Vladimir Putin met with Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates regarding the American plan to install missile defense in Europe. He is not happy:

In a tense start to talks on a range of thorny issues, President Vladimir Putin on Friday warned U.S. officials to back off a plan to install missile defenses in eastern Europe or risk harming relations with Moscow.

Addressing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the Russian president appeared to mock the U.S. missile defense plan, which is at the center of a tangle of arms control and diplomatic disputes between the former Cold War adversaries.

“Of course we can sometime in the future decide that some anti-missile defense system should be established somewhere on the moon,” Putin said, according to an English translation. “But before we reach such arrangements we will lose the opportunity for fixing some particular arrangements between us.”

After Putin’s session with Gates and Rice, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters that the U.S. delegation had presented “detailed proposals” to address U.S.-Russian differences on missile defense and arms control. He offered no details but said the Russian government is ready to seek compromise.

“We have differences and there is no need to hide them,” Lavrov said.

The Russian government sees the U.S. missile defense plan, which Washington describes as a hedge against the threat of missile attack from Iran, as a worrisome step toward weakening Russian security. It has been a longstanding dispute, and Putin’s remarks seemed to raise the level of tensions.

Rice and Gates appeared taken aback at the firm tone and forcefulness of Putin’s remarks, which were made from notes in the presence of American and Russian news media before they began a closed-door meeting around an oval table in an ornate conference room at his country house outside the capital.

“We will try to find ways to cooperate,” Rice said in response. “Even though we have our differences, we have a great deal in common because that which unites us in trying to deal with the threats of terrorism, of proliferation, are much greater than the issues that divide us.”

Alas, however, “that which unites us” is growing increasingly small in number. In addition to the dispute over the issue of missile defense, there are disputes over Russia’s worldwide role, disputes over Putin’s role in Russian politics and there are certainly disputes over Russia’s relations and actions concerning other former Soviet states. In each instance, Russia has taken a stance that is antithetical to American interests and concerns.

At some point, all of this needs to be addressed via a comprehensive overhaul of American policy towards Russia. We have not had that overhaul yet. I wonder how much time it will take–and how much fewer “that which unites us” will have to number–before such an overhaul takes place.

When stories like this appear, they are cause for at least small celebration:

In a number of Shiite neighborhoods across Baghdad, residents are beginning to turn away from the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia they once saw as their only protector against Sunni militants. Now they resent it as a band of street thugs without ideology.

The hardening Shiite feeling in Baghdad opens an opportunity for the American military, which has long struggled against the Mahdi Army, as American commanders rely increasingly on tribes and local leaders in their prosecution of the war.

The sectarian landscape has shifted, with Sunni extremists largely defeated in many Shiite neighborhoods, and the war in those places has sunk into a criminality that is often blind to sect.

In interviews, 10 Shiites from four neighborhoods in eastern and western Baghdad described a pattern in which militia members, looking for new sources of income, turned on Shiites.

The pattern appears less frequently in neighborhoods where Sunnis and Shiites are still struggling for territory. Sadr City, the largest Shiite neighborhood, where the Mahdi Army’s face is more political than military, has largely escaped the wave of criminality.

Among the people killed in the neighborhood of Topchi over the past two months, residents said, were the owner of an electrical shop, a sweets seller, a rich man, three women, two local council members, and two children, ages 9 and 11.

It was a disparate group with one thing in common: All were Shiites killed by Shiites. Residents blamed the Mahdi Army, which controls the neighborhood.

“Everyone knew who the killers were,” said a mother from Topchi, whose neighbor, a Shiite woman, was one of the victims. “I’m Shiite, and I pray to God that he will punish them.”

The feeling was the same in other neighborhoods.

“We thought they were soldiers defending the Shiites,” said Sayeed Sabah, a Shiite who runs a charity in the western neighborhood of Huriya. “But now we see they are youngster-killers, no more than that. People want to get rid of them.”

Read the whole thing. In addition to showing that the Mahdi Army has alienated itself from the population, stories like this one also serve to show that the U.S. is profiting not only from the surge but from the implementation of the counterinsurgency plan General Petraeus helped write. For those who are genuinely interested in the fate and future of Iraq and want to see the country succeed, this story should be a big one and should point the way to how policy should be implemented in the coming months.

Fausta’s first possible post-Nobel scenario for Mr. Gore aside, I think that she’s hit on something here:

The coy former Vice-President may run for president again, may choose to stay home admiring his Oscar, Emmy, and Nobel, or may do a one-man show on Broadway, which may in turn win him a Tony award, thus outdoing Rita Moreno, who hasn’t won a Nobel Peace Prize yet.

When you think about it, the possibilities are endless for the man. So, please: tell us what award he’s going to cop next, and tell us how he’s going to go get it.

For example: I think that he should try for a Hugo. Granted, he probably can’t write for beans, but that’s easily remedied: he can go look up David Brin, drag him away from his bleg for Diebold employees to expose the Neocon Conspiracy*, and they can hack out a book together. Quality may not even matter: there’s a fair chance that the committee will give the award out of sheer gratitude that somebody’s gotten Brin writing science fiction again.

So stick ‘em in comments. The more obscure, the better, but they’ve got to be legitimate awards. The guy’s got needs, you understand?

Moe

If you look on the front pages of our nation’s major newspapers you might learn that a loudmouth poseur and fabulist is set to win the Nobel Peace Prize but what you won’t find is acknowledgement that Navy Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy has been awarded a posthumous Medal of Honor.

Lieutenant Murphy led a 4-man stick of Navy SEALs on a mission in Afghanistan. A mission that was ultimately compromised by their humanity. In the ensuing firefight three of the SEALs, including Lt. Murphy were killed. Eight more SEALs and eight soldiers were killed when their MH-47 was hit by a rocket propelled grenade and crashed.

Whether this wasn’t newsworthy in the view of some pencil neck editor or part of a worldview that only thinks bad behavior by US forces worth reporting or indicative of a culture that can no longer bring itself to acknowledge sacrifice and heroism is immaterial. The fact that a young man could win the nation’s highest award for valor, posthumously, and receive only passing attention (less than one column-inch in the Washington Post) is a sad commentary on the country he died defending.

There’s quite a bit to quibble with in this article, but the central point is tasty:

Anti-War Movement Stuck in a Quagmire
By David Nather

Over the summer, a coalition of anti-war activists racked up plenty of statistics in their drive to end the occupation of Iraq. They held 1,100 press events, by their count, planted more than 30,000 yard signs, posted 265 videos on YouTube and harangued lawmakers in person 125 times for voting to continue the war.

And yet, the Iraq summer campaign didnt break the stalemate in Congress over the war. In fact, its not clear that the effort changed any votes at all. When the Senate voted last month on a relatively mild proposal by Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia to give the troops minimum rest periods between deployments, it got 56 votes the same as in July, and still four votes short of what was needed to break a filibuster.

These are frustrating times for the collection of political, veterans, labor, and grass-roots organizations that make up the modern anti-war movement. At a time when a solid majority of the American public wants to pull some or all troops out of Iraq, these groups have been unable to turn the public support for their goals into enough votes to get a withdrawal proposal through the Senate, much less override a presidential veto.

And how are they planning to deal with this? Why, read on, and see.

On no other issue are Democrats more out of touch with reality than the FISA legislation that will expire in February. The temporary bill, which gives the intelligence community tools needed to combat terrorists, passed the Senate and House in August, but now faces the prospect of being watered down by liberals.

The House Judiciary Committee today voted 20-14 for a FISA bill that would take the country backward. Republican attempts to strengthen the bill seem futile. With the American Civil Liberties Union and liberal bloggers demanding a swift reversal from the votes in August, Democrats seem content to oblige.

Bush deserves credit for fighting back. Today at the White House he threatened to veto the Democrats’ bill and encouraged Congress to make permanent the legislation that passed in August.

Unfortunately, when Congress passed the Protect America Act they set its provisions to expire in February. The problem is the threat to America is not going to expire in February. So Congress must make a choice: Will they keep the intelligence gap closed by making this law permanent? Or will they limit our ability to collect this intelligence and keep us safe, staying a step ahead of the terrorists who want to attack us?

The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, backed up Bush’s assessment with a stinging rebuke of the Democrats’ bill.

Democrats have focused more on lawyering up terrorist surveillance rather than fixing the actual problem. Now committee Democrats have passed a bill with several fatal flaws that threaten to cripple our intelligence gathering capabilities and puts our nation and troops at riskand all because they chose to ram through a bill and disregarded Republican input.

Continued on the jump …

Stories here and here.

This is basically an expansion of the 401(k) plan. The wrinkle is a money-back guarantee. Anyone who funds a RodhamRetirement™ account is eligible for a tax credit in the current year of up to $1000, provided they make less than $100,000 in household income.

After pseudo-socialized medicine, it’s the second major middle-class entitlement this candidate has proposed.

Now the problem with Senator Clinton is that she’s both a chameleon and a liar, so you really don’t know how much she means anything she says. But in the spirit of taking the opposition seriously, let’s try to unpack it a little.

Read on…

Democrats and their liberal allies are so desperate to override President Bush’s veto of SCHIP that they’ll do just about anything. That includes spreading lies about the Republicans who stood on principle to oppose the $35-billion expansion that would cover adults, illegal aliens or families earning up to $83,000.

Today liberal group Americans United for Change came under fire for spreading misinformation about one Republican who has had enough.

Americans United for Change drew flack Wednesday from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for its ad that says the Kentucky Republican sided with the big insurance companies when he voted against the $35 billion expansion and reauthorization of the State Childrens Health Insurance Program.

Actually, Americas Health Insurance Plans, a trade group representing 1,300 insurance companies, supported the SCHIP reauthorization.

Brad Woodhouse, the groups president, defended the ad when Politico asked about the inaccuracy.

The ad attacking McConnell is similar to the nearly two dozen that Americans United for Change is running against Republicans at the behest of liberals in Congress. Democrats need about 15 Republicans to switch their votes to override the veto. Many of them, notably Reps. Tim Walberg and Tom Feeney, are standing firm. But there’s only so much the GOP can do when the opposition deliberately misleads.