sad thing is that in the real world it is rarely that simple, and even when it is the end of the story is not predetermined.

I have seen none of the “left wing” films he cites, so cannot comment on their content, however to compare their box office performance to the blockbuster fantasy films (and I have seen all of those listed except 300) in question is absurd. Even if they had been realistic yet “conservative” films about the war on terror, they would have likely bombed as well. Let’s face facts: mass appeal movies are escapist vehicles, and realistic films tend not to do that well at the box office. Indeed, I suppose that United 93, which I did see, was a realistic “conservative” movie about terrorism and it hardly had the same box office as the LotR trilogy. United 93 simply wasn’t entertaining, while The Return of the King was.

The only “realistic” movie that I suspect that Klavan would consider “left wing” of this type that I can think of that I have seen was The War Within, which did show the radicalization of a young Pakistani man as the result of a rendition by the CIA. The film’s goal was not to justify terrorism but it did make the clear argument that bad choices made by the US and its allies can have horrible consequences. Such films may not make us cheer, but they may make us think, which is hardly a bad thing.

On the Evil Question. Understand, I am not saying that there isn’t evil in the world, there clearly is (and yes, sometimes people don’t want to call it that). I will even admit that I initially applauded Bush’s “Axis of Evil” notion, but the reality is, stark views of the world work better in the world of fiction than in the real one and often make it more difficult to accomplish one’s goals. For example: if one of our national goals is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, then having tagged them as “evil” makes dealing with them a tad difficult. How does one sit down and talk to evil? After all, as Klavan notes, Batman simply pummels evil. Beyond that, if I have called you evil, do you really want to talk to me? And there is the fact that by invading one Axis state (Iraq) we upped the ante on the security dilemma for the Iranians making the acquisition of nuclear weapons even more desirable to them from their point of view. Ultimately we haven’t been well-served by this approach.

In the movies Mordor is an unrepentant, unredeemable place filled with nothing but evil (Sauron, Nazgûl, Orcs and the like). If it is destroyed, nothing good dies; no innocents are harmed. However, the same cannot be said, for example, of North Korea or Iran. Even if one casts Kim Jong Il or Mahmood Ahmejinedad in the Sauron role, the people of those states are as often the victims of their governments rather than the teeming minions of evil. Beyond that, in the movie the destruction of evil is ultimately a fairly simply thing: put Ring A in Volcano B. Sure it was hard to get there, and there was self-sacrifice along the way, but it was still a pretty easy plan. There is no such easy path in the real world, which is why comic books and fantasy novels aren’t particularly good blueprints for foreign policy.

Christopher Hitchens joins the legions dancing on Jesse Helms’ grave.   Rather than piling on about the racism of a Southern politician whose career began sixty-odd years ago, he instead focuses on Helms’ foreign policy:

His chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was a period of national embarrassment and, sometimes, disgrace. The Helms-Burton Act of 1996, imposing additional economic sanctions on Cuba, multiplied the misery and beggary of Cuba’s luckless inhabitants while doing nothing whatever to weaken its military dictatorship. Helms’ amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act in 1973, forbidding American aid to any family-planning groups that even mentioned the option of abortion, also greatly added to the woes and miseries of millions of Africans. (Fairness obliges me to say that in his last year in the Senate he did somewhat relax his equally stubborn and reactionary opposition to measures designed to combat AIDS in Africa. But this was only because it had by then become obvious that the disease was heterosexually transmitted. In general, his attitude to the AIDS plague was determined by a Bible-based bigotry that saw it as divine retribution for perversion.)

I make no apology for calling him a provincial redneck, because that, to be fair to him once more, was how he thought of himself and even described himself. It was a scandal that a man with so little knowledge of the outside world should have had such a stranglehold on American foreign policy for so long. He once introduced Benazir Bhutto as the prime minister of India. All right, that could have happened to anybody. But what about the hearings on North Korea in which he made repeated references to “Kim Jong the Second”? In order to prevent any repetition of this idiotic gaffe, Helms’ staff propped up a piece of card on which was clearly written the pronunciation “Kim Jong ILL.” The senator from North Carolina duly made the adjustment, referring thenceforth to the North Korean despot as “Kim Jong the Third.”

That’s pretty funny right there. (And shouldn’t it have been “Kim Jong the 99th”?)

UPDATE: Marc Theissen, the chief White House speechwriter and spokesman for Helms from 1995 to 2001, presents the opposing view:

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Helms led the successful effort to bring Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into the NATO alliance. He secured passage of bipartisan legislation to protect our men and women in uniform from the International Criminal Court. He won overwhelming approval for his legislation to support the Cuban people in their struggle against a tyrant. He won majority support in the Senate for his opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He helped secure passage of the National Missile Defense Act and stopped the Clinton administration from concluding a new anti-ballistic missile agreement in its final months in office — paving the way for today’s deployment of America’s first defenses against ballistic missile attack. He helped secure passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, which expressed strong bipartisan support for regime change in Baghdad. He secured broad, bipartisan support to reorganize the State Department and bring much-needed reform to the United Nations, and he became the first legislator from any nation to address the U.N. Security Council — a speech few in that chamber will forget.

Not all of those policy outcomes were good ones and most of  represent the provincialism Hitchens accuses him of.  But it’s true that Helms was a powerful leader, not merely an obstructionist, in foreign affairs.

John Bolton, President Bush’s former UN ambassador, is not at all pleased with last week’s deal with North Korea on the nuclear stalemate.

With much fanfare and choreography, but little substance, the administration has accepted a North Korean “declaration” about its nuclear program that is narrowly limited, incomplete and almost certainly dishonest in material respects. In exchange, President Bush personally declared that North Korea is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism or an enemy of the United States. In a final flourish, North Korea has undertaken a reverse Potemkin Village act, destroying the antiquated cooling tower of the antiquated Yongbyon reactor. In the waning days of American presidencies, this theater is the stuff of legacy.

North Korea has consecutively broken every major agreement with the U.S. since the North’s creation. The Bush administration provides no reason why this one will not be added to that long list except the audacity of hope. Where have we heard that recently? Barack Obama and John Kerry both announced support for the deal, and Mr. Obama said he intended to apply Bush’s policy to other rogue states, thus confirming the early start of the Obama administration.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Bolton will suddenly become a legitimate authority on international diplomacy among his former enemies on the Left while his cheering section among Bush Republicans will quiet considerably.  (See-Dubya, blogging at Michelle Malkin’s place, meanwhile, still adores him.)

While I have no reason to think Kim Jong Il is more trustworthy now than he was two weeks ago, I’m befuddled by the reaction of Bolton and others who dismiss this agreement altogether.  (As to Bolton specifically, Steve Clemons notes that there has been quite a bit of bad blood between him and Ambassador Christopher Hill, who negotiated this deal.  I’m willing to give Bolton the benefit of the doubt, though, and chalk it up to his rather obstreperous view of international diplomacy.) In exchange for some progress in stopping the DPRK from proliferating nuclear weapons technology, most notably getting China on board as a key player, we’ve taken them off of one of our many lists of naughty states.  If they cross us, we can put them back on just as easily.

What’s the harm?  Yes, twenty-one years ago, when Kim’s dad was running the place, they blew up Korean Airlines Flight 858.  That’s, to say the least, old news.  Meanwhile, Pakistan is letting al Qaeda run amok and Saudi Arabia is financing them.   We call them our “allies” in the war on terrorism.  Somehow, I think we can live with the consequences of taking North Korea off the list.  (Technically, as Michael Kraft details at great length, it won’t happen for 45 days, during which time Congress has the right to intervene.

Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. ad may have (or may not) have helped her win in Ohio. But it’s also backfiring in some quarters. Comic Larry David titles a Huffington Post piece on the subject “Does Anyone Want This Nut Answering the Phone?”

A few weeks ago, I started to feel sorry for her. Oh Christ, let her win already…Who cares…It’s not worth it. There’s not that much difference between them. She can have it. Anything to avoid watching her descend into madness. So I switched. I started rooting for her. It wasn’t that hard. Compromise comes easy to me. I was on board.

And then I saw the ad.

I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call…and I was afraid…very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don’t care if it’s 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don’t want her talking to Putin, I don’t want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don’t want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere — somewhere far away, where there are…no phones.

Heh.

More details have been reported on the raid conducted by the Israeli Air Force on a base in Syria on September 6:

Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.

The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.

They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

Commentary is beginning to emerge from the news media and the blogosphere:

U. S. News and World Report produces a quotation from an Israeli missile warfare expert that sounds pretty close to the mark:

Said Yiftah Shapir, a missile-warfare expert at Israel’s Institute for National Strategic Studies: “My guess is that, in the worst case, North Korea gave Syria the most embryonic sort of equipment needed to manufacture nuclear weapons, which would take decades of work by thousands of technicians that Syria doesn’t have.”

The Glittering Eye wonders what it all means:

I think there’s still some room for skepticism over the nature of the site the Israelis raided. But the room is narrowing. For example, what is meant by “nuclear material”? That could cover a lot of territory, everything from fissible material to radioactive scrap. And then there’s the larger question…

Newhoggers continues to believe that it’s part of a neocon plot:

But if they had really had this evidence, they wouldn’t need to leak it to a British newspaper’s neocon shill. They could have gone public, had the data verified and stopped all of the happenings at the IAEA that Israel is so upset about dead and almost certainly have gained a UNSC resolution to boot. Then, if the air attack had gone ahead, many nations who are suspicious of anonymous leaks and scanty evidence would have stood up and cheered. There wouldn’t have to be a whisper campaign for a war which might begin with an Israeli pre-emptive attack but is surely designed to drag the U.S. in, willingly or not.

Cheat-seeking Missiles is convinced:

This certainly explains why Damascus has been nearly mute in its response to having its sovereignty invaded by the hated Jews. But what about NoKo? You’d think Li’l Kim Jong Il would have something to say, if nothing more than a lie to distance his regime from the evidence.

Ed Morrissey notes the secondary information:

Israel sought American approval for the bombing of the compound, but the Bush administration required solid proof before giving it. The Israelis brought information showing North Korean personnel staffing the facility, but Bush insisted that the Israelis had to prove that the facility was developing WMD. The raid took the nuclear material out of the compound, and only on September 6th — after testing had shown that the Israelis were correct — did they get American approval.

This gives us some interesting secondary information. First, despite its reputation, the Bush White House does not shoot first and ask questions later. Bush did not easily support this mission, even though Syria has conducted assassinations in Lebanon and supplies terrorists in Iraq. The administration wanted hard, incontrovertible proof before supporting an attack on Syria. And the Israelis waited to get it before bombing the compound, risking their intel operatives in a very dangerous burglary rather than acting unilaterally.

The Duck of Minerva offers prudent advice:

How solid this is, who knows…. But, it appears more credible than former Bush Administration officials with an ax to grind. It also suggests that this is not a neo-con fantasy story to drive policy or launch a war. Rather, its indicative of a very very serious problem–not just for the US, but for Asia, the Middle East, and any other countries concerned about Nuclear Proliferation.

Update

Pat Lang wants to know more before deciding:

Which is it? Beats me! I need more data.

Libby Copeland uses the occasion of Monica Lewinsky earning a master’s degree to reflect on the smart-but-dumb phenomenon.

There are moments that make you question your fundamental assumptions about the world. One of them took place a few days ago, when news emerged that Monica Lewinsky had just graduated from the London School of Economics.

She did not!!

Lewinsky, 33, is known more for her audacious coquetry than for her intellectual heft, and the notion of her earning a master of science degree in social psychology at the prestigious London university is jarring, akin to finding a rip in the time-space continuum, or discovering that Kim Jong Il is a natural blond.

Even more staggering, the same bubbly gal who once described the act of flashing her thong at the president as a “small, subtle, flirtatious gesture” has now written a lofty-sounding thesis. Its title, according to Reuters: “In Search of the Impartial Juror: An Exploration of the Third Person Effect and Pre-Trial Publicity.”

Monica! We hardly knew ye!

A revelation on this order suggests Lewinsky belongs to a fascinating subspecies, dumb-but-smart. Dumb-but-smart folks defy our low expectations. They appear dull or ditzy but possess unpredictable pockets of intelligence.

Jeralyn Merritt is proud: “You Go. Girl. More power to you. I spent years on tv night after night sticking up for you (and trashing Linda Tripp) and I’m glad it turned out so well for you.”

This is interesting on two levels. First, I’m not sure that there was any reason to think Lewinsky was dimwitted to begin with. She was educated at an expensive prep school and went on to a private liberal arts college. Even if one’s parents are wealthy, White House internships are difficult to secure. Second, I’m not sure that an MSc in a program designed “To qualify you for MPhil/PhD research in the social sciences” (i.e., essentially pre-Masters remedial work) is evidence that she’s on track for a Nobel Prize.

The jokes about Lewinsky centered on her chubbiness, her skankiness in keeping a semen stained dress around as a souvenir, her stupidity in thinking a president was going to leave his wife for that woman, and so forth — not a lack of intellect.

The Everything’s Bigger in Texas Edition OTB Caption Contest^TM is now over.

(AFP/Mehdi Fedouach)

The Winners:

First: The Man – Eat More Humans

Second: LJD – Speak softly, and carry a big c-ck.

Third(tie): Scott_T – Hello Butterball Help Line? So how many hours per pound do I cook a 1000-lb turkey?

Third(tie): charles austin – Bob soon learned what being truly henpecked really meant.

Honorable Mention:

Anderson- Kim Jong Il’s emissary knew, suddenly, two things: that the reports from the nuclear test site were true, and that he would never survive to report them to Dear Leader.

stillearly – Oh no, it’s Cynthia McKinney fully enraged and about to strike!

Timmer – Next on The Travel Channel: The truth behind why Zen Buddhists don’t eat meat.

FormerHostage – New Viagra tag-line: Feeling insecure about your cock size?

Rodney’s Bottom of The Barrel

Lord, when I said I wanted a bigger pecker this isn’t exactly what I had in mind.

In the end PETA decided it didn’t really find the ad offensive at all.

“Get offa Mork’s spaceship, Right Now!”

The Thursday contest has already borrowed Captain Jack’s compass.

Graham Allison charges that the Bush administration’s issuance of vague threats has been precisely the wrong approach to North Korea.

Effective deterrence required three components: clarity, capability and credibility. Clarity meant bright lines and unacceptable consequences. Credibility was understood to be in the eye of the beholder. How credible was the threat to trade Boston for Berlin? Never 100 percent. But U.S. forces, exercises and communication were crafted to convince Soviet leaders they dare not test it.

To date the Bush administration has demonstrably failed to deter Kim Jong Il. Successive U.S. demands that Kim not develop nuclear weapons, not test a missile and not test a nuclear bomb have been defied. In each case, the president has asserted that this would be “intolerable.” Pressed to be precise about what this threat meant, however, Bush refused, responding instead, “I don’t think you give timelines to dictators and tyrants.” National security adviser Stephen Hadley has gone further, arguing that red lines make no sense in dealing with North Korea because “the North Koreans just walk right up to them and step over them.”

Having stiffed Bush — and the world — in building a nuclear arsenal, testing a long-range missile and testing a nuclear weapon, might Kim now imagine that he could also sell nuclear weapons?

America’s challenge is to prevent this act by convincing Kim that he will be held accountable for every nuclear weapon that originates in North Korea. This requires clarity, credibility about our capacity to identify the source of a bomb that explodes in one of our cities (however it is delivered by whomever) and a believable threat to respond.

Kim must be convinced that American nuclear forensics will be able to identify the molecular fingerprint of nuclear material from his Yongbyon reactor. He must feel in his gut the threat that if a nuclear weapon of North Korean origin explodes on American soil or that of a U.S. ally, the United States will retaliate precisely as if North Korea had attacked the United States with a nuclear-armed missile: with an overwhelming response that guarantees this will never happen again.

There are two problems with this approach.

First, Allison is simply wrong on the first of his three C’s of deterrence policy. Clarity was never the hallmark of our approach to the Soviets. Indeed, drawing bright lines would have made nuclear escalation more likely, as it would signal to the adversary exactly what he could get away with. Sure, it was always made clear that a nuclear attack on the United States would result in massive retaliation and vice versa. At the same time, we always reserved the option to respond to lesser attacks with nuclear weapons, too. That was why we never renounced the right of first use.

By having a credible threat to use nuclear weapons in the case of war, with no precise thresholds, we deterred not only nuclear destruction but head-to-head conventional war as well. The risks of miscalculation were simply too high.

Second, it is simply not credible to think that we would use nuclear weapons against Pyongyang if some third party to whom they sold nuclear weapons used them against an American city. Making the threat would simultaneously fail to deter Kim and lower our esteem in the international community. Far better to simply make it known that a nuclear attack on the United States or its allies would be met in kind against the perpetrator.

In what appears to be an eerie similarity to the Iraq War runup, North Korean defectors are telling Western officials that getting rid of Kim Jon Il would end North Korea’s nuclear threat. There’s a twist, though: They think it can happen without Western military intervention.

Defectors from North Korea are hoping that international sanctions will make life so much harder, that the North’s elite class will rise up against leader Kim Jong Il and overthrow him, writes the Associated Press.

The AP also writes that the Defectors’ Alliance, a group that helps North Korean refugees settle in South Korea, says the surest end to the current crisis “is to decisively eradicate dictator Kim Jong Il and his followers and establish a democratic government for the North Korean people,” who the group says will feel the brunt of the suffering caused by the current tensions.

[...]

In an interview with the AP, Hwang Jang Yop, the highest-ranking North Korean official to defect to South Korea, agreed that only Kim’s ouster will end the nuclear threat North Korea poses. He added, however, that he doubts the UN sanctions against North Korea will have any effect.

[...]

Mr. Hwang, a longtime member of North Korea’s elite and friend to the late Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il’s father and the founder of North Korea, defected in 1997 during a trip to Beijing, where he sought refuge in the South Korean embassy. He eventually moved to South Korea, where he is under 24-hour police protection to prevent North Korean assassination attempts. Hwang is believed to have been a mentor to Kim Jong Il, and to have been one of the architects of the Juche quasi-religious ideology with which the Kims have ruled.

But while some see Hwang’s perspective as a view into the inner workings of North Korea and Kim Jong Il, others suggest that Hwang’s advice be taken with a grain of salt. In a 2003 article, Slate called Hwang the North Korean Ahmed Chalabi, a reference to the Iraqi exile whose faulty intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction helped lead to the invasion of Iraq.

Meanwhile, the CSM reports that the international sanctions on North Korea will likely prove a humanitarian disaster.

Even as missile and nuclear tests alienate humanitarian aid donors, North Korea is facing a cold winter in which it is unlikely to be able to feed its people. The danger of widespread suffering raises the critical question of how the world can unite in a forceful response to North Korea’s nuclear test – the focus of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s visits this week to Tokyo, Seoul, and Beijing – and still rescue the North’s hungry people.

Compelled to ask for huge donations of food at the height of a famine that killed some 2 million people in the 1990s, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was confident enough last year to order the World Food Program and other aid-givers to leave or vastly reduce their programs. But the North may again need aid – at a time when missile tests in July, followed by the nuclear test this month, have reduced donors’ desire to rush in to help.

Certainly, a coup or otherwise ousting of Kim would be far preferable to starving his people in a futile effort at affecting his nuclear policy. An Iraq-style invasion is all but off the table, President Bush’s strong talk notwithstanding, and really has been ever since it became evident in the run-up to the Iraq war that the DPRK had nuclear weapons. The prospect of Kim sending even one missile into Seoul simply makes an American invasion untenable.

The Australian reported earlier this week that the Chinese government is considering effecting regime change for us.

The Chinese Government has been ultra-cautious in its reaction. However, since Monday, Foreign Ministry officials have started to make a point of distinguishing between the North Korean people and their Government in conversations with diplomats.

Ahead of yesterday’s Security Council vote, some in Beijing argued against heavy sanctions on North Korea for fear that these would destroy what remains of a pro-Chinese “reformist” faction inside the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. “In today’s DPRK Government, there are two factions, sinophile and royalist,” one Chinese analyst wrote online. “The objective of the sinophiles is reform, Chinese-style, and then to bring down Kim Jong-il’s royal family. That’s why Kim is against reform. He’s not stupid.”

More than one Chinese academic agreed that China yearned for an uprising similar to the one that swept away the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989 and replaced him with communist reformers and generals. The Chinese made an intense political study of the Romanian revolution and even questioned president Ion Iliescu, who took over, about how it was done and what roles were played by the KGB and by Russia.

If hopes and wishes were loaves and fishes and all that. Still, I disagree with Heraclitus (via his co-blogger Michael Stickings) that such open discussion works against making a coup happen. Knowing they might get the support of the PRC’s security apparatus may well embolden plotters. Then again, the Kim family has held onto power for more than half a century for good reason.

The UN Security Council has unanimously agreed to impose sanctions on North Korea to punish it for testing a nuclear weapon and to prevent further proliferation.

The U.N. Security Council on Saturday voted unanimously to impose sanctions against North Korea in response to the country’s claimed nuclear test. The vote was scheduled soon after negotiators agreed on the sticking point of cargo inspections, the language over which China had expressed some concerns earlier.

Rather than mandating stop and search operations, “the resolution will say to countries to inspect as necessary all goods going in and out of North Korea,” CNN’s Richard Roth reported. The aim is to stop materials and technology that could be used for nuclear weapons production from going to or from North Korea.

Diplomats from the five permanent council members plus Japan gathered in closed-door meetings Saturday morning to reach agreement. While details of the draft resolution were incomplete, diplomats said it could prevent materials for weapons programs and luxury goods from being sold to North Korea.

The language is directed at North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, who has a long, documented record of living a life of luxury while his people wasted away in famine. On Friday U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said, “The North Korean population’s been losing average height and weight over the years, and maybe this will be a little diet for Kim Jong Il.”

Earlier Saturday, Chinese Ambassador to the U.N. Wang Guangya expressed concerns about the draft’s stop and search provisions. “… This interception idea, once they put it in operation, it could easily lead by one side or the other to a provocation of conflict which would have serious implications for the region, for the countries,” Wang said.

My prediction is that the net effect of this will be zero. Predicting that the pronouncements of the UN Security Council are worthless is really going out on a limb, I know, but that’s the kind of bold insight you’ve come to expect from OTB.

The politics of ethnic outrage has taken an unusual turn, with Hispanic groups railing against a new Democratic Party ad that seemingly conflates terrorism and illegal immigration.

A Democratic political ad is under fire from Hispanics who say it unfairly compares Latino immigrants to terrorists. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sponsored a 35-second ad on its Web site that shows footage of two people scaling a border fence mixed with images of Osama Bin Laden and North Korea President Kim Jong Il.

Pedro Celis, chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, said in a statement Tuesday that the DSCC should remove the ad because it vilifies illegal Hispanic immigrants and is “appalling.” Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado, a Democrat, sent a letter to DSCC Chairman Sen. Charles Schumer of New York asking that the ad be pulled. She said it could alienate Latino voters. “To liken Latino immigrants to bazooka-toting terrorists not only undermines the positive relationship our party has with this community, but also lowers us to a despicable level as breeders of unfounded fear and hatred,” Alvarado wrote.

The ad opens with the words “Security Under Bush and GOP?” It features scenes of a masked man with a bazooka, scenes from terrorist attacks and police inspecting a subway train. It also shows Osama bin Laden, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a docked ship as it claims “4 times as many terrorist attacks in 2005.” Then comes footage of a person climbing over a corrugated metal border fence and another preparing to climb it as the words “millions more illegal immigrants” form on-screen. In the following scene, viewers see the words “North Korea has quadrupled its nuclear arsenal” with footage of a tank and North Korea President Kim Jong Il. The ad ends with the words, “Feel safer? Vote for change.”

[...]

DSCC spokesman Phil Singer dismissed the group’s criticism as a Republican group “trying to gloss over the White House’s abysmal record on security.” “This group’s time would be better spent pressuring reluctant Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform,” Singer said in an emailed statement.

[...]

The ad drew rebuke from other Hispanics. “This is the same kind of fear mongering we condemn in the extreme media and now we are seeing it at the DSCC,” said Lisa Navarrete, spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza. “It’s appalling.”

While the RNHA is hardly an objective source on this, La Raza and others cited are typically pro-Democrat. I should note, too, that the ad is strangely missing from the URL given a the bottom of the story and is not presently among the numerous videos on the DSCC multimedia page.

While I’m clearly not the target audience of this ad, the text description of it sounds rather effective. The public fears terrorism, nuclear proliferation to rogue regimes, and an unfettered stream of illegal immigrants coming across the southern border. While the statistics are distorted and the president’s ability to do much about any of these things is debatable, it’s well within the bounds of political debate, let alone campaign spots.

Still, I’m always happy to this kind of pandering to people’s baser instincts backfire. David Weigel, in a post entitled, “Mexicans And Other Terrorists,” notes a bit of comedy in the AP piece linked above:

[T]he AP’s Suzanne Gamboa actually pressed the aggreived parties on whether they can prove the border-jumpers in the ad are Hispanic, and writes that “the faces of the people climbing over the fence are not clearly visible.” This is true, and someone could argue that the Democrats are making the “al Qaeda are crossing the Mexican border because trekking across a blazing desert is so much easier than overstaying a student visa” argument. Someone could argue that, if the ad didn’t scream “millions more illegal immigrants.” Someone can do a head count, but I don’t think the Bush administration has let in millions of illegals from Saudi Arabia and UAE.

Perhaps Mexicans are gateway illegals and then you move on to Arabs?

President and Mrs. Bush were on Larry King Live last night on the occasion of the commander-in-chief’s 60th birthday. It was a wideranging but frank discussion of world events and the personal side of the world’s most stressful job.

NYT television columnist Alessandra Stanley began her story on the interview with the rather bizarre opener, “Two kinds of celebrities go on ‘Larry King Live’ on CNN: those with something to sell and those with something to hide.” She seems to think the president is one of the latter:

“Larry King Live” is the first stop in any damage control operation — a chance to explain oneself to the least contentious journalist in the land.

And that is why President Bush invited the CNN talk show host to the White House on his 60th birthday. The standoff with North Korea over its missile tests, the war in Iraq and ever-sliding ratings in the polls have given the president little reason to celebrate. Mr. King gave the president a chance to defend his policies without risk of interruption or follow-up

While King is conversational rather than Mike Wallace style in-your-face, that strikes me as an unfair characterization of both his show in general and his interview with the Bushes in particular. Following is a transcript via CNN. Decide for yourself.

LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Good evening. We’re in the Blue Room of the White House. This is the first presidential interview ever done in this historic room and we’re honored to have the president and first lady with us, President George W. Bush and Laura Bush. The occasion is the president’s 60th birthday. Happy birthday.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, sir.

LARRY KING: What does it feel like?

G. BUSH: I feel pretty good, you know. Feel real good, as a matter of fact, really.

KING: This is kind of dramatic.

G. BUSH: Yes, it turns out it is dramatic. But I feel pretty young. I’m surprised I feel so good. I can remember when I was a kid looking at people 60, I said, “Man, there goes an ancient person.” But I feel great. Thank you.

KING: Does he feel ancient to you?

LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: No, not at all. I’m approaching his same age.

KING: That’s right, November.

L. BUSH: That’s right.

KING: First things first and first thing obvious. What’s going on? Were you surprised by the missiles?

G. BUSH: You know, I wasn’t sure what to expect. Obviously, we knew the missile was teed up. We rallied our partners in the six-party talks to make clear statements about not firing a missile. Sure enough, a couple of days ago, he not only fired one, he fired seven.

KING: Why do you think he did?

G. BUSH: You know, I don’t know. I really don’t know. I think he wants us to either fear him or pay attention to him. And I view it as an opportunity.

KING: To?

G. BUSH: Well, to get the Chinese and the South Koreans and the Japanese and Russians to work with us and send a clear message that this is unacceptable behavior. This morning I called [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and [Chinese President] Hu Jintao and last night I spoke to the president of South Korea, President Roh [Moo-hyun], as well as Prime Minister [Junichiro] Koizumi and said, “Look, we’ve all sent a signal to him. He’s ignored us. Now we need to send another signal and we speak with one voice. This issue is one that will be solved when the international community works in concert.”

KING: What did Mr. Putin say?

G. BUSH: He said he agreed. He said this was a serious problem and he wants to work with us.

KING: Since it’s always better, one would think, to talk to somebody, would you meet with Kim Jong?

G. BUSH: I think he’d love to have the United States sit down at the table alone with [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il. The problem is we tried that and it didn’t work. I think the best way to solve this problem diplomatically is for there to be other nations around the table with us so that when he looks out, when he looks at the table, he looks at the world, he hears China and the United States speaking one voice or China, the United States, Russia, Japan and South Korea speaking with one voice. Now, I am into solving problems and I’m convinced the strategy we’ve got is the best way to solve this problem.

KING: But, also, Mr. President, you’re into taking the lead on things. Iraq was an example. You took the lead on Iraq. The United Nations went along.

G. BUSH: Right.

KING: You got other countries to go along. Why not take the lead here?

G. BUSH: We have. The reason why there’s six-party talks is because we took the lead. And I’ve looked long and hard at this issue and I’m confident the best way to solve the problem is to have the Chinese and South Korea and the Japanese and Russia sitting side-by-side with us, saying to Kim Jong Il, “It’s not in your interest to isolate yourself from the world. It’s not in your interest to keep defying the demands, reasonable demands of the world, and there’s a better way for you to move forward.”

KING: Did this affect your July Fourth, Laura?

L. BUSH: Not really. You know, we watched the fireworks, of course, from the Truman Balcony right above this window and had a birthday party for the president.

(CROSSTALK)

L. BUSH: But we knew by the time the party started that the rockets had pretty much failed or…

KING: But when it happened…

L. BUSH: … you know, weren’t that destructive.

KING: … did it destroy your day?

L. BUSH: Well, sure. You know, we worried about it, obviously. But what I spent the day doing actually was watching our shuttle take off from Florida.

G. BUSH: And I had been in Fort Bragg speaking to our troops and, you know, the system worked well. {Defense Secretary] Don Rumsfeld called me and said, “Look, he’s fired, you know, rockets, some of them scuds, you know, that went in the Sea of Japan. Looks like he fired his long-range rocket that tumbled out of the sky.” But we responded very quickly. We had a plan in place to respond if he were to fire these things.

KING: Were you prepared to shoot it down?

G. BUSH: If it headed to the United States, we’ve got a missile defense system that will defend our country.

KING: Do you fear it more now?

G. BUSH: I think that’s what he wants. I think he does want people to fear him. My response to him and the response of our partners is to be that, you know, “It’s very important for you, leader of North Korea, to make rational decisions, because the United States is not alone in making these demands.” The demand, of course, is to give up his weapons programs in a verifiable fashion. There’s a better way for the people of North Korea, by the way. I mean, these people are hungry, they’re starving. There are concentration camps there.

And I just hope at some time he gets some sense, because the human condition in North Korea is totally intolerable. I mean, one threat, of course, is a proliferation threat, which we’re dealing with through what we call the proliferation security initiative, which is a group of nations that say, “We’re not going to allow this country to proliferate.” Another threat, of course, is something on Iraq, which we’re watching very carefully. And the third threat is just the terrible condition of the people living in North Korea. And it grieves me to know that.

KING: You’ve often said to me that options — you always hold options open. Is one of those options to go in first?

G. BUSH: We want to solve all problems diplomatically. That’s our first option. But, of course, the president has got other options.

KING: Was Iraq then a diplomatic failure?

G. BUSH: Well, you could say that, after 17 U.N. resolutions.

KING: Concerning Iraq, do you ever have doubts about it? Do you ever say, you know, “The country obviously turns one way. Things don’t look great sometimes. People are kind of down?” Does it ever get to you to say — and this is for both of you. Does it ever get to you to say, “Maybe, maybe it was wrong?”

G. BUSH: The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision and I’m actually convinced it was. Where I get mad is when I — you know, that some grieving mom or wife or dad has lost their loved one and that’s the agony of war. And I’ve met with enough families to know how it’s broken their heart to lose a loved one.

But I made the decision and we will succeed in Iraq, unless we decide to quit. And success in Iraq will be really important for the world. It’s important for there to be a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Things don’t happen quickly when it comes to helping a nation go from a tyranny to a democracy. But the Iraqi people were given a chance to vote and they did overwhelmingly. And now we’re working with entity, government, to help succeed. And when we succeed, I think they’ll look back at this moment in history and say it’s the beginning of changing the conditions that caused there to be such resentment that people would be willing to commit suicide, acts of suicide against U.S. citizens.

KING: You have had doubts?

L. BUSH: I feel exactly like George does. I think it’s really the right thing to do. I think if you look back and we — Saddam Hussein was still there. And nothing had ever been done, and 17 resolutions had been passed and he had never complied with any of those resolutions. But then George would be blamed, the president would be blamed, the United States would be blamed for not doing anything.

KING: How do you handle it emotionally when people say…

(CROSSTALK)

L. BUSH: Well, it’s…

(CROSSTALK)

KING: And you listen…

L. BUSH: It’s tough. I mean, the polls, that’s, you know that’s…

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Though it’s public opinion.

L. BUSH: You know, that doesn’t — don’t really mean anything. The polls aren’t important. But when you meet families who’ve lost someone there, you know, it’s sad. It’s heartbreaking. It’s heartbreaking for them, it’s heartbreaking for us. It’s heartbreaking for everybody in the United States.

KING: But you never lose resolve?

L. BUSH: No, I don’t think you can lose resolve, not at this point.

G. BUSH: It’s easy to lose resolve if you made decisions based upon polls. If you make decisions based upon what you believe in your heart of hearts, you stay resolved. And what we’re doing is hard. But what we’re doing is going to make this country more secure. And what we’re doing is going to lay that foundation for peace.

I just want to remind our fellow citizens that I went to Graceland with Prime Minister Koizumi. Sixty years ago, Japan was the enemy of the United States. And the reason why I was now able to work with Koizumi to keep the peace and to go to Graceland to honor Elvis, was because Japan adopted a different style of government.

KING: I’ve got to take a break. Did you expect him to dance?

G. BUSH: No I didn’t. Nor did I expect him to sing.

KING: We’ll be right back with the Bushes at the White House. Don’t go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We’re back with President Bush and Laura Bush at the White House in the Blue Room on this, the occasion of his 60th birthday. A discord from William Kristol in the Weekly Standard — “North Korea is firing missiles. Iran is going nuclear. Somalia is controlled by radical Islamists. Iraq isn’t getting better. Afghanistan is getting worse. I give the president all the credit for hanging tough in Iraq, but I’m worried that it has made them too passive in confronting other threats. In other words, so much in Iraq that the rest of the world is getting short-tripped.”

G. BUSH: Completely disagree. The United States is in the lead in solving a lot of problems. We’re obviously in the lead when it comes to Iraq. We’re helping a coalition of NATO allies in Afghanistan. And we’ve, we’re working with, you know, the multiparty talks for Iran and North Korea. In other words, we’ve laid the foundation and the framework necessary to achieve, you know, common goals. We’re leading an effort of other nations.

You know, some people say well, America’s unilateral in nation. Quite the contrary. We set up multilateral frameworks to solve these problems. Problems don’t get solved overnight, but this government has got enough capacity and enough tout to deal with many of the problems at the same time.

KING: Do you ever feel that it’s all coming in around you?

G. BUSH: No, I don’t. I do this…

KING: No president has had to face, maybe with the exception of Roosevelt with Depression and World War II, what you faced at the same time, domestically and…

G. BUSH: No. That’s not how I look at life. I look at life as a series of opportunities to make this world a better place. One reason there’s a problem is we’ve confronted them. The status quo was unacceptable to me. And therefore, it’s important to deal with problems before they become acute. And the Iranian issue is a classic example. If we were to sit back and say that maybe they’ll have a program, maybe they won’t have a program.

You know, history will say whether the administration was asleep at the switch and when they showed up with a nuclear weapon, which is unacceptable. And so you might remember early on in my administration I talked about the axis of evil. Step one of solving problems is to identify a problem. Since then, we have encouraged the EU-3 and Russia to join with the United States to work on this issue.

KING: Do you lose sleep, Mrs. Bush, over what he goes through?

L. BUSH: Do I lose sleep? No. Do I worry? Sure, of course. Absolutely. Who wouldn’t? But I also have great faith in my husband. I know he’s very disciplined and he’s very strong. And he has a great administration, a great group of advisers that work very, very hard. And I’m proud of the job he does.

KING: Do you ever — you don’t ever fear like, “Why me?”

G. BUSH: Quite the contrary. I feel it is an honor to be in this position, and, you know, I wake up enthused about working on this year’s problems, because I’ve got confidence we can — we can solve them.

KING: How do you deal with bad news?

G. BUSH: You know, in this job you get quite a bit of it.

KING: I know.

G. BUSH: That’s what you do, is you deal with it.

KING: Your baseball experience help?

(CROSSTALK)

G. BUSH: Interesting way to put it. It’s hard to hide from the win-loss column, but in baseball — I am — first of all, I believe in what we’re doing, and I know I made decisions — I fully understand people don’t agree with some decisions I make. But I’m confident that — that — I look back at this. I say, you know, you made your decisions based on what you thought was right and on principles.

KING: When the polls are bad, doesn’t that affect you emotionally?

G. BUSH: No.

KING: Safe to say more people are — don’t like what I’m doing than like what I’m doing?

G. BUSH: Well…

KING: Does it bother you?

L. BUSH: Not really. I mean, the polls are just…

KING: But it’s a sign.

L. BUSH: It’s a sign, but it’s not necessarily really what we see. I mean, when we travel around the country, when we visit with people, that’s not what we hear all the time. When they’re good polls — I think I told you this the last time I interviewed with you, you don’t see them on the front page. And you know, just — we’ve been involved for a very long time. We’ve seen somebody else we loved a lot in this job, George’s dad. And we know what it’s like. And we know what to expect. And are there going to be good times? Sure. And are there going to be bad times? Absolutely. That’s just a fact of life. Everyone’s life, really. But it’s very magnified when you are the president of the most affluent country in the world, the country who every other country brings their problems to.

G. BUSH: Let me tell you something about polls. If you had a president who worries about polls, that means you could have a president who makes decisions based upon the polls. We cannot achieve big goals and accomplish hard things if you’re worried about opinion polls. The president that chases the opinion poll is the president that will have failed policy, in my judgment. I like to tell people I would rather be — when history looks back, I’d rather be judged as solving problems and being correct, rather than being popular.

KING: As [President] Truman once said.

G. BUSH: Is that what he said?

KING: I think he was the most unpopular president, leaving office, since, I guess, Wilson.

G. BUSH: I will tell you, and that may be true. But his legacy is a strong legacy. And one of the reasons why I’m able to go to Graceland with Koizumi, Prime Minister Koizumi, is because Harry Truman helped Japan become a democracy. He had faith. And it wasn’t an easy decision on his part.

KING: Wouldn’t you rather be popular?

G. BUSH: No — I mean, you know, look –

KING: We all want to be popular.

G. BUSH: You’re a guy who relies on ratings. No wonder you’re asking about the popularity question.

KING: No, I mean, it’s human.

G. BUSH: I’ve been popular before, as president. And I’ve been — people have accepted what I’ve been doing. Sometimes things go up and down. The best way to lead and the best way to solve problems is to focus on a set of principles. And do what you think is right.

KING: We’ll be right back with the Bushes in the Blue Room of the White House. Don’t go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We’re back with President Bush and Mrs. Bush. A couple more things on Iraq. You — you the other day mentioned the amount of casualties. You did, too, at Fort Bragg.

G. BUSH: Yes.

KING: You definitely previously had refrained from that. Any reason?

G. BUSH: No, I mentioned it a couple of times before, because I want the American people to know that this is costly. But I also want those who’ve lost a loved one to know that we honor their sacrifice and their service. One of the interesting things about my meetings with the loved ones of the fallen is, almost to a person, they have said, “Don’t let my son or daughter die in vain.”

KING: You ever go to funerals?

G. BUSH: No, I don’t.

KING: Why?

G. BUSH: Because it’s hard. Whose do you go to and whose do you don’t go to? I mean, I want to honor all of them, all those who sacrificed. I think the best way for me to honor them is to complete the mission — that we’re in there to achieve a victory in Iraq. And to meet with families.

KING: So there is no doubt, if you had it to do over again, knowing the WMDs weren’t there, you’d still go in?

G. BUSH: Yes. This is — we removed a tyrant, who was a weapon — he was an enemy of the United States who harbored terrorists and who had the capacity, at the very minimum, to make weapons of mass destruction. And he was a true threat. And yes, I would have done the same thing.

KING: Fear another 9/11?

G. BUSH: Larry, yes, I do.

KING: Do you think we’re safe?

G. BUSH: I think we’re safer, but I’m — I’m worried about — worried about an enemy that wants to hit us again. And I’m comforted by the fact there’s a lot of people working hard on the issue.

KING: Have we stopped them? Have there been things that we don’t hear about that have been stopped?

G. BUSH: We’ve disrupted plots. And not only here but elsewhere. And it’s — you know, I’m worried about some of the tools we’re using being disclosed. I — I think it’s a huge mistake.

KING: You blame The New York Times, but the L.A. Times also published that story about intercepting and also The Wall Street Journal printed it.

G. BUSH: Well, disclosure is disclosure. I don’t think I’ve blamed any paper by name — maybe I have.

KING: You did name The New York Times.

G. BUSH: I did? I don’t know if I did or didn’t but anyway, let me put it this way. I am disturbed that people would feel comfortable enough going to newspapers with state secrets. It doesn’t make any sense to me to give the enemy — our — our game plan on how we’re going to deal with them …

KING: Isn’t that a ticklish line, though, a free press …

G. BUSH: I do support a free press strongly. I also want people to recognize that we’re at war and it’s just — it’s just — I just don’t understand. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

KING: Laura, let me ask you. One came in for you. “I read that you were once a librarian and I wonder what your feelings are on the provision of the Patriot Act that requires public libraries to use filters that restrict access to certain kinds of Web sites. Are you for or against this kind of censorship?”

L. BUSH: Well, there are several issues there. There is pornography that is on the Web sites that librarians are asked to filter for children who use their computers. Obviously I’m not for censorship of any kind. But on the other hand I think librarians, just like teachers and just like parents should choose what’s appropriate for our children — for their children — to not have their children see something that’s not really appropriate for them.

I know there’s also a part — assume there are some filters on how to make bombs, those sort of things, and sure, I’m not really anxious on everyone to have access to that.

KING: What do you make of the court’s decision on Guantanamo?

G. BUSH: They finally ruled and I have been saying to people that we want to resolve the Guantanamo issue, but the court has got to give us a road map forward. They did. It basically said it’s OK to have Guantanamo but you have got to work with Congress to devise a military tribunal, military commission in such a way that conforms to our laws and …

KING: (INAUDIBLE)

G. BUSH: Yeah. It is. Everybody wants to solve the problem. This is a very unusual set of circumstances, though. These are illegal combatants. People picked up off the battlefield. We’re at war against these folks but they don’t wear uniforms. And the Geneva Convention was set up for dealing with nation states. There’s no nation state here. There is an ideology but not a nation state and so this is an opportunity to work with Congress to deal with this issue.

KING: Right back with more. Don’t go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We’re back in the Blue Room with President and Mrs. Bush. Immigration. This law. When is it going to be passed and did you hedge back a little. You now say the other day that you first want to see that the borders are safe before we work on legalizing the immigrants.

G. BUSH: I don’t think I said that. I have always said we need a comprehensive plan. First and foremost we’ve got to enforce the border and that means more border patrol agents, better technology, ending catch and release. Secondly that we’ve got to have interior enforcement. But I don’t see how you can enforce a border unless you have a rational way for people to come here and work temporarily.

KING: Why do you think so many members of your own party don’t agree with that?

G. BUSH: Mm — I think people — I think words mean different things to different people. I think …

KING: Does it disappoint you?

G. BUSH: We’re not — the process is just beginning. This is a hard issue. This is an issue that, you know, we really haven’t addressed since 1986. One thing that everybody recognizes, the current system has failed. Fittingly there is — there is — I think there is a rational way forward that will accommodate people’s needs, but there needs to be a lot of debate, a lot of discussion. When I hear amnesty, that means you’re automatically a legal citizen, which I am against. Some …

KING: Well, we had amnesty in other cases in the past.

G. BUSH: I know but it won’t work in this case. Just not the right thing to do. If you’re trying to solve the problem, bringing people automatic citizenship isn’t solving the problem. It’s creating another problem, which is another 8 million people or so will come and hope to get granted automatic citizenship.

Secondly, is you can’t reward people who broke the law because you’ve got people standing in line legally, because we’re a nation of laws, we’ve got to uphold the laws. But this is — we have a duty to enforce the border and I think everybody agrees with that and — and we are. We are expanding agents, and we’re expanding technologies, but I think it needs — there needs to be a plan that recognizes people coming here to do work Americans aren’t doing. And they ought to be allowed to do so on a temporary basis for a limited period of years provided they pass a criminal background check and then go home.

KING: You’ve always had a lot of compassion for the Mexican people …

G. BUSH: Yes, sir.

KING: As the governor of Texas and being raised in Texas, right?

G. BUSH: Absolutely. It’s an issue I’ve been dealing with a lot and I think it’s very important to uphold the honor and dignity of anybody and that we’ve got to also remember we’re a nation of immigrations. I hold the belief, you know, when a person comes here legally and starts a business — it’s a first time citizen and begins to realize the great benefits of the American society he helps renew our soul. It helps invigorate our spirit.

I went to a deal yesterday to talk about immigration at a Dunkin Donuts. It’s a very interesting moment of America — of American history — or American — American society. The owners were two Iranian-American brothers. The district manager for these two Iranian-American brothers was a Guatemalan-American young girl, young woman, she is learning responsibility, she is managing and her store manager was a Salvadoran-American.

KING: I want to ask you about Iran in a moment but here’s an e-mail question on immigration. “Why is there not more effort to penalize the root of the immigration problem, employers and corporations who look the other way or neglect to check the validity of a document?”

G. BUSH: That’s why I went out to this store. Because I was heralding a program that enables employers now to get on the computer to make sure that the documentation they are seeing is real documentation. One of the problems we have is there is a lot of document fraud and people are — we’ve got smugglers smuggling people, we’ve got people housing these people when they smuggle them across, we’ve got document forgers giving people false documents and so part of the way you make sure you’re able to enforce employer — the rules of our employers is to have a tamper-proof temporary worker card. In the interim, we’ve got a way for employers to check to determine whether or not the documents they are seeing are real.

KING: Seeing Iran — North Korea was cited as part of your “Axis of Evil.” Yet the United States has joined other nations in offering Tehran incentives to suspend its nuclear program. Why the difference? Why do they get a deal?

G. BUSH: First of all, there are different circumstances. You mean what’s the difference between North Korea and Iran?

KING: Yes.

G. BUSH: There’s just different circumstances. The situation in North Korea is — you know, we tried incentives before. A president looks not only at what his administration has tried, but what others have tried. And there have been incentive packages laid out for the North Koreans, which they took and then didn’t honor the commitment they made. And so the history in each case is different and you deal with each case based upon the current conditions.

KING: What’s your biggest worry about Iran?

G. BUSH: Having a nuclear weapon in the midst of the Middle East. There’s a lot of worries about them having a nuclear weapon. There’s the worry about political blackmail. There’s a worry that they would harm our ally, Israel. I mean, there’s a series of worries. And the good news is, Larry, that most nations now understand the danger of the Iranians having a nuclear weapon.

KING: Vladimir Putin, you’ll see him next week, right?

G. BUSH: Yes.

KING: You said in June of 2001, “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward, trustworthy. I was able to get a sense of his soul.” Still have that feeling?

G. BUSH: I know him well, yes, I do.

KING: Like him?

G. BUSH: I do like him. I do like him. I don’t necessarily…

(CROSSTALK)

G. BUSH: Well, I don’t necessarily agree with every decision he’s made about what’s happening inside of Russia, but it’s very important for me to keep a good personal relationship with him so I can have good, candid discussions. But nobody either wants to be lectured by somebody, nobody either likes to be scolded publicly.

The people I deal with, you know, share the same emotions that you would share if somebody were to scold you and then say, “I’m going to come and now I want to sit down and talk to you.” And so I’ve got a good relationship with him. And I don’t understand some of the decisions he’s made, but my relationship is such that I’m able to express that concern and listen carefully as to why he does what he does.

KING: Do you like him, Mrs. Bush?

L. BUSH: I do like him.

KING: He’s very Western, isn’t it?

L. BUSH: Well, I don’t know if I would say that. I think he’s very Russian. But I like him a lot.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: … said once he’d be a successful politician in America.

L. BUSH: That’s possible. It’s possible. He’s a good politician for sure.

KING: We’ll be right back with more. Don’t go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We’re back with the Bushes. And the Mexico elections have been decided, apparently, and the conservative, Mr. Calderon, narrowly wins. Any thoughts?

G. BUSH: I look forward to working with whomever the Mexican people have elected and…

KING: Do you know him?

G. BUSH: I don’t know him. Looking forward to getting to know him.

KING: Apparently he won. I’m glad to bring you the news.

G. BUSH: You sure did.

KING: The death of Ken Lay.

G. BUSH: Yes, yes.

KING: I know he was your friend. How do you feel? Were you shocked?

G. BUSH: I was. I was really surprised. You know, my hope is that his heart was right with the Lord and I feel real sorry for his wife. She’s had a rough go and she’s now here on Earth to bear the burdens of losing her husband, a man she loved.

KING: Was that whole thing, the whole Enron story shocking to you?

G. BUSH: Yes, yes.

KING: Because, I mean, you knew him pretty well from Texas, right?

G. BUSH: Pretty well, pretty well, I knew him. I got to know him. People don’t believe this, but he actually supported Ann Richards in the ‘94 campaign.

KING: She told me that.

G. BUSH: She did?

KING: She liked him a lot.

G. BUSH: Yes, he’s a good guy. And so what I then did was we had a business council and I kept him on as the chairman of the business council and, you know, got to know him and got to see him in action. One of the things I respected him for was he was such a contributor to Houston’s civil society. He was a generous person. I’m disappointed that he betrayed the trust of shareholders, but…

KING: Do you know him well, Mrs. Bush?

L. BUSH: Not really. Not really well.

KING: Did you know his wife?

L. BUSH: But I did know him. And I know Linda and I’m sorry for her.

KING: Do you have contact with her?

L. BUSH: I haven’t.

G. BUSH: I haven’t yet. I’m going to write her a letter at some point in time.

KING: Move to politics. An unusual situation in Connecticut. Joe Lieberman is running for re-election to the Senate. He’s in the primary fight, may lose, and has said that if he loses, he might well run as an Independent. He supported you staunchly on Iraq, and Iraq is the major issue in that campaign, the primary. Would you support him if he ran as an Independent?

G. BUSH: First, the Democrats have to sort out who their nominee is going to be and that’s going to be up to the Democrats. And the rest of it’s hypothetical.

KING: But he said he would run as an Independent, if he were…

G. BUSH: He also has said he’s going to win his primary.

KING: I know you like him.

G. BUSH: You’re trying to get me to give him a political kiss, which may be his death.

KING: You hugged him before the State of the Union, right? No, I know you generally…

G. BUSH: The Democrats are going to figure it out. They’ll figure it out.

KING: So you would not make a decision on that.

G. BUSH: Well, I’m not going to wade into a Democratic primary in the state of Connecticut.

KING: How well are we prepared if there’s another Katrina?

G. BUSH: I met with the folks today. I met with [Secretary of Homeland Security Michael] Chertoff and the person responsible for putting the plan together, who have been meeting with [Louisiana] Gov. [Kathleen] Blanco and [New Orleans] Mayor [Ray] Nagin. We’re much better prepared today than we were last year. We’ve got supplies pre-positioned. We’ve got a better relationship with the Guard so that the Guard can move more immediately. We’ve got better communications.

One of the things that happened down there is the communications just went kaput, you know. We’ve got the capacity now to be up on satellite phones very quickly. We’ve just got a comprehensive strategy. They’ve analyzed the process of getting a contract with the business company to make sure the buses get there quicker. The decision as to whether or not to evacuate a city or a parish will be made by the local folks. It’s still the case. If there is the desire to evacuate and there’s a desire for federal help, the governor’s going to have to sign a document that will then enable us to pay for certain federal assets and other assets.

KING: Did you learn a lot from last year?

G. BUSH: I did, I did. I think that…

KING: Because there were mistakes all the way around there.

G. BUSH: Well, I think there were some unbelievably heroic things done and there were some responses that could have been better.

I know in the midst of analyzing things people tend to focus on what could have gone better. I do want to remind you that 30,000 lives were saved, pulled off roofs, because of unbelievable daring and courage by Coast Guard chopper pilots and Guard chopper pilots.

And there was a lot of ice and water delivered. Obviously, the thing that happened that needed to happen better was, how do you deal with a breakdown in law and order.

KING: How’d you do it, Laura, seeing all those schools?

L. BUSH: It was hard to see it all, but I have, I’ve been there a lot. I think of the Gulf Coast a number of times since the hurricane. And I’ve been raising money for a foundation that gives the school a library. We gave 10 grants to seven schools in Louisiana and three in Mississippi and we’ll announce another round of grants this September. And these are for schools to totally restock their libraries, not just a small grant, but a big grant. It costs about $50,000 to stock an elementary school library, and well over $100,000 to stock a high school library. So these are large grants to help schools as they rebuild and as their library is rebuilt, to be able to totally stock their libraries.

KING: We’ll be back with more of the Bushes right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We’re back. We’re going to touch some other bases. We’re going to have two segments remaining. Are you concerned about these charges about the troops killing civilians in Iraq?

G. BUSH: These are very serious charges and what the Iraqis must understand is that we will deal with these in a very transparent upfront way. People will be held to account if these charges are true.

KING: Because they want to know that.

G. BUSH: Of course they do. Yes, they do. And they’ll learn that we will be very open about how we deal with this issue. What concerns me is not only the action and, you know, if this is true, the despicable crime, if true. But what I don’t want to have happen is for people to then say, well, the U.S. military is full of these kind of people. That is not the case. Our military is fabulous. The men and women who wear the uniform in the United States are some of the finest people I have ever known. And they are, anyway …

KING: A little bit (inaudible) …

G. BUSH: Yeah, you worry about a — one person or a couple of people staining the image, the honorable image of the United States military. So one thing you’ll hear me do is defend our troops because I believe them and then the other thing people will see is people will be brought to justice. There will be absolute justice if this person is guilty.

KING: Because officials in the Iraq government certainly have a right to be concerned.

G. BUSH: Well, it’s a sovereign government. Of course they do. If in fact the charges are true that somebody was raped and murdered, then they ought be concerned by the Iraqis. But they’ve got to be comforted in knowing is that we will deal with this in a way that is going to be transparent, aboveboard and open.

KING: Al Gore was on recently on this program and concerning the environment he said, “President Bush and Vice President Cheney have anointed to any key position that has anything to do with climate change special interest spokesmen for the oil companies, coal companies, and this is no secret.” How do you respond to that?

G. BUSH: Um.

KING: Have you seen his film?

G. BUSH: No I haven’t seen it but I guess politics never stops. We have done a lot to deal with greenhouse gases by advancing new technologies. I campaigned against Al Gore. I said we’re going to spend money for clean coal technologies and we’re in the process of doing that and one of these days people are going to look back and say, well, thank goodness the Bush administration made these investments because we’ll be able to have electricity from coal that won’t pollute.

KING: Why do you think he put a bad rap on you?

G. BUSH: I don’t know why. Politics, I guess. But we’re the ones — my administration started the hydrogen initiative. Spent over a billion dollars for research in the hopes that we’ll be able to power our automobiles by hydrogen, which would be an amazing advance in — in — in — in — in cleaning the environment. We’ve done more on ethanol that any administration. We’ve got a great record and — but this town is full of politics. People just say what they want to say.

KING: Are you going to campaign for the Republican nominee …

G. BUSH: For president?

KING: In 2008?

G. BUSH: I’ve got to get through the ‘06 elections.

KING: Are you going to do a lot of campaigning for ‘06.

G. BUSH: Absolutely. I’m doing a lot of campaigning. We’re going to do just fine in ‘06.

KING: Going to keep the House and the Senate?

G. BUSH: We are. We are. And you know why? Because we’re right on winning this war on terror and we’ve got a good economic record. People are working under the leadership of the Bush administration and the Congress.

KING: Going to get [al Qaeda leader Osama] bin Laden.

G. BUSH: Oh we’ll get him. Oh we’ll get him.

KING: Why has it been so hard? Five years coming.

G. BUSH: It’s a …

KING: More than that, really.

G. BUSH: One way to look at it is he in charge of the folks he was in charge of before, have they got training — you know, places, and a safe haven, the answer is no. We’ve got him on the run. And they’re hiding. I, of course, would like to bring him to justice but we’ll get him. We’re, we’re — it’s just a matter of persistence and patience. Every day I think about this.

KING: Getting…

G. BUSH: Every day — well, everyday I think about al Qaeda. Every day I think about protecting this country. I mean, every day. The thought has not — the thought has entered my mind and I think about it and talk to people about it and strategize about it every day.

KING: Obsessed with it.

G. BUSH: No. Well, in a way I guess you could say obsessed, but obsession is the wrong word. Doing my duty. That’s what the American people expect. They expect this government to protect them and so long as there’s an enemy lurking out there, I’m going to — I’m going to talk to people, work with people. I have an intel briefing every morning except for Sunday.

And we talk about what we know, what we don’t know, what we need to do better. We talk about plots. We talk about things we might have heard or read and we’re responding and it is — it is — it is the calling of our time to win this war on terror.

KING: Back with our remaining moments from the blue room at the White House right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: A couple of other things. Mrs. Bush, how has your husband changed since becoming president? Biggest change.

G. BUSH: Don’t talk about the hair.

L. BUSH: The gray hair I guess.

KING: What else?

L. BUSH: He hasn’t really changed that much. I mean, he has a very solid, very centered personality. He always has. He’s got a lot of discipline and he still does and are we under more stress? Sure. Do we worry about things? Absolutely. But …

KING: An e-mail question. “With all the pressures in your jobs,” this is for both of you, “and the harsh treatment of the public life, how do you manage to keep a healthy marriage and avoid bringing work home. Or do you bring work home?”

L. BUSH: In this house, when you live here in this house above the shop, so to speak. We live right in the apartment …

KING: (INAUDIBLE) above this …

L. BUSH: So work is 24 hours. I mean, you think about it all the time, I think, because that’s where you are.

G. BUSH: Well, one way to get your mind off work is to exercise and I’m an avid exerciser and I would recommend anyone who is 60 or approaching 60 or over 60 to exercise and — well, I don’t have time but you’ve got to make time.

KING: You do it first thing in the morning.

G. BUSH: No, I do it in the evening.

KING: You’re a night exerciser?

G. BUSH: Evening exerciser. My schedule is I finish my work in the Oval Office around 4:30 or 5:00. I go and exercise and then go back to work. So I use it as a — I can break the day up a little bit but there is no excuse for not exercising.

KING: You exercise, Laura?

L. BUSH: I exercise. I do.

KING: Both of them. They’re both in great shape. It’s also Nancy Reagan’s birthday.

G. BUSH: It is. We wish her a happy birthday.

KING: She is a great lady.

G. BUSH: She is. She wrote me a very sweet note for which I am grateful. As a matter of fact I may just call on Air Force One flying into Chicago.

KING: Why don’t you do that?

G. BUSH: I think I will. Thanks for reminding me of that.

KING: You share a birthday and — what are you going to do after or when this is all ended? When you don’t live above the store?

L. BUSH: Well, who knows? When we think about that — I think about that certainly. We have our house at our ranch which we’ll go back to, but I have a lot of urgency to get as many things done now — out of my office, issues that I’m working on certainly in the next 2 1/2 years and I certainly know the president feels the same way. Thinking about today rather than 2 1/2 years …

G. BUSH: Yeah. I’m going to run the race. I’m going to sprint to the finish line.

KING: You’re going to build a library?

G. BUSH: Yeah. Yeah.

KING: Know where?

G. BUSH: Not yet.

KING: Build in Crawford and they will come.

G. BUSH: It’s going to be in Texas. We are Texans and that’s where we’re going home to, but I’m sure there’ll be a lot of questions the closer we get to the end of eight years about this, that and the other but I — we’ve got a lot to do and a lot of problems to solve and a lot of you know, a lot of peace to make. And I’m looking to forward — looking forward to the next 2 1/2…

KING: One quick note. Are you optimistic that this Korean thing will be resolved?

G. BUSH: Absolutely. I’m optimistic that all problems will be resolved. I believe firmly that the capacity of the United States to solve problems is real and robust and I know that by working with those we can do it. We will succeed in Iraq, we will deal with the Iranian issue, we will help the — person in North Korea understand the wisdom of working in the international community. Yeah, we’ll solve problem.

KING: Always good to –

G. BUSH: Thank you, sir.

KING: Thank you.

L. BUSH: Thanks, Larry.

KING: Laura Bush and George Bush, the first lady and president of the United States, from the Blue Room at the White House.

UPDATE: Rep. Jack Kingston thinks that, if President Bush really wants a friendly forum, he should reach out to bloggers like Glenn Reynolds and Hugh Hewitt. (The latter, certainly.-ed.)

UPDATE (Greg Tinti): Allah has video of the highlights.

*Updated Below The Fold

The festivities begin in 5 and I’ve got my precious with me to liven it up a little more. To whet your appetite, Allah Pundit has a little preview.

7:02: Rules of engagement.

7:04: Lieberman: I’m running on my 18 years of service to Connecticut and Lamont is running against me based on one issue: Iraq. I’ve worked against George Bush, I’ve ran against George Bush, and I’m not George Bush. I’ve voted with Democrats 90% of the time and not been afraid to disagree.

7:05: Lamont: I’m not a traditional politician.

7:06: Q to Lieberman: The reason we’re here tonight is because of the war. How can you ask Democrats to overlook or look past the central issue of the race?

7:07: Lieberman: It was right to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Now we have a choice, help the Iraqis or leave and let them fail. Lamont has not been consistent in his position.

7:08: Lamont: Senator, you’re the only person in CT confused about what my position is in regard to Iraq. I’m impressed by Murtha’s stance.

7:09: Lieberman: Outlines Lamont’s various positions on Iraq.

7:10: Lieberman: I had this same position when Bill Clinton was in Bosnia. You can not set a deadline and must wait until the job is done.

7:11: Lamont: Lieberman keeps saying we’re going to turn the corner. Well, “that corner is a square.”

7:12: Lieberman: The situation in Iraq is better than it was 3 years ago. They held elections and are working to build their military. Not for an open-ended policy, but we need support them. Confident that the situation on the ground will allow us to begin a significant draw down within the next year.

7:14: Hamdan is raised. Lieberman calls it an “excellent decision” and a “right decision” that will now force President Bush to act with the approval of Congress. Lamont says that we now have a president that acts above the law and this weakens the country. NSA wiretaps is another example of this and censure was an appropriate response.

7:16: Q to Lamont: Would you support a policy of President Bush if you agreed with it regardless of the political consequences? Lamont: Yes, more than happy to find common ground but Lieberman finds too much common ground with President Bush. Lieberman: “The fact is that Washington has become rigidly and reflexively partisan” and I reach across party lines and that helps me do my job for CT.

7:19: Q on North Korea. Lieberman: Bush admin has had an inconsistent and ultimately unsuccessful policy towards NK. Lieberman advocates direct talks with Kim Jong Il, not now, but eventually. Lamont: The biggest threat to the U.S. is a rogue nation with nuclear weapons and that’s NK. I wouldn’t do what Bush did with Iraq. (Ya think?) Lamont would hold meetings with Democrats and Republicans and give them intelligence. Not kidding.

7:21: Lamont: Lamont campaign has grassroots support. Democrats need to go to DC and talk about the common good.

7:22: Q to Lieberman: What does it mean to you to be a Democrat? Quotes JFK and notes that it’s America’s mission to “pay any price”, yada yada yada…to insure the spread of liberty. Lieberman says that Ned Lamont is a single-issue candidate and when 100% of Democrats vote the same way the 100% of the time, it’s bad for Democrats.

7:24: Lamont: Lieberman undermines the Democrats.

7:24: Lieberman: Lamont is spending a lot of his money to distort my record. I never supported a social security privatization plan.

7:26: Lieberman: I’m the real Democrat in this race.

7:27: Lamont: Play by the rules. “You can’t have it both ways.” Either run as a Democrat or run as an Independent.

7:28: Lamont: “Either I’m far left or cozy with the Republicans.” In terms of ads, Lieberman needs to make up his mind.

7:31: Lieberman: Lamont is very inconsistent, he’s trying to gain the favor of every interest group, and he’s donated money to Lieberman’s own campaigns 3 times.

7:32: Lieberman: “The point is, who is he?” This campaign is about the future. I’ve delivered for the state. I’m not just about one issue.

7:34: Lamont: I’ve been blessed in this country and now what I want to do is give back to the state of CT.

7:35: Lieberman: I’ve got the support of the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood, the Urban Conservation League, and Human Rights League. They wouldn’t support me if they didn’t think I stood for what they do.

7:36: One minute break, then questions from voters.

7:37: Q about gas prices, energy needs, and high costs. Lamont: After 9/11, the government should have done more to break our addiction to Middle Eastern oil. Dick Cheney had his secret meetings (and we all know the rest). Now is the time to deal with conservation in a serious way and Lieberman’s support of Cheney’s energy bill was bad, very bad. Lieberman: Yes, there were bad things about the bill but there is rarely a perfect bill. But there were good things in the bill as well. Lamont: There wasn’t one other…Lieberman interrupts Lamont and Lamont quips, “This isn’t FOX News, sir!”

Zing.

7:41: Q about CT jobs and outsourcing. Lieberman: I’ve built up some seniority and that helps me deliver jobs to CT. One quarter of CT jobs are exporting jobs. I’ve have helped keep those jobs and trade bills, which Lamont use to support but doesn’t now, help those employers. Lamont: Education and infrastructure, freights, ports, etc.

7:44: Q on immigration. Lamont: As long as you have employers hiring illegals, border security won’t work. Need comprehensive immigration form and supports the Senate bill. Refutes the “jobs Americans won’t do” slogan; if employers pay enough, they will. Lieberman: Need to work hard, play by the rules, learn English, blah, blah, blah…Lamont: Got to find a way to give kids legal status who aren’t legal.

7:47: Each candidate gets to ask the other a question. Lieberman asks Lamont if he will release his state and federal income tax returns? Lamont says he has released all documents, then opines about ethics in DC. Lieberman boasts about the earmarks he brought to CT. Lamont says that the process of earmarking should end. Lieberman gleefully adds that earmarks help the people of CT. Lamont’s turn: Do you still think you deliver for CT? Lieberman: Sure do. Will Ned Lamont be able to do all the things that I have done for CT? I don’t think so. The people of CT know me, I listen to them, and they know that I care about them.

7:52: Closing Statements. Lieberman highlights the differences between himself and Lamont. Basically, experience, record, and performance vs. inexperience, no record, and who knows what he will be able to do. Lamont: This election is about the people, not about someones career. Ends with the soon-to-be-not-so-classic, “My name’s Ned Lamont and if you approve of this message, I could use your support.”

UPDATE: Without much reflection, it’s easy to call this debate for Lieberman. Despite his sometimes overzealous aggressiveness, I think anyone listening carefully would agree that Lieberman defeated Lamont handily with those silly little things called facts with which Lamont was curiously light. As far as I could tell, Lamont promised to be the progressive Santa to liberals but didn’t bother mentioning how he planned to accomplish any of his goals. And this played particularly well into Lieberman’s strategy of painting Lamont as a one-issue candidate which, of course, is arguably true. Allah Pundit notes that some are saying that Lieberman used “Republican debate tactics” but I would counter that sometimes being inconsistent really does mean one is a flip-flopper.

UPDATE: Various reaction to the debate at MyDD, New Haven Independent, Oliver Willis, Digby, DailyKos, and Blue Crab Boulevard.

UPDATE: Closing statements:

UPDATE: Allah has more video of the debate at Hot Air but warns, “If you want clips of the Freshmaker, go see Crooks & Liars. This is Joementum country, baby.”

UPDATE: Stephen Sprueill has some behind-the-scenes reporting and agrees: Lamont lost.

“…hope for the best”:

More via Breitbart/AP:

President Bush said Thursday that the United States is seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff with North Korea, but cautioned that diplomacy will take time.

Bush said he was pleased that leaders of China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, in telephone calls during the past few days, agreed that the reclusive communist regime should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

“My message was that we want to solve this problem diplomatically, and the best way to solve this problem diplomatically is for all of us to be working in concert,” Bush said.

Bush said the nations’ message to Kim Jong Il was, “We expect you to adhere to international norms. We expect you to keep your word.”

He said that what’s important is that the international community speak with one voice.

“Diplomacy takes a while,” he said, “We’re spending time, diplomatically, making sure that voice is unified.”

“Let’s send a common message that you won’t be rewarded for ignoring the world and that you’ll be isolated if you continue to do this and yet there’s a way forward,” Bush said.

The sensitive issue of Canada joining the U.S. missile shield was also raised during the Bush-Harper presser to which President Bush noted that he did not mention the issue to Mr. Harper: “I figured if he was interested, he would tell me.”