REPORT TO READERS:  Our fourth subscription drive ended Friday night.  We reached 91% of our goal.  That's actually quite good, as all goals are somewhat arbitrary.  The drive strengthened our financial stability.

We're happy to welcome a number of new subscribers and donators.  We also must acknowledge the increased support given Urgent Agenda by previous contributors. 

Our next drive will be in November. 

Thanks to all.  Now...onward to the rest of 2009 and the critical midterm election year of 2010.

SUNDAY,  JUNE 21,  2009

IRAN UPDATE - AT 10:31 P.M. ET:  There weren't any definitive developments in the Iran crisis today.  There were some demonstrations in the country, but they were smaller and less violent than Saturday's.  Some analysts have pointed out that the revolution of 1979 took months to develop.

They key, of course, is whether the demonstrations will continue this week, and whether the general strike that has been called by dissidents will actually occur on Tuesday.  The protesters are getting no great help from the outside.

The administration issued no new statements.  The Sunday talk shows were filled with Democrats defending Obama's cautious stand, and Republicans criticizing it for being too soft.

We await the new week.  Will the uprising deepen, or disappear?  If it deepens, will the U.S. feel compelled to step up its rhetoric?  If it disappears, how will Obama sit down, with any self-respect, with the people who put down the resistance?

Even the in-the-tank press might want to know.

June 21, 2009   Permalink

THE OTHER CRISIS - AT 9:19 P.M. ET:  With our attention focused on Iran, there's a tendency to forget the other crisis underway at sea, as The New York Times reminds us:

SEOUL — A North Korean cargo ship shadowed by a United States Navy destroyer was reportedly steaming toward Myanmar on Sunday, posing what could be the first test of how far the United States and its allies will go under a new United Nations resolution to stop the North’s military shipments.

The United States began tracking the 2,000-ton freighter Kang Nam after it left Nampo, a port near Pyongyang, North Korea, on Wednesday. Pentagon officials have said they suspect the ship of carrying prohibited materials, but have declined to say where it may be headed.

The problem, of course, is that UN resolution.  It has a loophole large enough to sail a freighter through:

The resolution bans North Korean trafficking in a wide range of nuclear and conventional weaponry, and calls upon United Nations members to search North Korean ships, with their consent, if there are “reasonable grounds” to suspect that banned cargo is aboard. If the crew does not accept inspection on high seas, North Korea is required to direct the vessel to a port for inspection by local authorities there.

Another resolution with teeth.  You can see North Korean knees starting to quake.  They don't have to accept boarding at sea, and can direct the ship to the friendliest of ports.  We're certainly making progress.

Let's see if there's any confrontation at all.

June 21, 2009   Permalink

STUNNING, ABSOLUTELY STUNNING - AT 10:48 A.M. ET:  Maybe it had to happen, but Rasmussen reports this morning that President Obama has gone into the minus zone in Ras's presidential approval index for the first time since inauguration.  This index measures the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove of the president's performance.  This morning it stands at 32% strongly approve, 34% strongly disapprove.  This may be reflecting Obama's performance during the current Iran crisis.

We always stress that polls are snapshots in time, vary from day to day, and have a margin of error.  But the negative turn does reflect a downward trend for the president over the past week.  At the same time, Mr. Obama's overall approval ratings in the Rasmussen poll remain positive, 53% to 46%.

This administration is running into headwinds...from Tehran.

June 21, 2009   Permalink 

LATEST - AT 10:06 A.M. ET:  From my Iranian dissident friend, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, who really knows Iran:

The Moussavi/Karroubi coalition has called for a general strike throughout Iran for Tuesday, June 23rd. They have called upon all civil servants and government employees, all non-governmental employees and white collar workers, nurses & hospital workers, emergency medical services and fire department, students, teachers and everyone across Iran to participate in a nationwide protest.

By the way, Banafsheh will be on Fox News today at 3:35 p.m. ET.  She'll also be on John Batchelor's excellent radio show tonight on ABC.  You can hear it on the internet at http://www.wabcradio.com/.  Ban is posting late bulletins on her Facebook page here.

June 21, 2009  Permalink

A LITTLE REHABILITATION - AT 9:46 A.M. ET:  Those who read The Angel's Corner at Urgent Agenda know that Roger Cohen of The New York Times has twice won our Pompous Fool Award, in part for serving as an apologist for the Iranian regime.  Now, incredibly, Cohen is in Tehran, and has gotten reports out.  They are actually quite good, and maybe some personal rehabilitation is under way.  Here is a bit:

Just off Revolution Street, I walked into a pall of tear gas. I’d lit a cigarette minutes before — not a habit but a need — and a young man collapsed into me shouting, “Blow smoke in my face.” Smoke dispels the effects of the gas to some degree.

I did what I could and he said, “We are with you” in English and with my colleague we tumbled into a dead end — Tehran is full of them — running from the searing gas and police. I gasped and fell through a door into an apartment building where somebody had lit a small fire in a dish to relieve the stinging.

Well, Roger, it would have been nice had you been with them a little earlier, but we'll take what we can get.  By the way, Cohen also reports:

I also know that Iran’s women stand in the vanguard. For days now, I’ve seen them urging less courageous men on. I’ve seen them get beaten and return to the fray. “Why are you sitting there?” one shouted at a couple of men perched on the sidewalk on Saturday. “Get up! Get up!”

Which makes the silence of American "feminist" groups all the more revolting.  I guess they think Clarence Thomas is the real enemy.  They should pay a price for their cynicism and corruption, and that price should be extracted by American women.

June 21, 2009   Permalink

IRAN - AT 9:33 A.M. ET:  Early reports say there are more demonstrations in Iran today.  It's actually dusk in Iran, but there's a time lag in getting information.  Remember, there are essentially no reporters left in the country who are permitted to do their jobs.

We didn't get the full picture of the violence yesterday until late afternoon, or early evening, Eastern time. 

At the same time, the Democratic spin machine is revving up.  Now there's the claim, laughable by any standard, that President Obama is really the inspiration behind freedom movements in the Middle East.  No, I'm not making that up.  From the BBC:

"In offering negotiation and conciliation, [President Obama] has put the region's extremists on the defensive," wrote Senator John Kerry in the New York Times on Thursday.

Mr Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and former presidential candidate, now chairs the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee.

While events unfolded slowly, Mr Kerry cautioned the administration against voicing strong support for the demonstrators or tougher condemnation of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"Returning to harsh criticism now would only erase this progress, empower hardliners in Iran who want to see negotiations fail and undercut those who have risen up in support of a better relationship," added Mr Kerry.

That is complete nonsense.  These are the same people, the Kerry crowd, that have told us over the years that we must not be harsh on the Iranians because most of the people are pro-Western.  Those are the people out in the streets, and I think we can logically conclude that they'd love more support from the beacon of freedom. 

Those arguing for Obama's soft line say that if he made stronger statements, he'd be playing into the hands of the regime by making the revolt look American-inspired.  Oh, please.  Does anyone believe this revolt was American-inspired, especially by this admnistration?  Why, these guys make Jimmy Carter look like the man of steel.

In fact, no matter what we do, the mullahs will blame us.  Consider this, from Fox News:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned the United States and Britain Sunday to stop meddling in Iran's internal affairs, the ISNA news agency reported.

"Definitely by hasty remarks you will not be placed in the circle of friendship with the Iranian nation. Therefore I advise you to correct your interfering stances," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

"They (Western countries) want to portray as small the great and powerful position that has been created for the Iranian nation inside and outside after the recent election, by which of course they made a mistake and they showed they still do not know the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said.

COMMENT:  So, if we made a stronger statement, what would the esteemed president of Iran say?  Will he hint that the hidden Imam will come and beat us up? 

The president has a choice between Reagan and Carter here.  Guess which one we prefer?

June 21, 2009   Permalink

SATURDAY,  JUNE 20,  2009

IRAN AND WOMEN - AT 10:16 P.M. ET:  One of the key issues in the Iranian uprising is women's rights.  I checked some of the leading "feminist" websites just a few minutes ago.  Not a word about Iran.  Not interested.  It's simply another example of the feminist movement's betrayal of women.  The movement is far less interested in women's rights than it is in pushing its pet issues, like abortion, and its leftist agenda.  But the mainstream media will never notice.

June 20, 2009   Permalink   

FURTHER IRAN UPDATE - AT 9:44 P.M. ET:  We have to be very careful here.  The Iranian government has clamped down on journalists, so what we are getting is coming from citizens, Twitterers and others, some with agendas, some with not.

It's apparent that the events of today were far more violent, and widespread, than we were originally led to believe.  There have been fatalities.  How many, we can't be sure.  I've been monitoring the news sources, and get the feeling that the level of violence against the demonstrators increased during the day.  We're also learning that, although there are no demonstrations at night, members of militia groups go through Tehran harassing people they think were involved in the demonstrations.

Several reports say that injured demonstrators are being arrested at hospitals when they seek medical care.

We are getting conflicting reports on what the demonstrators want.  Some say that those in the streets simply want a return to a pure Islamic republic.  Others reject that view, claiming that the young people, in particular, want the end of theocratic rule.  This is a critical question, and news media must address it more thoroughly. 

One news story quoted Iranian "experts" in Washington as admitting that they "missed" the extent of the opposition.  Certainly gives us confidence in these talking heads.  Be careful of "experts."

Still controversial is the reaction of the Obama administration.  The best the president could muster during the day was a written statement with some boilerplate about the right to assemble, etc., etc.  Real lawyer stuff.  The president's defenders say he's keeping a low profile to avoid giving propaganda ammunition to the Iranian regime.   My own sense is that, while there may be some truth in the president's position, it's greatly exaggerated.  After all, as we've pointed out, European leaders have issued far stronger statements, not apparently fearing that they will be blamed for the demonstrations. 

I get the feeling that democracy just doesn't rank very high on this president's scale of values.  He doesn't feel it.  His background, with radical leftist groups, exposed him to the notion that Western democracy is simply a cultural choice, one of many, and not necessarily a better choice than some other system.  If my hunch is correct, it's really too bad, and a sad day for America.

June 20, 2009   Permalink   

OBAMA SPEAKS ON IRAN, BUT, OH, NOT REALLY - AT 3:28 P.M. ET:  The president of the United States spoke out today on Iran, as noted by The Washington Post:

President Obama reacted to the unfolding events in Iran by issuing a statement calling on the government of Iran to "stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people."

The White House said the president had been monitoring the situation during the day, meeting repeatedly with senior advisers. But the statement largely echoed the president's measured response since the election crisis began a week ago.

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching," the president's statement said. "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."

COMMENT:  That'll show 'em.  Notice the phrase, "issuing a statement," in the first paragraph.  The president who last night was cracking jokes at a White House broadcasters' dinner apparently didn't have the time to step to a microphone today.  He issued a statement.  And there was nothing new in it. 

Can you imagine how Ronald Reagan would have handled this moment?  Well, you don't have to imagine.  There's plenty of history.

How our prestige soars.

June 20, 2009   Permalink

IRAN UPDATE - AT 3:14 P.M. ET:  There are new developments in Iran. Our earlier report, based on first information, suggested that the authorities may have broken the back of the demonstrations.   Later reports tell us that some demonstrators did attempt to mass in the streets, only to be viciously attacked by the mullah's holy warriors, who were also massed.  The New York Times has a good report:

TEHRAN — Police officers used sticks and tear gas to force back thousands of demonstrators under plumes of black smoke in the capital on Saturday, a day after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said there would be “bloodshed” if street protests continued over the disputed presidential election.

And...

The violence unfolded on a day of extraordinary tension across Iran. The opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, again called for a recount, as opposition protesters swore to continue pressing their claims of a stolen election against Iran’s embattled and increasingly impatient clerical leadership. Iran’s divisions played out on the streets. Regular security forces stood back and urged protesters to go home and avoid bloodshed, while the feared pro-government militia, the Basij, beat protesters with clubs and, witnesses said, electric prods.

Other reports put the number of demonstrators at about 3,000, far fewer than the hundreds of thousands who braved the streets in recent days.  Clearly, fear is taking its toll.

There's an additional element, reported by London's Telegraph:

Iran's defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi on Saturday night told his supporters he was ready for martyrdom, and demanded that the entire disputed election be annulled.

and...

A witness told Reuters that Mr Mousavi had called for a national strike if he was arrested.

It was an unprecedented act in defiance of Ayatollah Khamenei, who has declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of the June 12 election and on Friday ordered an end to protests by demonstrators who say Mousavi was the winner.

COMMENT:  This is a continuing story, and we can't draw many conclusions from the sketchy reports available from Tehran.  Mousavi is talking tough, but the question is whether large numbers of his followers will continue to take to the streets in the face of a violent crackdown.

June 20, 2009   Permalink

PRESIDENTIAL NUMBERS - AT 9:54 A.M. ET:  In polling we look for trends, not individual snapshots in time.  The Rasmussen daily tracking poll, which can be erratic at times, has been showing a fairly consistent drift downward for the president since about June 12th, a bit more than a week.  Today's results show 54% of those polled approve of the president's performance as opposed to 46% who disapprove. 

Rasmussen's presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, is down to one point, 34-33, same as yesterday.

These results do not take into account the full impact of reaction to Mr. Obama's handling of the Iran eruptions. 

June 20, 2009   Permalink

MORE BAD HEALTH - AT 9:42 A.M. ET:  While Congress is "fixing" the health-care system, the honorable members might contemplate how the system would look without much care.  Apparently, recruiting enough competent physicians in needed areas hasn't been a priority for the "reformers," as The Washington Post points out:

As the debate on overhauling the nation's health-care system exploded into partisan squabbling this week, virtually everyone still agreed on one point: There are not enough primary-care doctors to meet current needs, and providing health insurance to 46 million more people would threaten to overwhelm the system.

Fixing the problem will require fundamental changes in medical education and compensation to lure more doctors into primary-care offices, which already receive 215 million visits each year.

The American Academy of Family Physicians predicts that, if current trends continue, the shortage of family doctors will reach 40,000 in a little more than 10 years, as medical schools send about half the needed number of graduates into primary medicine.

COMMENT:  We face the prospect of a British-style system, complete with long waits, short visits, and whole areas of the country without primary care at all. 

The mistake we're making is allowing the government to increase its presence in the health-care system without any demonstration of competence.  Yes, government may have some role to play in areas where the private sector refuses to take needed action, or cannot solve the problem.  But the shortage of primary-care physicians is not going to be solved by government bureaucrats.  Now, with the prospect of a complicated, government-controlled system, the shortage may get worse. 

I just get the sense that the Obama administration and its friends in Congress are plowing ahead with little real understanding of the complexities involved.  It is true that there are issues involving health coverage that need to be addressed.  It is also true that we need to address the critical issue of costs, especially when those costs are arbitrarily inflated. 

But we must also acknowledge that anyone in America who needs health care can, though some existing program, get it.  It may not be elegant, and there are certainly inequities.  But Americans are not dying in the streets for lack of health care.  Maybe that's the fact with which we should begin the national debate.

June 20, 2009   Permalink

TO YOUR HEALTH, NOT - AT 8:50 A.M. ET:  Even The New York Times could not resist a dig at the grossly irresponsible manner in which our health care is being assaulted by the liberals in Congress:

WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Friday answered President Obama’s call for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system, unveiling a bill that they said would cover 95 percent of Americans. But they said they did not know how much it would cost and had not decided how to pay for it.

Why confuse us with details?  Press reporting on this critical issue has been abysmal, with the press asking few pertinent questions.  Originally, the White House said that Americans could keep their current health coverage if they liked it, but that guarantee is now in jeopardy.

Asked why there was no cost estimate for the bill, the House Democratic leader, Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said: “Until we have a final product, we are reluctant to ask the Congressional Budget Office for a score. But whatever we do will be fully paid for.”

House Democrats pledged to offset the cost of their legislation by reducing the growth of Medicare and imposing new, unspecified taxes.

Republicans, who had no role in developing the bill, denounced it as a blueprint for a vast increase in federal power and spending.

“Families and small businesses who are already footing the bill for Washington’s reckless spending binge will not support it,” said the House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, who raised the specter of federal bureaucrats’ making medical decisions for millions of people.

COMMENT:  We cannot overstate the recklessness here.  Apparently, the radical liberals want to throw out the baby with the bath water, destroying much that is good about American health care in favor of theories and speculative programs - all dictated by Washington. 

Most political pundits are predicting that some kind of "reform" will pass.  We'll be watching this with two eyes, to the extent that the press is willing to cover the details.

June 20, 2009  Permalink

IRAN - AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  It is difficult to get definitive information out of Iran.  But what we've learned so far is that the demonstrations planned for today have not materialized, and that major squares are filled with heavily armed riot police.

It is possible that the Iranian authorities have broken the back of the protests through sheer intimidation.  If so, then we can only speculate on whether the reform movement will have a next phase, or will simply pass into history.  Given the fact that the feckless Obama administration has made clear its wish to engage the Iranian regime in negotiations over its nuclear policies, reformers can expect no great help from Washington.

There have been periodic reformist movements in Iran since the Islamist takeover of the late seventies, but all have failed.  This current one, today, is apparently on life support.

Assuming that the demonstrations have been broken, what is the next step?  There will certainly be some questions about whether a stronger stand by the United States might have made a difference.  At the same time, you can also be sure that we'll hear calls from the administration to "move on" to talks with the mullahs.  I doubt if the demonstrations of the last week will completely be forgotten, just as Tiananmen Square has not been completely forgotten.  But their memory will have little impact on policy.  And the in-the-tank Obama press, which spent most of the last eight years ridiculing George W. Bush's call for Mideast democracy, can't wait to get back to the fawning game.  They have a president to protect.

But stand by.  The story isn't over.   We can still hope for defiance, and possibly a resurrection of the reform movement later this week.  That is the real audacity of hope, and would be change - for a change - that we can believe in.

June 20, 2009   Permalink