WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER 2,  2009

THEY'RE ONTO HIM - AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  The Brits, or at least the Brits outside the loony left, are on to Obama.  I get the sense from the international press that the French - the ones who don't hang out in cafes with American students spending their junior years abroad - are getting the picture as well.  The Israelis had his number from day one.  Now the Germans seem to be well past the worship stage.  This from Spiegel Online, has been making the rounds:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

Nothing like a compliment.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.

I did not read anywhere else that the cadets were prompted.  Inappropriate, in my view. 

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Ouch.  And...

It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives -- their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.

Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners -- particularly those with a talent for oration -- are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called "Hope."

Yeah, and remember that Bill Clinton was "the man from Hope."  Must be something in the water.

In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.

The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.

That was not an endorsement.  Despite all its apparent softness, and its very real treachery in negotiations and foreign policy, Europe still wants a strong American president.  Maybe now the Europeans will start realizing the value of George Bush.

December 2, 2009   Permalink

THE GOOD GUYS FIGHT BACK - AT 7:30 P.M. ET:  One of the nasty things about this administration is its attempt to blame its problems on President Bush.  I don't recall a president who was less gracious toward his predecessor than is Barack Obama.  Even on matters of war and peace, where you'd expect an attempt at a show of bipartisanship, there is none.

But the good guys are fighting back.  Dick Cheney, a devoted public servant, has been at the head of the line, and this country can thank him for joining the battle.  Now, former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld speaks out, and challenges the Obamans on the facts, as Fox News reports:

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday lashed out at President Obama for claiming the Bush administration rebuffed commanders' repeated requests for more troops in Afghanistan.

In a rare break in his public silence since leaving the Pentagon, Rumsfeld rejected the claim as a "bald misstatement" and "disservice" that cannot go unanswered.

"Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response," Rumsfeld said in a written statement. "I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006."

And...

Rumsfeld said in his statement the White House should make public any such requests if they exist to back up the allegation.

"The president's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan," Rumsfeld said.

He urged Congress to review the claim in the upcoming debate to "determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied."

COMMENT:  Oh, that is delicious.  I love it when the good guys demand proof from those who throw around charges.  Now watch the evasions begin.  Congress, under the Dems, will never investigate.  The White House will deflect.

But if Dick and Don keep it up, they will make progress.  Cheney's approval ratings have already risen.  The American people do listen, and they're no longer dazzled by The One.

December 2, 2009   Permalink

MORRIS HIGH ON GOP CHANCES - AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  Analyst Dick Morris goes out on a limb about 2010, analyzing the data and making a startling prediction:

Voters are increasingly complaining that Obama is weak, vacillates, does not keep his promises, spends too much time on other priorities than jobs, and seems egotistical.

All polls have Obama below 50 percent and some, like Harris, have him all the way down to 43 percent in job approval. These surveys mean that Obama, who won 52 percent of the vote, is now losing between one in ten and one in five of his voters.

This erosion of support makes the elections of 2010 look more and more like a rerun of 1994. It is now reasonable to predict -- and I do -- that the GOP will take both houses of Congress.

We're not too high on predictions here, and Morris's track record is mixed, but he does present a case worth considering, as long as we label it as informed speculation:

In the Senate, the Republicans are likely to hold all their vacant seats with the possible exception of New Hampshire. Incumbent Democrats Dodd (Ct), Specter (Pa), Lincoln (Ark), Reid (Nev), and Bennett (Col) are the low hanging fruit. Among the open seats, Delaware seems ripe for the Republicans. Add to these six seats, two more if Rudy Giuliani challenges Kristin Gillibrand in New York and if North Dakota governor Hoeven takes on Dorgan. Mark Kirk could be the ninth pickup in Illinois. And, in a Republican sweep, you have to respect GOP chances in California and New Jersey.

A deluge swamps all boats.

That assumes that the sun shines fully on the Republicans.  But don't dismiss the White House political operation, the impact of a liberal press, and possible improvement in the economy.  A week is a lifetime in politics.

On Capitol Hill, the Democrats seem to have almost abandoned the message war on health care. They are hunkering down and focused on keeping their troops in line. The appeals to party discipline are so strong that one senses that they are prepared to march, in lock-step, over the cliff together.

When one considers where Obama was only a year ago and where he is today, the fall is simply stunning. That he clings to the staff that helped him take it is amazing. This has to be the least successful White House since, well, Clinton's 1993-94 crowd. In fact, it's many of the same people!

COMMENT:  I have myself noticed that many of the Obama boosters I know are noticeably quieter this year than last.  And, by the way, not all of them are on the left.  Some are moderates who simply became enamored of The One, and now see that they were rolled.

We can be optimistic.  We also have to work hard.

December 1, 2009     Permalink

GOP STRONG IN GENERIC POLL - AT 6:30 P.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen is reporting that the GOP retains a solid lead the generic congressional ballot, indicating which party likely voters prefer in 2010 congressional races:

Republican candidates have a seven-point lead over Democrats for the second straight week in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Support for the candidates from both parties remains unchanged from last week.
Republicans have held the lead for over four months now. Democrats currently have majority control of both the House and Senate.

Voters not affiliated with either party continue to heavily favor Republicans, 43% to 24%.

COMMENT:  It is true that other polls show more strength for the Democrats on the generic ballot, but I believe Rasmussen's methodology has proved more reliable.  The year 2010 could provide a great opportunity for Republicans, if they run a solid campaign, have clear ideas, and recruit attractive candidates under the age of 95.

December 2, 2009   Permalink

SILLY SEASON - AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  The silly season has already begun on the anti-war left in Congress.  The season was toasted in by, of course, a member of the Massachusetts delegation.  This will no doubt earn the lucky guy an invitation to speak before some group at Harvard.  From The Politico:

Anti-war lawmakers in Congress are pressing for an early vote on funding for new troops in Afghanistan so that President Barack Obama’s policy can be tested before thousands of additional Marines and soldiers are sent into combat.

Obama outlined his new strategy in a nationally televised speech from West Point on Tuesday night, and the administration expects to add 30,000 troops by the end of next summer, bringing the total U.S. force to more than 100,000.

“Let us have this debate before he moves forward,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said in an interview Tuesday. “I remember the debates on Iraq. Bush already had the troops there, and then we were debating. ... I’d like it to be before we escalate one single American troop over there.”

That’s a tall order, since the first Marine units are expected to be deployed later this month, but a January or February war funding debate can’t be ruled out and would come before most of the new troops have been sent to Afghanistan.

COMMENT:  The loonies will not give up.  They still can't admit that the surge in Iraq worked.  They still can't admit that we have serious national-security issue.  And yes, they may try for a debate at the start of the year.  The Democratic left generally holds safe seats in the House.  They're not afraid of the 2010 midterms.  It's the responsible moderates who are sweating.

McGovern will be joined by the smooth-talking and Marxist Barbara Lee of California, head of the Congressional Black Caucus, whose members are also proving problematical for Mr. Obama.  The president mentioned last night that there was only one vote in Congress against military action after 9-11.  That vote belonged to Barbara Lee, and, when not singing the praises of Fidel Castro, she's attacking national defense.

The House has an Out-of-Iraq Caucus.  That has now morphed into an Out-of-Afghanistan caucus.  Soon it'll be an Out-of-Kansas Caucus. 

December 2, 2009   Permalink

THE OTHER CRISIS - AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  Britain's Con Coughlin, who writes frequently about security affairs, warns us that the other crisis - Iran - is boiling.  This provides still one more opportunity for the Democratic Party's left wing to oppose any effective action.  From The Telegraph:

The best that can be said about Iran's announcement that it intends to build a further 10 uranium enrichment facilities is that at least we are now clear about its intentions.

For much of the past year, the West has been labouring under the illusion that Iran might somehow be coaxed into negotiating a resolution to the international crisis over its nuclear programme. Barack Obama, in particular, has gone out of his way since taking office last January to try to persuade Tehran to end the decades of anti-American hostility that have defined Iran's approach to Washington since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

And how successful The One has been!

But all the President has got in return is a hardening of Tehran's position, resulting in an announcement that, even by Iranian standards, represents a dramatic escalation in the country's nuclear ambitions.

We're glad someone in the press noticed.  And all Coughlin will get for this is to be labeled a warmonger by the journalistic left.

Precisely why the world's fourth largest oil producer is so obsessed with developing nuclear power has never been adequately explained by the government. All Mr Ahmadinejad and other senior members of the regime ever say when pressed is that Iran has an inalienable right to develop nuclear power if it chooses, and that is how it intends to meet its future energy needs.

And...

Even Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA director-general, concedes that his inspectors have reached a "dead end" in their attempts to unravel Iran's true nuclear intentions. During his 12-year tenure as head of the IAEA, Mr ElBaradei has bent over backwards to accommodate Tehran, often blocking publication of sensitive material that might embarrass the Iranians in the hope that he could persuade them to make a full disclosure of their programme.

For this great contribution to mankind, ElBaradei was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which apparently is given for cynicism and ineffectiveness.

The fact that both Russia and China now appear to be prepared to take a tougher line with Tehran is about the only positive development to emerge from this otherwise sorry saga. This is partly due to Mr Obama's intense diplomatic efforts to court both Moscow and Beijing, and a growing awareness that, unless urgent action is taken soon, the world will wake up one morning and find that the ayatollahs have successfully tested an atom bomb.

A bit exaggerated.  Russia is taking a tougher line, and has indicated that it might agree to more sanctions.  China is stating directly that increased sanctions are not on the agenda.

Time is clearly not on the side of those attempting to talk Iran round. For the past six years, the West has been involved in intensive negotiations with Tehran to resolve this dispute, but all that has happened is that Iran has dramatically increased its nuclear capability while the West has received nothing in return.

This is a situation that can no longer be allowed to continue. If Iran wishes to persist with its defiant attitude, then it must face the consequences.

The right words.  But which government is listening?

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has argued in favour of "crippling" sanctions being imposed against Iran, and urgent action should now be taken to implement them as soon as possible, in a last-ditch effort to bring Tehran to its senses. Otherwise the consequences are too dreadful to contemplate.

COMMENT:  And if Clinton doesn't get what she presumably wants, she should resign her position and go public.  But I don't think she has the guts, or the character. 

Iran is even more serious than Afghanistan.  But the word we hear from Washington is that the usual suspects down there are preparing to "live with" a nuclear Iran.  That's not the issue.  We can "live with" a nuclear Iran.  The issue is whether we die with it.

December 2, 2009   Permalink

THE ENEMY - AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  If you were the enemy in Afghanistan, what would you be thinking this morning?  Certainly, you'd be concerned about the 30,000 new American troops heading into your neighborhood, for they are capable, and led by enlightened commanders like Petraeus and McChrystal.

But you'd also know that time is on your side.  After all, your opponent's president has just given you the gift of a timetable for withdrawal, so you know his heart isn't in the battle.  You know, as Andrew Malcolm noted below, that your opponent's president never mentioned the word "victory," apparently banned as beneath the College Board level of the new administration.  You know that the president's own party is against him.

You know that the North Vietnamese waited out the Americans and watched the "anti-war" red left destroy their war effort.

You know that the president's party will probably suffer losses in the 2010 midterms, but that those defeated are likely to be moderate Democrats in swing districts, not the leftists who are now the core of the party.

You know that the American economy is weak, and that your opponent's president is spending his country into bankruptcy.

You know that your opponent's educational institutions are filled with people who believe 9-11 was America's fault, and teach that to children.

You know that your opponent's president is about to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and that it will go to his head.

And, although fearful of what the Americans can pour on you in the next 18 months, you take out a calendar and start marking off those months.

And you smile.  Very broadly.

December 2, 2009   Permalink 

THE MORNING AFTER - AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm, of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket, gives the best written summary of the meaning of last night's presidential address:

President Obama spoke 4,582 words in his primetime Afghanistan war speech at West Point last night.

He said "al Qaeda" 22 times.

He mentioned the "Taliban" 12 times.

And here's how many times the Democratic chief executive used the word "victory" -- 0.

That telling omission says more than anything about Obama's 322d day in office when he gave his first major address as the United States' commander-in-chief.

Through a clever, timely use of leaks late Monday and suggestive advance excerpts Tuesday afternoon, the Obama White House communications team used the public and news media's intense curiosity about his war decisions to steer public attention toward the number of additional American troops he'll dispatch into that war-torn land in the first half of 2010.

That number is 30,000, significantly less than some reported numbers requested by the ground commander. But added to the existing 68,000 there and taken out of context, that would appear....

...to show a strong commitment to persevering in the bloody struggle, now entering its ninth year, that has claimed 936 American lives and another 596 allies, mainly Canadians and Brits.

But reading the speech over and over overnight, another, far stronger impression comes through: Limits.

As former White House communications strategist David Gergen puts it succinctly, "The cavalry is coming. But not for long."

COMMENT:  Increasingly, that is the impression that analysts are getting.  The speech was very well delivered, in an Adlai Stevenson sort of way.  The president, after all, is a fine speaker.  But, also in an Adlai Stevenson sort of way, you have to look carefully at the substance, or lack of it.

Obama's was instead a well-crafted, nicely-wrapped political speech that calmly attempts to give something to everybody, those concerned over national security and his Democratic Party's antiwar left.

I suspect that the president will get a slight bump in the polls for his impressive theatrical performance, but that it won't last long.  It is remarkable to see how many analysts have become cynical about this president and the way he goes about things.  They may have looked down on George W. Bush because he didn't sound like the ideal of an Ivy League president who strummed a 60's guitar, but it was hard to be cynical about Bush.  What you saw is what you got.

December 2, 2009   Permalink

TUESDAY,  DECEMBER 1,  2009

BEST COMMENT - AT 10:51 P.M. ET:  I've continued to monitor reaction to the president's speech.  The most insightful comment I heard was from Dana Perino, President Bush's last press secretary, who asserted that Mr. Obama was trying to speak to too many audiences.  I agree.  The speech lacked the singularity of purpose of a great address, especially a great war address.  Once again, the president could not restrain his temptation to run for office...constantly.

The 2011 deadline proposed by President Obama figured into many of the comments I heard.  Conservatives, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, were uniformly critical of the president for stating a deadline while we're in the midst of combat.

Potentially, the most important remarks came from those who warned, as the president did, about nuclear weapons in Pakistan falling into the wrong hands. 

One striking feature:  Very few Democrats reacted publicly, at least from what I observed.  Their party is a national-security mess, with too many cards held by a sixties crowd that never grew up.   

I cannot help but think of Iran.  That crisis is now, and yet the president seemed overwhelmed by Afghanistan.  There are clouds ahead.

One clear thing that Mr. Obama must consider:  He must consider reaching out to the Republican Party, especially Senator John McCain.  The GOP is willing to help him in areas where he's losing the wine and Brie wing of his own party.  Thus far, Mr. Obama has been too partisan on foreign policy.  It's in his own interest to put that stage behind him.  He should start tomorrow.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

LIVE BLOGGING THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH:

9:15 P.M. ET:  Most of the analysis is over.  Lindsey Graham gave one of the most reasonable responses, saying that he supported the surge in Afghanistan, but not the giving of a timeline.  By contrast, Dennis Kucinich, on Fox, gave the response of the lunatic fringe, which is to pull out of Afghanistan now.  When asked how he'd deal with the Taliban, he replied, "Negotiate."  The way we do with Iran, I guess.

8:48 P.M. ET:  Turned to CNN, which looks like it has about 6,000 pundits on screen at the same time.  It's like the old Ed Sullivan Show.  But Barbara Starr, one of the best reporters at CNN, points out that Obama put boundaries around our effort in Afghanistan, and she was plainly skeptical.

8:45 P.M. ET:  Switched to MSNBC.  Chris Matthews sounds crazy, attacking Paul Wolfowitz.  Rachel Maddow is attacking George Bush.  It's a waste of time.  Switch off.

8:40 P.M. ET:  Reaction to the speech begins.  Krauthammer is down on it, calling it "strange."  He compares the speech to Bush's speech announcing the surge in Iraq.  Krauthammer points out that Bush never talked about a timeline. 

8:36 P.M. ET:  Speech over.  A good speech, but we'll have to look at the details.  Lots of idealism in the speech.  The shadow of his party's left still hangs over everything. 

8:35 P.M. ET:  Obama gets more applause by asking for national unity.  He might send a note about that to the leftist fringe in his party, and to the Hollywood crowd. 

8:33 P.M. ET:  Obama gets his first applause by committing the U.S. to advancing freedom to others.  This has been a weakness in his administration, and it's good to hear the words.  We'll see if the words have meaning.   

8:30 P.M. ET:  Obama is now talking about his attempts to rebuild our diplomacy, a slap at Bush that is unnecessary. 

8:25 P.M. ET:  Obama is now discussing the economic cost of war.  A bit discordant when we're talking about human life.  Now he says we must rebuild our economy here at home.  That's true, but you get the uneasy feeling that this part is politics.  Says that economics is one reason why our commitment to Afghanistan cannot be open-ended. 

8:23 P.M. ET:  Obama is now attempting to knock down the arguments against sending additional troops.  He rejects, correctly, the notion that this is another Vietnam.  He rejects the status quo.

8:18 P.M. ET:  Obama is saying that the Afghan government must understand that it bears ultimate responsbility for security in its country.  It's okay, but I'm uneasy about that timeline.  It contradicts everything else the president is saying. 

8:15 P.M. ET:  He's kind of back on track, giving a list of our goals in Afghanistan, and they're reasonable and well presented.  But again he now says we'll achieve these things in 18 months.  This timeline is designed to appease the left, and is weakening the speech.

8:13 P.M. ET:  Whoops.  The speech is going a bit off the rails.  Obama inserts a discordant note, reminding the audience that he opposed the Iraq war.  And now he announces that he'll deploy 30,000 additional troops, but says they'll start coming home in 2011.  What?  Why signal to the enemy what your withdrawal plans are?  This part falls down.  We're still listening.

8:11 P.M. ET:  A reasonable speech so far.  Obama is making clear that the Taliban must be defeated.  He is also defending himself, insisting that there has been no delay in deploying troops.  About that we'll see.

8:07 P.M. ET:  Obama gets a little dig in at our taking our eyes off Afghanistan, but does praise what we've accomplished in Iraq.  Good.  Can't quibble with it.

8:04 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama starts strongly, in words that could have been spoken by George W. Bush.  He correctly reminds us of 9-11, the reason we're in Afghanistan.  He denounces the Taliban clearly.  He gives the usual stuff that Al Qaeda distorts Islam, but, in context, it's reasonably stated.

8:02 P.M. ET:  The president enters to reasonable applause.

8:01 P.M. ET:  The president is about to speak at Eisenhower Hall, United States Military Academy, West Point.  I have spent many happy hours in that hall, usually listening to the West Point Concert Band. 

7:58 P.M. ET:    We'll start our live-blogging of the president's address from West Point in a few minutes.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

NO WAY TO DO IT - AT 6:29 P.M. ET:   We are getting a disturbing report about what the president will say tonight.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to announce Tuesday night that he will begin to transition American forces out of Afghanistan beginning in July 2011, setting the first time frame to begin reducing troop levels there nearly a decade after the United States first sent soldiers in to topple the Taliban government, senior administration officials said.

Mr. Obama will set the drawdown goal even as he orders another 30,000 troops to deploy to Afghanistan over the next six months in an effort to reverse the momentum of Taliban insurgents fighting to regain control of the country. By expediting the flow of reinforcements, officials said Mr. Obama hopes to create urgency for the government in Kabul to match the American surge with one using its own forces.

Oh, no, no, no.  It appears that Obama has caved to his left wing.  What is nuttier than announcing your withdrawal date when you're in the middle of combat?  What if, in 1943, President Roosevelt had announced, "I'm sending more troops to the Pacific, but we'll wind it up in early 1945"?

The tribes of Asia think in terms of decades, and centuries.  Now we have gifted them with a schedule.  They simply have to hold out another two years, and things will be fine.  This is not a strategy for victory.  It's a strategy for pleasing the California House delegation, with the Massachusetts crowd thrown in.

John McCain gets it right:

Senator John McCain on Tuesday expressed support for the plan to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, but said he objected to setting a date for an exit strategy to begin as early as 2011.

“Dates for withdrawal are dictated by conditions,” Mr. McCain told reporters on Capitol Hill. “The way that you win wars is to break the enemy’s will, not to announce dates that you are leaving.”

He is correct.  He could have been president.  But we were sold a lemon by the establishment press, and the sale went through because of a suspiciously timed economic collapse, right in the middle of a presidential campaign. 

There are people in national politics who want us to lose in Afghanistan.  They are the same people who opposed the surge in Iraq.  And they are, in some cases, older versions of the same people who wanted us to lose in Vietnam.  They think it's good for us.  And they don't think 9-11 was a big deal.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

R.I.P. TOMMY - AT 6:20 P.M. ET: 

Tommy Henrich, the right fielder known as Old Reliable who helped propel the Yankees to seven World Series championships, died on Tuesday in Dayton, Ohio. He was 96.

His death was announced by the Yankees.

Playing with the Yankees for 11 seasons, Henrich proved a timely hitter, an outstanding defensive player and a leader who epitomized the image of the classy Yankee who was nearly always a winner.

COMMENT:  There are certain deaths that make those of us of a certain age pause for a moment.  As a fanatical Brooklyn Dodger fan, growing up in Brooklyn, I loathed Tommy Henrich.  The guy was that good.  I remember, during one World Series, snapping off a brown Emerson tube table radio in a rage as Henrich got a critical hit against my boys.

R.I.P. Tommy.  You did good, even if it was for the wrong team.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

SUPPORT FOR IRAN - AT 6:01 P.M. ET:  Iran feels it can be defiant about its nuclear program, and here is one reason:

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang, meanwhile, said Tuesday that more dialogue, not sanctions, was needed to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear program. His words came after Teheran announced Sunday that it plans to build 10 more uranium enrichment facilities

Speaking at a press conference, the Chinese spokesperson said that sanctions "are not the goal" of renewed UN pressure on Iran. "We should properly resolve this issue through dialogue," he said. "All parties should step up diplomatic efforts."

COMMENT:  As the Brits say, "Hello?"  The entire sanctions strategy of the Obama administration is based on getting the Russians and Chinese aboard.  We need their votes in the UN Security Council, and each has a veto. 

If China doesn't go along with new sanctions, our strategy is sunk, and there's nothing we can do to China. 

Very tough decisions coming.  Very tough.  The Air Force has ordered new bunker-busting bombs for delivery in the spring.  And a very well informed source in the American military told me recently that "we may have work to do" in Iran.

If the Iranians believe that, they might act differently.  But when an American president projects weakness, we get the fist in return.

December 1, 2009   Permalink 

WHEN WILL WE GET THIS MESSAGE? - AT 5:51 P.M. ET:  Iran keeps telling us what it really believes, and we never seem to believe it.  What part of this doesn't Barack Obama understand?  From the Jerusalem Post and AP:

Iran continued snubbing the world Tuesday, two days after defiantly announcing a decision to build ten uranium enrichment facilities in the face of international condemnation of its lack of transparency in dealing with the IAEA.

"Iran's nuclear issue has been resolved ... We will hold no talks (with major powers) over this issue. There is no need for talks," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday, in a televised interview communicated by the Reuters news agency.

"Talking about isolating Iran (over its nuclear work) is a psychological war launched by the West ... Iran is a unique country ... and no country can isolate it," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

COMMENT:  In other words, the negotiations are over. 

And what will our response be?  Well, the president is getting a hostile reaction from his party's Lenin-was-misunderstood wing over Afghanistan.  Does he want to take on this crowd again over Iran?  I suspect our first response will be disappointment and a letter to the editor.

As we've written here, many chickens are coming home to roost.  This country is in danger, and the American people, in poll after poll, are questioning the president's leadership.  Fortunately, we are entering an election year, when the people can send a message stronger than a Gallup response.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

MADNESS IN ACTION - AT 10:07 A.M. ET:  If you doubt that there is real madness in some parts of our educational system, please read on:  There was a time when the New York City school system was revered for its quality.  Teachers, mostly Irish, taught students of all backgrounds.  Those teachers took great pride in their work.  They had prestige.  They had gone through a rigorous selection process.  The description "New York City teacher" meant something. 

I spent my early years in that system.  We had teachers who could diagram an English sentence.  Now, some students are lucky to have a teacher who can write one.

And while there are still many gems in the New York City system, some of the newer schools are positively off the wall.  Consider:

A growing number of city schools aim to foster resentment and rage among the most uneducated students. Under the guise of "social justice," the fomenting of racial and socio-economic grievances has supplanted the teaching of basic skills. The result is an even wider gap in learning between the poorest minorities and other students.

And get this:

The corruption of the curriculum is getting harder to conceal. In the wake of the ACORN scandals, it's more obviously problematic that ACORN is affiliated with three city schools -- including two in Brooklyn bearing the group's name: ACORN Community HS and the ACORN HS for Social Justice.

Can you imagine the football cheer?

But teacher activism goes far beyond ACORN. Social justice is the guiding academic principle of more than a dozen city high schools, particularly in the newer crop of smaller schools started by community groups.

* On the home page of Bushwick Community HS, you'll find a large illustration of Che Guevara wearing a graduation cap.

* Last year, the principal of Vanguard HS in Manhattan hosted a "radical math" conference at his school. The event, according to the program, featured a presentation by a teacher at Performing Arts & Technology HS about "how to use the history of the Black Panther Party to fuel an algebraic curriculum."

* At Banana Kelly HS in The Bronx, the social-justice agenda has extended into its discipline policy. The school is experimenting with "restorative justice" techniques -- in which misbehaving or truant students aren't punished but instead asked to participate in trust-building exercises to help them "acknowledge their feelings."

Wait.  Stop the music.  Banana Kelly High School?  Who the hell is Banana Kelly?  This one I haven't heard.

All right, I looked it up.  It's actually a street.  Colin Powell grew up nearby and talks about it in his autobiography.

And the city's response to the lunacy in some of its schools:

A spokesman for the city Education Department waved off any concern: "We don't submit schools to political tests. We ask them instead to teach our students to be avid learners and critical thinkers, and we hold them accountable for how well they do that."

Translation: It's not our problem.

COMMENT:  This kind of educational corruption is spreading.  We'll write more about it.

December 1, 2009    Permalink

THE PEOPLE'S VERDICT - AT 9:45 A.M. ET:  It is simply remarkable to watch how this administration pursues policies that are unpopular with the public.  Recently, the attorney general, Eric Holder, announced that the mastermind of 9-11 will be tried in an ordinary civilian courtroom in new York City.  The Gallup organization asked Americans what they think of this:

PRINCETON, NJ -- By 59% to 36%, more Americans believe accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, rather than in a civilian criminal court. Most Republicans and independents favor holding the trial in a military court, while the slight majority of Democrats disagree.

That's a 23-point difference.  Not even close.

Once again, though, the Democrats show just how far to the left their party has gone.  Some 51% of Dems favor the civilian courts.  Compare this to 22% of Republicans, and, most important, 32% of independents.

The Democrats are isolating themselves from the majority of Americans. 

Holder's decision was terrible, and there are moves to have it reversed.  Debra Burlingame, whose brother was captain of the American Airlines jet that was flown into the Pentagon on 9-11, writes:

I am one of the organizers of a rally being held at noon this Saturday in Foley Square to stop President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and members of Congress from bringing sworn enemies of the United States into this country - from bringing war criminals captured on the battlefield, lawfully held as war detainees, into civilian court.

Foley Square is the location of the United States Court House in Manhattan, where the trial will be held.

It doesn't have to happen. We who are opposed to the decision must make ourselves perfectly clear to the powers that be that we will not tolerate this decision.

And Debra, whom I've met, and who is terrific, has sterner words for our attorney general than have come out of the mouth of any Republican:

The attorney general has suggested that those who oppose prosecuting these men here in New York City are afraid - that we somehow don't have the courage to face Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in court.

How dare this man, who didn't have the decency to notify victims' families of his decision to bring these monsters here, imply that we lack courage. Courage is carrying on after watching your loved ones die, in real time, knowing that they burned to death, were crushed to death, or jumped from 100 flights high. Courage is carrying on, even as we waited, in some cases years, for something of our loved ones to bury. More than 1,100 families still wait.

Great piece.  Read the whole thing.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA MADE HIS OWN BED - AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  Journalists write about President Obama's "dilemma" in Afghanistan, but the fact is that he made his own bed.  He made Afghanistan a "war of necessity" in a cynical attempt, during the 2008 campaign, to distance himself from the Iraq War, which he'd condemned, and yet appear responsible on national security.  Byron York, in an excellent reporting piece in the Washington Examiner, explains:

At West Point tonight, when Barack Obama formally announces he is sending tens of thousands more American troops to Afghanistan, he’ll be doing so against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party. Sending more troops will fulfill a key Obama campaign pledge, but it will also expose a deep rift in the party — and highlight its habit of dissembling on the war.

Results of a recent Gallup poll:

Fifty-seven percent of Democrats want to reduce the number of troops, and another 10 percent want to see troop levels remain the same. That’s 67 percent — two-thirds — of Democrats who want the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to go down, or at least go no higher. Which means two-thirds of Democrats likely oppose the president’s decision to send more troops.

An explanation:

And yet, in the 2008 presidential season, from the Democratic primaries to the general election, Democrats felt required to promise to step up the war in Afghanistan. Was it because the Democratic base that now opposes escalation supported it back then? No. A Gallup poll in August 2007 — in the midst of the Democratic primary race — found that just 41 percent of Democrats supported sending more U.S. troops to fight in Afghanistan.

If the base didn’t support it, then why did candidates promise it? Because Democratic voters and candidates were playing a complex game. Nearly all of them hated the war in Iraq and wanted to pull Americans out of that country. But they were afraid to appear soft on national security, so they pronounced the smaller conflict in Afghanistan one they could support. Many of them didn’t, really, but for political expediency they supported candidates who said they did. Thus the party base signed on to a good war-bad war strategy.

Incredible cynicism.  But it reflects the notion proposed by the Marxist scholar Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s, that the truth is what supports "progressive" causes. 

...now, with Democrats in charge of the entire U.S. government and George Bush nowhere to be found, Pelosi and others in her party are suddenly very, very worried about U.S. escalation in Afghanistan. “There is serious unrest in our caucus,” the speaker said recently. There is so much unrest that Democrats who show little concern about the tripling of already-large budget deficits say they’re worried about the rising cost of the war.

A folk singer in 1960 called this "puttin' on the agony, puttin' on the style."

Mr. Obama, Byron York writes...

...had to make certain promises to get elected. Unlike some of his supporters, he has to remember those promises now that he is in office. So he is sending more troops. But he still can’t tell the truth about so many Democratic pledges to support the war in Afghanistan: They didn’t mean it.

COMMENT:  One of the big mistakes made by journalists today is to label the left-wing Democrats in Congress, especially the House, as "liberals."  They are not liberals.  They are leftists.  Liberals traditionally took a responsible stand on national security.  Hubert Humphrey was a liberal.  So was Henry Jackson.  So was Paul Douglas.  Leftists don't care much about national security, living the illusion that foreign threats are manufactured by the "industrial-military complex." 

Barbara Lee, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, is not a liberal.  A fan of Fidel Castro, she's a leftist.  So is Dennis Kucinich.  So are many others.  Liberals would be offended to be associated with them.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

THE SPEECH - AT 8:36 A.M. ET:  We are now about 12 hours away from President Obama's speech on Afghanistan, surely a defining moment for his administration.

The key question is no longer whether he'll send more troops to the war zone.  He will.  The key question is the overall tone of the speech.  Will there be a will to win?  A real strategy?  Or is the president simply pursuing a temporary holding action to avoid being accused, before the 2012 election, of "losing" Afghanistan?

Already there are worries.  The White House, in press statements, is emphasizing, not the need to win in Afghanistan, however that's defined, but how we get out.  That is, of course, the wrong message to send to the enemy.

And how will Mr. Obama describe that enemy?  Will he finally succumb to the truth and describe it as Islamic and extremist, and put those words together?  Or will he persist in the myth that there is nothing to justify any association between Islam and violence? 

Will Obama blame Bush for our plight, as he has done so many times?  Or will he take command?

Some readers have suggested that this speech is all a cynical exercise.  They argue the possibility that Mr. Obama knows that the left-wing Democrats in Congress will block funding for the war, replaying the Vietnam playbook, and that he'll get out of the problem that way, all the while claiming that he did what he could, but that Congress tied his hands.  While there's a very real chance that Congress will try to block funding, or impose new and unpopular taxes to pay for the war, I doubt if that is figuring in the president's announcement.  If Congress succeeded in blocking funding, going against Barack Obama, the president would, after all, look like a weak fool.  I doubt if he plans on that.

Another intriguing question:  Will Obama pull a Truman?  President Truman realized he had a problem with the left wing of the Democratic Party, and essentially read it out of the party in 1948.  Its leader, Henry Wallace, then ran against him on the Progressive ticket, the Progressive Party being a front for the old red groups.  At some point Mr. Obama must realize that the left is doing him far more harm than good, and that moving to the center is necessary for his own survival.  How soon, though, will he realize it?

Frankly, I don't think he has the spine that Harry Truman had. 

So we wait.  Urgent Agenda will be blogging live through the speech.  As always, we hope that the president makes a wise decision for the nation.  And, as always, we don't expect all that much.

December 1,  2009   Pemalink