SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - FOUR MORE DAYS!

This is the final week of our subscription drive.  The drive ends Friday.

This is how we're doing:  The drive coincided with a renewal period for subscriptions entered a year or six months ago.  Our renewal rate has continued to be spectacular - over 90%

But we need new subscribers.  We must grow.  We're only at 62% of our goal for new subscribers and donators. 

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 please subscribe 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.

TUESDAY,  NOVEMBER 17,  2009

THE CD PLAYER IS ON "REPEAT" - AT 10:53 P.M. ET:  We now have some results from the president's "historic" (not really) trip to China.  They seem to be the same results we've seen from every other trip.  Is the world telling us something?

BEIJING -- President Obama has emerged from his first trip to China with few breakthroughs on important issues, such as Iran's nuclear program or China's currency. Yet after two days of talks with the United States' biggest creditor, the administration asserted that relations between the two countries are at "at an all-time high."

Defined by this administration as "We give, they take, they smile at us.  Harmony."

While one concrete advance emerged -- that the United States may offer a target for carbon-emission cuts to boost climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month if China offers its own proposal -- it was a relatively small step for a new president who had campaigned on a promise to enact far-reaching change in U.S. diplomatic interactions.

Yeah, afraid so.  No great change.  Nothing we can "believe in."

If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States' newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone.

COMMENT:  Choke on that one for a minute.  Medicines are available.

The lauding of dictatorships seems to bother this new, "idealistic" administration not at all. 

Another trip, more wear on the plane, and not much to show for it.

November 17, 2009   Permalink

SARAH - PUBLISHED - AT 8:06 A.M. ET:  You know that this is Sarah Palin's week by the sounds of knives being sharpened.  As one commentator said, for someone who's dismissed as ditzy, dumb and irrelevant, her enemies certainly sound panicked. 

MSNBC actually used fake pictures of her...and later apologized.  Newsweek borrowed a photo of her from a running magazine, the better to make her look like an outdoorsy hick, not someone you'd want to take seriously in a conflict with Iran.  Sneering reviews of her book, "Going Rogue," are appearing in the usual places.  Women reporters in particular seem to compete with each other to put her down.

It hasn't dawned on some of these characters that she was an elected sitting governor, and a respected one.

Rich Lowry comes to Sarah's defense, and it's a spirited defense:

It’s September 2008 all over again. All the same players are lining up to put a good hate on Sarah Palin. She’s like an isotope designed to course throughout our politics and culture, lighting up press bias, self-congratulatory liberalism, Christianity-hating secularism, and intellectual condescension wherever they are found.

The contempt of her enemies only increases the ardor of her fans. Palin is the most divisive woman in America, supplanting a Hillary Clinton who is losing her electric political charge as Barack Obama’s mostly irrelevant secretary of state.

And...

Palin has lived to tell the tale because going rogue is now her operating principle. Her base of support is so intense, she doesn’t need supply lines into the political or media establishment. She transformed her Facebook page into a must-read organ of conservative opinion by lobbing “I can’t believe she said that” rhetorical bombshells. No political consultant would ever approve of her M.O.; for Palin’s purposes, no political consultant could possibly improve on it.

And...

She represents less a philosophical strain on the right than an affect and a demographic. What makes her otherwise orthodox conservatism different is the plain-spoken, combative way she expresses it and the constituency she attracts. Her supporters identify with her populist, unaffected vibe and tend to be disaffected with politics as usual — they’re Palin Perotistas. A drastic image makeover would only drive them away.

Republicans need these voters more than ever given the roiling grassroots revolt against Obama’s governance. Without them, they can’t get a majority; they’d be doomed if they were ever to slide into a splinter party. If Palin is their voice and channels their energy productively, she’s part of the Republican answer to Obama, no matter what presidential politics ultimately holds for her. There’s an upside to rogue.

COMMENT:  As readers know, I've had mixed feelings about Sarah.  On the one hand, she has terrific qualities, and she's an original, a political Annie Oakley.  On the other hand, I've been critical of lack of preparation on major issues.  That is something that must change.  The American people will expect it of her.

In an interview with Barbara Walters, Sarah said she wanted to play a major role in American politics, if people will have her.  Well, some never will.  She went to the wrong schools.  She married the wrong man.  She gave her kids the wrong names.  But saner types will have her...if she appears ready, and does her homework.

It's really her choice.

November 17, 2009   Permalink

CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF POOR LEADERSHIP - AT 7:41 P.M. ET:  New poll numbers reflect America's growing skepticism about the value of winning in Afghanistan, as Andrew Malcolm of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket reports:

According to the new ABC News/Washington Post Poll, only 44% now say the war has been worth it, the smallest support percentage in nearly three years. The poll has a margin of error of +/-3.5%.

Once, Obama's war policies were his strongest poll suit (63%). Now, only 45% approve of Obama's handling of Afghanistan; more (48%) don't. His war support among independents, a crucial ingredient in the Democrat's election victory 54 weeks ago, has slipped to 39%.

Support for additional commitments is particularly weak among young voters and women.

Obama, like President Bush before him in both Afghanistan and Iraq, has made a main argument that it's better to fight terrorism over there and deny terrorists safe training and staging havens than endure repeat 9/11 attacks on the homeland.

Ominously, for Obama, however, less than a quarter of Americans now buy that argument. Nearly two-thirds (64%) currently say the risk of terrorism at home is the same whether we continue to fight there or withdraw.

COMMENT:  This is a clear case of poor, indecisive leadership...at the very top.  When Americans see the commander in chief hesitant, when they see no clear commitment from the leader, they understandably become indifferent and hesitant.

Please recall the Biblical quotation, from Corinthians, "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" 

Today the trumpet gives a very uncertain sound.  The American people are listening.

November 17, 2009   Permalink

HOLDER ON THE HOT SEAT - AT 7:18 P.M. ET:  Attorney General Eric Holder is taking major heat for his decision to try the mastermind of 9-11 in an ordinary federal courtroom in Manhattan.  Holder is defending himself, but his defense seems awfully anemic to us:

Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday stood by his decision to send five alleged Sept. 11 conspirators to New York for trial, saying his team carefully considered the potential downsides of taking the case out of the military commission system but ultimately determined federal court was the best option.

Despite growing concerns that trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others in civilian court triggers a host of complications for the prosecution, Holder said he's confident the cases will be "successful."

"We looked at a variety of things -- about the questions of admissibility of evidence ... what problems we might have with regard to any witnesses," Holder said. "I mean the whole variety of things that we considered in making those judgments."

But some lawmakers and analysts were not so convinced Holder's case is airtight.

Unlike military courts, civilian courts require warrants for evidence -- warrants which are not typically obtained on the battlefield. Civilian courts also have much stricter rules for hearsay than military courts. Plus any defendants who were not read their Miranda rights could raise that as an issue.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said a conviction is "not automatic."

No it's not.  And you have to worry about the selection of both judge and jury.  New York, to put it politely, is ultra-multicultural, and not all members of all cultural groups will be willing to put a member of an "oppressed" people in prison.

"Odds are that he will be convicted of something but in the federal courts, it's the luck of draw as to what judge you get," King told Fox News. "And you could get a judge who would say because he was arrested without a warrant, because he was not read his Miranda rights, because he was held seven years without a trial, all of this is a terrible injustice and therefore I'm going to dismiss the charges. I doubt any judge would do that, but it's going to make it more difficult to get the conviction."

Another obvious pitfall for the Justice Department would be allegations of torture from the defendants' counsel. Mohammed's history of being waterboarded is well-documented. Though Bush administration officials have defended the practice as being useful in extracting critical information, waterboarding has since been banned and is considered torture by some lawmakers.

Charles Stimson, a former deputy assistant defense secretary for detainees, said these allegations could make the prosecution's case quite fragile.

"If any of these statements ... get thrown out because of this argument that they were tortured and that nothing that came out of their mouths can be believed, that the whole case is tainted, it's a house of cards," he said.

Why do I think that there are some people in Barack Obama's Justice Department who would actually like to see the case thrown out?  Then they can blame Bush (!!)

Others argue that the trial just gives Mohammed the platform he wanted all along. Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission, told a local radio station Tuesday he's concerned the trial will serve as a "propaganda" tool for the defendant.

COMMENT:  And even the governor of New York, David Paterson, has come out against holding the trial in New York.  Now, true, Paterson has it in for Obama because the White House has been trying to push the unelectable Paterson out of the governor's chair, so this is a case of chickens coming home to roost.  But Paterson, trying to salvage his public popularity, wouldn't come out against the trial unless he knew that position reflected popular will.

November 17, 2009   Permalink 

THAT NOW-FAMOUS BOW BEFORE THE EMPEROR - AT 9:20 A.M. ET:  President Obama's now-famous bow in Tokyo is still reverberating, and is likely to come up periodically in the political wars.  It's the second great Obama bow, the first delivered to the king of Saudi Arabia some months back.  Japan gave us Pearl Harbor and Saudi Arabia gave us Islamic fundamentalism, so the president must have chosen his bows carefully.

Wes Pruden, the acerbic columnist for the Washington Times, a man who writes as if he has nothing to lose, provides a great take on the latest bow:

A little traveling, like a little learning, can be a dangerous thing. Barack Obama on the loose in a foreign land is enough to frighten protocol officers and embarrass the rest of us.

Embarrass?  Why, they're not embarrassed in Cambridge or Beverly Hills.

So far it's a memorable trip. He established a new precedent for how American presidents should pay obeisance to kings, emperors, monarchs, sovereigns and assorted other authentic man-made masters of the universe. He stopped just this side of the full grovel to the emperor of Japan, risking a painful genuflection if his forehead had hit the floor with a nasty bump, which it almost did...

...Now we know why Mr. Obama stunned everyone with an earlier similar bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, only the bow to the Japanese emperor was far more flamboyant, a sign of a really deep sense of inferiority. He was only practicing his bow in Riyadh. Sometimes rituals are learned with difficulty. It took Bill Clinton months to learn how to return a military salute worthy of a commander in chief; like any draft dodger, he kept poking a thumb in his eye until he finally got it.

Yes, I forgot the Clinton salute, and the learning curve. 

Some of the president's critics are giving him a hard time, and it's true that this president seems never to have studied much American history. Not bowing to foreign potentates was what 1776 was all about. His predecessors learned with no difficulty that the essence of America is that all men stand equal and are entitled to look even a king, maybe particularly a king, straight in the eye. Can anyone imagine George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson making a similar gesture of servile submission? Or Harry Truman? Or FDR, who famously served the lowly hot dog, with ballpark mustard, to the king and queen of England? John F. Kennedy, on the eve of a trip to London, sharply warned Jackie not to curtsy to the queen.

I particularly liked FDR giving the king and queen some hot dogs.  Great gesture, great demonstration that we see royalty as human, and not above us.

But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change."

Yes, sadly, I'm afraid that's right.  They relish the idea that Obama is the first "post-American" president.

He no doubt wants to "do the right thing" by his lights, but the lights that illumine the Obama path are not necessarily the lights that illuminate the way for most of the rest of us. This is good news only for Jimmy Carter, who may yet have to give up his distinction as our most ineffective and embarrassing president.

COMMENT:  I'm glad that Pruden used the word "embarrassing," for it applies.  At first, even those of us who opposed Obama thought some good might come of the first African-American president traveling abroad and demonstrating our inclusive society.  But Obama has muffed it, and has indeed become "embarrassing."  Someone should tell him.  I nominate John McCain.

November 17, 2009   Permalink

SOWELL ON "WORLD OPINION" - AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  Tom Sowell, one of the best writers writing today, tears into President Obama's deep bowing to something called "world opinion":

In the string of amazing decisions made during the first year of the Obama administration, nothing seems more like sheer insanity than the decision to try foreign terrorists, who have committed acts of war against the United States, in federal court, as if they were American citizens accused of crimes.

Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Convention, nor are they among those covered by it.

But over and above the utter inconsistency of what is being done is the utter recklessness it represents. The last time an attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a matter of domestic criminal justice was after a bomb was exploded there in 1993. Under the rules of American criminal law, the prosecution had to turn over all sorts of information to the defense-- information that told the Al Qaeda international terrorist network what we knew about them and how we knew it.

As I said, one of the best writers writing today.

Tragically, this administration seems hell-bent to avoid seeing acts of terrorism against the United States as acts of war. The very phrase "war on terrorism" is avoided, as if that will stop the terrorists' war on us.

Wonderful way to put it.

The mindset of the left behind such thinking was spelled out in an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, which said that "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, will be tried the right way-- the American way, in a federal courtroom where the world will see both his guilt and the nation's adherence to the rule of law."

This is not the rule of law but the application of laws to situations for which they were not designed.

The San Fran Chronicle speaks very well for the crowd that is now running the country.  And running it into the ground.

Behind this decision and others is the notion that we have to demonstrate our good faith to other nations, sometimes called "world opinion." Just who are these saintly nations whose favor we must curry, at the risk of American lives and the national security of the United States?

Internationally, the law of the jungle ultimately prevails, despite pious talk about "the international community" and "world opinion," or the pompous and corrupt farce of the United Nations. Yet this is the gallery to which Barack Obama has been playing, both before and after becoming President of the United States.

But he sounds so good.  And his, oh so compelling story.  And his nice family.  And his breaking down of racial barriers to counter our 1) racist 2) imperialist 3) sexist 4) militarist 5) colonialist past.  What's a little knocking down of buildings compared to that?

As a private citizen, Barack Obama has a right to make as big a jackass of himself as he wants to. But, as President of the United States, his actions not only denigrate a nation that other nations rely on for survival, but raise questions about how reliable our judgment and resolve are-- which in turn raises questions about whether those nations will consider themselves better off to make the best deal they can with our enemies.

Enemies?  Enemies?  Why, isn't an enemy just a friend you haven't made yet?  That is actually a line circulated on the left.

As usual, Tom Sowell has it correct.  My fear is that the American people, or at least a chunk of it, will get used to these nutty policies. 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once wrote a brilliant essay on "defining deviancy down" - meaning that society starts to accept its decline as normal.  With the media and the intellectual classes in the president's corner, that could happen to our nation.  If it does, we are cooked.

November 17, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  From Bill Kristol, at the Weekly Standard, reflecting the feelings of many of us:

Just what is Barack Obama as president making of our American destiny? The answer, increasingly obvious, is .  .  . a hash. It's worse than most of us expected. His dithering on Afghanistan is deplorable, his appeasing of Iran disgraceful, his trying to heap new burdens on a struggling economy destructive.

Add to this his sending Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for a circus-like court trial. The next three years are going to be long and difficult ones for our economy, our military, and our country.
What is the loyal opposition to do?

Oppose Obama's destructive proposals (health care, cap and trade) and try to defeat them. Expose the foolishness of Obama's ineffective policies (the stimulus, cash for clunkers) and show the American people their failure. And try to influence Obama's policy choices by persuasion (Afghanistan), embarrassment (political correctness in the fight against jihadists), or legislation (Guantánamo), so as to minimize the damage done to the country on his watch.

In all of this, Republicans and conservatives can succeed, especially if they keep two rules in mind: Don't celebrate bad news. Don't root for the bad guys.

And...

Republicans need to point out that Obama's economic policies aren't working. But they need to resist appearing to relish bad news for the country on Obama's watch. When rising unemployment numbers come out, there is occasionally an unseemly sense of celebration in the emails that come from various GOP offices...

...In areas where policies are still being debated--in foreign policy in particular--conservatives need to keep urging Obama to do the right thing...

...We want the bad guys to lose. We're happy to work with President Obama to defeat them--and we only wish he shared our clarity and urgency about accomplishing that task.

COMMENT:  All good advice.  But there must be one ingredient added:  Conservatives must learn, the way Ronald Reagan learned, to speak over the heads of the American media, directly to the American people.  Conservatives still do not understand the extent to which modern journalism has been compromised by its dalliance with the political left.  They still do not understand that this dalliance will continue, that careerism within journalism demands it, just as careerism within universities demands it.

You can have the best message in the world, but if you don't know how to get it to the American people, you will lose.  When Reagan told us it was "morning in America," he didn't tell it to a White House reporter, for transmittal.  He told it directly to us, and all the gatekeepers of the media could do nothing about it.

November 17, 2009   Permalink

TREACHERY - AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  How can any American feel secure, when the man who runs the International Atomic Energy Agency has been betraying his trust?  The Times of London this morning exposes what Mohamed ElBaradei, another Nobel Peace Prize winner, has been doing to boost the fortunes of the rogue regime in Tehran:

United Nations and Iranian officials have been secretly negotiating a deal to persuade world powers to lift sanctions and allow Tehran to retain the bulk of its nuclear programme in return for co-operation with UN inspectors.

You can be sure that not much cooperation would be required. 

According to a draft document seen by The Times, the 13-point agreement was drawn up in September by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in an effort to break the stalemate over Iran’s nuclear programme before he stands down at the end of this month.

The IAEA denied the existence of the document, which was leaked to The Times by one of the parties alarmed at the contents. Its disclosure was made as the agency warned that Iran could be hiding multiple secret nuclear sites.

Despite the assessment, diplomats believed that Mr ElBaradei was hoping to agree the outline of a deal with Tehran that he could present to the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany as a solution to the impasse.|

It was thought that Mr ElBaradei was anxious to secure his legacy after infighting over his perceived weakness in dealing with Iran.

"Perceived" weakness?  The man has practically revived the Chamberlain umbrella.

Negotiations with Iran are going nowhere.  But the president of the United States can't even make a decision on Afghanistan.  He has zero credibility on Iran.  Many chickens are coming home to roost, as the "international community" makes a mockery of everything we learned in the 20th century about dealing with rogue regimes.

November 17,  2009   Permalink

MONDAY,  NOVEMBER 16,  2009

WONDERFUL!  LOVE IT, LOVE IT - AT 7:26 P.M. ET:  Just read this, from Andrew Malcolm's Top of the Ticket, at the L.A. Times:

Chicago politics, where voting is such a revered civic duty that people do it even after they're dead, cold, stiff, stuffed, boxed and buried beneath the permafrost for years, has now come to D.C. with the Obama administration.

This afternoon comes the most encouraging economic news, courtesy of our keen-eyed buddy Rick Klein over at ABC, that the Obama administration's $787-billion economic stimulus has, for example, thankfully created 30 new jobs in a little-known rural corner of Arizona at a cost to American taxpayers of only $761,420.

That works out to only $25,380.67 spent to create each individual job.

Seems like a lot per slot, but those 30 folks must be happy to be employed again and paying taxes.

This will be a real feather in the cap of Vice President Joe Biden, who's been left behind and assigned by the ever-campaigning president to monitor the stimulus plan, its spending and effectiveness moving into the crucial midterm elections of 2010. Might the Democrats snatch that House seat?

So the people of that 9th Congressional District in staunchly Republican Arizona should be pretty happy about this.

Trouble is, there is no 9th Congressional District in Arizona. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Doesn't exist. Not in Arizona. Not even on paper at the Democratic National Committee.

COMMENT:  Ah, Chicago politics.  Now you vote.  Then you die.  Now you vote again.  The congressional district doesn't exist?  Who cares?  It's just a number.  It exists in the hearts of good Democrats.

Don't be shocked.  I know these people.  They've counted votes from the Emerald City.  Dorothy won.

November 16, 2009   Permalink

FASCINATING HISTORY - AT 6:25 P.M. ET:  Many Americans are furious that President Obama bowed down, deeply, to the Japanese emperor.  The White House has shrugged it off, much to its own disgrace.

But there's a wonderful history here - a history of the tradition that Americans don't bow down to foreign royalty.  Don Smith, of the Tucson Citizen, writing in a column called Fort Buckley, informs us:

In the 1908 Olympics in London, American athletes of Irish ancestry “urged” the flag bearer not to dip the Stars and Stripes in the Games’ opening parade, as the US team passed by the British royal family. (According to a PBS documentary on the Irish experience in America, narrated by actor Aiden Quinn, some of the Irish American athletes promised the flag bearer that, if he did dip the flag, he’d be in the hospital before nightfall). The flag bearer was convinced, and the Stars and Stripes stood tall and proud as the American team walkedWOND by the King of England.

As the story goes, there was an uproar. In response, Martin Sheridan, US team captain (and a native of County Mayo) reportedly said that the flag of the United States “bows before no earthly king.” Historians dispute whether Sheridan really said this…but nevertheless, it’s now part of our tradition. To many Americans, it remains a symbol of national pride that the Stars and Stripes is never dipped to foreign powers.

Well, the President of the United States, when he’s representing our country in his official duties, IS the Stars and Stripes. Both he and it are symbols of our nation—its heritage, values, traditions and pride.

Our President is the guardian of those traditions and that spirit, not their owner. They are not his to do with as he pleases.

COMMENT:  Absolutely correct.  The president is guardian of our traditions, not their master.  Someone has not informed President Obama.  But, after all, what can you expect of Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers?

November 16, 2009   Permalink

THE ARMY AND MAJOR HASAN - AT 5:52 P.M. ET:  Superb investigative report Joel Mowbray delves deeper into the relationship between the United States Army and the murderous Major Hasan.  Joe Lieberman will begin his own committee's investigation into the matter this week, an undertaking I trust far more than the probe that will be conducted by the ultra-liberal Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.  From the Washington Times:

What officials knew about Maj. Hasan was neither trivial nor inconsequential.

In spring, Maj. Hasan wrote an Internet posting that compared suicide bombers to soldiers who sacrifice their lives by falling on a grenade. His reasoning was that suicide bombers "help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers."

No more explicit justification could be made for the terrorists who have been targeting U.S. service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet reports indicate there was no formal investigation into a soldier who praised suicide bombers who "save Muslims" by killing the very people among whom he lived and worked.

More ominous is that only mild concern was sparked by Maj. Hasan's repeated contacts with a cleric openly affiliated with al Qaeda. Although the content of the 10 to 20 e-mails has been described officially as related to "religious guidance" and Maj. Hasan's "research," no rationale could possibly exist for any soldier independently contacting a high-level enemy figure.

Yet there are commentators who are arguing, with a straight face, that it wasn't "illegal" to contact al Qaeda. 

Someone falling into the lure of jihadist ideology becomes a threat long before he even discusses violence. Danger begins with the embrace of a paranoid worldview in which the United States has waged war on pious, peace-loving Muslims. That the United States is fighting self-identified Muslims in two Islamic nations, of course, only makes it easier for jihadists to win over Muslims.

Maj. Hasan didn't just parrot jihadist lines about evil America, though. He openly argued for Islamic violence against the United States. And that was just what he said in front of his colleagues.

And what about the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, who worried out loud that Major Hasan's case would affect "diversity"?  Perhaps the word "retirement" might be placed anonymously on the general's desk.

Much of the evidence points to a critical question: Was Maj. Hasan treated differently because he was a Muslim?

Perhaps the simplest analysis is by way of comparison. In one reported instance, Maj. Hasan told his colleagues that he supported the Muslim who shot two soldiers, killing one, at a military recruitment center in Little Rock, Ark.

Imagine if Maj. Hasan had instead been a secular, garden-variety anti-American radical who told his colleagues that he supported the murder of his fellow soldiers. Is there any doubt such remarks would have generated at least more than the indifference Maj. Hasan's various comments did?

No doubt whatever.

If the military doesn't change the mind-set that allowed those actions to be ignored or shrugged off, the consequences could be even more devastating the next time.

COMMENT:  Those changes can only come about with the assent of the civilian authority.  And look who's in the White House.  True, this politically correct trendiness began long before Barack Obama came to office, but he can put a stop to it.

He won't.

November 16, 2009   Permalink

WHAT?  WHAT?  THIS CANNOT BE - AT 5:39 P.M. ET:  These constant insults toward the peaceful government of Iran must stop.  They offend our multicultural sensibilities.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — International inspectors who gained access to Iran’s newly revealed underground nuclear enrichment plant raised questions in a report released on Monday about whether the country may have also concealed other nuclear factories.

Oh the smears. 

So far Iran has denied that there are other hidden sites in addition to the one built deep underground on a military base north of the holy city of Qum. The inspectors were given access to the half-built plant late last month and reported that they had found it in “an advanced state” of construction, but that no centrifuges — the fast-spinning machines needed to make nuclear fuel – had yet been installed.

They confirmed American and European intelligence reports that the site was built to house about 3,000 centrifuges, enough to produce enough material for one or two nuclear weapons a year. But that is too small to be useful in the production of fuel for civilian nuclear power, which is what Iran insists was the intended purpose of the site.

Just a misunderstanding.  Undoubtedly.

The plant’s existence was revealed in September, as many as seven years after construction had begun.

Certainly gives us confidence that we know all we should know.  And, as Obama dithers, Iran gets closer to a nuclear weapon. 

November 16, 2009   Permalink

SOMETIMES YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER TO LAUGH OR CRY - AT 5:35 P.M. ET:  This is an actual headline being run today by The New York Times:

G.M., Citing Progress, Reports Loss of $1.15 Billion

COMMENT:  If that's progress, I wonder what a disaster is.

November 16,  2009   Permalink


THERE THEY GO AGAIN - AT 9:58 A.M. ET:  You may remember the story of Pauline Kael, the prominent movie critic, who, after the 1972 election, expressed amazement that Nixon won, because no one she knew voted for him.

Stories about the insularity of our elites are legendary, but they keep proving it, over and over.  Consider, for example, the sneering review of Sarah Palin's new book in The New York Times.  Now, no one expected The Times to give Sarah a good review.  I'm amazed they reviewed her at all, given their history of ignoring books by those who don't take the correct line on key issues like abortion.  But the review is there, and contains this comment:

Yet Mr. McCain’s astonishing decision to pick someone with so little experience (less than two years as the governor of Alaska, and before that, two terms as mayor of Wasilla, an Alaskan town with fewer than 7,000 residents) as his running mate underscores just how alarmingly expertise is discounted — or equated with elitism — in our increasingly democratized era, and just how thoroughly colorful personal narratives overshadow policy arguments and actual knowledge.

Wait a second, wait a second.  As the TV guy used to say, "Stop the music!"  Is the reviewer talking about Sarah Palin?  Wasn't there another candidate last year who fit that description?  A kid from Chicago with a funny name?  Some time as a community organizer, a bit more time in the Illinois State Senate, and some months as an absentee U.S. senator before declaring himself ready to lead the world?  That one?

Isn't it remarkable that liberal journalists, when rapping Sarah Palin for lack of experience, are actually describing Barack Obama...and they don't realize it?  What a mindset!  What minds!  What lack of minds!

You'd think an editor would pick up the contradiction.  Not these days.

Another day in the life of a once-great newspaper. 

November 16,  2009   Permalink

OBAMA'S AFGHAN TRAP - AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  There has been some remarkable press buzz, very rare, about Obama's inability to make a decision on Afghanistan.  Even liberal columnists, like David Broder, have rapped the president's knuckles.  You'd think, from the way the White House is acting, that no American president ever had to make a serious decision before.  Or, you'd think that this president, elevated above all, has some special wisdom, some secret cerebral cunning, that he's bringing to bear on the problem.

Well, the superior president got pretty testy when asked about Afghanistan on his current Asian trip, as The Politico reports:

SHANGHAI, China – President Barack Obama made no effort to conceal his irritation when his press corps used the first question of his maiden Far East trip to ask what was taking him so long on Afghanistan.

Jennifer Loven of The Associated Press had asked: “Can you explain to people watching and criticizing your deliberations what piece of information you're still lacking to make that call.”

“With respect to Afghanistan, Jennifer,” the president scolded, “I don't think this is a matter of some datum of information that I'm waiting on. … Critics of the process … tend not to be folks who … are directly involved in what's happening in Afghanistan. Those who are, recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right.”

The cool president’s heated response reflected second-guessing from the press and Pentagon about a process that has spanned eight formal meetings with his war cabinet, totaling about 20 hours.

One problem with this president is that he's process oriented, not result oriented.  He thinks the process is the result, a concept he shares with many who think they're intellectuals. 

But the American people don't care how the president arrives at a decision.  They care about the decision.  Other presidents have made far more momentous decisions, and what history cares about is the impact of those decisions.

His handlers portray Mr. Obama as "thoughtful."  Well, someone slip them a note and tell them that no one outside the chattering classes cares if the president is thoughtful.  The public cares about the thoughts. 

Another problem, by the way, is that this is one of the most insincere presidents I've seen in my lifetime.  You don't know what he really believes, or if he believes anything.  Therefore, we don't know how seriously he actually takes Afghanistan.  At one time he called it a war of necessity.  Now he thinks it's a war of maybe.

Not good, not good.  The neighbors are watching.  Some of them live in Iran and North Korea.

November 16,  2009   Permalink

 
QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:08 A.M. ET:  From Dick Morris: 

As he flew to Asia on Saturday, President Obama told the media in Alaska that he opposes a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood massacre, saying that we must "resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into political theater." Yet, even as he was posturing against political theatrics, he had just decided that the prosecution of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would proceed on the greatest of public stages -- New York City.

That's exactly right.  Obama has made scores of mistakes since taking office, but the decision to try Mohammed in New York City has struck a particular chord.  For the first time we can truly say, and prove, that the president of the United States is placing American civilians at risk.

And for what?  To show off our justice system to the world?  I doubt it.  I suspect the motives are far more political.

A federal court is an institution, not a building.  A federal court can be established in a grocery store, if need be.  It would have been comparatively simple to try Mohammed in a court established on a military base, where severe security can be maintained.  Instead, the trial will take place in a populated area, a few blocks from City Hall, Ground Zero, a few colleges, Wall Street, and major bridges.  Brilliant.

It is not political theater itself to which Obama objects -- but theater that highlights issues that liberals would rather forget. He is quite content to let the Mohammed trial become the theater of the left. Perhaps even eager.

That is correct.

The Obama administration has a clear agenda here:

1) Stop people from focusing in how his administration permitted the worst domestic terror attack in eight years.

2) Avoid a national airing of how liberal policies -- restraints on the intelligence community, political correctness in the armed forces -- might have inhibited the military from reining in Hasan.

3) Re-ignite a firestorm on the left and abroad against the aggressive anti-terror policies of the Bush administration.
Making all this particularly important for Obama are his other political needs.

As he likely decides to send more troops to Afghanistan and eyes abandoning the "public option" to secure Senate passage of his health-care plan, Obama has to rebuild his credibility on the left. A public circus that focuses on waterboarding and interrogations could be just what he wants and needs.

Even if it means putting Americans at risk, and placing our security in the hands of a New York jury, which may well be selected the way the O.J. Simpson jury was selected.

Despicable.

November 16,  2009   Permalink

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY - AT 8:39 A.M. ET:   Mr. Obama has written extensively about himself, and little else, it seems.  It's a logical extension to think that he might soon be painting himself.  Reader John Catherwood alerts us to this cartoon, which pretty much tells the story:

You know, he's a pretty good painter.  But he has to work at getting the likeness more accurate.

November 16, 2009   Permalink

THE POLITICS OF IT ALL - AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  One of the things that struck me in the last week was that the president's poll numbers were holding pretty firm, despite a string of blunders and setbacks - his weird behavior after Fort Hood, the passage of an unpopular health "reform" bill, and, too late for most polls, his disgracefully deep bow before the emperor of Japan and the announcement that the mastermind of 9-11 will be tried in an ordinary courtroom in densely populated Manhattan.

A pollster cautioned that the president's approval numbers, hovering around 50% in many surveys, may not go that much lower because he has such a solid base of support.  That is true.  This White House is run like the old political machines of New York (Tammany Hall) and Chicago:  It is built on constituent groups on whom favors and funds are lavished, the better to keep them loyal.  And loyal they stay.  When checks are written to ACORN, they aren't written to purchase good government.  They're written to purchase loyalty.

It's the job of the Republican Party to analyze the flow of loyalty to this president, and interdict it whenever possible.  Recent polling shows that Mr. Obama's least loyal followers are independent voters, who gave him his margin of victory in 2008.  They are peeling away, growing louder in their complaints and their sense of disillusionment.  But they are not necessarily gravitating toward the Republican Party for any purpose other than a protest vote.

That is not good enough. 

The president is revealing himself to be the passionate leftist that many of us thought he was during the campaign.  It's in his blood, in his cultural traditions, in the choices he made of friends.  He is also a superb campaigner, his way made easier by NFL-quality blocking from the mainstream media.

Yes, it is possible for Republicans to do very well next year simply by opposing.  But they will never return to full power, and continuing power, without an affirmative program and a slate of attractive, winning candidates.  That work is still in progress.  In my view, it is proceeding too slowly.

November 16,  2009   Permalink