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.

THURSDAY,  JUNE 24,  2010

NICE OF THEM – AT 9:39 A.M. ET:  From NewsBusters:

In a classic example of liberal hypocrisy, the far-left leaning, George Soros-funded group MoveOn.org has removed its controversial "General Betray Us" ad from its website.

For those that have forgotten, shortly after General David Petraeus issued his report to Congress in September 2007 concerning the condition of the war in Iraq and the success of that March's troop surge, MoveOn placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with the headline, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

This created quite a firestorm with media outlets on both sides of the aisle circling the wagons to either defend or berate both the Times and MoveOn.

Now that President Obama has appointed Petraeus to replace the outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the war effort in Afghanistan, the folks on the far-left that castigated Petraeus when he worked for George W. Bush have to sing a different tune.

With that in mind, the ad, which has been at MoveOn's website for years, was unceremoniously removed on Wednesday as reported by our friends at Weasel Zippers.

COMMENT:  They're kind of like the old Leninists.  Things and people just disappear.

There's much buzz tonight, although I can't confirm it, that Obama himself chose Petraeus for the Afghanistan assignment, even though Petraeus wasn't on the list of generals recommended by Secretary of Defense Gates.  That raises all kinds of questions as to what Obama's motive is.  Did he simply decide to pick the best man?  Does he want to wrap an Afghanistan failure around Petraeus's neck?  Is he trying to sideline Petraeus as a possible 2012 presidential nominee?

We may never find out, but, as we noted earlier today, Petraeus is politically savvy, and it's unlikely he'd allow himself to fall into a political trap. 

The coming Petraeus-Obama relationship will be one of the most intriguing, I would imagine, that we've seen in recent years. 

Petraeus is said to be a "Rockefeller Republican."  Hmm.  I'm just throwing this out:  Will we see an Obama-Petraeus ticket in 2012, and Petraeus, as a Democrat, in 2016?  I don't think so, but it's juicy.

June 24, 2010     Permalink

HAILING HALEY THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY – AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  We've been following the quiet rise of Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi within GOP ranks.  Now comes the money part.  From The Politico:

As Haley Barbour continues brushing aside speculation about his presidential prospects, the Mississippi governor is discreetly building a complex political operation rivaling those of any other 2012 GOP presidential prospects.

His apparatus, which has socked away hundreds of thousands of dollars this year alone, will get a major boost — as will the Barbour 2012 buzz — when the governor takes some time away from the Gulf oil spill threatening his home region’s shorelines to attend a big fundraiser Thursday for one of his three political action committees.

The fundraiser, set for adjoining hot spots in Washington’s trendy Glover Park neighborhood, has been the talk of Washington GOP circles, boasting a host committee that reads like a next-generation GOP bundling and campaign dream team.

COMMENT:  Barbour, an excellent and respected governor, used to be Republican national chairman.  He knows what levers to pull or who to get to pull them.

Can he be president?  Long shot, I'd say.  His great asset has been his record as Mississippi governor.  That is also his greatest problem – the name of the state.  Its racial history inevitably comes up.

Barbour is rumpled and a bit plump.  But if the Repubicans are looking for rumpled and plump, they can choose new Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, who's become a sensation.  Tough spoken and refreshing, he's doing as governor exactly what he said he'd do, taking on the interests that have led N.J. almost to bankruptcy.  His Fox News interviews, on YouTube, have gone viral. 

Some say Christie is too unattractive and rotund to be president in the TV age.  I don't know.  Could be Americans are tired of toned and chic.  Mr. T&C hasn't exactly brought home the bacon, low-fat or normal.

And if not Chris Christie, well, Haley Barbour looks rumpled enough. 

June 24, 2010     Permalink

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES – AT 7:27 P.M. ET:  We were being assured by the administration only hours ago, it seems, that the date to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011 was firm.  That was BMc, before McChrystal and his now-famous flap.  Suddenly, with Petraeus in the hot seat, the timelines they are a-changin'.  From The Politico:

A day after replacing the top American general in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama said Thursday that U.S. troops could remain in significant numbers in the country well after his withdrawal timeline begins next summer.

Though his plan calls for the start of a troop withdrawal in a year, “We did not say, starting in July 2011, suddenly there will be no troops from the United States or allied countries in Afghanistan,” Obama said at a joint White House press conference with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

“We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us,” Obama said. “We said we’d begin a transition phase that would allow the Afghan government to take more and more responsibility.”

The answer was Obama’s clearest description of his timetable for bringing troops home from the war – a schedule many analysts felt was unrealistic with the Afghanistan conflict growing more violent and difficult to manage.

Obama’s answer seemed to run counter to the description of the Afghanistan troop-withdrawal timeline Vice President Joe Biden gave to author Jonathan Alter. In a recently-published book on Obama’s first year as president, Alter quotes Biden as saying, "in July of 2011, you're going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it."

Biden’s office, however, has since downplayed the statement, saying Biden had made a hurried, off-hand remark.

COMMENT:  An off-hand remark from Joe Biden?  Whoever heard of such a thing?

I suspect that there's a deal with Petraeus, who doesn't like to lose and is smart enough not to let himself be set up.  Any smart guy would have demanded a guarantee that the Afghan rug wouldn't be pulled out from under him by an arbitrary withdrawal date.

But the left wing of the Democratic Party, some of whose members probably refer to Joe Stalin as Uncle Joe as a sign of affection, must be fuming.  Like many 1930s Republicans, they've become isolationists in everything but name.  But I doubt if they'd turn on Barack.  I mean, who've they got?  Ahmadinejad is Constitutionally ineligible. 

June 24, 2010     Permalink

IT'S GREEK TO OBAMA – AT 11:28 A.M. ET:  Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist, examines President Obama and finds him presiding over a Greek tragedy.   From RealClearPolitics:

Do you remember candidate Barack Obama offering his hope-and-change platitudes in front of the fake Greek columns during the Democratic convention? Or earlier pontificating at the Victory Monument in Berlin?

Why didn't an old cigar-chomping Democratic pro take him aside and warn him about offending Nemesis? She is the dreaded goddess who brings divine retribution in ironic fashion to overweening arrogance.

The old pros were eased out years ago, except in parts of Chicago.  They've been replaced by people who take the Earth's temperature twice a day and call Al Gore in the morning.

Didn't Team Obama ever suspect that such an unhinged press, in the manner of a Greek chorus, could just as easily sour on their prophet once his poll ratings fell as quickly as they had soared?

And...

Couldn't David Axelrod or Rahm Emanuel have admonished their candidate to cut out the creepy stuff about himself and his throng being "the ones we've been waiting for"? Why was there a need for all that megalomaniac hocus-pocus about slowing the "rise of the oceans" and healing the planet? Sure enough, Nemesis ensured that instead of Lord Poseidon lowering the seas, Obama is now a smoky Hephaestus fouling them up.

Finally...

Most mortals in Obama's position would have treaded lightly. They would have kept promises, steered a moderate course and listened more than lectured until they won over the public with concrete achievement.

But headstrong tragic figures do not do that. They neither welcome in critics nor would listen to them if they did. They impute their unforeseen temporary success to their own brilliance -- and expect it to continue forever. So would-be gods set themselves up for a fall far harder than what happens to the rest of us.

That's about where we are now, with our president playing a character right out of Greek tragedy, who, true to form, is railing about the unfairness of it all.

COMMENT:  Yeah, that pretty much says it.  And what if Obama gets a second term?  Second terms are almost always worse than the first, and Obama, in a second term, wouldn't have the prospect of running again to restrain him.  That is the true nightmare we must avoid in November of 2012.  We can begin laying the groundwork this November. 

June 24, 2010     Permalink

AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE TROUBLE DECIDING WHERE THE TRIAL WOULD BE HELD – AT 9:22 A.M. ET.  From the Washington Post:

SARGODHA, PAKISTAN -- Five Northern Virginia men were convicted on terror charges Thursday by a Pakistani court and sentenced to 10 years in prison, prosecutors and defense lawyers said, in a case that heightened concerns about Westerners traveling to Pakistan to join forces with extremist groups.

The trial of the young Muslim men who lived and grew up in the Alexandria section of Fairfax County was sensitive for the United States, which has a duty to ensure justice for its citizens but also has pushed Pakistan to crack down on militancy.

The men, who worshipped at the same small mosque in Fairfax, were arrested in Pakistan in December after their families reported them missing. At the time, the men ranged in age from 18 to 24.

Prosecutors said e-mail records and witness statements proved the men were plotting terror attacks in Pakistan and had conspired to wage war against nations allied with Pakistan -- a reference to Afghanistan, where the men were alleged to have been traveling. Officials alleged that all five men intended to go to South Waziristan for training and eventually travel to Afghanistan and fight alongside the Taliban against U.S troops stationed there.

COMMENT:  Once again we're reminded of the terror threat.  One of these days our luck will falter and a lone terrorist, or a group, will pull off another spectacular on our soil.

In the meantime, our attorney general, Eric Holder, is still "deciding" where the trial of those associated with 9-11 will be hold.  The 9-11 attacks occurred almost nine years ago. 

June 24, 2010     Permalink

THE SANDS OF TIME – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  We're history buffs here, and so are many of our readers, so I thought you'd like to know this, from the New York Post:

LOS ANGELES - A nurse famously photographed being kissed by an American sailor in New York’s Times Square in 1945 to celebrate the end of World War Two has died at the age of 91, her family said on Tuesday.

The V-J Day picture of the white-clad Edith Shain by photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt captured an epic moment in U.S. history and became an iconic image marking the end of the war after being published in Life magazine.

The identity of the nurse in the photograph was not known until the late 1970s when Shain wrote to the photographer saying that she was the woman in the picture taken on August 14 at a time when she had been working at Doctor's Hospital in New York City...

...Shain, who died at her home in Los Angeles on Sunday, leaves behind three sons, six grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.

We can't reproduce the photo legally, but you can find it here.  Many of you probably have it etched in your minds. 

The greatest generation is dying out.  A sailor who was only 18 in 1945 would be 83 today.  Pretty soon, they'll all be gone...replaced by...must we say it...the sixties generation.

We can correct that in time.

June 24, 2010      Permalink

MORE BAD POLL NEWS FOR OBAMA – AT 8:33 A.M. ET:  The president may get a brief bump from the McChrystal episode, only because he showed some leadership for a change, but a major poll just released will not bring joy to the First Golfer.  From The Wall Street Journal:

Americans are more pessimistic about the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll...

...Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years.

And...

For Democrats, the results underscore the potential for major losses in November. Both parties have been forced to contend with an anti-establishment wave this year. But Republicans, through strong fund raising and candidate recruitment, have put enough seats in play in the House and Senate to give the GOP a realistic shot at winning control of both chambers.

Support for Mr. Obama and his party is declining among centrist, independent voters. But, more ominous for the president, some in his base also are souring, with 17% of Democrats disapproving of Mr. Obama's job performance, the highest level of his presidency.

If there is good news for the president, it ironically comes from the Rasmussen poll, where Mr. Obama's approval rating has bounced back from a low and is now at 48%.

For the Republicans, the trends are generally good, but they vary from week to week, the election is four months away, and the Dems will not play dead. 

June 24, 2010     Permalink

AND NOW THE SEQUEL, COMING SOON – AT 8:19 A.M. ET:  Now that McChrystal is gone, politicans and pundits are urging the president to take some further action to give us at least a fighting chance in Afghanistan.  Republican Rep. Peter King of New York, who has been a stalwart in the war on terror, has some solid ideas:

Vice President Biden must not be allowed to continue contradicting Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and undercut our military commanders in Afghanistan by saying that large numbers of troops will be pulled out of Afghanistan next summer.

Karl Eikenberry, our ambassador to Afghanistan, must not be allowed to publicly criticize Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose support is essential to our success.

The bottom line is that this administration has been divided and dysfunctional in implementing its Afghanistan policy. We cannot succeed unless the Afghans and Pakistanis are convinced that we are committed to the mission and that we will not abandon the battlefield by an arbitrary date.

The repeated assurances from McChrystal, Gates and Clinton that there would be only a small drawdown of American troops in July 2011 has been repeatedly undercut by Biden's pronouncements that a "whole lot" of troops will be pulled out. No wonder the Afghans and Pakistanis are hedging their bets and local officials and tribal leaders are reluctant to sign on with us.

COMMENT:  In other words, Mr. President, show as much concern for the chaos in your administration as you did over critical comments McChrystal and his aides made in a magazine article.  Our mission in Afghanistan is not going well.  And yet, Americans understand that it must succeed.  Your own party once described Afghanistan as the "good war," yet the left wing of your party wants to shut it down with no victory.

Are you president of "all the people," or are you president only of the left?  We'll soon find out.

June 24, 2010    Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  JUNE 23,  2010

MARCH OF JOURNALISM NEWS – AT 7:59 P.M. ET:  CNN, not exactly wealthy in the ratings, is going rogue with a new show featuring a disgraced governor.  No word yet on whether the governor's former, er, business associates will be involved, but it will be quite a show if they are:

Eliot Spitzer, until very recently known primarily as the disgraced former governor of New York, will formally re-emerge as a regular television personality as the host of new prime-time news discussion program on CNN next fall.

The news network announced Tuesday that Mr. Spitzer would be joined by the Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative columnist for The Washington Post, Kathleen Parker, in a format that the CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein is describing as a “roundup of all the best ideas” of the day.

I wonder if hiring prostitutes would be considered a "best idea," since that is what Spitzer did while governor of New York. 

Spitzer has always wanted to be president.  The governor thing got buried between the sheets.  Maybe his new role as TV host will fare a little better...if he can keep his hands off Kathleen.

June 23, 2010      Permalink

NEXT HEADS? – AT 7:49 P.M. ET:  With Petraeus now firmly in command in Afghanistan, some are wondering whether other heads will join Stanley McChrystal's, rolling down a hill.  Clearly, there are some nominations.  From Fox:

President Obama won virtually unanimous praise for reshuffling his Afghanistan command in the name of unity on Wednesday -- but lawmakers and military analysts said they want to see the president heed his own no-tolerance policy and crack the whip on the civilian side when there's division in the ranks...

..."There clearly isn't unity," said Pete Hegseth, an Iraq veteran and executive director of Vets for Freedom. "McChrystal aired some frustration that a lot of people have been having."

And...

Some of the most searing and direct criticism in the Rolling Stone article was aimed at Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who threw a wrench into the months-long strategy review process last year by raising critical questions about the troop buildup McChrystal was advocating and which was eventually adopted.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., strongly suggested Wednesday that Eikenberry may present the next hurdle to mission unity in Afghanistan.

"We still have concerns about the civilian side," he said. "In fact, we might suggest that a consideration be given to reuniting the Crocker-Petraeus team."

Ryan Crocker was the top diplomat in Iraq while Petraeus was in command. The two were considered a dynamic team.

And a successful team.  Now, with all the hoopla over a general being fired, Americans will demand that Obama produce something in Afghanistan.  One obstacle is clearly our skeptical ambassador.  And other obstacles may work in the White House.

June 23, 2010     Permalink

OUR GREAT NATIONAL NIGHTMARE IS OVER – AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  And it only took a day.  President Obama, as everyone knows by now, "accepted" the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal as our commander in Afghanistan.

Obama was gracious in his comments about McChrystal.  This was the president's "big firing" thus far.  Perhaps symbolic of this administration, McChrystal was fired, not for something he did, but for something he said...in this case to a reporter. 

There is no word on whether McChrystal will write his memoirs, or whether he already has a literary agent or movie deal.  Given what has happened to the film industry, it's unlikely that many of its "executives" have ever heard of Stan McChrystal or would have any interest in anything he said, unless it appealed to 12-year-olds and could be set to hip-hop "music."

Somewhat odd was Obama's appointment of Dave Petraeus to replace McChrystal.  Petraeus, head of CENTCOM, was already McChrystal's boss.  He will now wear two hats.

Of course, the choice of Petraeus has some obvious roots.  First, he's well-known to the public, and the choice will be popular.  Second, this pretty much eliminates Petraeus as a 2012 presidential candidate, unless there's some dramatic, and unlikely, resignation in protest in Petraeus's future.  Third, the quick appointment eliminates the Washington guessing game.

I've been monitoring the reaction to today's events.  Most pundits agree that the president was well within his rights, legal and moral, to remove McChrystal.  Some former Army officers regretted McChrystal's departure and blamed Obama and his leadership.  But I suspect this episode will blow over quickly.

June 23, 2010      Permalink

JEB SURFACES – AT 8:39 A.M. ET:  There's been some political buzz recently about Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida and brother of Dubya, as a possible presidential candidate.  It's a long shot, but Jeb has started to emerge, is attacking Obama and defending his brother.  From The New York Times:

CORAL GABLES, Fla. — For months now, Jeb Bush has been listening as President Obama blasts his older brother’s administration for the battered economy, budget deficits and even the lax oversight of oil wells.

“It’s kind of like a kid coming to school saying, ‘The dog ate my homework,’ ” Mr. Bush, this state’s former governor, said over lunch last week at the Biltmore Hotel. “It’s childish. This is what children do until they mature. They don’t accept responsibility.”

In fact, instead of constantly bashing the 43rd president, Mr. Bush offered, perhaps Mr. Obama could learn something from him, especially when it comes to ignoring the Washington chatter. “This would break his heart, to get advice that applies some of the lessons of leadership my brother learned, because he apparently likes to act like he’s still campaigning, and he likes to blame George’s administration for everything,” Mr. Bush said, dangling a ketchup-soaked French fry. “But he really seems like he’s getting caught up in what people are writing about him.”

“I mean, good God, man, read a book!” Mr. Bush said with a laugh. “Go watch ESPN!”

Naturally, a Times writer cannot avoid the required Bush bashing, without which pensions will not be paid:

Washington wisdom — such as it is — holds that the real impediment to Mr. Bush’s political future would be the Bush brand, which has taken a pounding both inside the party and out. Neither George W. Bush nor his father ranks among the more successful presidents of our time, to put it politely.

Jeb Bush’s admirers insist, however, that whatever cloud existed over the name is lifting, as memories of the last Bush era recede, replaced by a hardened conservative opposition to Mr. Obama’s policies. And those who know Mr. Bush say he has never concerned himself with it. “He’s the guy who cares about that the least,” said Nicholas Ayers, executive director of the Republican Governors Association.

We'll watch Jeb, who was a very successful governor and has the added political advantage of being married to a Hispanic woman. 

Look, you never know.  Dubya's beginning to look awfully good, compared to the current train wreck.  And Jeb is his own guy with his own approach. 

At the same time, the GOP is building up a sizable pool of presidential talent, including the old-timers like Romney and the newer-timers like Jindal.  Jeb, you might just have to wait your turn.

June 23, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA AND AFGHANISTAN – AT 7:36 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone nails the issues, as he usually does, surrounding the latest crisis, the McChrystal bit, hurting our efforts in Afghanistan.  From the Washington Examiner:

Unfortunately, there's not much correlation between the skill set needed to win the Iowa caucuses and the Super Tuesday primaries and that needed to decide on military strategies and to select the appropriate commanders for different military operations.

Obama's decision-making on Afghanistan so far could be characterized as splitting the difference. He added troops early on and opted for McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy while propitiating his party's left wing with something in the nature of a deadline for withdrawal.

While backing McChrystal, he also appointed as our civilian leader in Afghanistan retired Gen. Karl Eikenberry, who disagreed with McChrystal's strategy. By all accounts, including Rolling Stone's, they have not had the close cooperative relationship that Gen. David Petraeus and civilian honcho Ryan Crocker had in Iraq in 2007 and 2008...

...Obama leads a political party which before his election argued that Afghanistan was the good war (and Iraq the bad one) but which is now divided on whether we should persevere there. He faces an opposition party which mostly supports our course in Afghanistan but is worried about our prospects there and fears a premature withdrawal.

He is not the first president to head a national security establishment that is divided and distrustful, as the Rolling Stone article confirms. And he is surely not the first president to be the subject of disparaging remarks by his military subordinates.

But unfortunately those remarks have come out into the open in a way that makes it very hard to go on splitting the difference. If Gen. McChrystal has to go, as seems likely as this is written, then it may be time to consider other changes in personnel.

And it may be time for Obama to embrace a word he has been reluctant to utter: Victory. His duty is to set a course that will produce success, to install the people who can achieve that goal and to give them the backing they need.

We didn't need this, and Obama didn't either. But he wanted the job, and now he must command.

COMMENT:  An excellent view, from a political perspective, of where Obama now stands.  We all await the news from the president's confrontation with McChrystal in the Oval Office today.  Obama has a history of messing up virtually anything except his own election, and his relationship with the military is chilly, at best. 

One would hope that the president, for the first time, would avoid genuflecting to the Massachusetts and California delegations of his party, and take into account the view of those Americans who believe, as Michael Barone does, that "victory" is an honorable word.

June 23, 2010      Permalink

YEAH, I WOULD THINK SO.  WHAT ABOUT EXECUTION? – AT 7:26 A.M. ET:  The McChrystal affair has claimed its first casualty, and deservedly so.  From WaPo: 

KABUL -- Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's civilian press aide resigned Tuesday over an upcoming magazine story that portrayed the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and some of his aides as derisive toward Obama administration officials.

Duncan Boothby, who has been on McChrystal's staff for roughly a year, was the first casualty of a controversy that prompted White House officials to summon the general to the White House to explain the remarks in the profile that will appear in this week's issue of Rolling Stone.

Boothby was heavily involved in arranging access for journalist Michael Hastings to McChrystal and his staff this year so Hastings could write the profile, titled "The Runaway General."

An official in Kabul confirmed the resignation, speaking on condition of anonymity because it was a personnel issue.

Boothby is not a military officer. He is one of a growing number of civilians hired as press aides for senior military brass as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to generate considerable public interest and controversy.

COMMENT:  I guarantee you that he will never be a press aide to a uniformed officer again.  What was the man thinking – arranging that much access for a reporter from a counterculture, leftist magazine with no warmth for the military?

Okay, New York Times, there's this great guy available.  Experience in Afghanistan.  Named Duncan...

June 23, 2010      Permalink

IS JIMMAH CONCERNED ABOUT THIS? – AT 7:14 A.M. ET:  Maybe Jimmah Carter can ease his distress (see post just below) by taking on the Iranian nuclear program.  Of course, he'd probably reply, "What nuclear program?"  Apparently, it's up and running.  From Reuters:

Iran has enriched 17 kg of uranium to 20 percent purity, a top official said on Wednesday, underscoring Tehran's determination to push ahead with its nuclear program despite new international sanctions.

Iran's enrichment activities are at the heart of its standoff with the West which fears it is seeking nuclear weapons capability. Two weeks ago, the United Nations Security Council agreed to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran.

Iran started refining uranium to 20 percent purity -- up from around 5 percent -- in February, saying it aimed to make fuel for a medical research reactor.

The move -- a significant step towards making weapons-grade uranium, which is 90 percent enriched -- has alarmed the West.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and primarily aimed at electricity generation.

"We have already produced 17 kg of 20 percent enriched uranium, and we have the ability to produce 5 kg each month but we do not rush," Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency...

...Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London told Reuters that around 200 kg of 20 percent enriched uranium, if further enriched, would be required to make a nuclear bomb.

COMMENT:  The claim cannot be verified, but the statement is one of defiance, and statements like that in the past have accurately predicted Iran's ignoring of sanctions.  There is no reason to believe that the lastest set, voted by the UN, will result in any success. 

And when Iran gets the bomb?  Well, Obama can blame it on Bush and Cheney.  But now he can introduce a new scapegoat:  McCHRYSTAL (!!!!).  "He distracted me.  I was working on the problem, and would've turned Iran into an ally, but that general, he took all my energy."

And some would believe that.

June 23, 2010      Permalink

BULLETIN:  NATION POSSIBLY IN DANGER – AT 7:05 A.M. ET:  We at Urgent Agenda are entirely committed to the safety of the United States.  When that safety is threatened, we let you know immediately.  Today we have a crisis:

(CNSNews.com) – Former President Jimmy Carter has voiced concern that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on “material support” to terrorist groups may criminalize his “work to promote peace and freedom.”

Carter, whose advocacy has entailed contact with groups designated by the U.S. government as “foreign terrorist organizations” (FTOs) – notably Hamas and Hezbollah – said he was disappointed by the court decision...

...Arguing that there can be no peace in the region without those groups’ participation, Carter has reached out to Hamas and Hezbollah, rejecting criticism that doing so could be viewed as legitimizing their violent activities. Since the 1980s both groups have killed hundreds of people in suicide bombings and other terror attacks, most of them Israelis and Americans.

You will notice all the good that Carter has done.  In the immortal words of Dwight Eisenhower, in another context, if you give me a week, I might be able to think of something.

In a statement reacting to the decision, Carter said, “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups.”

“The ‘material support law’ – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence,” he said.

“The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom.”

Well, there goes Mideast peace.  And just when Carter was on the verge of achieving it. 

Damn Supreme Court, always on the side of the BUSH (!!) crowd.

Without Jimmah Carter, what are we going to do?

For laughs.

June 23, 2010     Permalink