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.

MARCH 17,  2011

ALL HILLARY ALL THE TIME – AT 10:05 P.M. ET:   We started with a piece on Hillary Clinton this morning, reporting her declaration to Wolf Blitzer that she wanted to retire from public life at the end of Obama's first term, and had no intention of running for president again.  We noted that she might well mean this, but that it wasn't exactly the Sherman Oath.  ("If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve."

The internet today has been filled with stories about Hillary.  Indeed, once the UN Security Council authorized military action in Libya, the Drudge Report's main headline was "HILLARY'S WAR."  From The Politico:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s revelation that she won’t be staying on if there is a second Obama term may have been news to those who don’t know her, but did not surprise her friends, who say she’s spending an increasing amount of time considering her post-government options even as challenges mount at Foggy Bottom.

Clinton has made similar “I’m not here forever” comments before – but it was the timing of her remarks to CNN on Wednesday that raised eyebrows, coming at a critical moment in her fierce internal battle to push President Barack Obama to join the fight to liberate Libya from Muammar Qadhafi.

We haven't seen much reporting about this "fierce internal battle," and I wonder why.  There were leaks about it all over Washington today, as Hillary's supporters made clear her disaffection from this president.  One report had the secretary of state beside herself in frustration over Obama's lack of decisiveness.

Clinton’s persistence in the anti-Qadhafi cause has been such a constant in the White House in recent days that Obama, according to reports, joked about Clinton lobbing rocks through his window during his remarks at Saturday night’s Gridiron dinner.

“Stay tuned,” said one Clinton friend when asked if the secretary would ultimately prevail.

COMMENT:  The most asked question, of course, is whether Clinton could challenge Obama for the presidency in 2012.  I think the answer is pretty obvious:  She can't because she would lose the black vote immediately, and, by definition, lose the election even if she got the nomination.  She can only contemplate a presidential run next year, despite her claim that she's no longer interested, if Obama steps aside.  There is no indication that he plans any such thing.

Hillary's story is not over.  Don't believe everything you read in the papers.

March 17, 2011      Permalink

BRITAIN IS READY – AT 8:42 P.M. ET:  I must say that British Prime Minister David Cameron is proving to be a stand-up guy.  Compare please to lie-down-guy Barack H. Obama Jr.  Cameron is moving quickly to act on the UN Libya resolution.  Britain's military assets are small compared with ours, but the Brits know how to use their equipment effectively, and their defense minister, Liam Fox, is a gem in the Churchill tradition.

From Britain's Guardian, a left-wing newspaper that occasionally gets it right:

RAF ground attack aircraft are ready to help impose a no-fly zone over Libya as ministers ordered defence chiefs to finalise plans enabling Britain to take part immediately in military action against forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi.

Tornado all-weather attack aircraft, equipped with precision weapons, were almost certain to be the first British assets used in any military operation, officials said. They are based at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland and RAF Marham in Norfolk.

Though due to phased out under the government's defence their performance has been tested in operations over decades. It was not immediately clear whether they would fly from a military base in southern France or from RAF Akrotiri, in one of Britain's sovereign base areas in Cyprus.

It was also unclear whether Eurofighter Typhoons would take part in an operation. Britain has two ships off the Libyan coast, and Chinook helicopters and early-warning aircraft equipped with long-range radar based in Malta, but would need permission from the Maltese government to use them in action over Libya.

For this reason, it would be easier for British aircraft to be based in Cyprus or France, which also strongly supports a no-fly zone. British forces could also use bases in Egypt if the new government there agreed.

COMMENT:  Good for Britain.  For us, what can we say?  We're stuck with the weakest, most indecisive president since Carter.  We have Hamlet in the White House, and no leader has ever looked to Hamlet as a role model.

March 17, 2011       Permalink

BULLETIN – AT 7:56 P.M. ET:  The UN Security Council has voted to approve the use of force in Libya.  The resolution passed 10-0, with five abstentions.  Among the abstainers were Russia, China, and Germany.  Germany is, we presume, an ally of the U.S., Britain and France, and we should note its vote.  We expected more of Angela Merkel's government, but strange things seem to be happening in Germany.  They've happened there before.

We understand from initial news reports that military action to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya could begin within hours, led by Britain and France, with a possible assist from Italy.  However, some unnamed officials in both the United States and Europe, especially within the NATO headquarters, are ridiculing that idea, saying that it will take a few days to organize things.  

The United States might provide some logistical support, and it's understood that American air and naval assets might become more directly involved later.  We have no clear indication of how this is all being coordinated, and whether there's a single officer in command. 

There is deep concern among many military experts that this will be too little, too late, especially if a few more days are allowed to drift by.  Rebel forces are being pushed back in Libya, and Colonel Gadaffi has promised a bloodbath in Benghazi, the main rebel stronghold.  The Libyan government's attack on that Benghazi might even come overnight.

We are only now starting to get speculative stories on the kind of force that might be used initially, but they could include cruise-missile strikes at air-defense installations and airfields.

This is developing by the minute.

March 17, 2011       Permalink 

DELIGHTFUL! – AT 10:10 A.M. ET:  With all the grimness in the world, we try to find some stories to cheer us up.  I find this one just delightful, and further testament to the quality of American womanhood.  From The Politico:

The Marines aren’t the only ones looking for a few good men. So is the Network of Enlightened Women. Specifically, it wants a few good gentlemen.

The conservative college women’s organization has tapped March, the month that celebrates women’s history, for its annual Gentlemen’s Showcase, an online popularity contest that culls the testosterone-infused, scraggly bearded herd roaming most college campuses looking for a few “keepers.”

The criteria for consideration are spelled out on the group’s website: A gentleman opens doors for women, shovels the neighbor’s sidewalk, helps elderly women carry their groceries, is confident but not cocky, and … well, you get the idea.

Slobs, in other words, need not apply. In fact, men can’t apply at all. Nominations must come from women.

“We’re trying to encourage gentlemanly behavior on campus,” NeW founder Karin Agness, a onetime Hill intern, told POLITICO.

And...

...with new emphasis being placed on traditional social values by, among others, tea party activists and a growing number of female candidates (2010 was dubbed the “Year of the Conservative Woman”), the time may be ripe for NeW to make its mark as part of the culturally conservative movement.

COMMENT:  Three cheers and more!  But I'd like to know what female readers of Urgent Agenda think about this.  Please e-mail us.

March 17, 2011       Permalink

THE DANGER – AT 9:52 A.M. ET:  We are focused on Japan, and on Libya, and on our own budget mess.  But things are happening in the world that can have devastating consequences down the line.  They happen quietly, unless detected, but I'm afraid we're asleep.  From AFP:

UNITED NATIONS — South Korea and Singapore have intercepted suspected nuclear and weapons materials bound for Iran that breach UN sanctions imposed on the Islamic republic, diplomats said on Thursday.

The two seizures, made in the past six months but only revealed now, add to a growing list of alleged Iranian attempts to breach an international arms embargo, which are bringing mounting pressure to tighten sanctions, they said.

"South Korea authorities found more than 400 suspicious tubes in a jet cargo at Seoul airport in December," one diplomat told AFP, giving details from a report to the UN Iran sanctions committee.

The tubes could be used for nuclear facilities, the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the seizures have not been made public.

"In September, aluminium powder that can be used for rockets was found on a ship in Singapore harbor," the diplomat added.

In each case the product was destined for Iran.

The details were confirmed by a second envoy at the UN who said the sanctions committee would study them when it discusses the latest report from Iran experts monitoring the sanctions regime.

COMMENT:  Please note that there is nothing here indicating the country of origin of the suspicious cargo.  We like to think that only North Korea and a few rogue states, possibly including China, are making clandestine shipments to Iran.  But we've recently learned that some French companies are involved, and I would hardly be surprised if German companies, very eager to do business with Iran, are also implicated. 

The only thing that will stop this rush to nuclear madness is regime change in Iran.  But, when given a chance to support democracy protesters, the Obama faculty lounge responded with its usual "ho-hum, we'll think about it."  When Iran goes nuclear, we'll have plenty to think about.

March 17, 2011      Permalink

THE SILENCE – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  First, a question:  Have you noticed the absolute silence of the political left on the tragedy in Japan?  Oh, yes, a few leftist tongues are wagging about the nuclear issue, the better to send us all back to the "environmentally friendly" stone age. 

But as to the tragedy itself – the thousands dead and missing, the massive dislocation, the shortage of food – nothing, absolutely nothing.  Compare please to Haiti, where the left rushed in where real angels feared to tread.  The rock stars were on their private jets in minutes, flying down to embrace Haitian relief.  The result?  Haiti today, by most accounts, looks pretty much the same as it did the day after last year's earthquake.

I guess Haitians are just more deserving, although I know not why.

And have you also noticed the silence of the political left on the revolutions in the Mideast?  Now, wait, I thought these people were interested in "human rights."  Am I misinformed?  But have you noticed that all those people of the Code Pink stripe who whine about "the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people" never show the slightest interest in the rights of any other Arabs?  I wonder why that is.  You don't think it's because the Palestinians are battling Israel, and that Israel is an ally of the United States, do you?  Oh no, these "human rights activists" don't think that way, do they?  They certainly do.

I recall the Vietnam period.  The left whined mightily about "the Vietnamese people."  But when the war ended and the Cambodian genoicide began, that same left was utterly silent.  Only one prominent leftist voice, Joan Baez, spoke out on the horror, and she was shouted down immediately by Jane Fonda and others.  Of course, the left was utterly silent about the genocides in the old Soviet Union, so why should we have been surprised? 

So, what do we learn from all this?  We learn that Haitians are more important than Japanese.  Palestinians are more important than other Arabs.  And human life, on the hard left, is simply a matter of politics.  Real living flesh need not apply. 

Far from being advocates for human rights, you will find the people on the real left to be cold and indifferent.  It's all about the ideology, never about the people.

March 17, 2011      Permalink

DEMS AT SEA – AT 8:26 A.M. ET:  It seems that Team Democrat in Congress can't get its signals straight.  The players don't know exactly what the objective of the game is.  From The Politico:

Democrats in Congress are grappling with a question as they negotiate a spending deal: Who's in charge?

The top two Democratic leaders in the House have twice split on whether to approve short-term government funding bills that cut billions from federal accounts. Senate Democrats haven’t put forward a long-term spending plan that can move through their chamber, and Democrats on both sides of the Capitol say they have no idea where the White House stands or who’s running the show.

The result is a rank and file that is confused about its direction and unhappy with the leadership — or lack of it — on when to go along with the Republican-controlled House on budget matters and when to stand and fight.

“The sum and substance of our strategy can’t be waiting for the other side to [mess] up,” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) told bloggers Wednesday.

But for many Democrats, that’s exactly what their leaders’ short-term strategy amounts to.

COMMENT:  Oh joy, oh joy.  Certain stories place us in ecstasy.  The Democratic Congress has been a train wreck all along, and even the results of the last election haven't chastened the leadership.  Of course, it's hard to think of anything that would chasten Nancy Pelosi, who lives in her alternative universe in one of the better sections of San Francisco.

The party is simply too far left for the tastes of the American people, but its left wing has an adolescent brattiness.  They won't grow up, they won't grow up, they don't want to go to school.  And they have made it virtually impossible for their party to come up with coherent proposals that have any chance of exciting the American people.  Obama has "solved" the problem by posing as a centrist, but the pose is all but shattered, as are his approval numbers.

But still, don't be overconfident.  Republicans should run in 2012 as if they're 20 points behind. 

March 17, 2011      Permalink

MAYBE SHE MEANS IT – AT 7:53 A.M. ET:  While not exactly taking the Sherman Oath, Hillary Clinton has once again rejected any further run for the presidency, and says she will resign from her current position after one term:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN that she will not serve as Secretary of State in President Obama's second term, should he be re-elected. She also said she had no interest in serving in any other role. Transcript follows:
Q- If the president is reelected, do you want to serve a second term as secretary of state?
No
Q- Would you like to serve as secretary of defense?
No
Q- Would you like to be vice president of the United States?
No
Q- Would you like to be president of the United States?
No

Look, maybe she means it.  Hillary Clinton must, at some point in her life, mean something that she says.  But I tend to be skeptical of anyone in a major position who says that he/she is not interested in the presidency.  After all, Hillary ran for the job, and came within a hair of getting her party's nomination.

As far as leaving her current post, I believe her on that.  Serving in a president's second administration – and that assumes that this incumbent will be reelected, which we don't assume at all – is usually no fun.  Clinton could become the president of any number of colleges. 

By the way, the person most mentioned in Washington as her successor is...I'll wait for you to take your heart medication before revealing the name.  Have you taken it?  Is it all the way down?  The name most mentioned is John Kerry, currently chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.   What a choice!  Do we surrender now, or do we surrender later? 

March 17, 2011     Permalink

MARCH 16,  2011

DO ARABS SECRETLY LOVE US? – AT 9:17 P.M. ET:  It's become increasingly clear that the whiner brigades who complained about every foreign-policy action that George W. Bush took were wildly wrong.  We were told that the Arabs hated us for intervening in the Mideast, but the Wall Street Journal powerfully argues that, in fact, they like the pax Americana, and are sending that message:

The Arab League's call this weekend for a no-fly zone over Libya is startling news and has sent diplomats scattering. We'll now see if the "international community" (to use the Obama Administration's favorite phrase) decides anything before Moammar Gadhafi's forces overrun the rebel stronghold in Benghazi. The odds favor Gadhafi.

But the 22-member league's decision also tells us a lot about Arab views of U.S. power. Throughout the Libyan crisis, we've heard from pundits and politicians that the Iraq war tarnished brand America beyond repair, and made U.S. leadership non grata in the Mideast. Both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have insisted that the U.N., NATO, the Europeans, Arabs, anyone but Washington take the initiative on Libya.

The Arab League is begging them to reconsider this abdication. With the unsurprising exceptions of Iranian client Syria and Libya's neighbor Algeria, the group took the extraordinary step of calling publicly for American intervention in the affairs of an Arab state.

And...

The weekend decision confirmed what we've heard privately from Arab leaders for years about America's continued engagement in the Middle East. The only people who suffer from an "Iraq syndrome" are American liberals and the Western European chattering classes. The pro-Western Gulf or North African allied states have nothing to gain in seeing American influence or military power devalued in their region—either by others, or as is the current fad in Washington, through American self-abnegation.

That's a good dose of common sense.  No, the Arabs may not love us, but they respect our power, in a part of the world where power counts.  And they know how critical that power can be.

Now, they don't see it any longer.

For the proverbial "Arab street," the defeat of the Libyan uprising would be a dispiriting coda to this springtime of democratic revolutions. If he survives, Gadhafi will have taught other dictators that the next time young people demand accountable leadership, turn your guns on them and exploit American diffidence.

Did you ever think you'd see the day when our country behaves like this?  Well, of course we saw it in the late 70s, and we saw it when Congress disgracefully cut off aid to our South Vietnamese allies, basically forcing them into defeat.

Not by coincidence, Saudi Arabia and fellow Gulf states on Monday sent military forces into Bahrain to help put down an uprising by the majority Shiites against the Sunni monarchy, which yesterday declared a state of emergency. The Saudis fear that the Bahrain contagion, perhaps fueled by Iran, will spread to them.

But their intervention also reflects a lack of confidence that America will assert itself in the region. Remarkably, the Saudis ignored U.S. advice not to intervene in Bahrain. They don't believe they can count on the U.S. to stop an imperial Iran. When the U.S. fails to lead, every nation recalibrates its interests and begins to look out for itself first.

Not exactly change we can believe in.  And look forward to this weekend, when the president, the first lady, and their two children are photographed seeing the sights in Rio.  Real inspiring to the people who thought Obama was a demigod, sent to save us.

March 16, 2011       Permalink

OBAMA'S PATH TO 2012 – SLIPPERY – AT 9:07 P.M. ET:  A.B. Stoddard, in The Hill, gives a convincing analysis of President Obama's political situation, and finds it shaky, even if the GOP nominates a less-than-ideal candidate.  Good reading:

Clinging to their compliments regarding former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R) healthcare law, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s (R) fine work as ambassador to China and the prospect that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) will somehow be nominated by the GOP, Team Obama has begun to accept that the audacity of hoping for an anemic Republican field won’t get President Obama reelected in 2012.

As the Republican race begins in earnest, and Obama kicks off his own reelection campaign, it is increasingly clear that the path to an Obama victory is anything but clear. Stubborn joblessness, soaring gas prices, the still-rising cost of healthcare insurance, the apathy of Obama supporters, the erosion of support from white working-class and suburban voters and the considerable sums of secret money conservatives promise to pour into the campaign all pose challenges to his plan to win again. Taken together, they might be insurmountable.

From Stoddard's word processor to you know whose ears, or eyes.  But I still believe in fighting like you're 20 points behind.

The traditional demographics that favor Democrats are also no longer a given — Latinos aren’t likely to see any action on immigration reform before the election, the GOP made history by winning women in the midterm elections and Obama’s approval among young voters entering or navigating a perilous job market has dropped 21 points since he entered office, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll.

Add to that the overall perception that the commander-in-chief isn't much of a commander and doesn't act much like a chief.

COMMENT:  I hope Stoddard is on solid ground, but I hate to see a Republican victory on the backs of suffering Americans.  The GOP, for its own self-respect, must lay out a positive program for America.  It can't be all criticism.  This current session of Congress will tell us a great deal about how effective the new Republican leadership is.

March 16, 2011       Permalink

IS MARCO MAKING HIS MOVE? – AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  We've said here before that the Republican cast of presidential characters for 2012 isn't very exciting.   The GOP, we've said, may have to reach down to the next generation to find a candidate who can wake things up, and we've suggested Marco Rubio, the new senator from Florida.

Now, Rubio may be making his move.  From The Politico:

With a landmark spending debate engulfing Washington, the Florida Republican has, virtually overnight, launched the national profile the conservative movement has been clamoring for.

During his first national interview Monday, Rubio pounced on President Barack Obama — from the friendly confines of Laura Ingraham’s conservative radio show. He blasted a statement to the media, pledging to vote against the Republicans’ short-term spending resolution and calling it a “nickle-and-dime” approach. And he’s vowed to vote against everything that comes through the Senate unless it deals with addressing the $14 trillion debt crisis.

Rubio has even given up an apparent Twitter moratorium, tweeting this week for the first time since his victory last November.

“Politicians in D.C. won’t deal with the debt,” he wrote.

For tea party and other conservative activists, this is the Rubio they’ve been waiting for.

“Marco Rubio has had it, and it hasn’t taken long for Marco Rubio to have had it,” conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said on his show Tuesday. “Marco Rubio says, ‘What is this continuing resolution crap? I didn’t come in here to fund the government every two to three weeks, and $6 billion here and $6 billion there. What the hell is going on here?’”

“Wish the damn guy, wish the guy would run for president,” Limbaugh added.

COMMENT:  It may happen.  But, if he does, Rubio must not permit himself to be a captive of any faction.  He has broad appeal.  He won his Senate seat in Florida easily.  The first thing the Dems would do would be to try to tag Rubio as an extremist, or a Tea Party lackey.  I think the guy has the smarts to avoid the label.

Marco Rubio is a Cuban-American.  He would be the first Cuban-American to run for president, and he surely would have an appeal to Hispanics.  The Democrats need the Hispanic vote to win a national election.  Rubio could deny it to them.  Besides, he's a campaigner equal to Obama, and that's what is needed.

March 16, 2011       Permalink

ECHOES OF CARTER – AT 10:04 A.M. ET:  More and more, Obama is morphing into Jimmy ("I'm the best ex-president ever") Carter:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wholesale prices jumped last month by the most in nearly two years due to higher energy costs and the steepest rise in food prices in 36 years. Excluding those volatile categories, inflation was tame.

The Labor Department said Wednesday that the Producer Price Index rose a seasonally adjusted 1.6 percent in February -- double the 0.8 percent rise in the previous month. Outside of food and energy costs, the core index ticked up 0.2 percent, less than January's 0.5 percent rise.

Food prices soared 3.9 percent last month, the biggest gain since November 1974. Most of that increase was due to a sharp rise in vegetable costs, which increased nearly 50 percent. That was the most in almost a year. Meat and dairy products also rose.

Energy prices rose 3.3 percent last month, led by a 3.7 percent increase in gasoline costs.

COMMENT:  All we need is for Iran to take some Americans hostage and we'll have a true sequel to the Carter administration. 

Oh wait, there's a difference:  Carter didn't get his Nobel Peace Prize until decades after he left office.  Obama got his while his hand was still raised, taking the inaugural oath.  Can't think of too many other differences.

March 16, 2011       Permalink

TERRIFIC, TERRIFIC – AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  Ed Lasky of American Thinker refers us to this great piece by Rick Richman at Commentary called "Lessons from Libya for Dictators in Distress":  You must read this:

1. If you want to remain in power, you need to do more than send a man on a camel into crowds. Declare war on your people; hire other people to help out.

2. Do not worry if the U.S. president says you must “step down” and “leave.” It is only his personal opinion.

3. To ensure that the president does not focus unduly on your war, schedule it while he is preoccupied with other matters: a Motown concert, a conference on bullying, his golf game, and finalizing his Final Four picks.

4. Declare that the opposition is not “organic.” The president will not assist a non-organic revolution. If the revolution is organic, do not worry: an organic revolution is by definition one he does not need to assist. Either way, you’re fine.

5. Recognize that your membership on the UN Human Rights Council will be suspended — the president will send his secretary of state there to ensure that. Do not start a war against your people if you are not prepared for this.

6. Do not worry about a “no-fly zone” or some other U.S. military response. The president will consider it only if the world speaks with one voice. The world includes Russia, China, and Turkey.

7. Remember when the president adopted his Afghanistan policy after an extensive “review;” selected his own general to implement it; got the general’s recommendations; and then held endless meetings before finally reluctantly approving them? That was about a war he was already in. He will need many more meetings than that before he considers any new action against you.

8. You may eventually be subject to sanctions, so check to see if they’ve worked yet with Cuba, North Korea, or Iran.

9. Consider restarting your nuclear program, since the conditions that caused you to suspend it are gone. At most, the president will form a committee of several nations to talk to you; he will consider more sanctions if the world speaks as one. You need not worry about his “deadlines.”

10. There is basically only one thing you do need to worry about: do not, under any circumstances, approve any future Jewish housing in Jerusalem. The president will go ballistic if you do.

COMMENT: Very good advice. 

Does anyone take Obama seriously anymore?  The man is making a mockery of the presidency.   He is now the object of jokes.

March 16, 2011       Permalink

JAPAN'S ANGUISH – 8:57 A.M. ET:  Oh, does anyone remember there was an earthquake in Japan?  And a tsunami?  You'd barely know it from some of the hysterical reporting about the nuclear issue.  We certainly don't mean to diminish the importance of this issue, or of possible radiation releases, but the end of the world is not really near. 

We actually don't know much about what's happening to the crippled reactors in Japan except that technicians are working the problem, and that there has been some radiation released.  What counts, of course, is the amount released, the type, and the geographic area affected.  I wish the press would remind readers and viewers that we used to explode hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere, and, while that is clearly undesirable, the world survived, and life expectancy has increased in most places.

The New York Times, in a rational moment, at least gives us this knowledgeable report on the realistic prospects for health damage:

Worsening conditions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan have raised fears that people will be harmed by radiation. But experts say that in terms of public health, the Japanese have already taken precautions that should prevent the accident from becoming another Chernobyl, even if additional radiation is released.

The great tragedy of Chernobyl was an epidemic of thyroid cancer among people exposed to the radiation as children — more than 6,000 cases so far, with more expected for many years to come. There is no reason for it to be repeated in Japan.

The epidemic in Chernobyl was preventable and would probably not have happened if people had been told to stop drinking locally produced milk, which was by far the most important source of radiation. Cows ate grass contaminated by fallout from the reactors and secreted radioactive iodine in their milk.

This story must be followed hour by hour.  It's being reported like a horse race, which it isn't.  There will be some damage from radiation.  The extent is what we don't know.  We also don't know the implications for American nuclear power.  That debate has barely begun, and you may be certain that political scientists will far outnumber real scientists when it reaches full decibel level.

March 16, 2011      Permalink

BARELY NOTICED – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  Amidst the continuing nuclear drama in Japan, the desperate plight of Libyan rebels is being forgotten.  Hey, yesterday's news.  No longer trendy.  I mean, my Gawd, we have a chance to put another nail in the coffin of nuclear energy.  Who cares about some ragtag Arabs who've never been to Aspen? 

Yet, the British and the French, having been rebuffed by other nations, including our own, are trying to organize some military assistance to the rebels, as President Obama prepares for a good-food trip to Latin America later this week.

France's foreign minister said on Wednesday that several Arab countries have pledged to take part in possible military action in Libya.

Alain Juppe says France and Britain have sought targeted air strikes on Libya, a move which would require approval from the United Nations Security Council and participation by Arab states.

Juppe wrote on his blog Wednesday that "several Arab countries assured us that they will participate." He didn't elaborate any more than that.

The French foreign ministry said it wasn’t enough for countries to say long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi must step down, they must also help opponents to his dictatorship.

That last comment was directed at Obama, and the collapse of his leadership. 

But, realistically, the chances of the Security Council approving any action are slim, and the rebels can't hold out much longer.  What we are seeing is a policy collapse by the free nations of significant proportions, and, as Fouad Ajami has said, we will pay a painful price down the line. 

But the president of the United States, this pathetic little man, apparently doesn't care.

March 16, 2011     Permalink