Ash confuses words with actions. His comment might have merit if they were written AFTER the french launched.

Since they will never do that, this is just so much french euro prop for the masses. It surely got the Germans into an uproar.

POTUS phrase "the world" was just that. A hand offered to the EU and other nations, just as he offered one to the democrats on domestic issues. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and if it becomes a Conciliation Trap.

The POTUS is making an assumption Iran is not only a US concern but also a world concern. This would seem to be true given the actions of the EU3 over the last 3 years. Then again when it comes time to act, the US will act. It will only be a question of what nations of the world will act with the US. How Ash makes a big deal of this is beyond me. It could be wishful thinking, the need to pump up Europe or the UN or maybe he just needed to publish another column according to his contractual terms.

People seem to have such short memories. But then Ash is all about the EU and the UN and world government so his comments and that they would appear in the Guardian are not at all surprising nor even his use of a Brookings Institution expert. Then again it is possible we heard different speech.

I guess Ash doesn’t think these two SOTUS comments are not similar in any way.

2003:
The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. ... If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him

2006:
The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. (Applause.) America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

2003:
Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

2006:
Iran [is] a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. ... Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.

Of course Ash and the Europeans might think the US position of how to deal with Iran by a new Administration could be different. I seriously doubt that but then again I am not an expert on American foreign policy like Ash. Then again a nuclear-armed Iran might be no threat at all to the world at large. I am perfectly prepared to accept that Europe will allow Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth if to prevent this costs them anything more than words.
So all this means in the larger scope of things is the UN game will be played. It will result in once again showing how the UN is both a corrupt and ineffective organization. This is just the beginning and not the end. Another step in the process.
What Ash chose not to address and the POTUS did was a growing trend of Americans wanting to revert back to isolationism. This trend I believe will grow in time.

So Iran may not be a problem for the US. It might be more of a problem for the rest of the world. The likelihood of this would increase if the US ever gets serious about its energy policy.

But hey, if this makes you feel good then by all means think what you want. Believe the idea that finally GWB has some how left the building.

Thomas,

You are so funny.

I love your referenced sources. First the NYT and then one of their "stars". I would have much rather seen a reference to the CBO or OMB.

Much of this is back to program reviews again. There are not enough of these done because each program has its own set of champions both inside and outside of the government. They also take lots of time. Programs take a life of their own and are all but impossible to kill even if they are a total waste of resources.

Also remember in the form of government the US has the POTUS proposes the budget and Congress approves the budget. In modern times, there has never been a President of either party who has gotten the budget he submitted to Congress approved. Equally this means while each department spends untold man-hours developing budget documents, what they receive in actual funding authority is a quite different. The ability of the departments to operate effectively in large measure depends on the flexibility they have in using the funds. Some of the language one finds in the Appropriation Bills can only be called criminal but yet this is the will of Congress.

Also there tends to be in the US, at least, this discussion if a program is not funded at the level it was projected to be in the out years it is somehow a cut. During the budgeting process, the budgets are extended. No one really pays a lot of attention to these numbers unless it happens to be your pet rock or if you want to score political points. So there is lots of moaning by the rock holders or the party out of power about cuts when these out year numbers become the baseline for the current budget year. Yet year over year comparisons show real growth. The growth is just less than was projected from an early budget round.

But on a serious note. The way the energy problem will be solved will be by the private sector.

The best way to accomplish this is through the tax code. Let the market place sort out the winners and losers. Write it so people are willing to take risks associated knowing they will be rewarded if they are successful.

This is where government screws up and it does not matter which government or who is leading it. If technologies have economic merit, no subsidy is necessary. If they don't, then no subsidy will provide it. This is just a simple truism. Every time government gets into something and starts underwriting the costs you can count on it will cost more, there will be less of it and it will not run very effectively.

I am lead to believe in Germany there is a credit for the use of diesel fueled cars. Suppose instead of giving individuals this credit, that Berlin gave a huge credit for the purchase of alternative fuel cars. Combine this with a large reduction in the taxes on alternative fuels and I think you would see signification sales of alternative fueled cars by the German people.

You would also see the auto manufactures trying to develop these type cars because they would not want to lose sales to the few models, which currently exist in the market place.

Hopefully this will be the direction the US takes.

Now if you knew all of this, then I am sorry I bored you. Of course if your objective was to bash the POTUS please do not let my post slow you down at all.

Congressional Budget Office

Office of Management and Budget