Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

SUNDAY,  AUGUST 15,  2010

BUT WILL OBAMA LISTEN? – AT 8:36 P.M. ET:  General David Petraeus is giving the nation some straight talk about the war in Afghanistan.  Americans can take straight talk.  The question is whether President Obama and the political class will listen:

KABUL -- In his first six weeks as the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus has seen insurgent attacks on coalition forces spike to record levels, violence metastasize to previously stable areas, and the country's president undercut anti-corruption units backed by Washington.

But after burrowing into operations here and traveling to the far reaches of this country, Petraeus has concluded that the U.S. strategy to win the nearly nine-year-old war is "fundamentally sound."

In a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with The Washington Post, he said he sees incipient signs of progress in parts of the volatile south, in new initiatives to create community defense forces and in nascent steps to reintegrate low-level insurgents who want to stop fighting.

With public support for the war slipping and a White House review of the war looming in December, Petraeus said he is pushing the forces under his command to proceed with alacrity. He remains supportive of President Obama's decision to begin withdrawing troops next July, but he said it is far too early to determine the size of the drawdown.

"We are doing everything we can to achieve progress as rapidly as we can without rushing to failure," Petraeus said in his wood-paneled office at the NATO headquarters in Kabul. "We're keenly aware that this has been ongoing for approaching nine years. We fully appreciate the impatience in some quarters."

But he warned against expecting quick results in a campaign that involves building Afghan government and security institutions from scratch, and convincing people to cast their lot with coalition forces after years of broken promises -- all in the face of Taliban intimidation and attacks.

"It's a gradual effort. It's a deliberate effort," he said. "There's no hill to take and flag to plant and proclamation of victory. Rather it's just hard work."

COMMENT:  It's an extraordinarily difficult situation, and neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has handled it all that well.  My fear is that Obama is influenced by a certain class of people who don't really care whether we win or lose, as long as we withdraw on schedule and devote the saved funds to "social programs."  Obama is less than an inspiring commander.  He's a cynical commander, and I fear he doesn't really have the capacity to see this through to success.

August 15, 2010     Permalink

THE REVIEWS ARE IN – AT 8:02 P.M. ET:  We have commented occasionally on the many journalistic inadequacies of Christiane Amanpour, the former chief international correspondent for CNN, citizen of the world, possessor of a refined British accent, professional leftist, apologist for things Islamic, daughter of a guy named Mohammed, and painful bore to those of us who take journalism seriously.

In a recent blunder, one out of many, ABC News hired Amanpour to anchor its "This Week" program, once graced by David Brinkley, helmed for a time by George Stephanopoulos, and recently run by the fine Jake Tapper.  The result has been a complete disaster, as NewsBusters reports:

After manning the helm of ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday for the second time since her August 1 debut, longtime foreign correspondent Christiane Amanpour continues to receive decidedly negative reviews...

...Tom Shales, Washington Post style columnist, was one of the many mainstream critics who railed on her debut August 1 performance, calling her “miscast,” “shrill,” and “showy” — descriptions some have criticized as sexist. His sharpest critique, however, was the accusation that Amanpour meant to give her respects to the Taliban during the show’s “In Memoriam” segment. “Perhaps in keeping with the newly globalized program, the commendable ‘In Memoriam’ segment ended with a tribute not to American men and women who died in combat during the preceding week but rather, said Amanpour in her narration, in remembrance of ‘all of those who died in war’ in that period,” he wrote. “Did she mean to suggest that our mourning extend to members of the Taliban?”

Yeah, that's our Christiane, a real international "sophisticate," well above the peasantry and those American hicks who really think that enlarging freedom is a bit better than snuffing it out.  Such ordinary folk.

Viewer commentary after the first two shows that flooded message boards, Twitter, and Facebook, has been similarly negative. “I’ll have to find something else to watch on Sunday morning. I can’t stand to listen to the new host. I also want to know what happened to the ‘round table,’” wrote mlw777888 in the comment section on the show’s webpage. “The table that they have now is as lopsided as the opinions.”

Lopsided?  Is the peasant calling for balance?  What a demeaning concept.

Amanpour has no business being in that chair.  Tapper, who's earned his spurs as a tough, fair political reporter, was just fine.  But he isn't as hot among the wine-and-Brie crowd, which is what a lot of this casting is all about.

August 15, 2010      Permalink

THANKS, DOC.  I'LL RECOMMEND YOU TO MY FRIEND – AT 11:01 A.M. ET:  As you know, one of the murderers of PanAm 103, the flight bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, with a loss of almost 200 Americans, and many more from other lands, was released by Scotland in 2009 on "compassionate" grounds.  The release came after a doctor had said the thug had only three months to live.  He's now been alive in Libya for a year.

There have been credible reports that the release was really about United Kingdom oil deals with Libya.  Now, the doctor who made the call is eating his medical words:

LONDON (AP) — A cancer expert who said Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi had only three months to live before his release from prison was quoted Sunday as saying he should have been more cautious about the prisoner's chances of survival.

Al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds from a Scottish prison in August 2009, and allowed to return home to Libya, where he continues to be treated for prostate cancer.

The Libyan is the only person to have been jailed over the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above the small Scottish town of Lockerbie, which killed 259 people — mostly Americans — onboard and 11 more on the ground. He was convicted in 2001 and sentenced to serve a minimum of 27 years in a Scottish prison.

Al-Megrahi was freed by Scotland's government following advice from medical experts and a prison doctor. At the time of his release, al-Megrahi was not expected to survive for more than three months.

Three other experts provided an opinion for the Libyan government on al-Megrahi's condition. While those assessments were shared with Scottish authorities, officials insist those opinions were not taken into account when deciding to release the bomber.

"If I could go back in time, I would have probably been more vague and tried to emphasize the statistical chances and not hard fact," Prof. Karol Sikora, one of the experts who provided an assessment for Libya, was quoted as telling Britain's Observer newspaper on Sunday.

COMMENT:  Quick, get this quack for Obamacare.  SEE all the savings resulting from Dr. Sikora rejecting claims because a patient, suffering from prickly heat, has only three months to live.  SEE Dr. Sikora honored as "diagnostician of the year" by the Obama White House.  Forget the green card.  Just send him over here.

Yuch.  I'd like to know how much pressure was applied to this doctor.

August 15, 2010      Permalink

THE PRESIDENT AND THE MOSQUE – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:  It's pretty clear that the White House didn't expect the backlash that's building over President Obama's endorsement Friday night of the mosque at Ground Zero.

Part of the backlash is honest, heartfelt opposition to the placement of the mosque itself.  But part of it, and this is very dangerous for the president, is a growing public anger at hearing the word "bigot" or "racist" applied to anyone who dares to disagree with the wisdom that comes down from the mouthpieces of the liberal establishment.  It is a modern-day McCarthyism, practiced to the hilt, perfected in the 60s, and now back in full force.

Michael Goodwin, the common-sense columnist for the New York Post, has a great take on the mosque issue.  He understands:

Thanks for nothing, Mr. President. Now we know how Arizona feels.

First Obama stood with the president of Mexico as he bashed Americans as bigots for exercising their right of democracy on illegal immigration.

Now he stands with the developers of a mega-mosque near Ground Zero that, outside of Mayor Bloomberg, few New Yorkers want.

As always, this self-described "citizen of the world" mounts his high horse to emphasize that we must prove to foreigners how decent we are. "This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must remain unshakeable," he declared.

But it is unshakeable, as proven by the hundreds if not thousands of mosques in America, including many in the New York region. And it's worth noting that Obama made his announcement to Muslims marking Ramadan at the White House -- hardly a sign of religious oppression.

Yeah, well said.  We will be spending a good part of this afternoon trying to find a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia, to whose king our president bowed down in Mr. Obama's first year in office.

At first, the White House said that Mr. Obama wouldn't get involved in the mosque controversy.

All that changed on a Friday night, without public warning, showing bad faith and bad manners. Then again, both are a habit with this president, which is why the nation has soured on him so quickly.

The more we found out, the less we liked.  We would have come to that conclusion earlier, but an in-the-tank press covered for Obama during the 2008 campaign.

One thing is certain: the mosque will now be a hot issue in the midterm elections and a litmus test for candidates across the country. It would serve Obama right if he loses his House and Senate majorities over his support.

Even New York Democrats are pulling away from Obama, and this is one of the bluest of the blue states.  Tells you something.

August 15, 2010       Permalink

INDIES TURN ON OBAMA – AT 9:57 A.M. ET:  A new AP poll confirms the shift of independents away from Obama and the Democratic Party:

WASHINGTON — Independents who embraced President Barack Obama's call for change in 2008 are ready for a shift again, and that's worrisome news for Democrats.

Only 32 percent of those citing no allegiance to either major party say they want Democrats to keep control of Congress in this November's elections, according to combined results of recent Associated Press-GfK polls. That's way down from the 52 percent of independents who backed Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain two years ago, and the 49 percent to 41 percent edge by which they preferred Democratic candidates for the House in that election, according to exit polls of voters.

Independents voice especially strong concerns about the economy, with 9 in 10 calling it a top problem and no other issue coming close, the analysis of the AP-GfK polls shows. While Democrats and Republicans rank the economy the No. 1 problem in similar numbers, they are nearly as worried about their No. 2 issues, health care for Democrats and terrorism for Republicans.

Ominously for Democrats, independents trust Republicans more on the economy by a modest but telling 42 percent to 36 percent. That's bad news for the party that controls the White House and Congress at a time of near 10 percent unemployment and the slow economic recovery.

"People are just struggling, they need a job but there's nowhere to get a job," said independent Leilani Buxman, 55, of Greeley, Colo. Of Obama, she said, "It seems like he talks but he doesn't do anything about it."

COMMENT:  We're halfway through August.  The election campaign begins in earnest in two and a half weeks.  We'll then have two months until election day – the most critical two months in a midterm campaign in our lifetime. 

We are awaiting a Republican statement of principles, due from the congressional leadership.  That's a good first step.  After that, the GOP must be prepared to counter what will undoubtedly be a stunning fear campaign.

It can be done.  I look forward to the time, three months from now, when we celebrate a famous victory...assuming we earn it.

August 15, 2010     Permalink

SATURDAY,  AUGUST 14,  2010

HOLY SMOKE OVER HOLY GROUND – AT 8:58 P.M. ET:   More and more, President Obama resembles a Japanese kamikaze pilot who can't wait to get into the plane. Last night he made a strong, completely unsolicited defense of the mosque at Ground Zero...while speaking to a Muslim group at the White House. 

Today the president backed off a bit, saying that, well, he really wasn't endorsing the mosque, just the right of its sponsors to build it where they want to build it.

That doesn't wash.  Obama has created a new mess.   

There has been the predictable uproar.  The position of those who oppose the mosque, 70% of Americans according to surveys, was well summed up by Sarah Palin:

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people?

Please tell us your position.

We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade.

If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive "cross-cultural engagement" and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite?

There hasn't been any polling since last night's presidential declaration to determine whether this latest trip to kamikaze land has further damaged Mr. Obama's standing. 

Urgent Agenda's spirited reader, our resident cheerleader and a founding subscriber, adds her blunt and telling comment:

Barack seems to be saying all religions are created equally.  So where the hell was he at the National Prayer Breakfast?

Yeah, really.

August 14, 2010     Permalink

WELCOME TO THE BASEMENT – AT 8:49 P.M. ET:   President Obama scores his lowest ratings yet in the Gallup Poll.

The president's approval rating stands at 43%, while 48% disapprove.

Gallup makes the point that the party of a president whose approval dips below 50% loses, on average, 36 seats the House in midterm elections.  With Mr. Obama at 43%, the GOP is in position to win the 41 seats needed to take the House and send Nancy Pelosi back to obscurity.

August 14, 2010      Permalink

GERMAN ECONOMIC SUCCESS – AT 6:07 A.M. ET:  Reader Tino Manus alerts us to stories about the new German economic success.  Germany is defying the trendiness of Europe, and is getting results.  From The New York Times:

BERLIN — Germany has sparred with its European partners over how to respond to the financial crisis, argued with the United States over the benefits of stimulus versus austerity, and defiantly pursued its own vision of how to keep its economy strong.

Statistics released Friday buttress Germany’s view that it had the formula right all along. The government on Friday announced quarter-on-quarter economic growth of 2.2 percent, Germany’s best performance since reunification 20 years ago — and equivalent to a nearly 9 percent annual rate if growth were that robust all year.

The strong growth figures will also bolster the conviction here that German workers and companies in recent years made the short-term sacrifices necessary for long-term success that Germany’s European partners did not...

...A vast expansion of a program paying to keep workers employed, rather than dealing with them once they lost their jobs, was the most direct step taken in the heat of the crisis.

And...

By paring unemployment benefits, easing rules for hiring and firing, and management and labor’s working together to keep a lid on wages, Germany ensured that it could again export its way to growth with competitive, nimble companies producing the cars and machine tools the world’s economies — emerging and developed alike — demanded.

Germans steered clear of the debt-fueled consumption boom that many believe contributed to the financial crisis. During the recession, Chancellor Angela Merkel resisted the palliative of government spending that the United States and some European partners felt was crucial to restoring growth.

COMMENT:  Okay, okay.  Message received.  We should study what Germany has done, but we should study it with care.  Remember, it wasn't many years ago that Americans thought the Japanese economy would take over the world.  It did not.  It became something of a basket case because of a number of factors, cultural and economic.

Germany has apparently done some good things.  But always look at economies over the long term.  Will the German economic success last, or will it founder on a lack of imagination and a shortage of the dreamers and innovators that have often kept America strong?

Let's not repeat the mistake we made in thinking the Japanese were nine feet tall.  We can learn from others, but never sell Americans short.  Some boys fooling around with computer parts in California garages during the 1970s changed the world.  So far, German economic decisions have changed only Germany.

August 14, 2010      Permalink 

OH GEE, THANKS – AT 6:04 A.M. ET:  President Obama has graciously consented to spend some vacation time on the Gulf Coast.  Aren't you excited?

President Barack Obama is finally doing what he’s been telling Americans to do all summer: He’s spending time with his family on the Gulf Coast.

His toe-dip of a visit is less a relaxing, presidential vacation than it is an all-inclusive business trip. In fewer than 27 hours in Panama City, Fla., Obama will meet with business owners about the lingering impact of the BP oil spill, deliver a speech at the U.S. Coast Guard office and star in a series of photo-ops intended to jolt to the region’s sagging tourism industry.

COMMENT:  Oh, we're just so grateful.  We're so delighted that dear leader has been able to squeeze in a visit to the Gulf Coast between Michelle's now-famous trip to Spain and the first family's upcoming 10-day vacation on Martha's Vineyard.  We hope Gulf residents will send thank-you notes and cakes to the White House.

Even The Politico, hardly a right-wing outfit, observes:

One night in Panama City before spending 10 days in Martha’s Vineyard hasn’t helped combat any building perception problem. The Gulf Coast trip seemed almost grudging.

It is grudging.  Obama put it on the schedule only after repeated complaints that he'd ignored the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of the oil spill.  We regret, of course, that the first family will be forced to do a few hours of slumming before visiting the truly beautiful people in the Vineyard.

Yuch.

August 14, 2010      Permalink

AUGUST 14 – AT 6:02 A.M. ET:  Today is the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II.  It was on this day in 1945 that Japan surrendered.  I remember someone shouting up to my mother, who was in our fourth-floor apartment in New York City, "The war is over, the war is over!"

The feeling, for many, was bittersweet.  Like many American families, we had suffered battle casualties, although none in our immediate household.  In apartments and homes that displayed gold stars in the windows, celebrations were muted. 

Victory was preceded by the use of two atomic bombs.  Americans understood why they had to be used.  Having read the horror reports from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the last two great battles of the Pacific war, they realized how ghastly American casualties had become.  They understood what an invasion of Japan, made unnecessary by the nuclear bombs, would cost.

And yet, in the decades since, we have been repeatedly lectured by so-called "peace activists" about the use of the atomic bombs.  Some years ago, a group of "curators" at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington attempted to turn the exhibit of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, into a festival of left-wing thought.  Why, the Japanese were merely defending their "sacred" empire, the text for the exhibit said.  There was a moral equivalence.  Maybe we didn't quite understand the nobility of Japan.  There was nothing in the text about the rape of China, and the unspeakable behavior of the Japanese military in the Pacific.  Veterans were furious.  They'd been there.  They'd seen.

Fortunately, the Smithsonian withdrew the exhibit for rewriting.  On cue, the "intellectuals" of the mainstream media started their whine.  The New York Times accused the veterans of "hijacking history."  Well, history had indeed been hijacked by that withdrawn exhibit.  But it had been hijacked by the curators, demonstrating what came to be known as "political correctness."

The veterans who won that August 14th victory are dying at a great rate now.  The youngest American servicemen in 1945 would be about 82 today.  In the next few decades, a living World War II veteran will be a rarity.  We owe those veterans much, but perhaps the greatest thing we owe them is to prevent the wanton distortion of history that demeans their victory and the meaning behind it.  It is because of their sacrifice that Americans today can write, publish, broadcast, dissent, and interpret events any way they wish.  But with those rights come responsibility.  We hear a great deal about the rights.  We don't hear enough about the responsibility.

August 14, 2010     Permalink