SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - WARNING LIGHTS!

HELP.

We did have some activity yesterday, but we are behind our goal.  Subscriptions are the lifeblood of URGENT AGENDA. 

Our regular subscribers have come through.  Their devotion is deeply appreciated.  But we need more NEW subscribers.  If we don't double our subscription base, we'll be in trouble, and service may have to be cut back.

We want to keep Urgent Agenda as a daily, high-quality site. 

So, if you intend to subscribe, please do so today.  If you're on the fence, give it a shot.  The weekly cost is less than a candy bar.   Pro-rated money-back guarantee. 

By subscribing or donating, you keep Urgent Agenda alive, and you get our twice-weekly e-mailed publication, The Angel's Corner, where you can participate in our great forum, and learn of our latest Pompous Fool Award, almost as coveted as the Nobel Peace Prize, and with the same low standards.

Please subscribe or donate in the right-hand column.  You're not really getting Urgent Agenda unless you do.  A credit card works.  Or, we can send you a mail address.

And a special thanks to readers who are sending holiday gift subscriptions.  It's a great gift, and it spreads the word.

THURSDAY,  NOVEMBER 12,  2009

AT LEAST IT'S A START - AT 7:53 P.M. ET:   Although this has clearly brought some anguish to the Associated Press, whose writer seems to feel the jihadists' pain, the United States has taken some limited financial action against Iran.  From AP:

NEW YORK — Federal prosecutors Thursday took steps to seize four U.S. mosques and a Fifth Avenue skyscraper owned by a nonprofit Muslim organization long suspected of being secretly controlled by the Iranian government.

In what could prove to be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, prosecutors filed a civil complaint in federal court seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets of the Alavi Foundation and an alleged front company.

The assets include Islamic centers in New York City, Maryland, California and Houston, more than 100 acres (40 hectares) of land in Virginia, and a 36-story office tower in New York.

Seizing the properties would be a sharp blow against Iran, which has been accused by the U.S. government of bankrolling terrorism and seeking a nuclear bomb.

No, it's not a sharp blow.  It's a baby step.  This will not stop one centrifuge.

A telephone call and e-mail to Iran's U.N. Mission seeking comment were not immediately answered.

It is extremely rare for U.S. law enforcement authorities to seize a house of worship, a step fraught with questions about the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Fraught?  Do you feel fraught?  Are you anguished?  Do you feel the Constitution being shredded? 

Someone please explain to the AP that a house of worship is subject to American laws.  If the laws are broken the "house of worship" is vulnerable. 

The action against the Shiite Muslim mosques is sure to inflame relations between the U.S. government and American Muslims, many of whom are fearful of a backlash after last week's Fort Hood shooting rampage, blamed on a Muslim American soldier.

Sure to inflame?  Are we certain about that, AP?  The story has been out for a while today, and the streets seem surprisingly empty of the inflamed.

And I love the "blamed on a Muslim American soldier," in describing the shootings at Fort Hood, as if the guy was given a bum rap.  You know, the blame game.

Political correctness will take a while to wash away.  Scrubbing needed.

November 12, 2009   Permalink

FINALLY - AT 7:43 P.M. ET:  The president of the United States has taken action.  Well, sort of:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama has ordered a review of all intelligence related to Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, and whether the information was properly shared and acted upon within government agencies.

We already know the basic answer, but they've got to go through the motions.

The review will be overseen by John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. The first results are due to the White House by Nov. 30.

Obama also ordered the preservation of the intelligence. Members of Congress, particularly Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for a full examination of what agencies knew about Hasan's contacts with a radical imam and others of concern to the U.S., and what they did with the information.

The FBI confirmed this week that the U.S. government knew about 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and a radical imam beginning in December 2008.

COMMENT:  Douglas MacArthur used to say that all military disasters begin with two words:  Too late.

This is a classic example.  The Army knew about this man, knew of his contacts with the enemy, knew of his awful beliefs.  But nothing was done. 

November 12, 2009   Permalink

EVEN LIBERAL CANADA GETS IT RIGHT - AT 7:21 P.M. ET:  Maybe it's because Canada now has a conservative government, but they've gotten a new immigration policy right:

A new guide for aspiring Canadian citizens will warn off "barbaric" cultural practices that physically harm women.

The book, to be officially launched today by Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, contains a special section on "The Equality of Women and Men."

"In Canada, men and women are equal under the law. Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, 'honour killings,' female genital mutilation or other gender-based violence," the document reads.

"Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal laws."

The passage was included to promote better integration by newcomers into Canadian society, according to a senior government official.

COMMENT:  Well, at least someone is thinking up there.  Now we have to do that here, and cancel this obscenity about respecting "other cultural narratives."  We don't have to respect anything that, in our moral view, is not respectable.

November 12, 2009   Permalink

 
MORE ON THE SHOOTER - WHAT WE EXPECTED - AT 7:08 P.M. ET:  ABC News is doing a very fine job in probing the background of the Fort Hood shooter.  The more that comes out, the more shocking it is that nothing was done by our "intelligence" agencies or by the Army itself:

United States Army Major Nidal Hasan proclaimed himself a "soldier of Allah" on private business cards he obtained over the Internet and kept in a box at his apartment near Fort Hood, Texas.

Hasan, the alleged perpetrator of last week's fatal shootings in Fort Hood, TX, was charged Thursday with 13 counts of premeditated murder under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which can carry a sentence up to death or life imprisonment.

The cards make no mention of his military affiliation, but underneath his name he listed himself as SoA (SWT). SoA is commonly used on jihadist Web sites as the acronym for Soldier of Allah, according to investigators and experts who have studied such sites. SWT is commonly used by Muslims as an acronym for Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, Glory to God.

"He was making no secret of allegiances," said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant.

COMMENT:  When this is all over, and justice is done, I'd love some renegade publisher to publish a compilation of all the stories and broadcast transcripts in which "journalists" tried to explain away this guy as someone who was just stressed.

I'm also a bit concerned about the Army trying him.  Decisions by Army leaders will be under investigation, at least by Congressional committees.  There's an inherent conflict of interest, even though a court-martial board is theoretically independent.  The term "command influence" is not unknown in the military. 

We need a lot of oversight here. 

November 12,  2009   Permalink 

 
HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT AHEAD? - AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  From James Pethokoukis's blog at Reuters:

Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg, formerly of Merrill Lynch, thinks the unemployment rate is going to at least 12 percent, maybe even 13 percent. Optimists, Rosenberg explains, underestimate the incredible damage done to the labor market during this downturn. And even before this downturn, the economy was not generating jobs in huge numbers. If he is right, all political bets are off. I think the Democrats could lose the House and effective control of the Senate. I think you would also be talking about the rise of third party and perhaps a challenger to Obama in 2012.

COMMENT:  Politically, no issue is more volatile in 2010 than unemployment.  If unemployment rises to, say, 12 percent, and underemployment continues to rise, that's a huge chunk of the electorate that's angry and frustrated, and those folks generally blame the party in power.  Add to that the possibility that any health or energy bills that get made into law might actually raise prices or taxes, and the political consequences could get into blowout territory. 

Now, of course, Republicans have developed unique skills over the years for losing elections, so let's not pop the corks just yet.  But if the GOP puts up candidates with pretty strong pulses, this might start looking very good.

Also, you have to be very careful with issues like unemployment.  We are talking about misery, and families that are hurting.  The idea is not to dwell on unemployment, but to solve the problem, and make people's lives better.  As the late Mayor Daley (senior) of Chicago used to say, "Good government is good politics."  Trouble is, he didn't mean it.

November 12, 2009   Permalink

PAIN FOR DEMS IN OHIO - AT 8:59 A.M. ET:  Like Virginia, which went heavily red last week, Ohio is seen as a pivotal swing state.  And the latest poll in Ohio will not bring needed joy to the Democratic Party or the White House.  From NRO:

For the first time, Republican Rob Portman is inching ahead of the two Democrats in the 2010 race for Ohio’s U.S. Senate seat, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Also for the first time, Ohio voters disapprove 50 – 45 percent of the job President Barack Obama is doing, down from his 53 – 42 percent approval September 16 and 49 – 44 percent approval July 7.

In still another first, voters are split 40 – 40 percent on who is doing a better job handling health care, the President or Congressional Republicans, the independent Quinnipiac University survey finds. In a September 16 survey on the same question, Obama was on top 49 – 28 percent.

Ohio voters disapprove 53 – 42 percent of the way the President is handling the economy and disapprove 57 – 36 percent of the way he is handling health care. In September, they approved of his handling of the economy 48 – 46 percent and split on his handling of health care 44 – 45 percent.

COMMENT:  Of course, you know that this is all Bush's fault. 

If Ohio goes the way Virginia went, it's hard to see how the Dems can avoid catastrophic losses in Congress next year.  And Ohio is going in that direction.

Ohio is a political heartbreak state.  After the 1960 election, President-elect Kennedy would show his hand, swollen from thousands of handshakes, to visitors.  "Ohio did that to me," he'd remark.  He'd lost the state.

November 12,  2009   Permalink

WILL OBAMA'S POLITICAL STRATEGY FAIL? - AT 8:34 A.M. ET:   Karl Rove, in The Wall Street Journal, argues that the emerging White House strategy for the 2010 midterm elections may well fail, partly because it is based on a false reading of history:

Over the weekend, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod tried to calm jittery Democrats who might go wobbly on the president's ambitious agenda by telling NBC's Chuck Todd that next year's congressional elections will be "nationalized." Because they "will be a referendum on this White House," he said, voters will turn out for Mr. Obama. Mr. Todd summed up Mr. Axelrod's plans by saying, "It's almost like a page from the Bush playbook of 2002."

I appreciate the reference. Only two presidents have picked up seats in both houses of Congress for their party in their first midterm elections. One was FDR in 1934. The other was George W. Bush in 2002, whose party gained House seats and won back control of the Senate.

But...

But those midterm elections might not be a favorable comparison for this White House. The congressional elections were nationalized seven years ago largely because national security was an overriding issue...

...Mr. Bush also had a record of bipartisanship that included winning passage of the No Child Left Behind Act with the support of Democrats Sen. Ted Kennedy and Rep. George Miller. And he had a popular agenda of tax cuts, regulatory reform, and sound leadership in the wake of 9/11 that the GOP could run on.

And if the Dems "nationalize" the election, they may be forced to run on unpopular policies and practices:

Instead, the narrative Obama White House officials are writing about themselves is that they are uncompromising, ungracious, and ready to run roughshod over popular opinion. They have mastered the Chicago way of politics: reward friends, punish enemies, and jam the opposition. Voters have a tendency to quickly grow tired of pugnacious governance.

That's only the beginning of Mr. Axelrod's problems. If the 2010 midterms are nationalized, they will be a referendum on Mr. Obama's increasingly unpopular policies. For example, in the newest Gallup survey released on Monday, only 29% say they'd advise their congressman to vote for the health-care bill. This is down from 40% last month. A Rasmussen poll out this week shows that 42% of Americans strongly oppose the bill, while only 25% strongly favor it.

A remarkably different picture than the one we had on inauguration day.

Maybe the Obama inner sanctum realizes that its agenda is unpopular and will cost many Democrats their seats next year but calculates that enough will survive to keep the party in control of Congress. Perhaps they have decided that Mr. Obama's goal of turning America into a European-style social democracy is worth risking a voter revolt.

Many Democrats who will be on the ballot next year may come to a different conclusion. Nationalizing the elections over an unpopular agenda isn't likely to repeat Mr. Bush's feat of picking up congressional seats. It is, however, likely to lead to more Republican congressmen than are there now.

COMMENT:  And there do not appear to be any issues on the horizon that Obama could use effectively against the Republicans.  He has married himself to some unpopular legislation, like the health-reform package that passed the House, and the very unpopular cap 'n' trade "global warming" bill.  In addition, it is hard to see any foreign-policy victories on the horizon.

And Virginia and New Jersey, last week, showed that the Obama coattails are short indeed, which is the case for most presidents.

November 12, 2009   Permalink

McCAIN LEADS GOP IN MAKING FORT HOOD A MAJOR ISSUE - AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  The emerging Republican position is that the administration has a naive approach to terror.  From The Politico:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Wednesday called the Fort Hood killings an “act of terror” and joined a parade of GOP critics in suggesting that “political correctness” might have been a factor in not preventing the shootings.

“We ought to make sure ‘political correctness’ never impedes national security,” McCain said in a speech at the University of Louisville.

McCain’s comments echoed those of a variety of Republican politicians and commentators — as well as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) — over the past few days as information about the background of the alleged shooter has surfaced in the media. The criticisms, which initially focused on the failure of the administration and the Army to use the word “terrorism” or “jihadism” in connection with Fort Hood, are now being merged with a larger Republican portrayal of the Obama administration’s approach toward terrorism generally.

COMMENT:  Obviously, the GOP must tread carefully in a situation like this, but it is entirely appropriate for a man respected for his national-defense views to level the charge.  Obama's original reaction to Fort Hood, as we say in last night's Angel's Corner, will be marked as one of the defining moments of his administration.

November 12,  2009   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  NOVEMBER 11,  2009

OBAMA REALLY NEEDS THIS - AT 11:46 P.M. ET:  Looks like Barney Frank feels "empowered," and his empowerment can give the White House another headache:

Repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” will likely be included as part of next year’s Department of Defense authorization bill in both chambers of Congress, Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Wednesday.

“Military issues are always done as part of the overall authorization bill,” Frank said, insisting that this has been the strategy for overturning the policy all along. “'Don’t ask, don’t tell' was always going to be part of the military authorization.”

Frank said he has been in direct communication with the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, and other Congressional leaders about the strategy for ending the 1993 ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Though some moderate Democrats have recently expressed concern about repealing the policy during a midterm election year, Frank said resolve at the White House has never wavered. “The Administration is totally committed to this and has been from the beginning,” he said.

COMMENT:   Right in the middle of an election year?  I won't get into the merits or lack of merits of the policy here.  It's part of a complex discussion regarding rights versus privileges. 

But there is an image here of liberal Democrats, most from the California and Massachusetts delegations, who want to ram through every personal wish.  We saw it in the health "reform" bill.  An issue like this should first be sent to a blue-ribbon commission for study.  To Frank, it's just another notch in the pistol.

November 11, 2009   Permalink

WELL, THIS IS WEIRD - AT 10:40 P.M. ET:  Fox News is reporting a strange twist in President Obama's Afghan adventures:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy — most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.

But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's thinking.

COMMENT:  It's impossible to judge a story like this because we can't verify the details.  If true, it reflects a looseness in the decision-making structure that is more than alarming.  These elements, like the effectiveness of the Afghan regime, are not new.  They are not headlines.  They should have been cranked into our strategy, what there is of it, months ago.

Put yourself in the position of an American soldier in the field.  What would you be thinking right now?  Put yourself in the position of the regime in Tehran.  How tough do you think the American enemy is?

November 11, 2009   Permalink

THE GREAT MINDS DECIDE - AT 6:02 P.M. ET:  Reader Greg Koster alerts us to a new list provided by Newsweek - the worst tactical blunders of the last ten years.

I guess this took about ten minutes to compile, sometime after a meeting in which Newsweek contemplated its grim future.  Among the brilliant choices are President Bush's Katrina flyover; John Kerry allowing himself to be "swiftboated"; the debaathification of Iraq; President Bush's "mission accomplished" statement; the SEC not detecting the crimes of Bernie Madoff; Alan Greenspan's interest-rate policy; Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon; the Time-Warner/AOL merger; GM's SUV mistake; McCain suspending his campaign after the financial collapse of 2008.

Notice a trend there?  Kind of a left-wing list, isn't it?

Missing are such minor items as the 2007 intelligence estimate saying Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program; the Democratic opposition to the surge in Iraq, which turned out spectacularly well; Obama's misreading the 2008 election results and plunging in popularity; Obama's failure to vet radicals who then were offered posts in his administration; and the blunders by most news outlets in not learning why they're losing readers and viewers, and why Fox is gaining.

Newsweek is in sharp decline.  Now you see why.

November 11, 2009   Permalink

THE TRUTH ABOUT HATE CRIMES - AT 5:59 P.M. ET:  Reader Jacqueline Reckseit refers us to a collection of excellent material disproving the myth that Muslims in America face an onslaught.

The FBI compiles hate-crime statistics each year.  The latest year for which there are numbers is 2007.  Here is the FBI report.  Doesn't exactly paint a picture of a country drowning in anti-Muslim hysteria:

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias decreased overall in 2007 but still accounted for roughly 18 percent of total hate crimes, according to new statistics from the FBI.

In its 2007 Hate Crime Statistics report, the Federal Bureau of Investigation documented 1,477 offenses that were directed against a person's religion, down from 1,597 offenses in 2006.

More than a third of all hate crimes in 2007 were categorized as vandalism or property destruction.

Of all religious hate crimes in 2007, hate crimes directed at Catholics constituted 4 percent, down from 5 percent in 2006. The report also showed religiously based hate crime statistics for Protestants (4 percent), other religions (9.5 percent), followers of multiple religions (4.3 percent), and Atheists/Agnostics (0.4 percent).

Hate crimes against Jews were up with Jews accounting for 68.4 percent of religiously based hate crimes in 2007, more than four points higher than the 64.3 in 2006.

Hate crimes for Muslims, meanwhile, declined. Muslims accounted for 9 percent of all hate crimes motivated by religious bias in 2007, down from 12 to percent the previous year.  (Emphasis added by Urgent Agenda.)

COMMENT:  No nation, facing the attacks we faced on 9-11, has ever responded with such sanity.  There was no mob rule.  There were no mass attacks against Muslims, even Muslims associated with radical mosques.  We did not round up anyone who read the Koran.

In 2007, nine percent of hate crimes were directed against Muslims.  And nine percent of hate crimes were directed against Protestants and Catholics combined. 

And yet, some in the American elite tell us we're a hate-filled country and warn that we must control ourselves after Fort Hood.  They don't know America.  They don't want to.

November 11, 2009   Permalink

GOP SOARS IN GALLUP POLL - AT 5:25 P.M. ET:  Voters are apparently delivering their verdict on the Democratic performance in Congress, as Gallup reports:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans have moved ahead of Democrats by 48% to 44% among registered voters in the latest update on Gallup's generic congressional ballot for the 2010 House elections, after trailing by six points in July and two points last month.

The Nov. 5-8 update comes just after Republican victories in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections, which saw Republicans replace Democrats as governors of those states.

As was the case in last Tuesday's gubernatorial elections, independents are helping the Republicans' cause. In the latest poll, independent registered voters favor the Republican candidate by 52% to 30%. Both parties maintain similar loyalty from their bases, with 91% of Democratic registered voters preferring the Democratic candidate and 93% of Republican voters preferring the Republican.

COMMENT:  Once again the independents make the difference.  Republicans must concentrate their firepower on these independents, who clearly do not like what they see in Democratic rule.  That means that the GOP cannot appeal only to its base.  A base never wins an election unless it is reinforced by an army of independents.  The road map is clear.

November 11, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:27 A.M. ET:  From Michael Barone, commenting on the Obama administration's reaction to Fort Hood:

Islamist terrorists despise our tolerance and freedom and work to inflict as much damage as they can on Western society.

But Barack Obama and his administration, eager to placate our enemies and ever ready to disrespect our friends, tend to downplay this threat. The president has been mulling his course on Afghanistan and declaring his slavish respect for the mullah regime in Iran.

In response to Major Nidal Hassan's mass murders at Fort Hood, Obama and top officials -- General George Casey and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano -- seem less worried about whether military and civilian officials ignored clear signs that this man was an Islamist terrorist and more worried about whether ordinary Americans might indiscriminately stage mass attacks on Muslims.

This carries our virtue of tolerance to a ridiculous extreme and makes our system of laws, in Justice Robert Jackson's words, “a suicide pact.” If our enemies today seem less formidable than our enemies before 1989, they are nonetheless dangerous. If the process of distinguishing Islamist terrorists from ordinary Muslims is difficult, so was the process of distinguishing Communists from social democrats.

Our earlier leaders had faith in the ability of ordinary Americans to make such distinctions and to behave tolerantly even while aggressively fighting evildoers. And they had confidence, even in that Short Twentieth Century, of the basic goodness of our system. Does Obama have that faith and that confidence?

COMMENT:  The answer, I think, is that Obama and his crowd have little faith in the American people because the American people scare them.  They're frightened of any American who does not share their special background, or have equivalent College Board scores.  That fear, of course, does not extend to foreign peoples, who enjoy special status because of their exotic "cultures."

Barone nails it.

November 11, 2009    Permalink

 
A COMMENT ON THE WORTH OF THINGS - AT 9:07 A.M. ET:   Our friend, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, sent along this gem, which I had to pass on to you.  Ah, yes, some things decline in value:

I don't know where the sign is, but it isn't Oslo.

November 11, 2009   Permalink

BITING OFF MORE... - AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  Reader John McDaniel alerts us to this piece by the invaluable John Stossel, analyzing the health-care monstrosity now before Congress.  It's incredible to realize that it got this far: 

As an American, I am embarrassed that the U.S. House of Representatives has 220 members who actually believe the government can successfully centrally plan the medical and insurance industries.

I'm embarrassed that my representatives think that government can subsidize the consumption of medical care without increasing the budget deficit or interfering with free choice.

It's a triumph of mindless wishful thinking over logic and experience.

And...

Competition is a "discovery procedure," Nobel-prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek taught. Through the competitive market process, we producers and consumers constantly learn things that force us to adjust our behavior if we are to succeed. Central planners fail for two reasons:

First, knowledge about supply, demand, individual preferences and resource availability is scattered -- much of it never articulated -- throughout society. It is not concentrated in a database where a group of planners can access it.

Second, this "data" is dynamic: It changes without notice.

And...

Proponents of so-called reform -- it's not really reform unless it makes things better -- have shamefully avoided criticism of their proposals. Often they just dismiss their opponents as greedy corporate apologists or paranoid right-wing loonies. That's easier than answering questions like these:  How can the government subsidize the purchase of medical services without driving up prices?  How can the government promise lower medical costs without restricting choices?  How does government "create choice" by imposing uniformity on insurers? Uniformity limits choice. How does it "create choice" by making insurance companies compete against a privileged government-sponsored program?

These questions will not be answered, not only because those in power don't want to answer them, but because they don't care about the answers.  Their goal is single-payer socialized medicine, the same kind of system they saw during their junior year abroad - and which treated their sniffles and writer's cramp.

Finally:

Many people are priced out of the medical and insurance markets for one reason: the politicians' refusal to give up power. Allowing them to seize another 16 percent of the economy won't solve our problems.

Freedom will.

Tell that to Nancy Pelosi, who represents the People's Republic of San Francisco.

November 11, 2009   Permalink

TODAY - AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  Today is Veterans Day.  Those of us of a certain age understand what it means.  Young people, given our educational system, may not have heard of it at all.

The day has special poignancy because of the events at Fort Hood.  And the day has been dishonored, even by some within the military, in attempts to cover up what happened there, or twist it to avoid truths that violate the sacred rules of political correctness.

In recent days the Obama administration has done its usual honoring of the military by starting rumors about military attempts to influence White House policy.  Britain's Telegraph, with one of the best ears to the ground in Washington, reports: 

Aides to Barack Obama have complained that the Pentagon is trying to force the president into committing large numbers of reinforcements to Afghanistan through leaks to the media.

This administration is the most thin-skinned I've ever seen.

Tensions between the White House and senior members of the US armed forces are rising over the toughest decision the president has faced in his first year. Senior military officials and Republicans have accused him of dithering over the troop request from Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

McClatchy Newspapers and CBS News have reported that the president is set to announce between 34,000 and 40,000 extra US soldiers, numbers that would be at the upper end of Gen McChrystal's expectations.

The reports said he would commit three combat brigades as part of the buildup over the next 12 months, as well support troops, and an additional contingent for training Afghan security forces to combat the Taliban.

Two senior administration officials told CNN that they believed the information was being leaked by Pentagon sources trying to box in the president.

"People at the Pentagon are trying to force a certain outcome," said one official.

Boy, is that ever unusual - the Pentagon having an opinion.  Happens every week.  Politicians from the Chicago machine may not understand.

Our troops have been hung out to dry for months while the president "makes a decision" on what he's called the necessary war.

But there will be the usual platitudes on Veterans Day. 

November 11, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA SLIPS IN AP POLL - AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  The AP poll just out shows Obama declining.  AP polls still tend to show higher numbers for the president than the Rasmussen survey, but the trend is clear.  From The Politico:

A new AP-GfK poll shows that Americans are more pessimistic about the direction of the country than they were just a month ago, with President Obama’s approval ratings dropping.

Obama’s approval rating was at 54 percent in the poll, about the same as in October but down from a high of 74 percent last January. Fifty-six percent say the country is heading in the wrong direction, up from 51 percent who said so last month.

Forty-six percent said they approve of the way Obama is handling the economy, the number one issue on people’s minds according to the poll, down from 50 percent who approved in the previous poll.

On Iraq, 45 percent now say they disapprove of his handling of that war while 48 percent say they disapprove of the way he’s handling Afghanistan – both increases from a month ago. And 54 percent now say they oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan, compared to 50 percent who said that in October.

COMMENT:  There is nothing on the horizon to improve these numbers.  The passage of a health reform bill may well do more damage than good to Mr. Obama's standing, because the public, in other polls, has rejected the legislation currently before Congress.

A little leadership on foreign and defense policy would help.  But that's not where Obama's instincts are.

November 11,  2009   Permalink