SATURDAY,  OCTOBER 3,  2009

ANOTHER FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESS - AT 6:46 P.M. ET:  As usual, we're now learning that Iran is further ahead in nuclear weapons development than we've been officially told.  Other surprises are probably in store:

Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb.

The report by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agency stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.

The issue isn't only how far along Iran is, but whether it's working on a nuclear weapon at all.  Should we take a guess, or trust what the mullahs say?  Obviously, they would not have acquired all the information needed for a bomb unless they intended to build one.   

But the report’s conclusions, described by senior European officials, go well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States.

Two years ago, American intelligence agencies published a detailed report concluding that Tehran halted its efforts to design a nuclear weapon in 2003. But in recent months, Britain has joined France, Germany and Israel in disputing that conclusion, saying the work has been resumed.

The American "report" was, in the eyes of many knowledgeable observers, disgraceful, and driven by a political agenda.  But mainstream journalism ate it up at the time as a means of embarrassing President Bush.

A senior American official said last week that the United States was now re-evaluating its 2007 conclusions.

I would hope so.

The new deadline for Iran to make visible progress in dismantling its weapons program is apparently December, unless President Obama has something more important to do.  We'll see if this deadline, unlike all the others, holds.

October 3, 2009   Permalink

WARNING - DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH - AT 6:24 P.M. ET:  So much attention has been paid, understandably, to foreign affairs in the last two weeks that Americans may not be aware that health-care "reform" is moving through Congress.  The energy of the opposition seems exhausted.  The Dems are in control.  And, naturally, some of the so-called Blue Dogs - the moderate Democrats - are folding and taking their orders from the leadership.  (Blue Dogs often act like Blue Puppies.)  The New York Times is reporting:

WASHINGTON — With the Senate Finance Committee set to approve its health care bill this week, Democrats are tantalizingly close to bringing legislation that would make sweeping changes in the nation’s health care system to the floor of both houses of Congress.

Party leaders still face immense political and policy challenges as they combine rival proposals — two bills in the Senate and three in the House. But the broad contours of the legislation are in place: millions of uninsured Americans would get subsidized health benefits, and the government would move to slow the growth of health spending.

COMMENT:  Well, that's the optimistic point of view.  Would anyone out there like to place a little wager - not much - on the phrase, "slow the growth of health spending"?  Is the reporter serious?  We're talking liberal Democrats here.

I hope the town meetings start up again as this monstrosity moves forward.  The main bill is more than a thousand pages, and I suspect most members of Congress don't know what's in it.  This is a surprise we don't need.  It's change we should learn more about before we believe in it.

October 3, 2009   Permalink 

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 3:52 P.M. ET:  From The Wall Street Journal, on the embarrassment in Copenhagen:

If Mr. Obama and the White House made a mistake, it was in their apparently boundless faith that somehow Mr. Obama's personal popularity would carry the day. As if, merely by seeing the rock star in person, the delegate from, say, Egypt would abandon his simmering dislike for America, forget all the dinners and deals cut with the Rio Committee, and reward Chicago. In that sense, the Olympic defeat is a relatively painless reminder that interests trump charm or likability in world affairs. Better to relearn this lesson in a fight over a sporting event than over nuclear missiles.

COMMENT:  Very well said.  But we worry that it was not a lesson learned.  As we said earlier this morning, it remains to be observed whether the Obamans are capable of change.  This is an administration marked by one of the most dangerous combinations you can have in politics - high College Board scores, education in the classrooms of professors left over from the sixties, extreme arrogance, and minimal experience. 

As a result, the Obama administration values process over result, style over substance, and invitations to the right parties over all else.

October 3, 2009   Permalink

DISMAY WITH OBAMA IN FRANCE - AT 11:29 A.M. ET:   We've been reporting here that French President Sarkozy is clearly disgusted with Obama and his appeasement of Iran.  Europe will soon be within missile range of Iranian weapons, something that seems to bother Mr. Obama not at all.

Financial Times is reporting that France is privately warning the United States about its foreign policy drift:

France is anxious about the Obama administration’s pursuit of a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme, warning that the US must not allow Tehran to expand its uranium enrichment without facing fresh sanctions.

France is concerned that America is going wobbly.  And for good reason.

...diplomatic attention is focused on a proposed deal under which Iran might put about 80 per cent of its low-enriched uranium out of potential military use.

Under the terms of the deal, which has been secretly drafted over the past month, Iran would transfer most of its 1,500kg of low-enriched uranium to Russia and France.

There, it would be processed into fuel that can provide medical isotopes, which Iran needs for cancer treatment.

However, French officials insist Tehran must also pledge by December to freeze expansion of uranium enrichment – otherwise new sanctions should be imposed.

A French government official said: “Iran is looking for more time and a move which would give legitimacy to its programme. Imposing the freeze is absolutely essential.”

COMMENT:  This comes a day after the State Department broadly hinted, still again, that deadlines on Iran had a certain flexibility.  Naturally.  "Flexibility" is Barack Hussein Obama's second middle name.  And get this:

In Tehran, Iranian officials on Friday welcomed the outcome of the Geneva talks as “win-win."

The semi-official Fars news agency insisted Iran had secured “the upper hand” in the talks.

And they are correct.

October 3,  2009   Permalink

THE BRITS TELL IT - AT 10:47 A.M. ET:  We've said before that British journalists have written the most perceptive pieces on the Obama administration, much to the chagrin of the White House.

Today, The Times of London's Tim Reid dissects the Obama mess, and describes it for what it is:

There has been a growing narrative taking hold about Barack Obama’s presidency in recent weeks: that he is loved by many, but feared by none; that he is full of lofty vision, but is actually achieving nothing with his grandiloquence.

A number of Americas seem to be coming to that same conclusion.

Chicago’s dismal showing yesterday, after Mr Obama’s personal, impassioned last-minute pitch, is a stunning humiliation for this President. It cannot be emphasized enough how this will feed the perception that on the world stage he looks good — but carries no heft.

Compare please with one George W. Bush - not Mr. Popularity, but with plenty of heft, and, at least in his first term, feared in all the right places.

Mr Obama was greeted — as usual — like a rock star by the IOC delegates in Copenhagen — then humiliated by them. Perception is reality. A narrow defeat for Chicago would have been acceptable — but the sheer scale of the defeat was a bombshell, and is a major blow for Mr Obama at a time when questions are being asked about his style of governance.

A style more appropriate to a student government...at a small school.

Abroad, Mr Obama promised in his Inauguration address to engage America’s enemies, and he has done just that. He has very little to show for it.

And no one seems to take his "firm stands" seriously.

Meanwhile, America and its allies are being forced to witness a very public agonizing by Mr Obama and his advisers over his Afghan strategy — six months after he announced that strategy.

This has all added to the perception that Mr Obama’s soaring rhetoric — which captured the imagination during last year’s election — is simply not enough when it comes to confronting the myriad challenges of the presidency. His spectacular Olympic failure will only add to that.

COMMENT:  Reid has Obama's number.  The issue is whether this president, with his supreme ego, is capable of change we can believe in.  If he isn't, we're in for some very tough, and dangerous times.

October 3, 2009   Permalink

WEIRDNESS - AT 9:54 A.M. ET:  There is a certain weirdness about this administration.  It is our presidential administration, but at times it does not seem of us, as if it were imported from another national culture.  Former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger said on Fox News last night that the Obama administration has little idea of the path of American foreign policy in the postwar era, and what it had accomplished.  True.

Consider, as one exhibit, the profoundly weird "tarmac moment" yesterday, when President Obama, on the ground in Air Force One in Copenhagen, condescended to meet with his top Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and used the opportunity to meet McChrystal's wife.  Now, that would be okay, but the meeting lasted 25 minutes and involved the fate of thousands of American troops, and the possibility that Afghanistan could once again emerge as a launching platform for attacks on the United States.  From the Washington Post:

A brief meeting between President Obama and his top general in Afghanistan on Friday offered the commander in chief an opportunity to question directly the dire assessment of the war effort there, officials said.

To question?  In 25 minutes you barely get out the question, let alone get a thorough answer.

Until Friday, Obama had talked with McChrystal only from a distance, and had met him only once. Aides called the private meeting "productive" and went out of their way to say how fond Obama is of the man he chose to lead the war.

Fond?  General, you'd better inspect the space under that Obama bus, because you may well be thrown there.  When they start using words like "fond," the term "retirement papers" comes to mind.  And there's this gem:

Obama likes McChrystal "very much personally," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. He added that Obama "got a chance, as I said earlier, to meet and talk with his wife, somebody who obviously is, along with General McChrystal, making personal sacrifices in this whole endeavor."

I can just hear Obama say, "Hey, bring along the wife.  We'll party after Chicago gets the Olympics."

McChrystal had made some comments in London that merely reiterated his well-known and highly publicized beliefs.

Aides refused to say whether Obama scolded McChrystal for his frank answer or his less-than-subtle campaign on behalf of his troop request.

Nothing like an anonymous knife in the back

One adviser noted, however, that the meeting was arranged hastily after Obama realized that the two men would be close to each other in Europe during the president's effort to win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago.

Realized they'd be close?  What is this, 1492?  Sailing ships?  No matter where on the globe a general is, he's within hours of the president. 

A genius comment by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

"The president said that McChrystal understands that he put together an assessment, and he expects and wants people to ask him questions about that assessment so that we can get the right strategy."

Nice of the president to recognize that McChrystal understands how it works.  The question is whether the president understands how it works.

October 3, 2009   Permalink

RASMUSSEN - AT 9:34 A.M. ET:  The daily Rasmussen tracking poll shows the president's overall approval today at 48%, with disapproval at 51%.  In Ras's presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove, Mr. Obama stands at minus 9, 29-38%. 

The poll is taken among likely voters and today's result reflects the last polling before the president's great leap backward in Copenhagen, where his bid for the 2016 Olympics for Chicago got the rust medal.

We'll be watching this to see if the Copenhagen fiasco pushes Obama's numbers down further.

October 3,  2009   Permalink

FRIDAY,  OCTOBER 2,  2009

THE WISDOM OF ROLAND - AT 7:02 P.M. ET:  Senator Roland Burris, the junior senator from Illinois by way of appointment by a corrupt governor, has revealed the real villain behind the rejection of Chicago for the 2016 Olympics.

In an interview with Fox News, Burris pointed the finger at...

BUSH (!!).

Yes, Burris said, it was George W. Bush who cost Chicago the games because he ruined America's reputation, and Obama just hasn't had a chance to bring it back. 

So now you know.  A well-informed Illinois senator is a precious thing.

October 2, 2009   Permalink

HARRY TRUMAN MUST BE SPINNING IN HIS GRAVE - AT 6:21 P.M. ET:  In recent weeks we saw three terror plots busted in the United States alone.  Cracking the cases was made possible in part because of provisions of the Patriot Act.  And what is the response of the keepers of the flame of modern liberalism?  The Washington Examiner explains:

Some Democratic lawmakers have long wanted to weaken the act, and now, with big majorities in the House and Senate, they have their chance. But the renewal debate just happens to come at a time when recently uncovered domestic terror plots -- most notably the Denver shuttle bus driver and his colleagues caught with bomb-making materials and a list of specific targets in New York City -- are highlighting the very threats the act was designed to counter. Republicans are fighting to keep the law in its current form.

And who is one of the Democrats leading the charge?  Why, it's that sober, serious new senator from Minnesota:

Even roving wiretaps, a widely accepted, common-sense feature of the Patriot Act, have come under question. At a Sept. 23 committee hearing, Sen. Al Franken, the newest member of the committee, challenged the constitutionality of such wiretaps, and in the process left an Obama Justice Department official -- who supports the law -- muttering in frustration.

That official, Assistant Attorney General David Kris, tried to explain to Franken that the law allows, and the courts have held, that investigators can wiretap a suspect based on a specific description of that suspect's activities, even if investigators don't know his name.

Franken, who pointed out that he is not a lawyer, was unimpressed...

...Is the Patriot Act's roving wiretap provision consistent with the Constitution? Franken asked.

"I do think it is," Kris answered, "and I kind of want to defer to that other, third branch of government. The courts, in looking at -- "

"I know what they are," Franken joked, as the audience laughed.

Kris seemed taken aback. "This is surreal," he said under his breath.

No, it's Saturday Night Live, brought to the next level.  But won't you sleep better knowing that Al Franken is protecting you?  Think about it.

October 2, 2009   Permalink

MEDICAL NEWS - AT 5:43 P.M. ET:  From Fox News:

Most babies born in rich countries this century will eventually make it to their 100th birthday, new research says. Danish experts say that since the 20th century, people in developed countries are living about three decades longer than in the past. Surprisingly, the trend shows little sign of slowing down.

COMMENT:  And since people generally grow more conservative as they grow older, this is creating panic in the Democratic Party.  What do we do with these dangerous oldies?

Suddenly the term "cuts in Medicare" looks far more delightful to leftists.  They started our era with the sixties slogan, "Don't trust anyone over 30."  They'll undoubtedly try to end it with, "Don't treat anyone over 80."

October 2, 2009   Permalink

UNBELIEVABLE - AT 4:35 P.M. ET:  Well, they announced it on a Friday afternoon, so I guess they didn't want too much publicity.  But one day after the "historic" meeting with Iran, the State Department's division of appeasement is out with a clarification, which should give the mullahs in Tehran a good laugh, to go with the other laughs they're having at our expense:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A two-week deadline set by world powers for Iran to open a newly-revealed nuclear site to inspectors is not "written in stone," the US State Department said on Friday.

"I don't think it was a hard deadline. We made clear it was a matter of some urgency," said State Department spokesman Ian Kelly at a press briefing.

After Thursday talks between Iranian officials and representatives of six world powers, US President Barack Obama called on Iran to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to visit the newly-revealed nuclear site near the Iranian city of Qom within two weeks.

"Since Iran has now agreed to cooperate fully and immediately with the International Atomic Energy Agency, it must grant unfettered access to IAEA inspectors within two weeks," he said.

But Kelly said Friday that the two-week timeline was not a "drop-dead deadline."

"I don't know that it is written in stone necessarily," he said. "We do expect it to happen in the next couple of weeks."

COMMENT:  Are you believing this?  The first thing we do is extend the deadline, just as we've extended every other deadline.  This kind of thing looks pathetic, especially as it dovetails so well with the overall foreign-policy tone of this administration.

Well, President Obama did spend 25 minutes on the plane today, on the ground in Copenhagen, with General McChrystal.  Eliminating the pleasantries, that must mean about 20 minutes devoted to a war in which Americans are dying by the day.  No report on what was said, or when they'll meet again.

October 2, 2009   Permalink

FLYING DOWN TO RIO - AT 4:21 P.M. ET:  That was the name of one of those delightful Golden Age musicals, made in 1933, and famous for featuring the first pairing of Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire.  Well, there'll be a lot of flying down to Rio in 2016, because the city got the Olympics for that year today. 

So, stand by for considerable gloating from Latin American enemies of the United States, who will see this as an American defeat.  The president flew to Copenhagen to pitch for Chicago, and Chicago was the first city eliminated.  You may be certain that Hugo Chavez will have something to say.

Well, he can say anything he wants.  We'll take our defeat and come back stronger next time.  Rio still has to pull off the Olympics, and it's a city floating on crime - with one of the highest homicide rates in the world.  I even heard suggestions in news coverage today that walls be built around certain parts of the city to separate the criminal element from the rest.

It's seven years away.  Obama would have liked Chicago to host the Olympics in 2016, which would be the last year of a two-term presidency.  We'll see about that.

October 2, 2009   Permalink 

BULLETIN:  NO TO CHICAGO - AT 11:54 A.M. ET:  Chicago has been eliminated as host of the 2016 Olympics, the elimination coming in the very first round of voting.  It is a stunning defeat for President Obama, who personally went to Copenhagen with the first lady to make a pitch for their home city.

Frankly, I think we're better off.  I like Chicago.  It's a great city.  I went to the University of Chicago and worked in Illinois politics.  But the city is plagued with problems, and polls showed a decided lack of enthusiasm on the part of its residents for hosting the games.  The cost factor loomed large.  Hustlers come in and advertise huge benefits for a city acting as host, but other cities have lost considerable sums of money. 

I suspect that we the American people would have wound up paying for the 2016 games.  We can watch them on TV from either Rio or Madrid, the two cities left in competition.

The last games in the United States were held in Atlanta in 1996.  Apparently, the international Olympic people were less than thrilled.  Maybe that was a factor in rejecting Chicago.

Some good can come out of this.  Maybe President Obama will finally realize that he can't convince everybody of everything.  He has been rebuffed constantly on the international stage.  Being The One may have great sway with college students.  It doesn't much cut it with the governing crowd.

October 2,  2009   Permalink

SHOW BIZ - AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  From the Washington Times:

President Obama unexpectedly Friday met in Copenhagen with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, one day after the general spoke out publicly on his need for more troops.

The president and the general met on board Air Force One for about 25 minutes at the end of Mr. Obama's roughly five-hour visit to Copenhagen, where he made the case earlier Friday to the International Olympic Committee for why Chicago should host the 2016 Summer Olympics.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Air Force One that Gen. McChrystal flew from London to Copenhagen specifically to meet with Mr. Obama.

"The president wanted to take the opportunity to get together with Gen. McChrystal," Mr. Gibbs said.

COMMENT:  So, after being skewered over the fact that he'd spent more time with David Letterman than with his Afghanistan commander, the president spends 25 minutes with the latter, at the tail end of the Olympics bit.  Very impressive.  Now the president can say that he speaks to generals as well as to Letterman.  And let's not forget Oprah. 

Why am I resisting the temptation to laugh?

October 2, 2009   Permalink 

BULLETIN:  WELCOME TO THE RECOVERY - AT 8:52 A.M. ET: 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent in September as employers cut far more jobs than expected, evidence that the longest recession since the 1930s is still inflicting widespread pain.

The Labor Department said Friday that the economy lost a net total of 263,000 jobs last month, up from a downwardly revised 201,000 in August. That's above Wall Street economists' expectations of 180,000 job losses, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

The unemployment rate rose from 9.7 percent in August, matching expectations.

If laid-off workers who have settled for part-time work or have given up looking for new jobs are included, the unemployment rate rose to 17 percent, the highest in records dating from 1994.

More than a half-million unemployed people gave up looking for work last month. Had they continued searching, the official jobless rate would have been higher.

COMMENT:  This is grim.  You can't have a jobless recovery and call it a recovery. 

Remember that, from 1933 to 1937, in the depths of the Great Depression, we had a stock market rally.  It meant nothing.  Joblessness drags down consumption and spending, which are the elements that drive the real economy.

We are still in trouble.  The stimulus apparently isn't very stimulating.

October 2, 2009   Permalink

CONCERN IN BRITAIN - AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  More and more reports pour in describing concern, even on the sane European left, about Obama's wobbly, vague, inconsistent, and wimpish foreign policy.  Right now the president, in between trips to Copenhagen and golf outings here, is presumably considering his next move in Afghanistan.  The British foreign secretary has some advice for Mr. Obama, and it is blunt:

David Miliband urged President Obama to embrace a renewed “hearts and minds” strategy in Afghanistan as ministers indicated that they would not send more British troops unless the US adopted such an approach.

That is part of the crisis we face.  Other countries are not going to stick their necks out unless we lead.  And this president isn't much of a leader.

The Foreign Secretary did not mention America by name but called on every government in the coalition to back troops, aid workers and diplomats in support of a clear plan. “We came into this together. We see it through — together,” he told the Labour conference in Brighton.

His words reflect a growing concern in the Government over Mr Obama’s apparent reluctance to garner political consent for a troop “surge”, which commanders say is needed to build up the Afghan Army and defeat the Taleban insurgency. General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, wants a revamped counter-insurgency — more forces on the ground engaging civilians and persuading the Taleban to switch sides — as opposed to a counter-terrorism strategy focused on al-Qaeda — reducing troop numbers and attacking militants mostly with drone missile strikes.

French President Sarkozy essentially laughed at President Obama last week.  Now the British foreign secretary in a leftist Labour government is laying it on the line.  And, from the other side in British politics, get this:

Last night, David Cameron said that that the first thing he would do if elected prime minister would be to form a war cabinet. He said that it would comprise his Foreign Secretary, Chancellor, Defence Secretary, Home Secretary and the heads of the Armed Forces, MI6 and MI5.

COMMENT:  Britain is serious, France is serious.  British conservatives talk of a war cabinet. 

And Barack Hussein Obama Jr.?  He's in Copenhagen boosting Chicago's affinity for pole vaulting.  Or is it poll vaulting.

October 2, 2009   Permalink

QUOTES OF THE DAY - AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  There happens to be a great deal of fine journalism floating around this morning.  We'll present some of it.

Quote of the day #1 - from John Bolton, at NRO, on the Iran bit:

“In President Obama’s mind, these talks are his proof that his open-hand philosophy is working,” says Bolton. “As I say in my National Review cover story this week, you’re never going to chit-chat Iran out of their nuclear-weapons program. Negotiations work in Iran’s favor.”

It's Obama's mind that's beginning to worry me.

Quote of the day #2, by Noemie Emery, at the Weekly Standard, on that very issue of Obama's mind:

Barack Obama is often described as an inspiring figure, in the vaunted tradition of Reagan and Kennedy, who can arouse in his hearers a sense of great purpose, and set them to dreaming great dreams. He's a fine speaker, but Reagan and Kennedy inspired by their message: the idea that the country is unique among nations, has a singular mission to promote freedom everywhere; in effect, that the country is great. On this point, Obama is dumb. He stresses the country's faults, not its virtues; goes on apology tours, where he asks the forgiveness of nations with much grimmer histories; calls his country arrogant and dismissive of others, who deserve more respect. Cities on hills, beloved of Reagan and Kennedy, are not in his lexicon, and the idea of the "last best hope" of humanity has not crossed his lips. He finds the country exceptional only in its pretense to be so, and has been at pains to let England and Israel, who gave us our values, know that they're also not much. He doesn't seem to be moved by democracy either, as shown by his indifference to those fighting for it in Iran and Honduras, and his indulgence of oppressive regimes.

That certainly says it.  A summing up of Obama's depressing first nine months in office.

October 2, 2009   Permalink

A WORD ABOUT WORDS - AT 7:39 A.M. ET: We get used to diplomatic double-talk here, especially the fraudulent optimism exuded by diplomats whose job is to yap.

But I don't think we should get too used to it.  Consider, for example, this babble, reported by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, concerning yesterday's talks with Iran:

According to the EU official, the talks yielded three meaningful results. The first was the very fact that the forum took place. The second was the agreement on a follow-up meeting and the third was Iran's statement that it would cooperate fully and immediately with the International Atomic Energy Agency.  

COMMENT:  Meaningful Result #1 - the fact that the forum took place. 

Gee, what a miracle.  We hand the thug Iranian regime the gift of legitimacy by calling the meeting, and we consider it a Meaningful Result that they came.

Meaningful Result #2 - the agreement on a follow-up meeting. 

What a conquest.  What a victory.  We had a talk and agreed to have another talk.  What progress toward dismantling Iran's nuclear program.  This Obama, he's a genius.

Meaningful Result #3 - Iran's statement that it would cooperate fully and immediately with the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

A great breakthrough!  You know, we shouldn't judge these mullahs by their 30-year record, or their shooting of democracy demonstrators in the streets.  Those were understandable misunderstandings of understandable differences that were misunderstood.  Here they are pledging full and immediate cooperation.  And in our hearts we know they mean it.

Yuch. 

The observation, of course, came from an EU official, who probably visits the grave of Neville Chamberlain each year and leaves a rose.

October 2,  2009   Permalink