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 21,  2011

I CANNOT STAND THE EXCITEMENT – AT 9:58 P.M. ET:  Are we not lucky people?  Are we not blessed by the titans of entertainment?  First, we reported – can you stand to wait – announcement of a series of spy novels by Valerie Plame, that well-known author and complainer. 

And now, as if the entertainment world wasn't generous enough, we get word of its latest gift to us.  Please write letters of thanks:

EXCLUSIVE: HBO has optioned the book Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency by Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Barton Gellman for a miniseries to be executive produced by Paula Weinstein.

The mini, which will be based on the bestselling book and the FRONTLINE documentary, The Dark Side, tells the story of Richard Bruce Cheney from his early days as Donald Rumsfeld’s protégé in the Nixon administration, to the nation's youngest chief of staff under President Ford, to serving as secretary of defense under George H.W. Bush, through two controversial terms as vice president under President George W. Bush. According to the producers, the project will center on Cheney's "single-minded pursuit of enhanced power for the presidency (that) was unprecedented in the nation's history."

Oh really?  Tell that to Lincoln's opponents.  Or FDR's.  Or Truman's, for that matter. 

Weinstein has executive produced 2 Emmy-winning HBO minis about major political events/figures: the 2008 "Recount," about the 2000 Florida recount, and the 1995 "Truman." She is also exec producing HBO's upcoming "Too Big To Fail," about the 2008 financial meltdown.

COMMENT:  The sad fact is that they're serious about this, and they'll probably win awards.

March 21, 2011       Permalink

A LIBERAL INTERVENTION – AT 8:57 P.M. ET:  President Obama is catching it from all sides today over his intervention in Libya.  Some criticisms, I think, are justified.  He waited too long, and there is a vagueness about the mission.  Some criticism, coming from the fringe left and from some Republicans, is somewhat over the top.  Republicans, in particular, must take care that they're not perceived as knee-jerk carpers, who complain about Obama just because he's Obama.  And we should remember that American warriors are in harm's way.

Ross Douthat of The New York Times, whom we have not cited before, has the quote of the day in explaining the pros and cons of Obama's liberal-style intervention:

Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.

This way of war has obvious advantages. It spreads the burden of military action, sustains rather than weakens our alliances, and takes the edge off the world’s instinctive anti-Americanism. Best of all, it encourages the European powers to shoulder their share of responsibility for maintaining global order, instead of just carping at the United States from the sidelines.

But there are major problems with this approach to war as well. Because liberal wars depend on constant consensus-building within the (so-called) international community, they tend to be fought by committee, at a glacial pace, and with a caution that shades into tactical incompetence. And because their connection to the national interest is often tangential at best, they’re often fought with one hand behind our back and an eye on the exits, rather than with the full commitment that victory can require.

COMMENT:  Well put.  We're concerned here that President Obama is not demanding Ghadaffi's immediate exit, simply suggesting it.  It's understood that if this intervention ends with the Libyan leader still in power, we will have lost.

March 21, 2011       Permalink

NUT CASE OF THE DAY – AT 11:00 A.M. ET:  Michelle Malkin examines the curious case of Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey of California, an "anti-war" Democrat and darling of Code Pink.  There are few in Congress to the left of her. 

A grown woman in public office who acts like Lindsay Lohan has no business comparing one of America's finest generals to Charlie Sheen. But anti-war Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California has never shown any restraint when it comes to trashing America's military leaders before the world.

That's because being a Code Pink liberal -- like being a Hollywood brat -- means never having to apologize for your reckless words and deeds.

Woolsey took to the House floor on Wednesday to report on her "Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Task Force" hearing with critics of the Afghanistan war. She parroted Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings (he'd be labeled an "activist," of course, if he supported the surge), who said:

"Gen. Petraeus is giving us the Charlie Sheen counterinsurgency strategy, which is to give exclusive interviews to every major network, and to keep saying 'We're winning' and hope the public actually agrees with you."

Woolsey then went on to attack Gen. Petraeus' "bland and tone-deaf talking points." She can't make up her mind. Is he a wild-eyed, Charlie Sheen-esque media beast, or is he a boring bureaucrat lulling America into oblivion?

COMMENT:  For people like Lynn Woolsey, leftist beliefs are a religion, not a set of political principles.  She will never change, any more than others in her camp will change.  No matter what happens, they will be back immediately with the same line.  Facts are of no signficance. 

More than a generation ago, an "anti-war" movement that seemed oddly sympathetic to our enemies, cost us victory in Vietnam, and then went deaf-and-dumb over the Cambodian genocide.  Their ranks are still around, and have been active since the attacks of September 11, 2001.  It is our job to shove them to the margins, where they belong. 

March 21, 2011       Permalink

A CHANCE TO PRAISE – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:  As readers know, we're not too kind here to the mainstream media.  I am not a candidate for the presidency of the Christiane Amanpour Admiration Society.  I do not anticipate the publisher of The New York Times taking me to lunch.

And so when a mainstream paper or network does something admirable, it is a pleasure to point it out, as we do this morning.

Last week there was a bad incident at the Detroit News.  Scott Burgess, their auto critic – an important journalistic position in Detroit – properly resigned after a negative review of his was altered at the request of an advertiser.  Such caving in under advertiser pressure is absolutely a red line in ethical journalism.

The newspaper, on Saturday, printed a front-page apology, signed by the publisher, and containing this language: 

“Our decision to make these changes following an advertiser’s complaint was a humbling mistake. As publisher and editor, I want to apologize to our readers and of course Scott.”

That was exactly the right thing to do, and putting the apology on the front page, instead of burying it in an "editor's note" somewhere, showed class and courage.  It is rare, in today's pomposity-driven journalism, to see such character. 
The apology also said:

The credibility of our journalism is our calling card to your doorstep and your digital screen. We simply cannot act at any behest but yours and we must avoid any appearance to the contrary.

That is also correct.  Compare please to some of the attitudes we see at other outlets.

The paper has offered Burgess his job back.  He hasn't announced whether he'll accept the offer. 

The full text of the apology is here. 

March 21, 2011       Permalink  

JAPAN UPDATE – AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  Japan is still working to contain the damage at the stricken nuclear plant, and so far a major catastrophe has been avoided.  It is tough work, but we can hope for a good outcome:

Tokyo (CNN) -- Smoke spewed Monday from two adjacent reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, a nuclear safety official said, setbacks that came despite fervent efforts to prevent the further release of radioactive materials at the stricken facility.

After 6 p.m., white smoke was seen emanating from the facility's No. 2 reactor, according to Hidehiko Nishiyama, an official with Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. About two hours earlier, workers were evacuated from the area around the No. 3 reactor after gray smoke began to rise from the wreckage of its steel-and-concrete housing, which was blown apart by a hydrogen explosion last week.

The No. 3 reactor has been the top priority for authorities trying to contain damage to the plant and stave off a possible meltdown. Its fuel includes a small percentage of plutonium mixed with the uranium in its fuel rods, which experts say could cause more harm than regular uranium fuels in the event of a meltdown.

Nishiyama said there was no evident explosion, spike in radiation or injuries at the No. 3 reactor. The smoke was coming from the building's southeastern side, where the reactor's spent nuclear fuel pool is located, but the origin of the smoke at either reactor was unknown.

COMMENT:  This is a day by day story.  Don't give up.  There are reports of elevated radiation in Japan, but not at a dangerous level.  Radiation floating to the U.S. is minimal thus far.  Be careful of scare stories.

March 21, 2011      Permalink

AND NOW SYRIA? – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  What is remarkable about what is being called the "Arab spring" is the number of countries that have seen protests.  It's one right after the other, of varying degrees of intensity. 

Yes, we concede that some of the protesters may have ideas that need "further study," but the fact that there are protests at all is striking.  And now Syria, one of the most critical of Arab states, and an ally of Iran, is feeling the impact.  From The New York Times:

DAMASCUS, Syria — Protesters set fire to the ruling Baath Party’s headquarters and other government buildings in the southern city of Dara’a on Sunday, as protesters rallied and clashed with the police for a third straight day, witnesses said.

Police officers fired live ammunition into the crowds, killing at least one and wounding scores of others, witnesses said. But the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, also made some conciliatory gestures in an apparent attempt to stop the cycle of public anger that has fueled uprisings in other Arab countries in the past three months.

Syria, a police state known for its brutal suppression of any public protests, seemed immune to the wave of uprisings sweeping the Arab world until the past week, when demonstrations took place in several cities. The southern town of Dara’a, where citizens were outraged by the arrest of more than a dozen schoolchildren, has seen the largest protests by far. Thousands took to the streets on Sunday, as they have for several days now.

COMMENT:  My sense is that the odds are against a huge revolution in Syria because it is such a complete police state.  But you never know.  They said that about Libya.  If Syria can be broken off from the Iranian axis, it would be a coup for the West.  Stand by.

By the way, John Kerry is considered America's intermediary with Syria, and is reportedly active right now in trying to get the Syrian government to be more cooperative with us.  Not exactly the best timing, Johnny.  You should be working to have that government replaced.

March 21, 2011       Permalink

GREAT BRIT LAYING IT ON THE LINE – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  One can't help but be impressed by the current British leadership.  Just as Tony Blair was always there for us, Prime Minister David Cameron and Defense Secretary Liam Fox are leading us.

Now Fox, a physician turned political figure, is laying it on the line about Libya.  From the Jerusalem Post:

British Defense Secretary Liam Fox said that Gaddafi could become a target of the Western coalition's air strikes, as long as civilians' safety would be guaranteed, the Guardian reported on Sunday.

Fox reportedly explained that the scale of the attacks are "essential in terms of the Gaddafi regime's ability to prosecute attacks on their own people."

And from Fox:

British submarines fired two missiles at Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi’s compound in downtown Tripoli Sunday, a senior coalition official confirmed to Fox News, as part of a weekend of punishing attacks aimed at protecting the Libyan people.

The British Ministry of Defense confirmed that Qaddafi was not the target, but that the compound was hit because of its military significance. A Pentagon official had previously said Sunday that the coalition “will not be going after Qaddafi.”

COMMENT:  I wouldn't give much weight to the disclaimers.  Traditionally, Western countries have not spoken in terms of assassination, so the attack on Gaddafi's compound is framed in military terms.  But if you want to get Gaddafi, his compound is a pretty good place to start, unless he's vacationing in fabulous Venezuela, by the sea.

If Gaddafi remains in power at the end of our intervention, it will be seen as an American and Western loss.  I'm sure even the White House realizes that.

March 21, 2011     Permalink

MARCH 20,  2011

THANKS, GUYS.  ANY TIME – AT 9:38 P.M. ET:  You know, I think someone from an American charm school should venture over to the Muslim and Arab countries and teach these worthies two words:  "Thank you."  Apparently, they're not in the current vocabulary. 

Get the comments of this gent, who's running for the presidency of Egypt:

The Arab League chief said on Sunday that Arabs did not want military strikes by Western powers that hit civilians when the League called for a no-fly zone over Libya.

In comments carried by Egypt's official state news agency, Secretary-General Amr Moussa also said he was calling for an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss the situation in the Arab world and particularly Libya.

The guy is just politicking, trying to pick up the reflexive anti-American vote in Egypt.

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said.

"He requested official reports about what happened in Libya in terms of aerial and marine bombardment that led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians. He pointed out that he asked for the full data to know what actually happened," MENA said.

Western forces have unleashed their biggest military attack in the Arab world since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, targeting Muammar Gadhafi's air defenses and armored vehicles near the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in the east of the country.

A few hours after the first missiles struck, Gadhafi called on "citizens of the Arab and Islamic nations" and other developing countries to "stand by the heroic Libyan people to confront this aggression".

But Arabs from North Africa to the Gulf, many demanding political rights for the first time, dismissed the appeal from a leader whose four decades of authoritarian and capricious rule have exhausted any reserves of sympathy.

COMMENT:  The classic "it's your fault" response of the some of the Arab Leaguers tells us much of what we have to know about why the Arab world never gets anywhere.  We hope that if Amr Moussa gets to be president of Egypt, he wises up.  In the Arab world, that would count as a political miracle.

March 20, 2011       Permalink

THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD – AT 9:19 P.M. ET:  For the supreme and benevolent leader of Libya, things may be getting a little too close.  From Fox:

The 4-story compound in downtown Tripoli that was home to Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi was demolished by missile attacks, according to reporters near the area.

There was no known injuries at it remains unclear where the leader has been living since the no-fly zone was ordered.

There were two circular holes in the roof, which is consistent with a missile strike, and rubble littered the street. It remains unclear when the strike occurred, reported Fox News’ Steve Harrigan.

Pentagon official had previously said Sunday that the coalition “will not be going after Qaddafi.”

The missile attack followed a day where the U.S. and allied forces claimed significant success in the early stages of enforcing a U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zone in Libya, said a military official at the Pentagon.

COMMENT:  Well, the Pentagon claims they're not going after Qaddafi, but hitting his compound doesn't add much to the claim.  I would shed no tears if the leadership issue in Libya were resolved by a Tomahawk missile, but I hope Qaddafi's Paris fashions are left intact, for donation to the Salvation Army. 

Reportedly, Qaddafi was scared to death after we toppled Saddam Hussein, fearing he'd be next.  Now he is next.

March 20, 2011       Permalink

NUT CASE OF THE DAY – AT 11:44 A.M. You think you know about March madness?  This is the real March madness.  From the Harvard Crimson:

Think the rush to get your kids into Ivy League schools starts in high school? Think again.

Nicole Imprescia is suing York Avenue Preschool, a private preschool in New York, claiming that they may have damaged her four-year-old daughter's chances of getting into an elite private school.

Imprescia also alleges that the school may have hurt her daughter's chances of acceptance at an Ivy League institution such as Harvard, "citing an article that identifies preschools as the first step to 'The Ivy League,'" the New York Daily News reports.

The mother says that she enrolled her daughter at the school based on its promise to prepare students for the ERB test, which is used to place children into elite elementary schools.

Instead, the lawsuit claims, York Avenue Preschool placed her daughter in "a-two-year-old's learning environment" where she was taught shapes and colors.

The suit asks the school to reimburse the $19,000 Imprescia paid in tuition and seeks class-action status for children in a similar situation.

COMMENT:  As a humanitarian gesture, we here at Urgent Agenda are organizing a guerrilla raid to get that kid away from that mother.  A sane mind is a terrible thing to waste. 

And I think a four-year-old should learn shapes and colors.  Comes in handy.

March 20,  2011     Permalink

NOT SO LUCKY OBAMA – AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  Maybe Obama isn't so lucky after all.  Being denounced by Louis Farrakhan (see post just below) is good fortune, but being denounced by a first-class historian is another matter entirely. 

Andrew Roberts is one of Britain's leading historians, and he is less than impressed with the current international performance of the president of the United States.  From London's Daily Mail:

Colonel Gaddafi is not a man from whom other world leaders would usually be advised to take guidance.

It was ironic, then, that last week, when pushed into a corner by the UN’s vote to take military action against his forces in Libya, he proved himself a swift decision-maker, claiming to have ordered an immediate ceasefire against his people.

The ceasefire was bogus, of course, but nonetheless it is instructive to contrast the dictator’s instantaneous response with that of President Obama’s hunched, furrow-brow in the Oval Office, allowing other nations to lead the way in forging a Western position on the crisis while he appeared to be paralysed by indecision.

That pretty much says it.

In a televised speech about the strike against Libya on Friday, Obama declared the US would not ‘stand idly by’ in the face of Gaddafi’s actions.

Bold words, but this was hardly Reagan, the Great Communicator. In contrast, Obama is becoming known as The Great Vacillator.

I suspect that this historian will not be invited to the White House.

Obama's dithering may have had the unintended consequence of ensuring that the Arab world, Russia and China did not vote against the UN resolution, which they might have felt compelled to do in the face of a decisive American lead. But that is no excuse for what is becoming an habitual inability to act.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let slip last week she is planning to retire from politics in two years, a decision rumoured to stem from her frustration over Obama’s indecisive attitude to foreign policy. One report claimed she likened the White House to ‘a bunch of amateurs’ in their handling of Gaddafi.

The most honest thing Hillary ever said.

So why is it that a man who seemed to offer real change has proved so ineffectual in office?

Certainly, a large part of the answer lies in Obama’s personality. He is a cerebral man, prone to analysing problems dispassionately and from every angle, as he was taught during his former careers in law and academia. The American presidents who have been most successful at creating lasting change – Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Reagan – all also used instinct and emotion to guide them to quick, decisive action.

Finally...

Perhaps, like Kennedy in the Sixties, Obama can learn from his setbacks in foreign policy and emerge as a stronger leader.

For all his reluctance to take the leap, he may find that having been pushed into doing so in Libya, it will be remembered as the moment he finally learned what his role involves.

As Sinatra might have put it, leave us we should hope so.

March 20,  2011        Permalink

LUCKY OBAMA – AT 8:13 A.M. ET:  Some people say that Obama has always been lucky in politics, and there's some truth to that.   But he's really hit pay dirt this time.  There is dancing in the White House.  Barack Hussein Obama Jr. has gotten Louis Farrakhan to denounce him. 

Minister Louis spake forth in the following manner:

FARRAKHAN: "I warn my brother do you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world...Why don't you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Qaddafi, you can't order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?

COMMENT:  You can be sure the White House will be circulating that quote to all interested parties.  Now, if only the president can get Reverend Wright to denounce him, joined by Jimmy Carter and Nancy Pelosi, he'll be a shoo-in for reelection.

And if a bad word can be put in by Charlie Sheen, that wouldn't be bad either.

March 20, 2011       Permalink

SECOND DAY – AT 7:50 A.M. ET:  The leader of Libya remains defiant on the second day of air strikes.  From Fox:

Explosions and gunfire were heard in the Libyan capital of Tripoli Sunday morning as the U.S. and its allies continued military strikes against targets of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, who on Libyan state radio said the raids were "acts of terrorism".

Qaddafi added that all of the country's people were now carrying weapons to defend the nation.

"We will not leave our land and we will liberate it," he said.

He said he has opened up the weapons depots to Libyans, and said everyone is armed with "automatic weapons, mortars, bombs."

"We promise you a long war," he said in the address.

COMMENT:  We don't really have any significant updates on the military action.  However, some experts on the area point out that Qaddafi is far less ideological than he sounds, and has always sought a way to preserve himself.  Please recall that, after we removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, Qaddafi, appearently fearing he'd be next, gave up his nuclear weapons program and tried to smile.

So far there have been no reports of a direct military attack on Qaddafi's headquarters.

The usual suspects in the "anti-war" (any war America has a chance of winning) movement are already in action, including formerly famous filmmaker Michael Moore.  But demonstrations in this country have been scattered and small.   

March 20,  2011     Permalink