TUESDAY,  AUGUST 25,  2009

AND IT STARTS TO COME OUT - AT 9:22 P.M. ET:  It didn't take long, following the release to Libya of the Lockerbie bomber, for the financial details to start surfacing:

LIBYA is preparing to invest millions of dollars into London's property market in the latest sign of burgeoning business links between the two countries.

The Libyan Investment Authority, which manages the country's sovereign oil wealth of $US65 billion ($77 billion), has recently bought two buildings worth a combined £275 million ($540 million) and instructed real estate advisers to look for more.

Revelations of these business links come as pressure mounts on the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who has been warned that his ''deafening silence'' over the release of the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing is harming Britain.

And...

Existing British investments in Libya have raised questions about whether business interests are dictating the pace of diplomatic detente.

COMMENT:  What really angers me is not only the pretty clear influence of money on the decision to release the Lockerbie murderer, but the fact that many of the people involved in this travesty lecture Americans for being too "materialistic."  Americans are gems compared to some of these self-interested grovelers.

August 25, 2009   Permalink

THE RETURN OF RUDY - AT 7:08 P.M. ET:  Rudy Giuliani may run for governor of New York next year.  If he runs and wins, he'd automatically be in position for another shot at the presidency, either in 2012 0r 2016.  From CBS:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani may be considering a run for governor in 2010, according to various reports, and could come to a decision on the matter within weeks.

The former 2008 Republican presidential candidate could decide to run in as soon as the next 30 to 60 days, the New York Times reports, if he concludes that public discontent with state government and economic unrest have created the right conditions.

The problem is that Rudy is not as popular in New York as people elsewhere think.  He was one of New York City's great mayors, but getting things done meant offending legions of special interests and minority-group leaders who felt they weren't shown proper deference. 

According to recent polls, Giuliani would have a good chance of beating Democratic Gov. David Paterson but would have a harder time against potential Democratic candidate Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who has not announced if he plans to run against Paterson in a primary. The Siena Research Institute found 55 percent of registered voters polled this month had an unfavorable opinion of Paterson, Newsday reported. Giuliani would beat Paterson in a general election match-up by 56 percent to 33 percent, according to the poll, while Cuomo would beat Giuliani, 53 percent to 40 percent.

COMMENT:  New York is a Democratic state.  Chances are, Cuomo will beat the incumbent governor for the gubernatorial nomination.  It's uphill for Rudy.

August 25, 2009   Permalink

THE BOILING ISSUE - AT 6:06 P.M. ET:  President Obama said he wanted to look forward on CIA operations, not look back.  But he's refused to block the investigation of past CIA practices announced by Attorney General Holder yesterday.  Maybe the president thinks this lets him escape responsibility.  "Hey, I didn't do it, Eric Holder did it."  But the attorney general reports to the president, and Obama could have stopped this "investigation" at any time, or made it a classified matter.  He did not.

Already the news of the Justice Department probe, which will be run by one of the most left-wing justice departments we've ever had, is dividing Washington.  It will also divide the nation, but I suspect Obama will come out on the short end.  Rich Lowry has some good insight into what's happened:

PITY Leon Panetta. The CIA director counseled the Obama administration against releasing classified interrogation memos from the Bush years. And got ignored...

...Such is life at Langley under an administration betraying liberalism's typical contempt for covert action and its inevitable moral complications.

No wonder ABC News is reporting that Panetta recently uncorked a profanity-laced tirade about the Justice Department at the White House and is contemplating quitting. (The CIA denies it.)

And...

Panetta has had to write another letter to CIA employees meant to keep their morale up. For those keeping count, it's his sixth.

No matter how many missives he writes earnestly committing himself and his agency to looking ahead, the rest of his administration and party drags him back into the past.

As far as they are concerned, he's merely a front man for Bush-era criminality.

And that's the point.  There's a whole bloc within the Democratic Party that doesn't even believe in national defense, let alone the war on terror.  To them, it's Bush's (!!) war, and nothing else.  Many of these people are "anti-war" activists.  Translated into plain English, that means they're against any war America has a chance of winning.

...what possible public interest can be served in reopening murkier cases years after the fact, when the CIA already took internal action and career prosecutors already examined them?

The next time CIA officers are told that they have to be more aggressive in protecting their country, they could be forgiven for saying "no thanks."

The same thing happened in the 1970s - a Democratic Party war against the CIA, which almost destroyed the agency.  To the party-line left, this is perfectly okay. 

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we struggled to get the balance right between our safety and our values as an open, liberal society. It'd be nice to pretend otherwise, but there is indeed such a balance.

As the IG report makes clear, the interrogations rendered important intelligence about other terrorists and other plots.

"Whether this was the only way to obtain that information will remain a legitimate area of dispute," Panetta writes in his latest letter.

That dispute rightly belongs in the political arena, not the courts. But who wants to listen to the CIA director, a shill for torturers almost by definition?

COMMENT:  Panetta is a Democrat, although a reasonable one.  That's the problem.  To be reasonable in Obama's Democratic Party, to care about the defense of the nation, is to be looked on with suspicion, to be Liebermaned.  And the president does nothing about it.  Because in his heart he knows the left is right.

August 25, 2009   Permalink

GUIDANCE FOR THE LEFT - AT 3:53 P.M. ET:  Fidel Castro is now, apparently, a commentator on American politics and the fortunes of President Obama.  From AP:

HAVANA–Cuba's Fidel Castro is criticizing President Barack Obama's stepped-up U.S. war in Afghanistan while backing Obama's effort to provide health care coverage for all Americans.

The former Cuban president said in an essay published Tuesday that he hasn't the slightest doubt that "the racist right" will do anything to stop Obama from succeeding domestically.

COMMENT:  You know, Castro is starting to sound like some of the more leftish members of the House.  They say exactly the same thing.  Or...is it that the more leftish members of the House who are starting to sound like Castro?

Well, actually, what's the difference?

August 25, 2009   Permalink

POLL WATCHING - AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports that, for the fourth straight day, Obama is in negative double digits in Ras's presidential approval index.  That measures the gap between those who strongly approve of the president and those who strongly disapprove.  Today it's at minus 11.

Obama's overall approval stands at 49%, disapproval at 51%.

And Gallup reports its measure of the president's approval has him at 52%, with 41% disapproving.

Rasmussen polls among likely voters, Gallup among "national adults."

August 25, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:28 A.M. ET:  The backlash against the release of the Lockerbie bomber continues.  It seems to have unleashed pent up resentment, not only toward Western appeasement of terrorists, but toward the Obama administration and its "outreach" to everyone with grudge.  Reader Alan Weick alerts us to this, from Abe Greenwald at Contentions:

Barack Obama has so ably repaired the once frayed ties with our Bush-abused allies that UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown couldn’t do us the minute favor of keeping the convicted mass murderer of American citizens from being sprung and delivered into a Libyan hero’s welcome.

Hillary Clinton has been so levelheaded (so nonideological) in her pursuit of improved relations with Libya that Muammar Qaddafi simply had to meet terrorist Abdel Basset al-Megrahi at the airport to hug and kiss him and proclaim his love for both the killer and the British Crown before the world.

This is what all that goodwill and all those apologies have reaped? The unprecedented coupling of our best friend with one of our worst enemies?

And considering that this was all probably orchestrated in the interest of opening up British-Libya oil ties, the old nugget “blood for oil” seems particularly apt.

Hey, the important thing is: no more cowboy diplomacy, right? No more go-it-alone, unilateral, with-us-or-against-us, good-and-evil hooey. That was for simpletons. We’re in the hands of geniuses now.

COMMENT:  And coming soon to a news outlet near you:  the crunch in Afghanistan, the crunch in Iraq, a showdown with North Korea, a showdown with Russia, and the ever-popular Iranian nuclear program.

No doubt the Obamans will handle these problems with the same brilliance they've shown in handling, say, health care.

Better take a sedative.

August 25, 2009   Permalink 

IT GIVES US PAIN, BUT WE MUST DO IT - AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  Praise a New York Times editorial, that is.  There's a political drama developing in Massachusetts that's gotten remarkable little attention, considering the personalities and stakes involved.

Senator Ted Kennedy, as we all know, is critically ill, and of course we wish him well.  However, he is still functioning, and thinking politically.  He's now proposed that, in the event of a Senate vacancy, the current Massachusetts system requiring a special election to fill the seat be dropped, and the governor of the state given the authority to appoint an interim senator.

No way.  Previously, Kennedy was on the other side.  When his Senate colleague from Massachusetts, John Kerry, ran for president in 2004, the governor was a Republican, Mitt Romney.  Kennedy, hoping for Kerry's election, backed a measure to change the system then in place, which allowed a gubernatorial appointment to fill the seat, to a requirement for a special election.  The measure passed the Massachusetts legislature.

Now that the governor is a Democrat, Deval Patrick, Kennedy wants to switch back to the old system.  Even The New York Times realizes how outrageous that is:

Massachusetts governors used to fill Senate vacancies. But in 2004, the Democratic majority in the State Legislature changed the law to require a special election. The leaders were concerned that if Senator John Kerry was elected president, Gov. Mitt Romney would appoint a fellow Republican. To change back now would look like an unseemly amount of partisanship in setting the rules for who goes to Congress.

Special elections put the power where it should be in a democracy — with the people. Too many senators today are selected in elections of one, with the governor casting the only vote. New York just went through this in filling Hillary Clinton’s seat, Delaware in filling Joe Biden’s seat, and Illinois in the disastrous process of filling Barack Obama’s seat, which contributed to the impeachment of Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

COMMENT:  All right, New York Times Editorial Board, you did good.  But, oh, it's so rare.

Savor the moment.

August 25, 2009   Permalink

THE NERVE, THE ABSOLUTE NERVE - AT 7:50 A.M. ET:  With an approving United States standing by, disgracefully,  the Organization of American States is pressuring Honduras to take back its legally and constitutionally ousted president, despite the fact that the man faces serious charges:

(CNN) -- A delegation of foreign ministers led by the Organization of American States' secretary-general arrived Monday in Honduras in an effort to restore ousted President Jose Manuel Zelaya to office.

The delegation represents seven countries, including Canada, Mexico and Argentina. The organization has demanded that Zelaya, who was ousted June 28 in a military-led coup, be allowed to return to Honduras and resume his presidency.

The United Nations and European Union also have condemned the coup and refused to recognize the provisional government led by former congressional leader Roberto Micheletti.

The delegation's visit comes two days after the Honduran Supreme Court said Zelaya would face charges of violating the constitution if he returned to the country. Under an accord suggested by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, Zelaya would have been allowed to return with diminished powers. But Micheletti had said he could not agree to the pact until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter.

COMMENT:  What is going on here?  Bad reporting, for one thing.  Zelaya, an ally of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, was not removed in a military coup.  The military did not act until ordered to do so by the country's Supreme Court.

With all the horror going on in the world, the inordinate attention being given to the fate of one Latin American fellow traveler seems odd in the extreme.  I wish as much attention were given to the fact that Fidel and his brother have ruled Cuba for almost half a century without a free election, or to the increasing power grabs by Chavez.  But in the rarefied halls of international diplomacy, that would be oh so rude.

August 25, 2009   Permalink

CHENEY SNAPS BACK - AT 7:42 A.M. ET:  One thing about Dick Cheney - the man stands up for his beliefs, no matter what it costs him.  Now, following yesterday's release of a raft of CIA documents about interrogations of terrorists, the former vice president gives the most articulate, thoughtful reply that I've seen:

The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates since 2002. The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions.

And get this, which deserves to be circulated:

President Obama’s decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration’s ability to be responsible for our nation’s security.

COMMENT:  Absolutely correct.  Add to health care "reform" a growing worry about national security.  Even Scotland, releasing the Lockerbie terrorist, treats this administration with contempt. 

August 25, 2009   Permalink

MONDAY,  AUGUST 24,  2009

HE'S SOOO THIRD WORLD - AT 10:56 P.M. ET:  Fouad Ajami, who normally writes on Middle Eastern affairs, turns his attention to President Obama's political troubles, and finds that, in some strange way, there may be a connection between the two subjects.  The president, he says, is just so third world, and eventually Americans would discover it.  From The Wall Street Journal:

It was true to script, and to necessity, that Mr. Obama would try to push through his sweeping program—the change in the health-care system, a huge budget deficit, the stimulus package, the takeover of the automotive industry—in record time. He and his handlers must have feared that the spell would soon be broken, that the coalition that carried Mr. Obama to power was destined to come apart, that a country anxious and frightened in the fall of 2008 could recover its poise and self-confidence. Historically, this republic, unlike the Old World and the command economies of the Third World, had trusted the society rather than the state. In a perilous moment, that balance had shifted, and Mr. Obama was the beneficiary of that shift.

That is very perceptive and well stated.  Don't you think?

His politics of charisma was reminiscent of the Third World. A leader steps forth, better yet someone with no discernible trail, someone hard to pin down to a specific political program, and the crowd could read into him what it wished, what it needed.

And that is precisely what happened.

The Obama devotees were the victims of their own belief in political magic. The devotees could not make up their minds. In a newly minted U.S. senator from Illinois, they saw the embodiment of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.

But the situation has changed.

Now that realism about Mr. Obama has begun to sink in, these iconic figures of history had best be left alone. They can't rescue the Obama presidency. Their magic can't be his. Mr. Obama isn't Lincoln with a BlackBerry. Those great personages are made by history, in the course of history, and not by the spinners or the smitten talking heads.

That last paragraph should be tacked on the wall next to the desk chair of every Washington pundit, but it won't be.

And the remarkable contrast between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama:

At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come.

In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the "Yes we can!" mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land.

Finally...

American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the "mandate of heaven" is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.

Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama's charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging. Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation's recovery of its self-confidence.

COMMENT:  As Jacques Barzun of Columbia used to say, time out for good reading.  Ajami's column is one of the best I've read on Obama.  Please read it through.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

WHERE ARE THE "HUMAN RIGHTS" GROUPS? - AT 6:28 P.M. ET:  As President Obama pushes ahead with the "peace process," designed to create a Palestinian state, the potential leaders of that state are making plain what it will look like:

Female students in the Gaza Strip will be required to wear head coverings and full-length robes beginning this school year, the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip announced on Monday.

According to the new regulations, any female student that does not attend class in the proper attire will be sent home.

The ministry also has ruled that male teachers cannot teach in girls' schools and women are not allowed to teach at boys' schools.

And...

These guidelines join an increasing amount of reports from Gaza residents saying that modesty patrols were forcing women to wear head coverings, especially at Gaza's beaches, and that they were inspecting isolated cars in order to prevent unmarried couples being alone together.

This is pretty much Saudi Arabia all over.

COMMENT:  I wonder what the attitude of this regime will be toward real democracy, living in peace with Israel, and toward the United States.  Don't ask, don't tell.

And, naturally, the "human rights" groups and "feminist" groups are silent.  As are the "peace activists" and "rights activists" in American universities.

Senior Hamas officials had claimed, in the wake of Hamas's June 2007 Gaza takeover, that the organization did not have any intention to turn the Sharia, Islamic religious law into official state regulations.

All they want is a little multicultural respect.

Do we really want to create a state like that?  Apparently the Obamans don't see a problem.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

THE LOCKERBIE RELEASE - AT 6:01 P.M. ET:  The release of the Lockerbie bomber last week by Scotland is producing a growing scandal in both Scotland and England.  This is joined by American reaction.  Some 82% of Americans in a new poll oppose the release.

British journalists, often far more blunt than their American counterparts, are on the case, and their verdict is scathing. Leo McKinstry of the Daily Express nails it:

THE decision by the Scottish Government to release the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi marks a new milestone in the decline of our nation.

The whole sickening episode has brought shame on Britain, exposing the moral cowardice and cynicism at the heart of our political elite.

Most of the civilised world felt only revulsion at the hero’s welcome given to Megrahi on his arrival at Tripoli airport, Libyan and Scottish flags waving in celebration at our country’s pathetic self-abasement.

Self-abasement is exactly the right term.  But the European and British left are so good at it.  Practice makes perfect.  The release was supposedly approved on grounds of "compassion" because the prisoner is dying.

This controversial decision was taken by the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, a politician who mixes arrogance and self-righteousness in equal measure. If he really thinks that, then the Scottish Justice Minister has a perverse definition of “compassion.”

To hear MacAskill, you would have to think he is the reincarnation of St Francis of Assisi, not an anti-British fanatic who had just reached a grubby deal with the one of the world’s most discredited regimes.

And...

This is not the way for a morally self-confident country to behave. So-called “compassion” has been a mask for pusillanimous surrender, squalid commercialism and naked political hypocrisy.

No trace of British understatement there.  Once again we see a moral collapse, with rumors sweeping Britain that business considerations played a role.

The United States also protested the release.  But then the president went on vacation, and all is forgotten.  Now we "move on" to investigate our own CIA.  For the left, that is much more tempting than easing the pain of PanAm 103 victims' families.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

NOT FUNNY - AT 5:25 P.M. ET:   

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - At least 1,200 veterans across the country have been mistakenly told by the Veterans Administration that they suffer from a fatal neurological disease.

One of the leaders of a Gulf War veterans group says panicked veterans from Alabama, Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming have contacted the group about the error.

Denise Nichols, the vice president of the National Gulf War Resource Center, says the VA is blaming a coding error for the mistake.

COMMENT:  Yes, mistakes happen, but this should serve as a warning to those who want to turn the health-care system over to the federal government.  When you have a single system you have no alternative, and the system itself, lacking competition, becomes lax and indifferent. 

August 24, 2009   Permalink

YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE - AT 10:42 A.M. ET:  For those who think Europeans are simply so superior to Americans.  From The Times of London:

It could be construed as a black day for the English language — but not if you work in the public sector.

Dozens of quangos and taxpayer-funded organisations have ordered a purge of common words and phrases so as not to cause offence.

Among the everyday sayings that have been quietly dropped in a bid to stamp out racism and sexism are “whiter than white”, “gentleman’s agreement”, “black mark” and “right-hand man”.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day”, according to documents released under freedom of information rules.

It gets worse:

Many institutions have urged their workforce to be mindful of “gender bias” in language. The Learning and Skills Council wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it, while the Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic.

COMMENT:  This is actually serious stuff over there. 

Oh, by the way, a quango is defined by Oxford as "a semipublic administrative body outside the civil service but with financial support from and senior appointments made by the government."  I thought you'd like to know.

The Europeans are absolutely manhandling the language.  Excuse me.  Personhandling.  I promise not to do that again.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

THE NEXT GREAT CHALLENGE - AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  Things are coming to a head in Afghanistan, which President Obama has declared a war of necessity, the good war.  The New York Times reports:

AGRAM, Afghanistan — Military commanders with the NATO mission in Afghanistan told President Barack Obama's chief envoy to the region this weekend that they did not have enough troops to do their job, pushed past their limit by Taliban rebels who operated across borders...

...The assessments about troop needs came as the top American commander in the region, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been working to complete a major war strategy review, and as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, described a worsening situation in Afghanistan despite the recent addition of 17,000 U.S. troops ordered by the Obama administration and the extra security efforts surrounding the presidential election.

"I think it is serious, and it is deteriorating," Mullen said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" program. "The Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated, in their tactics."

COMMENT:  For Obama, this comes at a bad time.  His popularity is down and downer.  The United States is deep in debt.  The American people, in the absence of any serious campaign to strengthen public support, are souring on the war.  And the increasingly angry left wing of the Democratic Party wants to do to Afghanistan what it failed to do to Iraq - turn it into a place from which Americans run. 

The president has, admirably, supported our effort in Afghanistan.  But up to now the decisions have been relatively easy, and the left has left him alone.  Now he may well be asked for a major commitment of additional troops.  Already there are stories wondering whether Afghanistan will be "Obama's Vietnam."  (There's a whole generation of journalists who just won't let go of Vietnam, and who believe that the "anti-war" movement of the sixties was some kind of high point in godliness, morality, sophistication and togetherness.)

As another story in today's Times reports:

“The analogy of Lyndon Johnson suggests itself very profoundly,” said David M. Kennedy, the Stanford University historian. Mr. Obama, he said, must avoid letting Afghanistan shadow his presidency as Vietnam did Mr. Johnson’s. “He needs to worry about the outcome of that intervention and policy and how it could spill over into everything else he wants to accomplish.”

The problem is, Obama must win in Afghanistan.  His party's national-security credentials are weak enough.  If he loses, or pulls out, they'll be zero, and the United States will, as after Vietnam, be weak in the eyes of the world.

We have said here that this autumn shapes up to be dramatic politically.  We adhere to that judgment.  Many things are coming to a head for Mr. Obama, and the stars are not aligning in his favor.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

A GOP RESPONSE ON HEALTH CARE?  ABOUT TIME - AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  The Politico is reporting that the Republican National Committee is coming out with a health care bill of rights for seniors.  That's good news.  We've long argued here, as readers know, that the GOP can't simply oppose.  It has to propose. 

EXCLUSIVE -- The Republican National Committee today makes a play for senior support by rolling out a “Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights,” aimed at amplifying concerns -- already clear in polls -- about the effect of health-care reform on Medicare. RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “America’s senior citizens deserve access to quality health care that will not bankrupt them. … Unfortunately for America’s seniors, President Obama and Congressional Democrats are looking to fund their government-run health care experiment by cutting over $500 billion from Medicare.” The first point in the six-point “Bill of Rights”: “PROTECT MEDICARE AND NOT CUT IT IN THE NAME OF HEALTH CARE REFORM.” And, of course, it includes: “PREVENT GOVERNMENT FROM INTERFERING WITH END-OF-LIFE CARE DISCUSSIONS.”

COMMENT:  The "bill of rights" device in the health-care debate is a good one.  This is a subject that produces high anxiety and fear.  People want to be reassured that their rights involving health care are guaranteed. 

Let's hope this is the start of a positive Republican agenda for 2010 - practical, imaginative, and stated briefly.  The Dems are having trouble selling a 1,000-page bill, and for good reason.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

THE REAL REASON - AT 7:46 A.M. ET:  The New York Post, in a fine editorial, examines the wild charges coming from the left, directed at Americans who have the nerve to criticize The One, and finds them absurd.  The Post correctly explains the real reasons why Americans are so angry:

It's been a hilarious August, watching media supporters of President Obama's health care package puzzle over the obscure motivations of the noncompliant Americans rallying against it.

"Racial anxiety," guessed New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

"Nihilism," theorized Time's Joe Klein.

"The crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy," historian Rick Perlstein proclaimed in the Washington Post.

While the commentariat's condescension is almost comical, the whole evil-or-stupid explanation misses the elephant in Obama's room: Americans of all stripes, it turns out, aren't very keen about the government barging into their lives.

Yeah, and they aren't very keen about a president who runs as a moderate and governs from the increasingly far left.  And they may be less than confident in an administration, and its allies in Congress, who can't even explain the contents of the health "reform" they're jamming down our throats.

This isn't about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. A majority oppose Obama's policies because they fly in the face of this country's bedrock values of personal liberty and limited government. Robbing Peter to pay Goldman Sachs does violence to that fundamentally American ethos.

And increasingly, Obama administration policy does violence to European values, as well. The continent has for the last two decades been systematically disengaging national governments from domestic industries. Top officials from Sweden, of all places, complained about Washington's auto bailout, tersely announcing that "The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories."

COMMENT:  Incredible, isn't it?  Even some in Sweden - the pinnacle of Superior Nationhood in the view of the chattering classes - are appalled at what's happening here.  Many in Europe have realized their economic mistakes in recent years, only to see those same mistakes made, with enthusiasm, by the new Obamans. 

But Americans, always faster to wake up than the welfare stated Europeans, are waking up quickly.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

THE NEW, IMPROVED INTERROGATORS AT 7:32 A.M. ET:  The Obama administration is changing the way we interrogate people who may want to, say, blow up American buildings, or even cities.  The Washington Post outlines the new, progressive approach:

President Obama has approved the creation of an elite team of interrogators to question key terrorism suspects, part of a broader effort to revamp U.S. policy on detention and interrogation, senior administration officials said Sunday.

Obama signed off late last week on the unit, named the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG. Made up of experts from several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the interrogation unit will be housed at the FBI but will be overseen by the National Security Council -- shifting the center of gravity away from the CIA and giving the White House direct oversight.

A word about the timing:

The administration is releasing the new guidelines on the day when what it sees as the worst practices of the Bush administration are being given another public airing. New details of prisoner treatment are expected to be included in a long-awaited CIA inspector general's report being unveiled Monday about the spy agency's interrogation program. The report could set off a fresh debate between members of the current administration and the previous one over whether such tactics are necessary to prod detainees into cooperation and, ultimately, keep the country safe.

And...

a steady drip of stories about past practices has focused attention on the Bush administration. According to recent reports, the CIA hired the private contracting firm Blackwater USA as part of a program to kill top al-Qaeda operatives.

COMMENT:  So, at the very time that we're protesting Scotland's outrageous and cynical release of the Lockerbie bomber, this stuff starts dripping out.  At the very time when we must make critical decisions about increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, "sources" strangely leak new stories that can damage our security services.  At the very time when we're trying to balance our withdrawal from Iraq with safeguards to prevent our achievements there from being lost, we hear word of new "investigations" into past practices.

I don't want to sound paranoid, but have you ever noticed how damaging information about alleged "abuses" comes out when we have a full plate of security questions before us?

There may well have been abuses, and they can be handled through normal channels.  But you just know that any "investigation" will turn political very quickly, which is exactly what many on the left would love to see.  To a certain group in Washington, and they are linked to the Obama wing of the Democratic Party, the time to end Bush-bashing is never.

As to the Obama White House controlling interrogations of high-value detainees, in my worst moments I can imagine the questions:

1.  Are you comfortable?

2.  Has anyone been nasty to you?

3.  How about that flat-screen TV?  Enough contrast?

4.  Did they get you a CD of that new song you were asking about, you know, "We'll Smash the American Imperialist Infidels Until They Accept the Prophet and Put Their Women in Cages"?  We can get you the whole album if you like.

You get the picture.

August 24, 2009   Permalink