From the transcript:

RICHARDSON: Well, of course, I'm worried. But what happened with our Pakistan policy, we got our principles wrong. We forgot our principles, our principles that we said to Musharraf, you know, Musharraf, security is more important than human rights. If I'm president, it's the other way around -- (applause) -- democracy and human rights.

What I would do is, yes, I would condition the assistance to Musharraf. We give him $10 billion. 60 percent of that is to his military. I would say, President Musharraf, unless you restore the constitution, unless you have elections in January, unless you end the state of emergency, unless you allow Benazir Bhutto to run as a candidate, unless you put the supreme court back.

And something else we've forgotten: He is supposed to go after terrorists on his border, and he has done a very weak job of doing that. (Scattered applause.) And you know, I would condition the assistance.

BLITZER: All right.

RICHARDSON: But here is another point -- no, but here's another point. Pakistani -- in Pakistan -- in the politics of Pakistan, Islamic parties get maybe 15 percent of the vote. I mean, so this threat that, oh, revolutionary elements are going to overtake him -- if he has a fair election, and you take his party and Benazir Bhutto's party and you get the military --

BLITZER: But --

RICHARDSON: -- I believe that moderate forces can win. So if we're on the side of democracy and human rights and we're on the side of Musharraf having elections, then U.S. interests are preserved and the Pakistani people have a democracy. (Applause.)

BLITZER: Let me just be precise because I want to make sure we all -- I heard you correctly. What you're saying, Governor, is that human rights, at times, are more important than American national security?

RICHARDSON: Yes, because I believe we -- (applause) -- we need to find ways to say to the world that, you know, it's not just about what Halliburton wants in Iraq, it's also about our -- (cheers, applause) -- values of freedom, equality. Our strength is not just military and economic. Our strength as a nation is our values -- equality, freedom, democracy --*

-

Richardson is right: At times, human rights, should trump national security. (Eg. We probably could have captured most of the people connected to 9/11 in the States by rounding up all Muslims or all people of Saudi descent, but that'd be casting a pretty wide and discriminatory net.) And there are ways to reconcile our commitments to human rights and national security. As Richardson suggests, we can tie our military aid to Pakistan to certain democratic moves. We don't just throw money at countries. We do so because it's mutually beneficial to both parties. We can find some common ground.

*This portion of the debate appears on pages 10 and 11 of the transcript: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/16/america/15debatetranscript.php?page=1

Damn you. I don't think I have anything to add. Well said.

Closing facilities and chopping the labor force in general are quick, easy ways to save money.

But they're often also a craven, desperate and unimaginative move. Want to save money? Improve efficiency and cut miscellaneous expenses.

Cutting labor can cost you more in the long run in terms of decreased productivity and loss of expertise. The workers you have left are often not as loyal with higher turnover, meaning you wind up paying too much for temporary stop-gap workers and re-training.

Closing posts and laying off workers is an active choice, not an inevitable result.

And, from the Army Times:

Failure to pass what lawmakers have called a “bridge” fund to cover war costs for a limited time while waiting on approval of a larger budget has no immediate effect, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Thursday that he would have to begin planning in mid-December how he would pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without extra money.

-

The Bush administration had asked for about $200 billion to cover war costs for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, and has been covering the costs so far by diverting money from other accounts. This is not an unusual practice, but Gates warned that shifting money is tedious because the Pentagon can move only $3.7 billion at a time — enough for only a few days of operations.

Even Gates seems to realize closures and lay-offs are not an inevitable result--they'd just be "easier."

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/11/military_senatevotes_iraq_071116w/

I bet that even while George W. Bush is shaking Al Gore's hand for his Nobel Prize win, Bush will still look like Smirky Smirkerson.

And what will Bush be thinking even if he doesn't say it? To paraphrase his frequent comment about Condoleezza Rice, PhD:

"He's the Nobel Prize winner and I'm the C-student, and just look at who's the President."

It's a Friday afternoon but I don't want the rest of that press conference to go unnoted.

Highlights include:

• Tony Fratto half-heartedly makes the case that Democrats are putting the soldiers and the mission in dire and immediate danger in tying up the funding. The Press Corps ain't buying it, and Fratto doesn't seem to either.
• Says Fratto, the Democratic Party is asking for withdrawal goals because it wants to "appease the views of groups like MoveOn.org and CodePink," prompting a reporter to interrupt, "Oh, come on, the American people also."
• And Helen Thomas, feisty as ever. Says Thomas, "You invaded them, you occupied them, you killed them --" and interrupts Fratto, "-- to have a democratic country. And that's what we're focused on."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071116-14.html

being elected in 2000 in any way disprove the notion that he's the worst president ever?