ConservativeHome's The Republican

US official: Al Qaeda no. 2 killed In Pakistan

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

In another major blow to Al Qaeda, a senior US official says the terrorist group's second-in-command (Atiyah Abd al-Rahman) has been killed in Pakistan. CBS News reports:

Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, has been killed in Pakistan, delivering another big blow to a terrorist group that the U.S. believes to be on the verge of defeat, a senior Obama administration official said Saturday.

The Libyan national who was the network's former operational leader rose to al Qaeda's No. 2 spot after the U.S. killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden during a raid on his Pakistan compound in May.

Al-Rahman was killed Aug. 22 in the lawless Pakistani tribal region of Waziristan, according to the official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss intelligence issues.

What they're saying: Conservatives counter Warren Buffett's latest call for tax hikes

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Yesterday in the New York Times investor Warren Buffett weighed in on the escalating debate over the US tax system, blatantly backing President Obama's latest plans for tax increases on higher earning Americans.

But while the Nebraska-born billionaire seemingly pleaded for Congress to raise his current rate, a growing number of conservatives have quickly countered his calls, citing a number of key points coincidently left out of Buffet's latest op-ed offering.

From political bloggers to presidential hopefuls, here's a look at the conservative response to Warren Buffett's column-based claims:

Pat Buchanan, Morning Joe:

I’m a little fed up with these people who come on, you know, their big op-eds, all these admonitions. Why doesn’t he set an example and send a check for $5 billion to the federal government? He’s got about $40 billion. You know, you had a plan up there, I talked to Howie Carr at Boston where the super-rich could contribute an extra amount. It was something like one-tenth of one percent did it. You get all this noise from these big rich folks. Let them send checks and set an example instead of writing op-eds.

Editorial, International Business Daily

If Buffett were as smart about tax policy as he is about investing, he'd be calling for tax reform that cuts rates and eliminates loopholes, instead of playing up the class warfare rhetoric. Until then, we'd all be well advised to ignore Buffett's tax rants.

Samuel Gregg, NRO's The Corner:

As a businessman, Warren Buffett is a great American success story. As a contributor to public debate about America’s economic future, however, he would be better off channeling a little less Barack Obama and reading a little more Adam Smith: the same Smith who pointed out that sometimes the worst enemies of free markets and wealth-creation overall are businessmen. 

Mike Brownfield, Heritage.org

Apart from misstating his tax burden, Buffett fails to call for significant reforms in Social Security and Medicare that could reduce federal spending, and he downplays the role of taxation plays in investment decisions…Then there’s the fact that a shortage of tax revenue isn’t even the root of Washington’s problem—too much spending is. While revenue will surpass its historical average of 18.0 percent of GDP by 2021, spending will shoot past its historical average of 20.3 percent, reaching 26.4 percent in the same year....A billionaire calling for more taxes might make great political theater, but there’s more to the story than Buffett—and Obama—would have you believe.

Joseph Lawler, American Spectator:

[I]t seems that Buffett doesn't fully understand why it is that he pays relatively little in income taxes. As David Indiviglio explains, there is more to the story of taxes on investment income than Buffett appreciates. Also, as others have pointed out a number of times in response to Buffett's pleas to increase his taxes, anyone can simply write a check to the Treasury if they want. 

Senator John Cornyn, Twitter:

For tax raising advocates like Warren Buffett, I am sure Treasury would take a voluntary payment for deficit reduction

Governor Rick Perry, Dallas Morning News interview:

I just think new taxes are not the answer right now...Taking money away from Warren Buffett is not going to affect anything...[it would be] the small businesses that's getting devastated...Warren Buffett, I would suggest to you, is a nice man. And God bless him, he's lived in American and had a free-market system to make a lot of money, but I disagree with his idea to raise taxes...We need to be cutting spending.

Jeffrey Miron, CNN:

Focusing on the super-rich also fosters a counterproductive attitude toward material success. The way to promote a hard-working, entrepreneurial and innovative society is to celebrate great wealth so long as it has been earned by legitimate means. When this is not the case, policy should target the wrongdoing directly, not demonize everyone who hits it big. Most importantly, singling out the super-rich distracts from the real problem: the myriad policies that make no sense in the first place because they inhibit economic growth and that simultaneously redistribute from low-income households to the middle and upper classes.

Seven Republicans back Libya lawsuit

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Less than 24 hours after Speaker John Boehner's warning to the administration in regard to it's neglect for the War Powers Act, a bipartisan group of lawmakers have taken matters into their own hands, filing a lawsuit against President Obama for his failure to seek congressional authorization for military action in Libya

The Hill reports:

Led by Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.), the members contend the White House broke the law when it launched military operations against Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi in March without congressional authorization...

Aside from Kucinich and Jones, eight other House members endorsed the lawsuit, including GOP Reps. Howard Coble (N.C.), John Duncan (Tenn.), Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Ron Paul (Texas), Tim Johnson (Ill.) and Dan Burton (Ind.), and Democratic Reps. John Conyers (Mich.) and Michael Capuano (Mass.).

The full complaint is available to view here.

Martin Feldstein: If we aren't the global policeman, then who is?

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Thanks to Tom Donnelly at the Enterprise blog for pointing out Martin Feldstein's words from the AEI Irving Kristol Dinner this week. Tom quotes Feldstein, whom Tom describes as "a man of habits arguably more 'paleo' than 'neo.'

There are also those who say we cannot afford to be the global policeman. But should we really be deterred from that role when the cost of our entire military budget—including the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan—is now less than 5 percent of our GDP? There is no danger of bankrupting ourselves by so-called “imperial overreach” when we spend less than 5 percent of GDP on defense. And while there is no doubt waste in military budgets and military procurement, that is unfortunately inherent in the congressional appropriation process. Cutting the defense budget would reduce our military capabilities rather than just removing waste

These words have a special significance this week. It took us awhile to get bin Laden, but it's not like there were others out there capable of pulling off such a mission - and willing to.

Nearly nine out of ten Americans say the US military deserves the majority of the credit for finding Osama bin Laden

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As the debate begins over which presidents' policies were responsible for the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, a new Gallup poll reveals that an overwhelming majority of Americans feel that US troops and the CIA deserve the bulk of the credit for Sunday's operation.

According to the recent survey, "89% say the military deserves 'a great deal of credit,' while 62% say the same about the CIA."

Interestingly, when it comes to presidential praise, Gallup's latest analysis reveals that:

Americans are more reserved in giving credit to President Obama. Thirty-five percent say he deserves a great deal of credit and another 36% say he deserves "a moderate amount" of credit. More than a quarter say he does not deserve much or any credit at all.

In relation to the operation's outcome, nearly two-thirds Americans say that killing bin Laden was the preferred strategy.  However, "84% of those who say it would have been better to capture bin Laden alive still say they approve of the military action overall. This suggests that the preference for his capture is not held so strongly that it dampens support for the mission as executed."

In general, 93% of Americans approve of Sunday's events, and nearly four-fifths believe that bin Laden's death is very important for the country. In comparison to previous military efforts against al Qaeda, Gallup also notes that the latest approval for US action:

[Is] similar to the 90% of Americans who in an Oct. 7, 2001, poll approved of the U.S. taking military action against Afghanistan. These approval levels are higher than the immediate reaction to the launching of either the first Persian Gulf War in 1991 or the Iraq war in 2003, for which approval was in the mid- to high 70% range."

The full results of Gallup's poll is available to view here.

What They're Saying: Conservatives weigh in on President Obama's penchant for "leading from behind"

Natalie Gonnella

In the latest edition of The New Yorker, Ryan Lizza provides a very detailed overview of President Obama's reluctant foreign policy development, and his apparent preference for "leading from behind."

Entitled The Consequentialist: How the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy, Lizza concluded that:

Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.” 

Not surprisingly, considering both the advisor's poor word choice and the President's penchant for timid, apologetic, and often indecisive (in)action on a number of foreign policy concerns (most recently evident in the White House's feeble response to the ongoing atrocities in Syria), Lizza's piece has been a popular topic among conservatives. 

From weekly columns to political blogs, here's a quick look at what a few of them had to say:

Bill Kristol in The Weekly Standard commented that:

Thank you, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous Obama adviser speaking on background to Ryan Lizza. Thank you for so boldly and visibly injecting into our politics the phrase “leading from behind.” Thank you for associating it with your boss. Thanks for confirming that our current president believes his task is to accommodate American decline. Thanks for reminding us how high a priority he places on appeasing those who revile us. And thanks for explaining that our Leader from Behind sees his role as “shepherding us through this phase” of appeasement and decline...How do you defeat a leader from behind? With a leader from the front. All the Republicans have to do is nominate a real leader: a workhorse not a show horse; a steady hand not a flip-flopper; a profile in courage not in cleverness; a competent man or woman with strength and confidence in defense of liberty at home and abroad. Surely this isn’t too much to ask?

Kori Schake via ForeignPolicy.com's Shadow Government blog wrote:

What makes the article so funny is the pompous self-regard of the administration officials and the complete lack of appreciation for how woefully inadequate their performance has been in meeting these challenges. They are "not cursed with self-awareness," to quote Annie Savoy from the movieBull Durham. Secretary of State Clinton compares herself as a collegiate Vietnam war protester to the young Egyptians who brought down the Mubarak government. Both Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes explain the importance of reducing involvement in the middle east because our strategic interests lie in Asia ... as the administration engaged in combat operations in Libya. A presidential memo is cited as wisely anticipating the middle eastern revolutions, except that the memo calls for tailored country by country programs that the administration's policies clearly did not have. The author even unwittingly adds to the humor, saying "Obama's instinct was to try to have it both ways."

In his column in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer commented:

To be precise, leading from behind is a style, not a doctrine. Doctrines involve ideas, but since there are no discernible ones that make sense of Obama foreign policy — Lizza’s painstaking two-year chronicle shows it to be as ad hoc, erratic and confused as it appears — this will have to do. And it surely is an accurate description, from President Obama’s shocking passivity during Iran’s 2009 Green Revolution to his dithering on Libya, acting at the very last moment, then handing off to a bickering coalition, yielding the current bloody stalemate. It’s been a foreign policy of hesitation, delay and indecision, marked by plaintive appeals to the (fictional) “international community” to do what only America can...Leading from behind is not leading. It is abdicating. It is also an oxymoron. Yet a sympathetic journalist, channeling an Obama adviser, elevates it to a doctrine. The president is no doubt flattered. The rest of us are merely stunned.

Michael Barone in his column in the Washington Examiner said:

Lizza gives a detailed account of how Obama and his advisers have been putting chips on black and red in Egypt and Libya over the past two months. And he provides a revealing summing up. "One of his advisers described the president's actions in Libya as 'leading from behind,'" he writes. "It's a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world." "That's not," Lizza, who often writes on domestic politics, interjects, "a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic National Convention." No, it's not. But it's one you may hear about from Republicans.

and commenting via his NRO blog, The Agenda, Reihan Salam said of the article:

One of the reasons I strongly advocate fiscal consolidation and public sector reform is that I believe it will help give the United States room to maneuver as the global political environment shifts. So in a sense I think that the flawed Obama foreign policy derives from the flawed Obama domestic policy...On one level, Lizza’s article makes me think that conservatives should back a presidential candidate with unimpeachable foreign policy credentials. It’s not clear that there is such a non-fringe candidate, however, and so we’re left with the hope that good domestic policy instincts will translate into good foreign policy instincts.

Lizza's full piece, which is currently ranked as the magazine's most popular, is available to read here.

GOP now has 11 Senators voting to ratify START, Alexander says we still have enough missiles to blow attackers "to Kingdom Come"

Ryan Streeter

With Lamar Alexander announcing this morning that he will vote to ratify START, that brings to 11 the number of Republicans who have said they will vote join the Democrats in the vote. 

1. Lamar Alexandar
2. Bob Bennett
3. Scott Brown
4. Susan Collins
5. Thad Cochran
6. Bob Corker
7. Johnny Isakson
8. Judd Gregg 
9. Dick Lugar
10. Olympia Snowe
11. George Voinovich

Alexander is the only member of the GOP leadership to say he'll vote for ratification. And his floor speech contained a great line aimed at assuring his critics that a vote for ratification doesn't mean he's going soft: 

I will vote to ratify the New START Treaty between the United States and Russia because it leaves our country with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to Kingdom Come and because the president has committed to an $85-billion, 10-year plan to make sure that those weapons work.

New START treaty moves closer to ratification as three Republican Senators vote against John McCain's changes

Natalie Gonnella

Standing up for GOP concerns that the New START treaty hinders US missile defense capabilities, Senator John McCain today introduced an amendment challenging the language in the current accord.

Senator McCain's proposal would have removed provisions within the treaty's preamble that acknowledged a connection between offensive and defensive weapons, thus alleviating particular points of GOP apprehension on the agreement.

All but three Republicans voted in favor of Senator McCain's amendment, which, due to unanimous Democratic opposition, was defeated 59-37.

With the treaty now moving closer to ratification, here's a look at what those three GOP Senators have said about their support for the original New START agreement:

Senator Robert F. Bennett (Utah)

Speaking about the treaty earlier this year, Senator Bennett commented: “We are now at a point where I think this is probably a good idea. I think it is a step in the right direction, a continuation of the thawing, if you will, of relationships between the United States and Russia that goes all the way back to Ronald Reagan.”

Senator Richard Lugar (Indiana)

Senator Lugar has been a strong supporter of the New START treaty throughout it's ongoing debate, regularly speaking out in favor of ratification:

“New START will enable American verification teams to return to Russia to collect data on the Russian arsenal and verify Russian compliance. These inspections greatly reduce the possibility that we will be surprised by future advancements in Russian weapons technology or deployment. Rejecting this treaty would inhibit our knowledge of Russian military capabilities, weaken our non-proliferation diplomacy worldwide, and potentially re-ignite expensive arms competition that would further strain our national budget.” - Statement by Senator Lugar

Senator George V. Voinovich (Ohio)

In November speaking to the Washington Wire in the WSJ, Senator Voinovich said of his support for the treaty: “There seems to be a lot of coming together there and a lot more comfort [with the treaty] among our friends and allies in Europe.” Voinovich added ‘I think I’d be supportive.’”

Commenting further in reference to negotiations on "tactical weapons and conventional forces" Voinovich said: “I really think the fact that some of us have raised these issues has underscored to the administration that this is something that needs to get done” 

Nine Republican Senators ensure gays can serve openly in military

Tim Montgomerie

The DREAM Act may have been blocked but it looks almost certain that the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy - that has prevented gay Americans from serving openly in the US military - will be repealed.

Six Republicans voted for a procedural motion that will limit debate and therefore ensure that the substantive motion is voted upon. With the Democrats fully supporting repeal and a handful of GOP Senators also on side, repeal will happen.

The six Republicans who voted to stop a filibuster were:

• Freshman Mark Kirk of Illinois;
• Scott Brown of Massachusetts;
• George Voinovich of Ohio;
• Lisa Murkowski of Alaska;
• Olympia Snowe of Maine;
• Susan Collins, also of Maine.

Three more GOP Senators sat on their hands: Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Orrin Hatch of Utah.

John McCain opposed the change until the last moment. Resisting legislation fronted by his close ally Joe Lieberman, the Arizona Senator said “I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage." "Today is a very sad day," he concluded.

Log Cabin Republicans issued this press statement welcoming repeal.

Richard Lugar vs. Jon Kyl: A look at their views on the New START Treaty

Natalie Gonnella

The barbs are flying on Capitol Hill as Senate Democrats try to move ahead on START. As Daniel Foster at NRO yesterday kept us apprised of how it's so far played out, we thought it was worth taking a look at how the leading GOP frontmen on the bill have voiced support or opposition in the run-up to today's Hill action.  Senators Lugar and Kyl have each done their part to get the party to go the way of their respective wishes.

Here they are in their own words: 

Senator Richard Lugar:

For ratification

Supported by former Secretaries of State Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell, Condoleezza Rice (with caveats), Senator Susan Collins, Senator Olympia Snowe

Senator Lugar is the most vocally supportive (and he has been vocal) Republican in the Senate with regard to the START treaty.  He firmly believes ratification is in the best interest of US security and has called on the chamber to schedule a vote as soon as possible.  Lugar has also rebuked many in the party who claim to be against a decision in the lame duck session, accusing them of displacing their responsibility as lawmakers:

"At the moment, the Republican caucus is tied up in a situation where people don't want to make choices" – The Atlantic Wire

"Sometimes when you prefer not to vote, you attempt to find reasons not to vote." – The Courier Journal

Senator Lugar believes the treaty should be ratified because:

Nuclear missiles still pose a substantial risk to the American public, ratification of START will make America safer:

“A rejection of New START would be greeted with delight in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Burma…these nations want to shield their weapons programs from outside scrutiny, and they want to be able to acquire sensitive weapons technologies. They want to block international efforts to make them comply with their international obligations. Rogue nations fear any nuclear cooperation between the United States and Russia because they know that it limits their options." – Statement by Senator Lugar

“We are deeply concerned about North Korea and Iran and other programs in which there may be one, two, five, 20 — we're talking about thousands of warheads that are still there; an existential problem for our country. To temporize at this point I think is inexcusable.” – Statement by Senator Lugar

New START allows the US to more fully monitor Russian nuclear capabilities (since the conclusion of the previous treaty last December, the US has not had the opportunity to investigate Russian nuclear stockpiles)

“New START will enable American verification teams to return to Russia to collect data on the Russian arsenal and verify Russian compliance. These inspections greatly reduce the possibility that we will be surprised by future advancements in Russian weapons technology or deployment. Rejecting this treaty would inhibit our knowledge of Russian military capabilities, weaken our non-proliferation diplomacy worldwide, and potentially re-ignite expensive arms competition that would further strain our national budget.” - Statement by Senator Lugar

Failure to ratify the treaty could have serious implications for US-Russian relations, particularly with regard to other nuclear cooperation (such as the Nunn-Lugar effort to secure loose nuclear materials throughout the former Soviet Union)

"For fifteen years, the START Treaty has helped to keep a lid on the U.S.-Russian nuclear rivalry. It established a working relationship on nuclear arms with a country that was our mortal enemy for four and a half decades. START’s transparency features assured both countries about the nuclear capabilities of the other...Failure of the U.S. Senate to approve the treaty would result in an expansion of arms competition with Russia. It would guarantee a reduction in transparency and confidence-building procedures. It would diminish cooperation between U.S. and Russian defense establishments. It would complicate our military planning...If we reject the treaty it will be harder to get Russia’s cooperation in stopping nuclear proliferation. - Statement by Senator Lugar

The budgets are there to support the treaty’s provisions:

“This is not a political judgment.  The President and the Vice President are not saying this.  They did not request these views.  These are the nuclear weapons experts in the United States and these are their views.  They are telling us this plan gives them confidence that we can credibly modernize and maintain our nuclear weapons under the 1251 plan.  They saw no reason to further question the 1251 plan.  I do not believe we should question their judgment…we believe that the proposed budgets provide adequate support to sustain the safety, security, reliability and effectiveness of America’s nuclear deterrent within the limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads established by the New START Treaty with adequate confidence and acceptable risk.” - Senator Lugar in a Statement

Delaying until next year could push this issue into the abyss of congressional unknowns with ratification taking months or even years:

"Endless hearings, markup, back to trying to get some time on the floor... It will be some time before the treaty is ever heard from again" – Senator Lugar, The Cable, Foreign Policy

Senator Jon Kyl

Against ratification (as the treaty currently stands)

Supported by: Mitt Romney, Senator Jim DeMint, Senator John Thune

Senator Kyl has opposed ratification due to concerns with the treaty’s current provisions.  He has requested further time to debate these issues (much to the annoyance of Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid) and, although willing to consider ratification following further discussion, does not believe the lame duck session (and the lead up to the Christmas holiday) is the best place for productive dialogue on the issue:

“When Majority Leader Harry Reid asked me if I thought the treaty could be considered in the lame duck session, I replied I did not think so given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization. I appreciate the recent effort by the Administration to address some of the issues that we have raised and I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Kerry, DOD, and DOE officials.” –  Senator Kyl, Statement

"If the leader of the Senate, Senator Reid, were to allow a couple of weeks for full debate and amendment of the resolution of ratification then theoretically there would be time…But he has made it clear he has a different agenda in mind. I think clearly they have two sets of priorities here. Are they going to deal with the funding of the government for the remainder of the fiscal year? They've got to do that." - Senator Kyl, MSNBC, Meet the Press

"The START treaty is a very important document, and there are very important ramifications that need to be thoroughly considered with appropriate amendments and sufficient time to consider them" - Senator Kyl, Statement

Senator Kyl argues that:

The treaty limits US missile-defense systems while providing Russia with the upper hand in the agreement:

“First, it's not clear that the treaty's verification provisions are adequate. Second, the treaty's failure to take into account Russia's enormous tactical nuclear weapons arsenal (more than 10 times larger than that of the U.S.) and the limitations it places on U.S. conventional global strike capabilities are serious flaws. Third, the treaty links missile defense to strategic arms reduction—a linkage that had been wisely broken by the Bush administration.” – Senator Kyl in the WSJ

The treaty is non-binding and allows both parties to withdraw (Russia has already made withdrawal threats, as they did during the original START agreement, should the US decide to expand missile defense capabilities):

“The Russians have unilaterally declared that the article which allows either Russia or the U.S. to withdraw from the treaty is intended to allow Russian withdrawal if it believes new U.S. missile defense capabilities pose a threat to its strategic nuclear forces. This has the potential to constrain improvements to U.S. missile defenses, if objected to by the Russians” Statement by Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain

More needs to be done to maintain and modernize America's current nuclear arsenal:

“I’ve come to the conclusion that the administration is intellectually committed to modernization now. No sane person could not reach that conclusion… Whether they’re committed in the heart is another matter. Suppose Start is ratified, and they no longer have to worry about that? Will they continue to press for the money?” – Senator Kyl, New York Times 

(Andrew McCarthy (NRO), Trent Franks (Politico) and IBD provide interesting commentary on specific security concerns with regard on these points.)

While symbolically important for disarmament and the US relationship with Russia, the START treaty has been on the congressional backlog for months.  Only in recent weeks, amidst significant Republican gains, has the Obama Administration pushed for ratification.  As John Bolton commented:

“If the Obama administration were truly confident in the merits of its arguments, it would not fear a debate when the new Congress convenes in January. But its obsession with frog-marching the Senate to a vote in December reveals its gnawing insecurity that New START cannot withstand full scrutiny in the light of a real Senate debate, as opposed to the theatrics now about to unfold. There is simply no possibility for an appropriate debate, let alone adequate consideration of key amendments to the treaty or its accompanying resolution of ratification.”

It's unclear if the frogs will be marching towards ratification, for the moment they're certainly hopping around the Hill as the Senate opens the floor for debate on the treaty. At this writing, it's not clear how the scales will tip. My guess is that if START dies, it will pass next year with little public commotion after everyone digests both Lugar and Kyl's arguments and has more time for debate. All the 'hoop-la' right now is politics at its best, policy content at its worst. Which is a shame, since both Kyl and Lugar have put so much effort into the substance.