Our subcription drive ended Friday night.  A report will be posted for readers  tomorrow morning.

SUNDAY,  NOVEMBER 22,  2009

COUNTERTERROISM:  EUROPE AND AMERICA - THE CONTRAST - AT 11:17 P.M. ET:  Reuel Marc Gerecht has done some of the most perceptive writing about the war on terror.  Reflecting on the Major Hasan case, Gerecht makes the point that Europe takes internal threats from radical Muslims much more seriously than does America.  From The Wall Street Journal:

Whether it's anti-Muslim bigotry, the large numbers of immigrant and native-born Muslims in Europe, an appreciation of how hard it is to become European, or just an understanding of how dangerous Islamic radicalism is, most Europeans are far less circumspect and politically correct when discussing their Muslim compatriots than are Americans.

A concern for not giving offense to Muslims would never prevent the French internal-security service, the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST), which deploys a large number of Muslim officers, from aggressively trying to pre-empt terrorism. As Maj. Hasan's case shows, this is not true in the United States. The American military and especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation were in great part inattentive because they were too sensitive.

Moreover, President Barack Obama's determined effort not to mention Islam in terrorist discussions—which means that we must not suggest that Maj. Hasan's murderous actions flowed from his faith—will weaken American counterterrorism. Worse, the president's position is an enormous wasted opportunity to advance an all-critical Muslim debate about the nature and legitimacy of jihad.

Never thought I'd see the day when Europe seemed tougher on terrorism than the United States, but I never thought I'd see the age of Obama either.

It shouldn't require the U.S. to have a French-style, internal-security service to neutralize the likes of Maj. Hasan. He combines all of the factors—especially his public ruminations about American villainy in the Middle East and his overriding sense of Muslim fraternity—that should have had him under surveillance by counterintelligence units. Add the outrageous fact that he was in email correspondence with Anwar al-Awlaqi, a pro-al Qaeda imam well-known to American intelligence, and it is hard not to conclude that the FBI is still incapable of counterterrorism against an Islamic target.

Pathetic, but true. 

Powerfully intertwined in all of this is liberal America's reluctance to discuss Islam, Islamic militancy, jihadism, or anything that might be construed as invidious to Muslims. The Obama administration obviously doesn't want to get tagged with an Islamist terrorist strike in the U.S.—the first since 9/11. The Muslim-sensitive 9/11 Commission Report, which unambiguously named the enemy as "Islamist terrorism," now seems distinctly passé.

And one reason this happened is the intellectual trendiness among America's elites - in the universities and the press. 

In his Cairo speech in June, Mr. Obama pledged "to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Muslims don't need his help protecting Islam from mean-spirited Westerners—or from Western novelists, film directors or scholars who might see something in Islamic history that devout Muslims find insulting.

But Westerners could certainly benefit from Mr. Obama underscoring something else he touched on in his Cairo speech: Muslims should stop blaming non-Muslims for their crippling problems. He could ask, as some Muslims have, why is it that Islam has produced so many jihadists? Why is it that Maj. Hasan's rampage has produced so little questioning among Muslim clerics about why a man, one in a long line of Muslim militants, so easily takes God's name to slaughter his fellow citizens?

Gerecht sees Obama as a serious part of the problem, not a part of the solution:

As it stands now, however, Iranian youth who once so eagerly welcomed Mr. Obama's election by shouting his name in Persian—U ba ma! ("He is with us!")—are now writing the president's likely legacy among Muslims who yearn for a better modernity. Disappointed to see how determined Mr. Obama has remained to engage the regime they despise, they now forlornly chant U ba unhast ("He is with them.").

For Muslims who are on the front lines of Islam's bloody reformation, as well as for American counterterrorist officers who must find holy warriors in our midst, Mr. Obama has come down on the wrong side of history.

One of the best columns I've read on this subject recently.  Read the whole thing.

November 22,  2009   Permalink

  
A GEM - AT 9:19 P.M. ET:  A picture may be worth a thousand words.  Three pictures can be priceless, especially if they tell the story.  These three tell the story...well.  This comes from Lucianne: 

Now, I admit - I'm publishing this three hours after I put up some curtain rods.  But men on our side put them up with a certain style.  And we don't wear white shirts while doing it.

November 22, 2009   Permalink

BUY YOUR TICKETS NOW, WHILE THEY'RE AVAILABLE - AT 8:16 P.M. ET:  The producers, directors, and screenwriters for the trial of the century are already doing advance publicity.  At least they're honest about what they have in mind.  From the New York Post:

NEW YORK — The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the nation's deadliest terrorist attack will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the World Trade Center site.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

Yes, I would imagine it is.  Of course, the Justice Department, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama White House, is unconcerned.

Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthourse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said Sunday that while the men may attempt to use the trial to express their views, "we have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past."

COMMENT:  Well, it depends on which judge you get.  And the jury matters.  And...will the trial be televised?  Will Lance Ito give commentary?

The whole thing is rotten.  Bad decision by Eric Holder.  But he couldn't have made it without the boss's approval.

November 22, 2009   Permalink

MORE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS - AT 1:12 P.M. ET:  The Washington Times has a story about still one more institution with ties to foreign enemies, that evades much public scrutiny:

A Potomac, Md., Islamic center maintains links to Iran despite its claims that it is independent of a foundation that is being sued by the U.S. government on charges of funneling money to the Islamic republic.

Ali Mohammadi, the current manager of the Islamic Education Center (IEC) of Maryland, told The Washington Times that the center's only relationship to the Alavi Foundation is that of tenant to landlord. He quoted a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office as saying that forfeiture proceedings initiated earlier this month against the foundation - which also owns property in New York and other states - would not affect tenants of the foundation.

However, Mr. Mohammadi has served as the opening speaker for meetings between the Iranian-American community and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he comes to the U.N. General Assembly each September.

Yeah, no relationship.  It's the same old story.  Iran?  Never heard of the place.

An Iranian-American who asked to be identified only by his first name, Ahmad, said the center is generally perceived as being sympathetic to the Islamic regime. He noted that Iran's interest section, which is in a small office in upper Georgetown, held a party at the Potomac center celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Just renting out space for parties.  Hey, they probably have Christian weddings and Bar Mitzvahs too. 

We had a similar situation before World War II, when some German-American institutions were misused as Nazi fronts.  Hollywood, in 1945, made a film about the situation:  "The House on 92nd Street."

Yet, as 9-11 fades into memory, and as the current administration refuses even to use the term, "the war on terror," there seems little zeal in America to find out the depth of possible enemy infiltration into local institutions.  A price will be paid.

November 22, 2009    Permalink

HEALTH CARE "REFORM" - THE MAIN EVENT - AT 12:37 P.M. ET:  The Senate voted last night to proceed to a major debate on health-care "reform."  But passage of anything is far from certain, as the Politico reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid eked out 60 votes on a procedural motion to start the health care debate Saturday night – but there’s no guarantee he can pass a bill on the merits.

And as he struggles, the reasons are clear: deep divides among Democrats on a public insurance plan, abortion, tax hikes and cost-cutting. Liberals want the plan to be generous enough. Moderates fear a budget-buster. And everyone is trying to avoid angering seniors.

Even in the blush of Saturday’s victory, Reid (D-Nev.) is far from having the votes to move his $848 billion package to final passage. At least four centrists have pledged to oppose it in its current form, largely over the public option. Reid is in a bind. Stay to the left, and moderates vote no. Move a tad to the right, and Reid faces insurrection from the left, as liberals in his own caucus and in the House vow not to compromise any further on their signature issue.

As one of the Senate most liberal members, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), told POLITICO’s The Arena: “I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed.”

COMMENT:  Even if the Senate can pass a patched-together bill, it would have to be reconciled in committee with the House version, which may be impossible.

At the same time, there is a history of moderate Democrats caving in at the last minute under pressure from party leaders, and trying to explain it to voters later.

The Dems could have avoided this mess had they used common sense - illegal under Democrat Party by-laws - and simply worked for some finely targeted fixes to the health-care system.  They might well have had bipartisan support.  But, driven by the party's left, they sought to completely revamp a health-care system that works well for most people, and to take over a sixth of the nation's economy. 

Would you let those people handle your household finances?

November 22, 2009    Permalink

FINANCIAL WARNING - AT 11:19 A.M. ET:  Given America's enormous debt, a good chunk of it owned by foreign nations, we should take warnings from those nations seriously.  From the Financial Times:

Germany’s new finance minister has echoed Chinese warnings about the growing threat of fresh global asset price bubbles, fuelled by low US interest rates and a weak dollar.

Wolfgang Schäuble’s comments highlight official concern in Europe that the risk of further financial market turbulence has been exacerbated by the exceptional steps taken by central banks and governments to combat the crisis.

Last weekend, Liu Mingkang, China’s banking regulator, criticised the US Federal Reserve for fuelling the “dollar carry-trade”, in which investors borrow dollars at ultra-low interest rates and invest in higher-yielding assets abroad.

COMMENT:   It isn't only foreign nations who are concerned.  A survey reported by Bloomberg several weeks ago revealed that Americans are increasingly disgusted by the financial gimmickry in the American economy, especially the high jinks they see on Wall Street.

We don't want socialism here.  It kills ingenuity, entrepreneurship and economic progress.  But if people turn against the economic system because of repeated systemic failures and what they see as smoke and mirrors, we can get it.  We can even vote it in.  We should be forewarned.

November 22, 2009     Permalink

THE DATE - AT 11:07 A.M. ET -  We acknowledge the anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy, on this date some 46 years ago.  Whether you were a supporter of Mr. Kennedy or not, it's wise to recall that, on national defense, he was a stalwart.  His pledge to "pay any price" in defense of freedom seems quaint today, in these politically correct times, when the thinking of too many Americans is shaped by a broken educational system and a left-tilted press. 

Kennedy had to deal with a left wing in his party, but it was small and weak, and nowhere near as leftward as today's Democratic fringe.  Today, his views on foreign policy would probably lose him the Democratic nomination for president.

He lived in a different time.  In some ways, our time is better, in many ways worse.  Douglas MacArthur warned just before his death in 1964 that he feared there'd come a time when Americans wouldn't be willing to defend their country. 

Recalling Jack Kennedy, and Douglas MacArthur, it is dismaying to see the views circulating around our White House today.

November 22,  2009    Permalink

SATURDAY,  NOVEMBER 21,  2009

SWALLOW HARD BEFORE YOU READ THIS ONE - AT 8:22 P.M. ET:  If you really doubt that the civilian trial of the mastermind of 9-11 can suddenly run into problems, consider the behavior of one country whose intelligence service may play a role.  From Fox:

A German government official says the nation will send an observer to the upcoming trial in New York of the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and four accused henchmen.

Justice Ministry spokeswoman Katharina Jahntz on Saturday confirmed a report in Der Spiegel that a German observer would attend the trial to ensure that no evidence provided by Germany would be used to apply the death penalty.

We're moved to see Germany so concerned about preserving human life.  They're about 70 years too late.

Three of the four suicide pilots who carried out the attacks had lived and studied in the northern German city of Hamburg.  Germany, like the rest of Europe, except for Belarus, does not execute criminals

U.S. authorities announced last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried by a New York court. No date has been set, but the choice of a civilian court rather than a military tribunal set off heated debate within the United States.

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder firmly rejected such criticism Wednesday, predicting that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be exposed as a murderous coward, convicted and executed.

"Failure is not an option," Holder declared.

An option for whom?  What if a judge throws out half the evidence and the prosecution falls apart?  What if one juror in 12 refuses to convict, leading to a hung jury? 

And how, precisely, will Germany have information excluded from the trial - information that could be crucial to the prosecution?

Aw, come on, just listed to Eric Holder.  It's a lock.  It's in the bag.   Like Chicago getting the Olympics.

November 21,  2009   Permalink

FORT HOOD LATEST - AT 5:51 P.M. ET:  The more we learn, the worse it gets.  From the Washington Post:

In the months before the deadly shootings at Fort Hood, Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan intensified his communications with a radical Yemeni American cleric and began to discuss surreptitious financial transfers and other steps that could translate his thoughts into action, according to two sources briefed on a collection of secret e-mails between the two.

And get this:

The e-mails were obtained by an FBI-led task force in San Diego between late last year and June but were not forwarded to the military, according to government and congressional sources. Some were sent to the FBI's Washington field office, triggering an assessment into whether they raised national security concerns, but those intercepted later were not, the sources said.

Seems like our intelligence services are going back to the bad old days of the Clinton administration, when communication between agencies was poor to nonexistent.

"He [Hasan] clearly became more radicalized toward the end, and was having discussions related to the transfer of money and finances . . .," said the source, who spoke at length in part because he was concerned the public accounting of the events has been incomplete. "It became very clear toward the end of those e-mails he was interested in taking action."

COMMENT:  Do you remember the days, just after Hasan's attack, when the usual suspects in mainstream media sought to assure us that this was just, hey, one stressed-out fella?  Terrorism?  What terrorism?   Where do you see terrorism?

With the age of Obama came the age of new illusions.

November 21,  2009   Permalink

SARAH SELLS - AT 5:30 P.M. ET:  Sarah Palin, the author, has topped Hillary Clinton in first-day sales: 

NEW YORK (AP) - "Going Rogue" is going big.

Publisher HarperCollins said Friday that Sarah Palin's memoir sold 300,000 copies its first day, among the best openings ever for a nonfiction book. In 2004, Bill Clinton's "My Life" debuted with sales of 400,000 copies. The year before, Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Living History" started at 200,000.

"Going Rogue" was released this week and its print run already has been increased from 1.5 million copies to 2.5 million, HarperCollins announced Friday. Palin, the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate, is in the midst of a nationwide promotional tour.

COMMENT:  The secretary of state is reportedly demanding a recount.  If she doesn't get it, you may find her on a high ledge at the State Department.

November 21,  2009   Permalink

IS THIS THE WINNING STRATEGY? - AT 12:41 P.M. ET:  The states have always been great political and social laboratories.  A part of the American social safety net originated in work done by Al Smith in New York in the early part of the 20th century.  Now Republicans are looking to the states for a winning political strategy for the future.  They think they have found the answer in Virginia, as The Politico reports:

CEDAR CREEK, Tex. –After four years of grappling with how to appeal to voters, a group of top Republicans believe they’ve found a winning formula for 2010. Call it the McDonnell Strategy.

The shorthand: run on economic policy, downplay divisive cultural issues, present an upbeat tone, target independent voters and focus on Democratic-controlled Washington—all without attacking President Barack Obama personally.

It’s an approach that elected Bob McDonnell to the Virginia governorship earlier this month.

While Republicans posted two hard-fought gubernatorial victories on Nov. 3, McDonnell’s path to victory is the one that most encourages the GOP, a remarkable case of a social conservative who made his name in politics as an abortion opponent yet managed to reverse a Democratic trend in Virginia and shellack his opponent by nearly 18 percent while largely steering clear of cultural issues.

As rejuvenated GOP governors gathered at a resort outside Austin for their annual strategy session there was little doubt who they wanted to spotlight. McDonnell was shown off at nearly every public event, paraded before the reporters, consultants and lobbyists here as the example of how Republicans can find swing state success in the Obama era.

COMMENT:  Maybe.  Maybe not.  I'm in Virginia right now.  Like every state, it has its own characteristics and political hot buttons.  McDonnell ran a superb campaign.  Virginia, though, is a purple, swing state.  Just as impressive is the gubernatorialwin by Chris Christie in New Jersey, the bluest of the blue states.  If I were running Republican strategy, I'd look at both races. 

McDonnell was the smoother candidate.  Christie, a rotund fellow whose physical appearance was not helpful, had the harder job. 

I agree that direct personal attacks on the president don't work.  But criticizing his increasingly unpopular policies does work. 

Republicans have a great chance next year.  Studying strategies from recent victories is a fine way to begin.

November 21, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH CARE DEBATE BEGINS IN THE SENATE - AT 11:30 A.M. ET:  Generally liberal columnist David Broder, who's had some critical things to say about the Obama administration recently, takes on health care.  The Senate debate on a health bill is starting.  It will culminate tonight in a procedural vote, which will test the strength of the various factions.  (There seems to be a new trend to do these things on Saturdays, when fewer people are watching.  I wonder why.) 

Moderate Democrats are apparently being bought off by earmarks, the better to insure their votes for "reform."  The American people are less than enthusiastic, as Broder reports, citing a question in a recent Quinnipiac University survey:

It read: "President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think that any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?"

The answer: Less than one-fifth of the voters -- 19 percent of the sample -- think he will keep his word. Nine of 10 Republicans and eight of 10 independents said that whatever passes will add to the torrent of red ink. By a margin of four to three, even Democrats agreed this is likely.

That fear contributed directly to the fact that, by a 16-point margin, the majority in this poll said they oppose the legislation moving through Congress.

I have been writing for months that the acid test for this effort lies less in the publicized fight over the public option or the issue of abortion coverage than in the plausibility of its claim to be fiscally responsible.

It isn't fiscally responsible.  And despite lopsided opposition to the bill on the part of citizens, it is being pushed through Congress by the liberal left, which believes that it knows best, that it does best, that it is best.  This is elitism, pure and simple, a belief that those peasants out there couldn't possibly understand something as complex as health care.

Here, for example, is what Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group of budget watchdogs, told me: "The Senate bill is better than the House version, but there's not much reform in this bill. As of now, it's basically a big entitlement expansion, plus tax increases."

Here's another expert, Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: "While this bill does a better job than the House version at reducing the deficit and controlling costs, it still doesn't do enough. Given the political system's aversion to tax increases and spending cuts, I worry about what the final bill will look like."

The logical conclusion?

The challenge to Congress -- and to Obama -- remains the same: Make the promised savings real, and don't pass along unfunded programs to our children and grandchildren.

COMMENT:  Some chance of that.  The White House turned health care over to Congress, and the result was predictable.  We have a monstrosity, not reform - a bill more than 2,000 pages long, longer than "War and Peace," longer than the Old Testament, and not as inspiring as either. 

In the 1960s the far left developed a plan to flood the political system - with welfare applicants, paperwork, and bureaucracy - hoping to bring down capitalism in the process by paralyzing the country.  It came close to working in New York City.  I sometimes get the feeling that the current crowd in Washington has pulled out that same playbook, producing legislation that floods the system, is impossible to understand, and which will break the bank.

But I'm sure the bill is being published on non-acid, environmentally friendly paper.

November 21,  2009   Permalink

FRAUD OF THE CENTURY? - AT 10:36 A.M. ET:  A number of readers, led by Ken Braithwaite, alerted us to this story before it hit the mainstream media.  Now it's hit.  It could be a major story, dealing with a possible major scandal, if it's allowed to breathe by the press, and if the "scientific community" acts responsibly and demands investigations.  This is about "global warming, from The New York Times:

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change...

...In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

And...

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

Yeah, we've kind of wondered about that little thing, too.

At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”

But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review.

He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. “This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,” he said.

COMMENT:  This can grow and grow.  Remember, there are careers involved, and government grants, and reputations, and prizes.  Those things are often more important than "science" to many people.

Skepticism toward the "science" of warming is increasing.  These revelations will just magnify that skepticism.  It's time Congress held some thoughtful, informed hearings on the whole subject. 

We tend to think of scientists as godlike.  They are not.  They are investigators.  There have been scientific and medical theories that have been accepted for decades, only to be proved wrong.  Before we invest trillions of dollars in "global warming" projects, maybe we'd better find out exactly what's in this can of worms.

November 21,  2009   Permalink

WE GET TOUGH WITH IRAN - AT 10:20 A.M. ET:  The steel, the declared will of iron men, the determination to win.  What more can we ask for, as the West gets tough with Iran.  Not.

Just read this, and wonder if the meek foreign policy of the Obama administration has something to do with it.  From AP:

The West is "disappointed" over Iran's failure to respond positively to a UN-brokered nuclear deal, diplomats said in a statement Friday following a meeting of the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany. However, no new sanctions were discussed during the meeting, according to an EU source.

There is no question that this will cause panic and war warnings in Iran.  Ahem.

"We urge Iran to reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement ... and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations," the statement said, noting that Teheran had not responded positively to the proposal of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

An EU official said there was no mention of imposing further sanctions against Iran at the meeting. "These things are a matter of timing, and this was not the right time for it," said the official who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

First, they want to send Neville Chamberlain to Tehran for one grand try.

The Western officials said they would hold a follow-up meeting around Christmas.

Why so soon?  Why not let the diplomats do their Christmas shopping, trim the tree, and enjoy the season?  What's a few more spins of the Iranian centrifuges?

After Christmas, remember the U.N.'s wonderfully warm New Year's party. 

On this our safety depends.

November 21,  2009   Permalink