FRIDAY,  MAY 8,  2009

OH, HERE WE GO - AT 8:58 P.M. ET:  Okay, start taking the airsickness pills.  We're in for another presidential address beamed to all those people who, if it hadn't been for BUSH (!!) would absolutely adore us and all we stand for.  From The Washington Post:

President Obama will make his promised speech to the Muslim world from Egypt, a White House official said on Friday.

Obama pledged during the campaign to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital within the first few months of taking office. Picking a site proved challenging for a range of reasons -- from diplomacy to security -- and the decision took longer than expected, with Obama commissioning options from a research team.

Having settled on Egypt, the White House today announced that he is adding a stop there to his early June overseas trip. That trip will also take him to Normandy, France, for the anniversary of D-Day, and to the Buchenwald concentration camp and Dresden, Germany.

Choosing Egypt will inevitably bring comparisons with a major speech that then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave in Cairo 2005, urging democracy and reform in the Middle East.

COMMENT:  Since we have no text of the speech, we can't comment on it.  But the timing is awkward and may turn out to be inappropriate.  The president will be visiting the invasion beaches at Normandy.  He will be visiting Buchenwald.  These are sacred places.  It's jolting to have the president add to a pilgrimage like that by flying to a dictatorship and making a speech to people who are often taught views barely distinguishable from those of the Third Reich. 

Of course, the president may use his visits to Normandy and Buchenwald to teach a moral lesson as he addresses the Muslim world.  But, so far, his overseas speeches have been embarrassments.  We wait for the text, and hope that Mr. Obama will learn enough from the military cemetery at Normandy to realize that praise for his country's history and heritage, not apology, would be the finest way to begin his address to the world's Muslims. 

May 8, 2009   Permalink

I SAW NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - AT 7:52 P.M. ET:  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi seems to be getting in deeper and deeper with her denials that she knew, or thought, or had cause to know, or was prompted to think, about controversial interrogation techniques.  The bottom line seems to be that she knew a great deal about the Bush administration interrogation programs, but did not protest them.  Maybe she just didn't understand the vocabulary.  Fox News reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted Friday that she was briefed only once about the "enhanced" interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects and that she was assured by lawyers with the CIA and the Department of Justice that the methods were legal.

Pelosi issued a statement after CIA records released this week showed that Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods. The briefings memo appeared to contradict the speaker's claims that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation methods were being used.

COMMENT:  Charles Krauthammer, in a TV commentary earlier today, suggested that, by the time everything comes out about what Democrats knew regarding waterboarding and similar methods, the appetite for deep investigations will fade within the Democratic Party.

Pelosi's latest story - that she was assured that certain methods were legal - rings hollow.  If she had serious moral objections, legality would not be an issue.  One can be repelled by something that is completely legal.  It's apparent that Pelosi raised no objections because she had none.  She was briefed in the months after the 9-11 attacks, and preventing another attack was paramount in the minds of most Americans.

And yet, the political left calls for blood - insisting that the Bush administration lawyers who gave honest legal advice about the legality of the interrogation methods be either prosecuted or professionally disciplined.  This is the criminalization of politics, something they do in banana republics.  Oh, excuse me.  "Banana republic" is politically incorrect.  I meant to say, culturally rich nations producing vitamin-rich bananas for the health of the world.

May 8,  2009   Permalink

CORRECT ON SYRIA - AT 4:50 P.M. ET:  The president has made a correct foreign policy call, and is showing some spine, a rarity, but welcome. From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration said Friday it is renewing economic and diplomatic sanctions on Syria, even as two U.S. envoys are in the Syrian capital exploring prospects for improved relations.

In a letter to Congress, President Barack Obama said he was compelled to renew the penalties, which were first imposed by George W. Bush's administration four years ago as diplomatic contact dwindled. Washington has not had an ambassador in Damascus since Margaret Scobey was recalled in 2005.

''The actions of the government of Syria in supporting terrorism, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining U.S. and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States,'' Obama said in the letter dated Thursday.

COMMENT:  Eyebrows will be raised because the decision was announced, as the story says, while American diplomats are in Damascus.  But that's okay.  It sends the right message.  Let's hope that the White House is starting to see at least some issues the way they are, not the way the UN sees them.  This will make it clear to Syria that we expect something in return for our diplomatic outreach.

May 8, 2009   Permalink

GREAT ON YOU TUBE - AT 9:01 A.M. ET:  We discussed the joys of You Tube at the Angel's Corner this week.  Here's an example, suggested by a reader.  It's called the "Nanny Tax Rap."  I think you'll like it.

May 8, 2009   Permalink

FROM THE ESPIONAGE BUSINESS - AT 8:20 A.M. ET:    From ABC News:

The president of a non-profit organization that the U.S. government has long suspected of being a front for Iranian espionage and anti-American activities has been indicted on charges that he allegedly destroyed documents just one day after receiving a grand jury subpoena instructing him not to do so.

Farshid Jahedi, president of the Alavi Foundation, which is headquartered in Manhattan, will be arraigned on Friday on charges of obstruction of justice.

The Alavi Foundation has been described by a former CIA official as "totally controlled by the government of Iran," according to court documents related to the New York Police Department's investigation.

COMMENT:  Notice that the investigation is being conducted by the NYPD.  Under the great Commissioner Ray Kelly, the New York Police Department has created a superb anti-espionage capability.  And just a few days ago, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau testified before Congress on the danger of Iranian activities.  Not everything that comes out of New York these days is bad, just most of it.

We have said before, and we will say again, that the danger of Iran, especially as it acquires nukes, is greatly underestimated in Washington.  Our government still does not understand the nature of theocratic regimes.  They are not normal.  They are more like the Japanese kamikaze of World War II.  What they say, they often mean.  And what the Iranian government says is generally chilling. 

Will we get the message in time?

May 8, 2009   Permalink

REPUBLICAN FISSURES - AT 8:02 A.M. ET:  There is trouble in Republican ranks, and it better be resolved, or at least papered over, before the 2010 campaign begins.  From The Politico:

Social conservatives are blasting the National Council for a New America, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) nascent effort to rebrand the Republican Party, as a misguided and weak-kneed initiative that is out of touch with the GOP rank and file.

The council, unveiled last week by Cantor and Sen. John McCain, is designed to be a “forward-looking, grass-roots caucus” that formulates policy prescriptions and communicates with voters in a way that could expand the Republican ranks. In announcing the formation of the group, McCain said he hoped the group would attract moderates and “like-minded Democrats” to a series of public forums around the country.

COMMENT:  Eric Cantor is one of the rising stars in the GOP, and, of course, John McCain was the party's presidential candidate in 2008. 

My own sense is that outreach groups are generally ineffective unless you have the policies to go with them.  At the same time, social conservatives must be careful about doing what hard leftists have done to the Democratic Party.  A party must be something of a coalition, as Ronald Reagan brilliantly understood.  Party members will not agree on all things all the time.  The genius of American politics has been that it's practical.

Barack Obama got to be president by convincing Americans that he wasn't the captive of an ideological bloc.  Whether that's true or not is very debatable, but at least he made the argument stick.

What the Republican Party needs right now is a major statement of principles, or a statement of proposed policies, like Newt's "contract with America" in 2004.  It needs something that virtually all members and power centers can accept.  It also needs to recall the famous "Eleventh Commandment," enunciated by leading Republicans in the 1970s - "thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans." 

The Republican Party is the conservative party.  But within the meaning of "conservative" there's enough wiggle room to build a winning party.  Losing is not helpful.

May 8, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA REVERSES ON IMMIGRATION - AT 7:47 A.M. ET:  From The Washington Times:

On the thorniest of political issues, President Obama has embraced the enforcement-first position on immigration that he criticized during last year's presidential campaign, and he now says he can't move forward with the type of comprehensive bill he wants until voters are convinced that the borders can be enforced.

Having already backed off his pledge to have an immigration bill this year, Mr. Obama boosted his commitment to enforcement in the budget released Thursday. The spending blueprint calls for extra money to build an employee-verification system and to pay for more personnel and equipment to patrol the border.

This security-first stance is not unlike that of President George W. Bush, Bush Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who said their immigration bill failed in 2007 because voters didn't trust the government to be serious about enforcement.

COMMENT:  So far, so good.  But the devil will be, as always, in the details.  Will there actually be enforcement, or only spending on enforcement?  We'll be following this.

May 8,  2009   Permalink

RUNNING CALIFORNIA TOO? - AT 7:36 A.M. ET:  The expansion of federal control since The One took office is chilling.  Get this, from the Los Angeles Times:

Reporting from Sacramento -- The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

COMMENT:  The issue here is not the justice of the cause.  I don't know the details of that.  But the idea that the federal government can set the wages of state workers makes us ask what will come next. 

California is saying that it may run out of money by July.  Will the Obaman now running Chrysler and GM be sent west to run our largest state?  A year ago, that question would have been laughable.  No more.

May 8, 2009   Permalink

HIS KIND OF JUSTICE - AT 7:19 A.M. ET:  Who will Barack Obama pick as his first Supreme Court choice?  Well, we don't have the name, but superb legal journalist Stuart Taylor Jr. has done his research - rare among today's journalists - and come up with some hints as to the kind of person the president might prefer.  This is speculation, but fun:

In his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama spoke favorably of "moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support." While that can be seen as political positioning, Obama also cautioned against bold judicial social engineering in a 2001 radio interview in which he spoke approvingly of "redistribution of wealth."

John McCain's presidential campaign jumped on that phrase, suggesting that Obama had endorsed judicial redistribution of wealth. This was false. In fact, Obama's complaint was that "the civil-rights movement became so court-focused" as to neglect "political and organizing activities." He added a note of caution against seeing the Warren Court's extraordinarily bold attack on an entrenched system of racial oppression as a precedent for a judge-led war on poverty.

And...

Obama also suggested then that "unelected judiciaries making laws in what is supposed to be a democracy" undermined the legitimacy of their decisions. Former colleagues at the University of Chicago Law School, where he taught, have described the president as skeptical of the courts' ability to improve on the political process in resolving big public policy issues.

COMMENT:  Not bad.  We can hope.

May 8, 2009   Permalink

THURSDAY,  MAY 7,  2009

IS THE AMERICAN SUN SETTING? - AT 10:21 P.M. ET:  A disturbing note from one of our most reliable allies, from The Wall Street Journal:

Since World War II, U.S. military dominance has underpinned the Asia-Pacific region's prosperity and relative peace. So it's cause for concern when one of America's closest allies sees that power ebbing amid unstable nuclear regimes such as Pakistan and North Korea and the expanding military power of China.

In the preface to a sweeping defense review released Saturday, Australian Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon writes: "The biggest changes to our outlook . . . have been the rise of China, the emergence of India and the beginning of the end of the so-called unipolar moment; the almost two-decade-long period in which the pre-eminence of our principal ally, the United States, was without question."

COMMENT:  The Australians don't predict an imminent collapse of American power, but they do see a trend, and are beefing up their own defenses. 

It's very sad to see this.  We did not see reports like this until Barack Obama took office.  Are the Australians being alarmist, or have they identified a reality that many in our own country, obsessed with feeling good about themselves by having a minority president, refuse to see?

May 7, 2009   Permalink

MORE ON IRAN, AND DON'T BE SHOCKED - AT 7:25 P.M. ET:  Reality walks in, from The Washington Times:

Iran has dramatically increased the amount of low-enriched uranium produced by its growing number of centrifuges that are part of its nuclear fuel production system.

According to a CIA report to Congress, "During the reporting period, Iran continued to expand its nuclear infrastructure and continued uranium enrichment and activities related to its heavy water research reactor, despite multiple United Nations Security Council Resolutions since late 2006 calling for the suspension of those activities."

The little-noticed report covering 2008 was released without comment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on March 12. It was produced by the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center, known as WINPAC, and approved by the National Intelligence Council.

COMMENT:  It was released on March 12th and is only being noticed now?  Is Washington completely nuts, or only partially nuts?  The media should be focusing on this every day.  Instead, we continue to talk about "engaging" Iran, but there is no sense of urgency.  And the Iranians are making clear that, when we do "engage," there'll be a lot of negotiations about what we'll then be negotiating about.  Time is critical here, but you'd never know it.

May 7, 2009   Permalink

MISPLACED BUDGET PRIORITIES - AT 7:18 P.M. ET:  The president released his $3.4-trillion budget today, and grandly announced that it contains $17-billion in savings, or, as it's called in the restaurant business, a tip.

Half the savings will come from the Pentagon, not encouraging when you look at what we're facing internationally.  And there's this:

In addition to the F-22 and presidential helicopter programs, proposed cuts include halting a $19 billion transformational satellite program and trimming $1.2 billion from missile defense.

COMMENT:  Trimming missile defense now is like trimming anti-submarine warfare in 1941.  North Korea and Iran are serious, fanatical, emerging missile powers.  Pakistan's missiles, or some of them, may fall into Islamist hands.  We could soon find hostile missiles based in Latin America.  We should be expanding the missile-defense program, not contracting it.

Budgets are often DOA in Congress, and we hope that enough of the honorable members take a good look at the defense budget, making adjustments where sanity requires.

May 7, 2009   Permalink 

SURPRISED AGAIN (AND AGAIN AND AGAIN) - AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  From the Washington Post:

WASHINGTON -- Congressional investigators say some foreign intelligence analysts believe U.S. intelligence is underestimating Iran's progress toward designing a nuclear warhead before Tehran halted its program in 2003.

The foreign analysts believe that Iran ended its work because it had made sufficient progress, not because of international pressure, as the 2007 U.S. national intelligence assessment concluded.

The report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did not identify its sources, referring only to "intelligence analysts and nuclear experts working for foreign governments." It says some research was conducted in Israel, which has been publicly critical of the 2007 U.S. assessment.

COMMENT:  John Kerry heads the Foreign Relations Committee, and I have to give him credit for releasing this.  (We always give credit where it's due, as readers know.)  If the story is accurate, then we must worry, and worry constantly, about the state of our intelligence agencies.  That 2007 National Intelligence Estimate was scandalous, and undercut this country's efforts to get international support for sanctioning Iran over nuclear weapons development.  Maybe a congressional investigation is in order.

May 7, 2009   Permalink

A PARTY WITH WORK TO DO - AT 8:03 A.M.  The Republican Party, that is.  The Politico reports on some late polling:

Gallup’s polling in the first quarter of 2009 shows that Democrats hold a strong advantage over Republicans among female voters, and more men than ever are identifying as independents.

“Among women, Democrats maintain a solid double-digit advantage in party identification over Republicans, 41 percent to 27 percent,” the polling company reported. “In contrast, men are equally divided in their party loyalty between Republicans (28 percent) and Democrats (30 percent) and are currently most likely to say they are politically independent (40 percent).” Twenty-nine percent of women identified themselves as independents.

COMMENT:  This doesn't mean the GOP should abandon its principles.  It means it must explain them better, relate more closely to the legitimate concerns that people have, and not try to be a pale imitation of the opposition. 

To a degree, these poll results are probably skewed somewhat by the economic crisis.  Other surveys suggest that Democratic policies are not particularly popular, and that the "generic ballot" preference between congressional Republicans and Democrats is actually quite close:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 40% would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 39% would choose the Democrat. 

The GOP has a good shot next year of denting Democratic control of the House and Senate, but must explain itself better to voters, especially women. 

May 7, 2009   Permalink

JOHN KERRY REPORTING FOR DUTY - AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  From Andrew Malcolm's superb Top of the Ticket blog, at the L.A. Times:

With several print newspapers already dead in recent months, others failing or under financial threat and a crass crowd of brash, disrespectful online journalists attracting millions of readers, the jut-jawed senator from Massachusetts John Kerry is worried about the future of said journalism.

Why is it his business? some might ask.

Well, for one thing, as a youngster Kerry delivered the Washington Star. That newspaper died. As an adult Democratic candidate for president five years ago, Kerry got some rough treatment from opponents and journalists both on- and offline. His campaign died. Does anyone see a pattern here?

COMMENT:  What a record.  And if Kerry holds hearings on the crisis?  What happens to the publishers who testify?  Given Kerry's history, I shudder to think.  Maybe he'll throw the party and no one will come.  There are whispers of the Kerry Curse.

This is not government's business, but the fact is that the Dems would love to keep alive papers like the Boston Globe, which have signed onto the Age of Obama.  When the subjects are in trouble, the kings and princes must act.

Recommend Andrew's entire blog on this.  Very witty. 

May 7, 2009   Permalink

DESPICABLE - AT 7:41 A.M. ET: 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Pressure is mounting against two former Bush administration attorneys who wrote the legal memos used to support harsh interrogation techniques that critics say constituted torture. John Yoo, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is fighting calls for disbarment and dismissal, while Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals faces calls for impeachment.

Justice Department investigators have stopped short of recommending criminal charges, but suggest in a draft report that the two men should face professional sanctions. A number of groups across the country agree, and some want even stronger action.

COMMENT:  The so-called pressure is coming from the hard left, which prefers to call itself "progressive."  It is disgraceful that men who gave honest legal advice in a drive to keep this country safe should be treated like this.  If you list the people behind this despicable campaign, and list the people who think the United States committed war crimes in, check any or all, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Iraq War, I suspect the lists would be identical.  Who will serve this country honestly in times of crisis if this is the result?

And when will we realize the extent of the influence of the hard left on American politics, especially now that their ilk has been invited in the White House door?

May 7, 2009   Permalink

DEPENDING ON GOVERNMENT TO GET IT RIGHT - AT 7:29 A.M.  From the Washington Post:

The Department of Homeland Security is dismantling a next-generation biological attack warning system in New York City subways because of technical problems, U.S. officials said.

Robert Hooks, a deputy assistant secretary, said the department no longer believes it is necessary to expand the pilot program, as he told Congress in July, because of resource and technology limits. Hooks said a long-planned alternative sensor system, set for initial deployment late next year, also will not be available nationwide until 2012, to allow for more testing.

COMMENT:  How long has it been since 9-11?  And why do we announce things like this, so an enemy knows we won't have sensors in the New York subway system, a prime target?

Our vulnerabilities seem to grow.  They don't diminish.  Enemies grow more technically capable every week.  Will someone please show some urgency.

May 7,  2009   Permalink