FRIDAY,  JULY 17,  2009

WALTER CRONKITE - AT 10:49 P.M . ET:  Walter Cronkite has died.  Without question, he had a profound effect on the formative years of television journalism, and set a high standard for the term "anchor."  He was the first reporter who, in my memory at least, provided serious, on-the-scene coverage of national political conventions.  He narrated "Air Power" and other CBS documentaries.  His calm, factually based reporting of the assassination of President Kennedy, was memorable, and a reminder of what true journalists do under intense pressure.  His coverage of the space program was a balance of solid news presentation and just enough personal, boyish excitement to give his work the human touch.

In every life there is a ledger.  We must sadly include the one disturbing moment in Cronkite's career, and, tragically, a critically important one - his famous 1968 report from Vietnam in which he declared that America was stuck in a quagmire, and that only a negotiated settlement would get us out.  In fact, it was the enemy that was stuck in a quagmire, as its own written history of the war freely admitted, and it was looking for a way out.  In fairness to Walter Cronkite, his report was modestly presented, and lacking in the arrogant dogmatism that characterizes much of more recent journalism, but it turned out to be misleading nonetheless.  It must be included in the legacy of a generally distinguished career.

July 17, 2009   Permalink

GREAT SENSE OF PRIORITIES - AT 7:21 P.M. ET:  We refer readers to the story just below, reporting that Iran may well be within six months of an atomic bomb.  Now consider this, from the representatives of the people:

The House intelligence committee decided today to launch an investigation into allegations that the CIA broke the law by not informing Congress about a program launched in late 2001 to capture or assassinate al-Qaeda leadership.

"The committee must be kept fully and currently informed of significant intelligence activities as required by law," Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement.

The story notes:

For decades Congress and the CIA have battled over the 1947 law that formed the agency and what it requires in terms of congressional briefings. It included a provision mandating that the committees be kept "fully and currently informed" of intelligence issues. Even for covert actions, lawmakers on the committees generally must be notified.

But the law also says such briefings should be done "to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters."

COMMENT:  This is all about Democratic Party politics, especially appeasing the precincts of the dingy left, which thinks al-Qaeda represents just one more lifestyle choice.

And the centrifuges in Iran keep spinning.

July 17, 2009   Permalink

IRAN - SIX MONTHS TO A BOOMER - AT 6:20 P.M. ET:  "Boomer" is slang for a nuclear bomb.  And now even foreign diplomats are saying that Iran could have a boomer in six months:

VIENNA (AP) - Iran is blocking U.N. nuclear agency attempts to upgrade monitoring of its atomic program while advancing those activities to the stage that the country would have the means to test a weapon within six months, diplomats told The Associated Press Friday.

The diplomats emphasized that there were no indications of plans for such a nuclear test, saying it was highly unlikely Iran would risk heightened confrontation with the West—and chances of Israeli attack—by embarking on such a course.

No, but computer simulations can tell the story.  No vulnerable country, like Israel, would relax simply because Iran didn't carry out a full test. 

And our president, showing signs of chronic adolescence, still talks about "engagement," even though the Europeans have been engaged for seven years, with no result. 

July 17, 2009   Permalink

GROSSLY IRRESPONSIBLE  - AT 5:59 P.M. ET:  What a contrast.  In the story just below we report that six senators are calling for more care, more consideration, in dealing with the health-care "reform" bill now before the Senate. 

And what does the "change we can believe in" guy have to say about this?  Remember, we're talking about a president who presented himself as the intelligent alternative to George W. Bush:

WASHINGTON — Hours after two House committees approved legislation to remake the health care system, President Obama delivered a stern lecture Friday afternoon to lawmakers who have said the process may be moving too fast.

The president said health care reform is closer to reality than ever, and “now we’ve got to get over the finish line.”

Get what over the finish line, Mr. President?  Get what? This isn't a college track meet, damn it.  We're talking about life-and-death decisions for an entire nation.  And this guy is only interested in meeting a deadline.

What is actually in this bill?  How will it change our lives?  Can we have some real debate, please?  Apparently not.  As with the "stimulus" package, we're expected to accept the judgment of our betters, who know what's good for us.

Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, said the bill would not provide universal coverage or reduce health costs, but would result in some Americans’ losing insurance or even their jobs. “Small business will be massively impacted,” Mr. Gregg said.

The people pushing this bill don't care about small business.  Those are the people they loathe the most - those little struggling printing shop owners in mid-sized towns and cities.  Who are these people who get in the way? 

Look at the manner in which our national business is being conducted.  This is the change we were told to believe in.

And the real losers?  The young generation that was so enthusiastic about Obama.  They will pay the bill, and see their names at the end of health-care waiting lists.  And they will someday realize that the people who put them there couldn't care less. 

July 17, 2009   Permalink

COMMON SENSE - MAYBE? - AT 4:17 P.M. ET:  Even some Democrats are starting to see that the health-care debate is insane.  The Obamanuts want a bill passed by the August recess, a bill that will change America more than any piece of legislation has in decades.  Who cares if it's right?  Who cares if it bankrupts the economy?  Who cares if it increases medical costs rather than lowering them?  Hey, it's about vengeance, isn't it?  Let's get back at those people who kept us out of power.

There are saner voices:

July 17 (Bloomberg) -- A group of lawmakers seeking middle ground on President Barack Obama’s health-care initiative is asking Senate leaders to “take additional time” to reach a compromise on legislation.

In a letter sent today to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, six senators who have cast deciding votes in previous legislative battles said the impact of the legislation will “last for generations” and that it is “imperative to proceed thoughtfully and responsibly.”

Thoughtfully and responsibly.  What a numbing, middle-class idea.  How common.  How un-Ivy-League.

Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska signed.

Other lawmakers signing the letter were Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut.

Lieberman.  He's the one behind all this responsibility stuff.  Lieberman, the neo-con.  He liked BUSH (!!)

Americans are waking up to what's being done to them.  But alas, we hope it isn't too late.

July 17, 2009     Permalink

 
MORE VIOLENCE IN TEHRAN - AT 10:52 A.M. ET:  Recall, please, that overthrowing the Shah in 1979 took months.  The Iranian opposition is in its first month of protests:

Iranian pro-opposition protesters clashed with police Friday on the streets of Tehran in the first major rally since the end of last-month's post-election tensions.

Iranian police detained at least 15 people and used tear gas and batons to disperse opposition supporters outside Tehran University, a witness said.

Witnesses also said that a big crowd of Iran's opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi's supporters rallied in central Tehran after the Friday prayers sermon, a witness said."

"They are wearing green wristbands and carrying Mousavi's pictures while showing the victory sign," the witness said. Green was Mousavi's symbolic color for the presidential vote.

Near the university gates, police fired tear gas at Mousavi supporters as they headed for the prayers, witnesses said. They spoke on condition of anonymity fearing government retaliation.

COMMENT:  If we help, and encourage the opposition, which is what Michael Ledeen has been urging for years, we can, in Lincoln's words, "press the thing."  But I don't see any pressing.  The Obamans, never terribly interested in democracy to begin with, are still obsessed with "engagement."  Must not interfere, they say.  Tat.  Tat.  Of course, interfering in Honduras on behalf of an ally of Hugo Chavez a few weeks back was quite another matter. 

Are you, day by day, getting a picture of this administration? 

July 17, 2009   Permalink

YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE - AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  Related in spirit to the post just below, there is personnel news this morning from the Justice Department.  Better get out the emergency kits, check the batteries, and dig your shelters.  From the New York Post:

IF you were hiring a lawyer to help protect Americans from terrorists, you likely wouldn't choose a left-wing activist who's been a champion of the killers held at Guantanamo Bay.

Then again, you're not President Obama. His Justice Department has raised eyebrows by tapping Jennifer Daskal, formerly "senior counterterrorism counsel" at Human Rights Watch, to work as counsel in its National Security Division and to serve on a task force deciding the future of Guantanamo and its detainees.

COMMENT:  I can just imagine "human rights" lawyers landing at Iwo Jima in 1945 and immediately demanding the arrest of United States Marines for firing indiscriminately at the enemy.

This appointment is incredible.  What are these people thinking?  It's about as brilliant as the appointment of far-left columnist Rosa Brooks to the Defense Department earlier this year. 

There are certainly some solid people in the Obama administration, much closer to the center, but there is this fringe leftist element, and it can do real damage.  The president has not shown any interest.

July 17, 2009   Permalink

GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER - AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  From Fox News:

A group committed to establishing an international Islamic empire and reportedly linked to Al Qaeda is stepping up its Western recruitment efforts by holding its first official conference in the U.S.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global Sunni network with reported ties to confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Al Qaeda in Iraq's onetime leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It has operated discreetly in the U.S. for decades.

Now, it is coming out of the shadows and openly hosting a July 19 conference entitled, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," at a posh Hilton hotel in a suburb of Chicago.

And...

Hizb ut-Tahrir insists that it does not engage in terrorism, and it is not recognized by the State Department as a known terror group.

But some terrorism experts say it may be even more dangerous than many groups that are on the terror list.

"Hizb ut-Tahrir is one of the oldest, largest indoctrinating organizations for the ideology known as jihadism," Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told FOXNews.com.

COMMENT:  Hitler and Goebbels understood it best:  Give us the minds of youth, they said, and they will give you back soldiers for fascism.   The attacks of 9-11 didn't begin in flight school.  They began with indoctrination.

Isn't it remarkable that this conference will be held in a Hilton Hotel, a symbol of capitalism.  Lenin said that the West would sell the Soviet Communists the rope with which they would then hang the West.  Apparently, the Hilton guys never read Lenin.

July 17, 2009   Permalink

GATES WARNS OF IRAN - AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Iran the foremost threat to global security.  But the warning came with the kind of caveats that have left many people wondering what the foreign policy of the United States actually is:

CHICAGO (AFP) – Iran's nuclear ambitions are the greatest current threat to global security, according to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"Iran is the one that concerns me the most because there don't seem to be good options (or a scenario) where one can have any optimism that good options will be found," Gates told the Economic Club of Chicago.

The threat rests not only in Iran's apparent determination to seek a nuclear weapon, but in the "inability of the international community to affect their determination to do that," Gates said.

"All of the outcomes are negative," he said. "If they achieve one, the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is very, very real.

"If something is done to prevent them from getting one, the consequences of that are completely unpredictable and frankly, very bad."

COMMENT:  So what is our policy?  Gates concedes that the Iranians are going for the bomb.  He concedes that the "international community," whatever that is, seems powerless to stop them.  He concedes that there is a strong possibility of a catastrophic nuclear arms race in one of the most stable, fanatic-filled regions of the world.  And then he tells us that if something is done to prevent the catastrophe, that's bad too. 

So what is our policy?  Only one man can decide that, and he sits in the White House intellectualizing the world.  There is the grim possibility, more likely a probability, that Iran will get the bomb and that we will wring our hands while "learning to live with it."  And someone will blame Bush.

July 17, 2009   Permalink

BLASTS IN INDONESIA - AT 7:55 A.M. ET:  There has been a coordinated terror attack in Indonesia, although it could have been much worse:

JAKARTA, Indonesia, July 17 -- Eight people were killed Friday in two separate explosions at the JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in central Jakarta, just over a week after the world's most populous majority-Muslim nation saw a peaceful presidential election.

The Jakarta police said that "low explosive" devices were used to set off the blasts. The first was heard at the Marriott around 7:45 a.m. local time (8:45 p.m. Thursday in Washington). The Marriott also was targeted in 2003 by the al-Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah, when a bomb set off by the Islamic terrorists killed 11.

The second explosion happened shortly afterwards at the Ritz-Carlton hotel, less than 100 meters away. That bomb was believed to have gone off in the Airlangga restaurant.

And...

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, en route to Asia as part of a pre-scheduled trip, said the bombings reflect the viciousness of violent extremists, and remind us that the threat of terrorism remains very real. We have no higher priority than confronting this threat along with other countries that share our commitment to a more peaceful and prosperous future."

COMMENT:  We don't yet know if the attack was timed to coincide with Clinton's trip to Asia.  Indonesia, of course, is where President Obama spent some of his younger years. 

July 17, 2009   Permalink

THURSDAY,  JULY 16,  2009

BELOVED LEADER MEETS WITH HIS COURT - AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  It has now been revealed that the president held a secret dinner with some prominent historians on June 30th.

For more than two hours on June 30, over lamb chops, salad, coffee, and dessert, the new president quizzed his guests on a wide range of topics in what was described as a sort of "history book club, with the president as the inquisitor." Those attending were Michael Beschloss, H. W. Brands, Douglas Brinkley, Robert Caro, Robert Dallek, Doris Kearns Goodwin, David Kennedy, Kenneth Mack, and Garry Wills. Collectively, they represent one of the most stellar collections of presidential expertise ever assembled at the White House.

Essentially, they're all liberals.  Harvey Mansfield of Harvard wasn't invited.  Neither was Victor Davis Hanson.  And you can be sure that Mark Moyar, whose brilliant history of the Vietnam war destroys the myths we've been taught to live by, wasn't even on the "possibilities" list.

The story hilariously says that the president held the meeting to get outside the White House bubble.  Huh?  You get out of the White House bubble, which is filled with academics, by meeting with another group of academics, none of whom is likely to challenge you?

The man loves bubbles.  That is now certain.  He also seeks out opinions, as long as they're not too upsetting.

July 16, 2009   Permalink

"HEALTH" CARE STALLING - AT 7:32 A.M. ET:  As one commentator on Fox put it a short while ago, the Democrats didn't have a good day today.  The resistance to the Obama shove-it-through agenda, which began with the cap 'n trade bill, is blossoming as centrist Democrats examine the so-called "health- reform" bill.  They're also looking at polls showing 1) a rapid drop in approval of President Obama and 2) a generally negative view of current "health-reform" efforts.

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.

"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."

Apparently it's not change he can believe in.  And then the head of the Congressional Budget Office, risking life and limb, came in with a cheerful assessment of the cost of the Dems' heath plan:

The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday.

That is not a message likely to sit well with congressional Democrats or the Obama administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said Thursday she thinks lawmakers can find ways to wring more costs out of the health system as they continue work on their bills.

Finally, moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine emerged from a meeting with President Obama and ridiculed the idea of passing a health plan before Congress adjourns in August.  Essentially, Snowe echoed what more and more people are saying:  For something this important, what's the hurry? 

The American people are waking up, and members of Congress are listening.  The stimulus plan was shoved through Congress without any time to examine it.  Cap 'n trade, a farce based on global-warming fairy tales, was slammed through the House, although it may well die in the Senate.  Now the health-care plan is meeting increasing resistance despite the fast hustle that Dem leaders are trying to pull. 

Some Democrats apparently believe that they must pass the bill by the August recess, or it may die, as members of Congress go home and get an earful from their constituents.  Let it die, if need be. 

Of course, opposing the plan is not enough.  Republicans must come up with their alternative and present it, as an understandable package, to the American people.

July 16, 2009   Permalink

RASMUSSEN - CONTINUED BAD NEWS FOR OBAMA - AT 11:05 A.M. ET:  We always stress that polls are snapshots in time, and that the trend is what counts.  By that measure, though, President Obama is in trouble.  Since June 30th, now more than two weeks, he's done poorly in the Rasmussen poll, and there's nothing ahead that looks like it might change the trend.  Today's report:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –7 (see trends).

Thirty-two percent (32%) now say the country is heading in the right direction That’s down eight points from the 2009 peak and the lowest since February.

COMMENT:  Overall approval, also down, stands at 51% approve, 47% disapprove.  If the trend continues, the president could slip below 50% for the first time in a major poll since his inauguration. 

We caution, of course, that if the economy revives, or is perceived to be improving, the president's numbers can go up again.  Perception could easily be supplied, especially during next year's midterm election campaign, by a compliant press eager to support its "narrative."

July 16, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  From a well-reported guest column in the New York Daily News:

The whole conversation surrounding health care rests on the false but widely held assumption that there are currently 47 million uninsured Americans. That number is on the tongue of every cable news pundit and policy wonk in Washington. After all, you can't have a massive solution without a massive-seeming problem.

In a new study by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O'Neill, commissioned by the Employment Policies Institute, it was determined that 43% of people counted in the overblown 47 million uninsured estimate actually have incomes of at least 250% of the poverty level (averaging about $65,000) and could afford to purchase private health coverage. They are not insured because they choose not to pay for insurance. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the people in this 43% pay for dinners out, cell phones, cable TV and many other "higher" priorities.

Another gem:

Beyond the fact that nearly half of the purported uninsured could actually purchase health care coverage if they so chose, there are other rarely mentioned groups being included in the bogus 47 million statistic. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber estimates that illegal immigrants constitute 13% of the uninsured population.

COMMENT:  Congress is about to enact a hugely expensive solution to a problem it doesn't even understand.  Indeed, the lack of interest in facts is stunning.  It's especially stunning when you look at the media, which is always whining about "the people's right to know."  Apparently, there are many things the people don't have a right to know, like the real nature of the health-care "crisis."

There are certainly problems in the health-care system.  Some of them should outrage us.  And I don't excuse some of the behavior of private insurers.  I've heard too many stories from physicians I trust.  However, the idea behind reform is to fix problems, carefully and cautiously, and, to cite the Hippocratic Oath, to do no harm.  What we're getting from the leftist Dems in Congress is a hatchet, when we really need a scalpel - in capable hands.

July 16, 2009   Permalink

CURIOUS - AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  As you know, an armed man was shot dead by police late yesterday, right near the Capitol in Washington.  But there's something curious here:

WASHINGTON - Police still have not publicly identified the gunman they shot and killed near the U.S. Capitol Wednesday.
The D.C. Police Department is now in charge of the investigation.

Investigators know the identity of the gunman but neither the city police nor the U.S. Capitol Police has released it.

Police say the man fled a traffic stop in front of Union Station and nearly ran over two officers.

COMMENT:  The quoted story was released at 6:33 a.m. ET this morning.  Why won't the police release the name of the gunman?  Okay, there could be legitimate reasons - notification of next of kin, for example.  But the shooting occurred yesterday afternoon.  The man was driving a car.  Presumably, he had a license with an address.  The car had temporary Virginia tags, easily traced.  Notification should have been easy.

This may well be a routine delay, but we'll follow it to see if there's anything unusual here.  There didn't seem to be any logical reason why the gunman would flee, then fire shots. 

July 16, 2009   Permalink 

NOT SO FAST, BARACK - AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  Related to the story just below, about a possible Israeli strike on Iran, is a Bloomberg report on Iran's attitude.  It is rigid, uncompromising, as it has been for years.  There is no sign of daylight:

July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Iranian leaders are turning inward and rejecting engagement with the West as they blame outsiders for street protests, even as President Barack Obama’s administration pushes for curbs on Iran’s nuclear program.

The leadership has denounced foreign governments as “enemies” for encouraging demonstrations over last month’s presidential election and plans to put a British Embassy employee on trial for inciting the protests, which were violently suppressed. A French student also has been detained on spy charges.

And...

"It’s much harder for any engagement strategy to be successful” in the post-election atmosphere, said former U.S. diplomat Mark Fitzpatrick, who now heads the non-proliferation program at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The regime is increasingly isolated since the election and more determined than ever to reject international demands that it give up uranium enrichment, a prelude to developing a nuclear weapon, said Fitzpatrick, who was deputy assistant secretary of State for non-proliferation until 2005.

COMMENT:  And that is why Obama's "engagement" strategy is doomed to failure - unless he's just using it as a propaganda tool, to demonstrate that he's done everything possible before taking further "action."  Problem is, that further action may amount to nothing more than sanctions that Iran will proceed to ignore.

What then?  And what if Iran already has the bomb by the time we 1) impose more sanctions, 2) give them time "to work," and 3) commission studies to study the previous studies that studied their effectiveness?

We will live, as the Chinese say, in interesting times.

July 16, 2009    Permalink

INTRIGUING - AT 7:18 A.M. ET:  The London Times is reporting a possible deal between Israel and Western countries - approval for an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in exchange for some Israel concessions in the "peace process."

This story cannot be independently verified, and so must be read with caution.  However, there are elements that make sense:

Two Israeli missile class warships have sailed through the Suez Canal ten days after a submarine capable of launching a nuclear missile strike, in preparation for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The deployment into the Red Sea, confirmed by Israeli officials, was a clear signal that Israel was able to put its strike force within range of Iran at short notice. It came before long-range exercises by the Israeli air force in America later this month and the test of a missile defence shield at a US missile range in the Pacific Ocean.

And...

“This is preparation that should be taken seriously. Israel is investing time in preparing itself for the complexity of an attack on Iran. These manoeuvres are a message to Iran that Israel will follow up on its threats,” an Israeli defence official said.

They key claim:

The exercises come at a time when Western diplomats are offering support for an Israeli strike on Iran in return for Israeli concessions on the formation of a Palestinian state.

If agreed it would make an Israeli strike on Iran realistic “within the year” said one British official.

Diplomats said that Israel had offered concessions on settlement policy, Palestinian land claims and issues with neighboring Arab states, to facilitate a possible strike on Iran.

“Israel has chosen to place the Iranian threat over its settlements,” said a senior European diplomat.

COMMENT:  The ultimate issue is the position of Barack Obama.  Israel wouldn't need French or German approval for a strike on Iran.  It would need American approval.  I, for one, am skeptical.  It is hard to believe that Obama would give his okay.  How would he explain it to his rabidly "anti-war" political base?  But Hillary might approve.  Then the issue would revolve around her influence with the president.

July 16, 2009   Permalink